gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) (11/04/89)
From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) In the October 30 Aviation Week & Space Tech. (pgs. 35 & 42), a French Mirage F1 and a West German Tornado are shown equiped with the "fly-to- drogue" air refueling probe. This is the method used by the US Navy in which the aircraft to be refueled flys its probe into a basket-like drogue trailed from the tanker A/C. The USAF aircraft of NATO, however, use the "boom-to-recepticle" method in which the tanker's boom operator "flys" the refueling boom into a stationary aircraft's recepticle. My question is does NATO support both methods using two types of tanker aircraft or is there some dual method version out there? If there are two tanker types operating I can imagine a horendous logistics problem should a conflict arise. --John Gandy
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) > [probe-and-drogue vs. flying-boom flight refuelling] >My question is does NATO support both methods using two types of tanker >aircraft or is there some dual method version out there? If there are two >tanker types operating I can imagine a horendous logistics problem should >a conflict arise. It *is* a nasty problem. The historical origin is that probe-and-drogue was a bit harder to debug, so SAC -- which was in a big hurry -- went with flying-boom, while the rest of the world (including the USN and, to some extent, other parts of the USAF) waited for p-and-d to be made fully workable. The USAF has now standardized on f-b, while essentially everyone else uses p-and-d. France is also at least partly f-b by virtue of having bought US tankers. Some tankers support either system. There is a kludgey bolt-on p-and-d kit for KC-135s, which lets them do p-and-d at the expense of making it impossible for them to do f-b until you take the thing off again. (It used to be that most 135s were committed to SAC so this wasn't a big issue.) I have a hazy recollection that the KC-10 has both systems. All other tankers use p-and-d and simply don't plan on refuelling f-b aircraft. Everyone agrees that it would make sense to use one system, but the USAF is too big and too self-centered to be dragged into step with the rest of the world, and you can bet your booties that nobody else is willing to change just to match the USAF's mistake. :-) Technically, p-and-d probably has a modest edge over f-b. With the standard hardware, f-b has a somewhat higher fuel-transfer rate. On the other hand, p-and-d tankers can refuel up to three aircraft at the same time (with drogues trailing from the fuselage and each wingtip of the tanker). Also, p-and-d hardware can be made light enough that relatively small aircraft can carry it, as witness "buddy packs" -- big external tanks with p-and-d rigs in their tails, so one tactical aircraft can refuel another. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (11/06/89)
From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) In article <11120@cbnews.ATT.COM> gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) writes: >From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) >In the October 30 Aviation Week & Space Tech. (pgs. 35 & 42), a French >Mirage F1 and a West German Tornado are shown equiped with the "fly-to- >drogue" air refueling probe. This is the method used by the US Navy in >which the aircraft to be refueled flys its probe into a basket-like >drogue trailed from the tanker A/C. The USAF aircraft of NATO, however, >use the "boom-to-recepticle" method in which the tanker's boom operator >"flys" the refueling boom into a stationary aircraft's recepticle. I believe, however, that the USAF's flying boom method is much more reliable, and puts less pressure on the pilot to fly a perfect coupling approach. Instead, he need only keep reasonably stable, and the boom can be maneuvered into place. It's probably worth noting that the booms (two distinct types) on the KC-135 and KC-10, however, are larger than many an airplane that can operate off an aircraft carrier. :-) On the other hand, up to three drogues can be dragged off a Tristar tanker, thus permitting multiple-refuelling. >My question is does NATO support both methods using two types of tanker >aircraft or is there some dual method version out there? If there are two >tanker types operating I can imagine a horendous logistics problem should >a conflict arise. And also consider that US Navy and Air Force aircraft have different recept- acle designs. So Navy tankers can only fuel Navy aircraft, and vice-versa. I also seem to recall that one reason the United States didn't support the ferrying of the Harriers to the Falklands (besides political considerations) was that the receptacles wouldn't fit. Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
sampson@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Steve Sampson) (11/06/89)
From: sampson@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Steve Sampson) As a side note "Aviation Leak" had a photo of the British E-3D AWACS with a probe over the co-pilots window, and a boom receptacal in the normal place. To answer your question - the new KC-10 has both systems of refueling, also I believe some KC-135R have them. Course the Navy and C-130 systems mostly use the probe (helicopter refueling, etc). The Nato AWACS use only the boom system. Since the French use the boom also, their AWACS may come without the probe??
gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) (11/07/89)
From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) In article <11156@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > The historical origin is that probe-and-drogue > was a bit harder to debug, so SAC -- which was in a big hurry -- went > with flying-boom, while the rest of the world (including the USN and, > to some extent, other parts of the USAF) waited for p-and-d to be made > fully workable. The USAF has now standardized on f-b, while > essentially everyone else uses p-and-d. [Stuff about KC-135s and KC-10s] > > Everyone agrees that it would make sense to use one system, > but the USAF is too big and too self-centered to be dragged into step > with the rest of the world, and you can bet your booties that nobody > else is willing to change just to match the USAF's mistake. :-) > While I would certaintly agree that p-and-d method is superior in terms of flexibility, compatibility with most of the world, and simultaneous refueling, I still have trouble envisioning a craft the size of a C-5A/B, C-141, or B-52 flying the probe to the drogue. Not only would maneuverability (lack of) be a concern but there is a not-insignificant bow wave attached to this size of aircraft. I can imagine that little basket skittering away ~10 feet in front of a Galaxy. --John Gandy
marco@ncsc.navy.mil (Barbarisi) (11/08/89)
From: marco@ncsc.navy.mil (Barbarisi)
With regards to the recent discussion about the incompatability of USAF
air tanker probes with those of the USN and NATO.....
At nearby Tyndall AFB, I got a chance to eyeball a KC-10 up close. The
KC-10 is the airframe of a McDonnell DC-10 commercial airliner, converted
to aereal refueling duty. I presume it will eventually replace the KC-135
(a Boeing 707 look-alike). The KC-10 is fitted with the old reliable flying
boom refueling probe, which is needed to refuel large aircraft (for reasons
discussed earlier in this digest).
However, if you look to the starboard side of the boom operator's cage,
you'll see a small recess ("small" compared to everything else on a KC-10)
that holds one of them thar drogue (p-and-d) refueleing probes. I
presume it is reeled in and out as needed.
So there!
Marco Barbarisi
marco@ncsc.navy.milhenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/09/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gandy@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (John Gandy) >While I would certaintly agree that p-and-d method is superior in terms of >flexibility, compatibility with most of the world, and simultaneous refueling, >I still have trouble envisioning a craft the size of a C-5A/B, C-141, or >B-52 flying the probe to the drogue. It's doable. The Brits did it routinely with B-52-class bombers, and are planning to do it with their E-3s. In the Falklands War, they used three separate waves of tankers refuelling each other to get one Vulcan to Port Stanley and back. For that matter, the USN did it with Skywarriors, which are strategic bombers, albeit small ones. >Not only would maneuverability (lack of) >be a concern but there is a not-insignificant bow wave attached to this >size of aircraft. I can imagine that little basket skittering away ~10 feet >in front of a Galaxy. The answer to this one is easy: if you've got a 10-foot bow wave, make the probe 15 feet long. The probes for the big boys *are* impressively large and long. One British writer compared the probe on (I think) the Victor to "a 16-inch gun sticking forward above the windshield". Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/15/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: marco@ncsc.navy.mil (Barbarisi) >KC-10 is the airframe of a McDonnell DC-10 commercial airliner, converted >to aereal refueling duty. I presume it will eventually replace the KC-135 >(a Boeing 707 look-alike)... No, actually, the KC-10 production run -- 60 -- finished last year, and as far as I know there are no plans for more. The KC-10s are intended as a long-range big-payload supplement to the KC-135 force, not as a replacement for it. The fact is that it would be horrendously expensive to replace the KC-135s, as nearly 1000 of them were bought and most are still in service. The bulk of the KC-135 force is being re-engined with modern turbofans, and will be in service for another 20-30 years. >The KC-10 is fitted with the old reliable flying >boom refueling probe, which is needed to refuel large aircraft ... Large USAF aircraft. Other countries refuel large aircraft with probe-and- drogue without problems. >However, if you look to the starboard side of the boom operator's cage, >you'll see a small recess ("small" compared to everything else on a KC-10) >that holds one of them thar drogue (p-and-d) refueleing probes. I >presume it is reeled in and out as needed. That's right. (I went and looked it up the other night to be sure.) Pity they aren't going to retrofit the KC-135s with a similar rig. The KC-10s are also being fitted with the necessary controls and plumbing to put a probe-and-drogue pod under each wingtip, to make them capable of the standard p-and-d trick of refuelling three aircraft simultaneously. The last ones off the production line had the pod hookups built in, and the others are being retrofitted with them gradually. The USAF isn't buying enough pods to equip the entire KC-10 fleet, however. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (11/17/89)
From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) In article <11432@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The KC-10s are also being fitted with the necessary controls and plumbing >to put a probe-and-drogue pod under each wingtip, to make them capable >of the standard p-and-d trick of refuelling three aircraft simultaneously. >The last ones off the production line had the pod hookups built in, and >the others are being retrofitted with them gradually. The USAF isn't >buying enough pods to equip the entire KC-10 fleet, however. There are already some in operation. Take a look at "From Trainer to Tanker" in the 10/28 issue of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL. There's a picture of a KC-10 on page 30, with what looks conspicuously like a pod off the port wingtip. Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S) (11/18/89)
From: "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL> Henry Spencer writes: >The KC-10s are also being fitted with the necessary controls and plumbing >to put a probe-and-drogue pod under each wingtip... Robert Dorsett writes: >There are already some in operation. Take a look at... >...what looks conspicuously like a pod off the port wingtip. I've been listening to this for a couple of issues now & just realized :-) that I've had an 8"x10" glossy hanging on my cubical wall for awhile. It shows (what I think is a) KC-130 with 2 P&D setups. The Starboard Drogue goes to a ~10+' Probe on a (Marine?) six-bladed, single rotor helecopter which is carrying what looks like an LAV. The person who gave me the photo kept the one that had 2 'choppers refueling (both had LAV's underneath). To help to ID this as a KC-130, it's a 4-prop job with tail marking BH-82xx. (xx's are mine for last 2 digits of ID#). -hum
sasdvp@mcnc.org (David V. Phillips) (11/21/89)
From: sas!sas.UUCP!sasdvp@mcnc.org (David V. Phillips) A recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology has a cover picture and article about the P&D refueling pods for the KC-10. There's a picture of a KC-10 refueling a S3-A Viking. -- David Phillips sasdvp@sas.UUCP ...!mcnc!rti!sas!sasdvp "My gun *IS* controlled!"