Warbird Information Exchange

is on the ground?. Wonder if this approach is still used today in some way. Seems like a smart idea the first few times.
Below a couple of beautiful (RCAF photos) from the Canadian Military Aircraft facebook page.


"A KC-97 Tanker from USAF SAC refuells a CF-100 on the ground at Patrick. While not necessary at this base the refuelling is in practice for the stops in Brazil the two CF-100s will make while being ferried to Ascension Island in the South Atlantic." via James Craik


"Here is a shot of CF-100 18439 at Patrick AFB being refuelled from the boom of a USAF KC-97 on the ground. Note the maintenance stairs holding the boom. See James Craik's posting of 13 Dec 2017 to see another angle of the same event. Just type "KC-97" into the search this group window." via Mike Kaehlar

"This CF-100 is one of three aircraft being prepared at CARDE for operation "Lookout" which is to commence early in Jan 60 at Ascension Island. The "special" tanks are modified fuel tanks altered to contain automatic cameras and infra-red ray detection instruments. This equipment will be used for the detection and photographing of missile nose cones re-entering the atmosphere near Ascension Island. Three aircraft are being prepared, two to Ascension and one held in reserve." via James Craik

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]

Love the day-glo on the transports in the late 50s -early 60s.
Note the C-131s in the background.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Baugher has KC-97G 52-2765 listed as "to MASDC Jun 4, 1965". Its sister ship, 52-2764, is the one at the Don Q Inn at Dodgeville, WI.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Well, yes...it is trained on the ground, but not like that.

Pictures and video, with some time spent in the simulator, is how it starts. Then you just get in the jet and go for it.

The reality is, A/R is just flying dissimilar formation, which all AF pilots have trained to. So the challenge is just learning the visual references for that position, as well as the accepted actions in the event of something non-standard happening.

I actually had a tough time learning A/R. I was pretty poor at it until my first deployment, on which I had to A/R at least twice per mission. So, turns out that repetition is a good way to get better at something, hehe.

_________________

Looked to be a bit more tricky back in the day.

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]

Its not training on the ground, its testing. Far better you find out that the receiver's systems can't handle the pressure (or flow) on the ground than in the air.

Is the CF-100 even air-refuel capable?

I can't find a single reference to there being an A/R receptacle on the airplane.

This looks to me like the KC-97 is being used as a fuel truck on the ground.

_________________

Some nice pictures there but a question...

To my simple mind, I would have thought that the "Drogue" method of in-flight refuelling would be safer that than the "Probe" method!

My thinking is that there is distance between the two aircraft plus the pilot of the aircraft being refuelled would have an easier 'ride', not being buffeted about, due to the turbulence from the Tanker so, are there any benefits to the "Probe", over the 'Drogue" or is it simply what the manufacturer installs?

_________________
...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in Space cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!

There is a limit to the size of the hose, and thus the volume of fuel per unit of time, with the probe-and-drogue system.

The "boom-and receptacle" system was designed so the USAF could refuel heavies that needed to transfer a lot more fuel at a high rate.

The ease of hook-up and formation flying concerns are all secondary to that.

Guys I know who have flown both as a receiver generally say they prefer the boom-and-receptacle system, as it is much easier to just fly in formation with the tanker and get plugged than to chase the basket (moving around in the windstream) with the probe.

_________________

Probe & Drogue has its issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdpKpppZiA

Not all Probe & Drogue mishaps, but as you'll notice it's usually the much more "spectacular" one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiN9M0ahfmM

I was told by a KC-10 pilot that with the Boom, once connected the boom actually helps to stabilize the formation. With the hose, there's no stabilization. Additionally, he said that with the hose, it doesn't matter how big or small, there will be a bow wake the upset it and the pilot has to fight "chasing the basket" which results in baskets being often detached from their hose or cracked windscreens. With the boom, the only time the formation gets disturbed greatly is the big birds that tend to "lift" the tail of the tanker with their bow wave as they approach and then "sucks" the tanker in as they get past the tail and underneath it. Once in the "Contact" position, it's not a problem.

WTF!!

No Blackbird??



Cool thread

Andy

WTF what!!! ... you will get no blackbird .... and like it!!!



ATLANTIC OCEAN (June 26, 2018) Navy Lt. William Bowen, left, an F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force pilot assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, conducts an advanced aerial refueling control law test in an F-35C with an F/A-18, June 26, 2018. (U.S. Navy photo by Dane Wiedmann/Released)

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]

That's the phrase I was looking for, in my post I used 'probe' for the 'Boom & Receptacle' method and 'Drogue' for the Probe & Drogue method, if that makes sense!

Am but a simple and stoopid man

Anyway, thanks for the replies and explanations, i now understand a little bit more than I did yesterday

_________________
...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in Space cos there's bugger all down here on Earth!

And remember Tony, the tanker aircraft dictates a lot to the story. Generally the US Air Force wanted boom equipped tankers to refuel their bombers, as others have stated the boom could transfer fuel at higher rates than a hose, but mounting a boom requires a large, land based aircraft. The KB-29 was the first in widespread service. The USAF has adopted boom and receptacle for most of their aircraft, but there are exceptions of a few USAF aircraft having probes (including some F-102's, F-104's) and some aircraft had both at the same time (most notably the F-105).

Navy aircraft and other smaller air forces had to go with smaller hose and drogue equipped aircraft that were small enough to still operate from a carrier, or with fighters serving as "buddy" tankers as in that great photo of the F-18 and F-35C above. US Navy carrier based aircraft are equipped to receive fuel via hose and drogue, with Super Hornets acting as tankers with a buddy pod/drogue. The Navy misses the dedicated tanker that could offload much more fuel (KA-3, KA-6, S-3 Viking).

Some foreign buyers of US aircraft have been "stuck" with what the aircraft came with (probe or receptacle) and had to buy a small number of tankers to support their fleets. A few have scabbed on probes on aircraft that normally came with receptacles.

Perhaps the odd man out, the UK firmly stuck with hose and drogue, even with their heavy V bombers, transports and patrol aircraft and now find themselves in a quandary with their hugely expensive tanker lease (drogue only) contract, and now have several US sourced aircraft that are designed as receptacle receivers only (C-17, P-8, RIVET Joint) and no boom equipped tankers....