![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:27:32 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: 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"): I didn't say it was good, just that it was the hardest thing I ever tried to do. I really don't relate it to the installation on the tanker. It should have been fairly straightforward since the boom extended the drogue well below any turbulence off the tanker. I attributed it to the short probe (retractable) on the F-105. When flying with F-100F Weasels, I never noted them having anywhere near the difficulty that we did in getting gas using their wing mounted probe. It would be interesting to see if any F-105 drivers had tanked from regular drogues and what their experience was. AIUI, the problem with the KC-135 add-ons were two: 1. Lack of hose length (low inertia due to the lack of hose weight causing it to bounce around a lot), and 2. The heavy metal fitting just forward of the drogue, which (because of the wild flailing of the drogue due to item 1) was perfectly capable of smashing the canopy and/or the pilot's head if it made contact. At least the first was apparently a not-unknown occurrence, which is why many navy pilots seem to have been actually afraid of the system. The hose on the KC-135 drogue was 12 feet, which sounds like a lot of range for formation flying, but turns out not to be all that much in practice. I never really noticed any turbulence for the drogue in my limited experience. The issue was pilot technique. The first thing we learned was that it was virtually impossible to fly the probe into the drogue. Any attempt to control the end game usually resulted in some form of PIO gyrations and no hookup. Best method was to stabilize several feet behind the drogue with the probe lined up. If you could, line up the probe for about the ten o'clock position on the basket. Then look straight forward and push the throttle up to move ahead. Don't look at the drogue. Ideally you would fly into the basket. More commonly as you closed the airflow over the nose would push the basket smoothly up and away from the aircraft. In the worst case scenario the probe would hook the corner of the basket nearest the airplane. Two possibilities then--either the probe would slide into the funnel and connect or the probe would tip the basket off and it would then flail leading to the aircraft impact you describe. Even worse situation would be catching the basket, bending the probe and ripping off the hose leaving unretractable probe tenously holding heavy metal lined basket and x number of feet of hose thrashing the side of the airplane in front of your left intake. We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had brought it home on a flight. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|