Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air-to-air refueling Message-ID: <1990Dec3.050739.2820@cbnews.att.com> Date: 3 Dec 90 05:07:39 GMT References: <1990Nov19.003026.10700@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly, VA Lines: 61 Approved: military@att.att.com From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) in article <1990Nov19.003026.10700@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) says: > Approved: military@att.att.com > > > > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: Mary Shafer >>because USAF's big bombers can't feasibly be refuelled with >>probe/drogue. > > Can you substantiate this, Mary? The RAF routinely refuelled heavy bombers > with probe/drogue. The p/d fuel flow rate is lower than f-b with current > hardware, but one could always use a fatter hose... > -- > "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry The flow rate is one of the reasons ( especially back in the fiftys when the decision was made) Another was the reliability of making hookups in a minimum of time. I have been told by boomers on KC-10's that especially in rough weather hookups are faster and more reliable with the boom. Tactical Air Command used to use p-d until the early 60's ( F-100, F-104, etc) in fact I think the early F-105s had both a probe and a recepticle for the boom but I am not 100% sure, This is based on some info I saw on the F-105B model I saw over 10 years ago and can't remember exactly where. Some old fighter pilots in my old unit who had flown F-100s across the Atlantic on Deployments. He said they always had diverts who could not make the hookups with the tanker and had to divert back to the US or to the Azores which was available for 'emergencies only' He said that with booms He could only remember a couple diverts in many deployments of F-4, A-7, and F-15 aircraft ( He did give credit to the increased range that cut the number of 'tanker hits' at least in half, but also said that due to the mindset that they would be able to connect no matter what they were willing to let the tanks get lower before topping off). I think that today both systems have proven reliable enough to depend on and the decision is now based on other grounds. 1) P-D systems are cheaper, portable buddy pack systems even enable fighters to act as tankers. ( I remember seeing a photo of an external tank with a probe on the nose that enabled non-probe equiped aircraft to do IFR. 2) Lower stresses placed on airframe of reciever by P-D. ( There is some pretty strong re-enforcment around the boom recepticle on aircraft I have worked on or been able to examine. 3) Easier to add a probe as an after thought whereas fewer aircraft have had recepticles added. Did everyone know that there is a variation of boom refueling. Some C-135s ( mainly airborne command post, radio relay, etc type aircraft) are equiped for reverse flow refueling. In this case the boom equiped aircraft is the reciever. I was told that it was much easier to do this and use a B-52 as a middleman/tanker than to add a recepticle to many of the C-135 types. I do know that some C-135 class airframes were equiped with recepticles. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com) ex B32678 AFSC ( Comm,Nav,ECM flightline) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com