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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel leakage during in-flight refueling
When refueling using the probe and drogue system, is it commonplace to have
fuel leakage from the drogue? At my day job, we have a foreign customer asking about the resistance of an engine to fuel ingestion during refueling. Apparently it is something of a problem for them, but they have not been able to give us any specifics. I thought someone here may have some real world experience they could share. Do you get a brief mist of fuel when you disconnect? ... or can you experience an continual "dribble" down the probe during the transfer? Any info or war stories would be helpful. Regards, Mark Johnston |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
As far as I saw this on a sort of film that is a mist, indeed. Bear in
mind the fact that in many planes the refueling probe is often quite distant from the jet intake. Any dumped fuel seemingly turns into mist as well. One story I've heard from civil aviation: it happened probably in France in the 1980s, when a passenger jet exploded after unluckily coming into the cloud of fuel it dumped one lap before. In Britain in WWII there was a weird idea to spray fuel in the air, to make V-1 missile engines suck it, fly longer than expected, and then overfly their targets. Best regards, Jacek |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
mark johnston wrote:
When refueling using the probe and drogue system, is it commonplace to have fuel leakage from the drogue? At my day job, we have a foreign customer asking about the resistance of an engine to fuel ingestion during refueling. Apparently it is something of a problem for them, but they have not been able to give us any specifics. I thought someone here may have some real world experience they could share. Do you get a brief mist of fuel when you disconnect? ... or can you experience an continual "dribble" down the probe during the transfer? Any info or war stories would be helpful. Regards, Mark Johnston May get a wee bit when you pull out but no leakage when refueling. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I am stretching here, but I seem to recall this is the reason that the
AAR probe on the A-4 Skyhawk was revised from a straight design to one that incorporated a "dog leg." If I recall correctly, when the Scooter backed away from the basket, a valve in the end of the probe would sometimes allow a puff of fuel to escape. In the original straight design, the puff would then be promptly ingested down the starboard engine intake. This occasionally would do bad things to the engine and create a bad day for the pilot. The "dog leg" design moved the path of the fuel puff far enough away from the inlet to prevent ingestion. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me on this. Blue skies . . . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Mar 2005 09:36:13 -0800, "John" wrote:
I am stretching here, but I seem to recall this is the reason that the AAR probe on the A-4 Skyhawk was revised from a straight design to one that incorporated a "dog leg." If I recall correctly, when the Scooter backed away from the basket, a valve in the end of the probe would sometimes allow a puff of fuel to escape. In the original straight design, the puff would then be promptly ingested down the starboard engine intake. This occasionally would do bad things to the engine and create a bad day for the pilot. The "dog leg" design moved the path of the fuel puff far enough away from the inlet to prevent ingestion. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me on this. Blue skies . . . Never tried to put my broad butt in a Scooter, but other aircraft with the dog leg in the probe, such as the F-100, did it to move the refueling point into quieter air out of boundary layer or to improve pilot visibility for hook up. The very small amount of fuel that sprayed at disconnect either from a drogue or off the boom from a receptacle surely wouldn't do much to an engine under normal conditions. In the F-105, the spray of mist would fog the windscreen and then blow off in two seconds. Any fuel that went down the intake could be sniffed in a second or two as it came through the pressurization system--which is why the checklist for refueling specified 100% oxygen. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I knew I was on thinning ice, but at least I know that being shot down
by Ed means I have been shot down by one of the better ones. I just found this at http://www.skyhawk.org/2C/productionhistory.htm regarding design changes to the A-4F. "A unique recognition feature that first appeared on the A-4F was the "bent" aerial fueling probe. The probe was so configured to preclude electronic inteference with the wide-angle target acquisition system." Also found this at http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=57 : "The A-4M was fitted with a revised refuelling probe which canted out to starboard to precent interference with a wider-angle target acquisition system." Now that Ed has thrown the thrid strike, it is time for me to head back to the dug-out and resume lurking. (Smiling) blue skies . . . P.S. to Mr Rasimus - Is the new book actually out yet (fingers crossed)? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Mar 2005 10:18:18 -0800, "John"
wrote: I knew I was on thinning ice, but at least I know that being shot down by Ed means I have been shot down by one of the better ones. I just found this at http://www.skyhawk.org/2C/productionhistory.htm regarding design changes to the A-4F. "A unique recognition feature that first appeared on the A-4F was the "bent" aerial fueling probe. The probe was so configured to preclude electronic inteference with the wide-angle target acquisition system." Also found this at http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=57 : "The A-4M was fitted with a revised refuelling probe which canted out to starboard to precent interference with a wider-angle target acquisition system." Now that Ed has thrown the thrid strike, it is time for me to head back to the dug-out and resume lurking. (Smiling) blue skies . . . P.S. to Mr Rasimus - Is the new book actually out yet (fingers crossed)? Don't be too hasty, John. It is true that the off-set probe was installed as part of AFC 461, titled Avionics; AN/APS 117 Shrike Target Identification Acquisition System and it's also true that it was installed because the straight probe interfered with the sensor operation. However, it was also found to prevent fuel vapor ingestion/explosion when the coupling leaked during in-flight refueling. A second part to the AFC (Part 2) was issued a couple of years later to authorize off-set probe installation on all aircraft not covered under the original AFC. The part 2 title was changed to Fuselage; Offset IFR Probe Installation and TIAS, Provisions For. That's why some TA-4s had the off set probe. The original AFC was for "designated" A-4Es and Fs. I remember reading through A-4 accident summaries a few years ago and it seemed that the USN/USMC lost and average of a plane a year to fuel vapor ingestion during IFR. In May 83 NAVAIRSYSCOM message 260109Z, all A-4 aircraft not equipped with the off-set probe (AFC-461) were restricted from aerial refueling from KC-135 aircraft equipped with the boom to drogue adapter with the exception of operational necessity. The restriction was in response the loss of a TA-4J due to the leaking/ingestion problem and several more reports that it occurred. I don't remember that restriction ever being lifted. Tom Debski |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"John" wrote...
I am stretching here, but I seem to recall this is the reason that the AAR probe on the A-4 Skyhawk was revised from a straight design to one that incorporated a "dog leg." If I recall correctly, when the .. . . If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me on this. All too true! In the later years of the Scooter, inflight refueling was prohibited with the straight probe. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 3/24/05 8:24 AM, in article
1111674154.81566ae09bb49e973412b142c168a8e4@terane ws, "Phormer Phighter Phlyer" wrote: mark johnston wrote: When refueling using the probe and drogue system, is it commonplace to have fuel leakage from the drogue? At my day job, we have a foreign customer asking about the resistance of an engine to fuel ingestion during refueling. Apparently it is something of a problem for them, but they have not been able to give us any specifics. I thought someone here may have some real world experience they could share. Do you get a brief mist of fuel when you disconnect? ... or can you experience an continual "dribble" down the probe during the transfer? Any info or war stories would be helpful. Regards, Mark Johnston May get a wee bit when you pull out but no leakage when refueling. I disagree. About 20% of the time (anecdotally) I've seen leakage from USAF tankers (KC-135, KC-10 whether on the MIPR, WOPR, or iron maiden) during refueling. My guess would be due to higher pressure. The puff during back out happens nearly all the time though on Navy or USAF tankers. It is VERY uncommon for that leakage to become a problem. Misting fuel will smudge the canopy a bit though. There was a Tomcat circa 1997 from VF-211, however, that during a severe leak from the drogue ended up ingesting quite a bit of fuel down one motor and landing at NAS Fort Worth. That jet's still at NAS FW, by the way. --Woody |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... snip, snip, snip, It is VERY uncommon for that leakage to become a problem. Misting fuel will smudge the canopy a bit though. snip, snip, snip, --Woody Had hydraulics' go bad on launch once. With other things on my mind, I just dumped excess fuel. Next liberty port I had to avoid a destroyer crew who wanted to tell me that dumped fuel doesn't just disappear in a mist. They were lucky I had already dumped the ordnance on them. grin Red |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |