Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:22:33 GMT, "Diamond Jim"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

I am not sure, what is the opinion on that of this group, but I guess
the hose-and-drogue system must be cheaper, though seems to required
more pilot skills (as the only one to get the connection, with no
operator from the tanker manoeuvering the device).

Also, hose-and-drogue is more, "portable", easier to adapt on smaller
planes (can you imagine F/A-18E with the flying boom?;-)))

Navy and Marine Corps strike packages - often composed of 24 aircraft -
have required as many as four KC-135s to meet their refueling needs.

One thing to keep in mind. When your in the middle of the Pacific with no
ship or island to land on, and you need fuel, who do you want to depend on?
The guy flying the boom who may be having a bad day, or do you want to
depend on your own skills? (After all you have told everybody in every club
from Cubi Point to Naples, and all over the world that you are the greatest
fighter pilot that ever flew!). All kidding aside, I am sure that the guys
flying the boom are dedicated professionals, but the guy in the cockpit has
a little more motivation to get it right.

There have only been a few aircraft with dual system receiver
capability. The only two I can recall are the F-105 and the F-101.
I've got hundreds and maybe thousands of tanker hook-ups, but only a
handful of drogue sticks. In my limited experience in one aircraft
that had the capability, I will state unequivocally that stabbing a
drogue in the F-105 is the single hardest task I have ever performed
in an airplane. (Please no "mile-high club in a fighter" jokes.)

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

"A Navy tanker cannot refuel an Air Force fighter [caveats about probe-equipped
USAF noted], nor can an Air Force tanker give fuel to a Navy receiver except in
the remote circumstance that the tanker happens to be configured with a
rinky-dink afterthought drogue attachment that bounces around like the Good Ship
Lollipop, and is nearly as impossible to plug into."



Different aircraft with different probe locations can provide
different experiences, but with a retractable probe on the F-105 the
aircraft boundary layer airflow caused big interference with the
movement of the drogue as you got within range.

There are a number of factors involved in the debate, not the least of
which is the transfer rate for boom vs drogue. In a heavily loaded
aircraft as part of a large package requiring large volume transfers,
the faster you can take gas the better off you are. Getting a flight
of four through the tanker and then getting them all topped off so
that you drop off with everyone at the same state is critical. Slow
the transfer rate or make the hookup tougher and things go to hell
quickly.

Then you have to add in the effects of multi-point refueling into the mix. BTW,
did you ever have a tanker unable to pass you gas?

Guy