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

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

Ed,

More commonly as you closed the airflow over the nose would push the basket smoothly up and away from the aircraft.

This was especially true of the A-6, with its huge, blunt nose. More generally, this was perhaps the trickiest part of learning how to plug - especially at night.

--
Mike Kanze

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."

- Frank Zappa

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

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.

So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a
landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-)

Guy

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:54:29 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a
landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-)

Guy

Hah! You recall I mentioned that the hose was twelve feet from
connection knuckle to basket fitting. If you've ever stood next to a
Thunderchief you would appreciated that even if all 12 feet had been
grabbed, the hose would not quite reach the ground.

He only had about three feet of hose and most of it shredded away. The
real concern was that either the basket was going to come off the
probe or the probe was going to break off and go down the intake to
FOD the engine.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Took a couple of days off.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:54:29 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

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.

So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a
landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-)

Guy

Hah! You recall I mentioned that the hose was twelve feet from
connection knuckle to basket fitting. If you've ever stood next to a
Thunderchief you would appreciated that even if all 12 feet had been
grabbed, the hose would not quite reach the ground.

The only time I had the chance to standunder a Thud on its wheels was at airshow at Travis
many years ago. They'd just got a D model, 62-4299, in for their museum (which hadn't
opened yet) from the AFR unit at Hill. ISTR it was about 9 feet from the ground to the
bottom of the wing.

He only had about three feet of hose and most of it shredded away. The
real concern was that either the basket was going to come off the
probe or the probe was going to break off and go down the intake to
FOD the engine.

Keeps the job from getting too routine ;-) Happy Fourth, although personally I've always
thought September 17th would be a more appropriate date. But I know I'm swimming against
the tide.

Guy