Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue

On 7/2/06 2:48 PM, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" wrote:

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

Guy,

I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence
on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden."
The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge.

Thanks. That's 180 deg. from every other opinion I've read (and the
explanations
for the difficulty), so it just goes to show that when it's a matter of
opinion
there's rarely 100% agreement on anything. I wonder if this might be a/c
specific -
which a/c were you flying in which you experienced both locations so you could
compare?


I've tanked Intruders behind KC-135's and KC-10's (without WARPS or WOPR),
Victors, S-3's, A-7's, and of course KA-6D's and A-6E's. By the way, I
agree with that A-7 issue. I've tanked Hornets off of KC-135's and KC-10's
with WARPS and WOPR, Victor, Omega, and S-3's.

I'll refine my statement slightly. It's much harder to get INTO the wing
mounted baskets. It's much harder to stay in the iron maiden.

I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't
think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few
feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue.
Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of
someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off
and the picture gets pretty scary.


Multiple receiver stuff isn't that hard. Truly, the guy on the other side
is merely an afterthought--except I seem to remember that on the Brits'
Victor, there was a significant aileron trim required to keep the jet from
turning inboard. The wingtip vortices always were trying to pull you in.

As another example of a/c specific refueling behavior, an acquaintance, ex
A-7E,
mentioned that he found it easier to tank off an A-4 carrying a buddy store on
the
C/L, than off an A-7 carrying one underwing. IIRC, he said that with the A-7
his
vertical tail was in the tanker's wing vortice, and a fair amount of
cross-control
was needed. Not a big deal either way, but something he was aware of.

So that brings up another question. In the opinion of pilots here, preferably
with
direct personal experience, what was the easiest/hardest combination of tanker
and
receiver? Do you know of any combinations that weren't cleared for refueling?
If
you want to offer opinions based on what you've heard from other people that's
fine,
but secondhand information is, well, secondhand;-)

Guy

Hardest, Hornet versus KC-135 WOPR, in the goo, at night in moderate
turbulence. Easiest, A-6E from KA-6D.

--Woody