Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: IFR
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.002916.10582@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Dec 90 00:29:16 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:         WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
>Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com) ex B32678 AFSC ( Comm,Nav,ECM flightline)
>writes:
>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.

     This variation must be post 1970. The EC-135's I worked on had
recepticles. And, I might add, that the slipway door acuators were
real SOB's to change due to the add-on nature of the construction.
Also I have witnessed IFR with an RC-135 receiver, it appeared to
be the same as the EC. As far as I know transfering fuel to a
tanker from a receiver is not done intentionly. Eventhough I have
been informed of rumors that a three aircraft refueling was
accomplished over SEA around 1968. It involved a KC-135 and two
Navy aircraft. In this case a tanker would have been a receiver.

Y'a can't go far without IFR :-)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com