Trying to find resources on tanker history

In article ,
Buzzer writes:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:00:49 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Guy Alcala wrote:
After that the USAF decided to go
over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
(presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their
fighters and
bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be
more
reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c
that can
be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.

Will the F-35B be the first USAF aircraft since then to be built with
just a probe?

Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
refuelers during the last 30 some years.

A-7D?

Nope. The Air Force's A-7s had a slipway & boom socket on the upper
fuselage. The only non-helicopter probe-only USAF airplane I can thig
of, post 1960, was the A-37.

I wouldn't doubt that if teh USAF were to take on an F-35B flavor,
that it would have a boom recepticle fitted. It's not a hard thing to
do, and it doesn't take up much space.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
Henry J Cobb writes:
John Keeney wrote:
Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
refuelers during the last 30 some years.

How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?

Somewhere around 95 - all the HC-130s and MC-130s have been set up for
it.


Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

The USAF actually has more than the marines. The USMC's got 75
KC-130s - many of those are set up for refuelling fixed-wing
aircraft. That requires a different hosereel & drogue.

One more, Henry typed before gaining even the most basic understanding
of his subject.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
John Keeney wrote:
Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
refuelers during the last 30 some years.

How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?

Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

Never heard of the old HC-130? Now renamed MC-130P, IIRC?

Brooks

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
And then you've got three pilots.

One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
to fly the boom.

The boom operator is neither trained nor paid as a pilot, so your point
would be...?

"Fly the boom" is a common phrase in the USAF.

http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC...eb/0226-03.htm

You need three people adjusting airfoils to make boom refueling work.

That's one more person than is needed for a probe and drogue refueling.

Heck, you could make an unmanned tanker for probe and drogue refueling.

You are still not making any sense. A boom operator is not a pilot. Flying
boom tankers are proven to handle a greater transfer rate than
hose-and-drogue tankers. So again, your point would be...?

Brooks

-HJC

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry J Cobb writes:
John Keeney wrote:
Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
refuelers during the last 30 some years.

How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?

Somewhere around 95 - all the HC-130s and MC-130s have been set up for
it.


Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

The USAF actually has more than the marines. The USMC's got 75
KC-130s - many of those are set up for refuelling fixed-wing
aircraft. That requires a different hosereel & drogue.

One more, Henry typed before gaining even the most basic understanding
of his subject.

Don't tell me you are surprised by that...? :-)

Brooks


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster