AF1 range/route/refueling?

Only military 747s have an inflight refueling capability. That includes the
VC-25 and E-4. Not sure about the Iranian 747 tankers.
Curt

wrote in message
...
A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
civilian 747 doing so.

"Brett" wrote in message
...
wrote:
| A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
| civilian 747 doing so.

At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
even consider it an option.



Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

Keith

"C Knowles" wrote:
| $19 per gallon? What does that represent?

The actual cost of each gallon delivered to the aircraft being refueled.
It equals the price of the fuel and the average cost of delivering that
fuel to the point where it is needed.

| Curt
|
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
| wrote:
| | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
see a
| | civilian 747 doing so.
|
| At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
would
| even consider it an option.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
| wrote:
| | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
see a
| | civilian 747 doing so.
|
| At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
would
| even consider it an option.
|
|
|
| Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway

"crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what
the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.

| but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority
passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:55:02 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...


Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
more dangerous.



I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.


I know a guy whose father was the navigator on a KC-135 that a B-52
ran into over Kentucky in 1959. The resulting fireball dropped
wreckage over a wide area, including unarmed nuclear weapons.
All of the KC-135 and some of the B-52 crew perished. This accident
resulted in the "breakaway" procedures.

John Hairell )

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
| wrote:
| | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
see a
| | civilian 747 doing so.
|
| At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
would
| even consider it an option.
|
|
|
| Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway

"crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what
the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.


Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
may be quite large.

I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain andSingapore
that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the back"
were there for more than 24

| but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority
passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.


The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however and the cost was
considered less than the alternatives which were limited. Land planes
could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
option for flying boats.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
| "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| | "Brett" wrote in message
| | ...
| | wrote:
| | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the
particular
| | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual
to
| see a
| | | civilian 747 doing so.
| |
| | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
| would
| | even consider it an option.
| |
| |
| |
| | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
|
| "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be
what
| the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.
|
|
| Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
| available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
| may be quite large.
|
| I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain
andSingapore
| that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the
back"
| were there for more than 24

So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
available.

| | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
|
| And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
| Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
priority
| passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
|
|
| The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however

By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
service and continue operations in 1940.__

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf

| and the cost was
| considered less than the alternatives which were limited.

What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
willing to pay in peacetime.
Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
variations).

| Land planes
| could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| option for flying boats.

How attractive is Botwood in winter?

"Brett" wrote in message
...

So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
available.



The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

| | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
|
| And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
| Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
priority
| passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
|
|
| The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however

By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
service and continue operations in 1940.__

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf


So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

| and the cost was
| considered less than the alternatives which were limited.

What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
willing to pay in peacetime.

Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
by the outbreak of war.


Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
variations).


I dont recall advocating this as a policy today, especially since modern
aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at that
point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point

| Land planes
| could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| option for flying boats.

How attractive is Botwood in winter?


Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
during WW2

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief
crews
| available.
|
|
|
| The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
| 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
| to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available.

| | | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In
1939
| | | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| | | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted
Harrow
| | | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
| |
| | And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war,
Imperial
| | Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
| priority
| | passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
| |
| |
| | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however
|
| By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying
boat,
| took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel
shortly
| after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its
Western
| flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop
at
| Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
| destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
| Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
| Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success
of
| these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to
the
| service and continue operations in 1940.__
|
|
http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf
|
|
| So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before
the start of WWII.

| | and the cost was
| | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
|
| What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft
in
| flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
without
| inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
| willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
| willing to pay in peacetime.
|
| Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
| but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
| nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably
had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't
become part of Canada until after the war).

| The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| by the outbreak of war.

That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the
war.

| Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
| costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
| variations).
|
|
| I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,

Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either
the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
government regulators.

| especially since modern
| aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
| London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
that
| point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
| clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point

I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original
comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.

| | Land planes
| | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| | option for flying boats.
|
| How attractive is Botwood in winter?
|
|
| Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| during WW2

Compared with coastal Iceland?

"Gene Storey" wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote

[snip]

but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.

It's easier than flying formation. I once had a co-pilot who fell
asleep during the contact. I was kind of half-paying attention to our
position, and just mentioned that we were closing a bit, and nothing
happened, so I looked at him and he was asleep! My fear was that
he would kick the rudder, so I called a break-away (chop the
throttles, speed-brakes, and nose over at about -2 g's all in
one move). That woke everybody up! Hee.

I'll bet that the real reason for the break away didn't find it's
way onto the mission report did it?...
--

-Gord.