WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (11/15/90)
From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY
AT FORT WAYNE
TO Sci.military FROM S. K. Whiteman (WHITEMAN@IPFWVM)
DEPT DEPT Computing and Data Processing
SUB IFR (InFlight Refeuling) DATE 14 November 1990
>Subject: Air-to-air refueling
>From: bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson)
>I have a question on air-to-air refueling. I read recently that
>modern jets/tankers have electronics (ie radar) designed to maintain
>proper seperation of the planes and nozzle alignment. Can AA refueling
>be accomplished w/o this? Using only the skill of the pilots & boom
>operator?
>If so, why wasn't this technique used in WW2? Or was it?
I worked on KC-135's for four years, ('66-'70) and as far
as I know at least up to 1970 the following proceedure was used.
The tanker was on autopilot, to provide a stable platform; the
refueling was an effort between the boom operator and the
receiver pilot. The receiver was stick flown. This could
result in some interesting stories.
There was an automatic system that would perform auto-
disconnect if various limits were exceeded, but it was based
on cams, micro-switches, and an induction coil in the nozzle
for communication with the receiver. All-in-all stone age.
I don't know how the KC-10 works.
I noticed on the tube the other day a report on an AWACs
mission, and part of it was taped during IFR; the pilot was
stick flying, I didn't see the tanker. So draw your own
conclusions.
As far as WW2 is concerned I have no idea why IFR wasen't
used, but I would speculate that it wasen't needed; the cost
of setting up a B-17 for IFR and building a tanker was too
high. Only when the requirement for long range 12-24 hour
missions was realized was it cost effective.
BTW; I know of five tanker types; KB-50, KC-97, KC-135,
KC-130, and the KC-10 in order of appearence. As I
remember the first IFR was in 1923.
Y'a can't go far without IFR. 8-)ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (11/16/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >BTW; I know of five tanker types; KB-50, KC-97, KC-135, >KC-130, and the KC-10 in order of appearence. There's also the KA-3D Skywarrior, the KA-6E Intruder, the KC-130 and the KS-3A Viking. KA-3D's and KS-3A's were/are USN, the KA-6E is USN/USMC, and the KC-130 is USMC/USAF. Allan
WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (12/04/90)
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 :-)