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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought probe and drogue was the "Brit method". AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates. The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing system was for the Badger, I do believe. No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read several years ago. Chris Manteuffel |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message om... Alan Minyard wrote in message . .. I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought probe and drogue was the "Brit method". AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates. Not quite correct. Some other air forces also have boom tanking; IIRC the Turks have some KC-135's to handle their own F-16's, as does Singapore, and the Netherlands has their own DC-10 conversions with boom. The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing system was for the Badger, I do believe. That system was actually first developed by either the US or Brits, from what I recall, and quickly discarded in favor of the hose and drogue, and then the boom in the case of the USAF. Brooks No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read several years ago. Chris Manteuffel |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:17:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Alan Minyard writes On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs wrote: Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane? (Or the Victor which we used to use?) Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s? I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought probe and drogue was the "Brit method". The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet. Ahh, thanks. I have not seen any pictures of it extended. Al Minyard |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:59:49 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Indeed, one reason I give high marks indeed to F-117 pilots on Day One of Desert Storm is the sheer uncertainty of "does this Stealth crap actually work?" Seeing streams of tracer and clouds of barrage fire burst around them, is bad enough: but the gut-wrenching anticipation of wondering at what point those streams of fire will begin to converge on your aircraft because you're less invisible than the contractors hoped, must have been hard to bear indeed. There were many brave deeds done in that conflict: some we know about, some we don't. And some that did not occur during the publicized dates for either Shield or Storm :-) Al Minyard |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Alan Minyard writes On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs wrote: Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane? (Or the Victor which we used to use?) Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s? I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought probe and drogue was the "Brit method". The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet. -- There used to be some pics of the trials on the BAe website, but they don't appear to be there anymore.... Trials were done using RAF VC10 and Tristar tankers a few years ago. But if you go he http://www.gripen.com/4.17aece8f9e5eefe8b7fff2528.html and select 2003 from the Photo CD dropdown category, the middle pic on sheet 1 shows a gripen approaching a VC10. Sheet two shows a ground static pic with the probe deployed. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , John S. Shinal writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to keep their eyeballs in their heads) When carrying a typical warload for deep interdiction, doesn't the increased wing loading cure the rough ride ? Still a rougher ride than a F-111 or Tornado or other airframe designed for the job. (The F-15 is a superb airframe for both air superiority and mid-level strike, but designed as a low-level penetrator it is not) The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect ratio. Even at MTOW of 81,000 lb., the wing loading is only 133 lb./ sq. ft (wing area is 608 sq. ft.). Aspect ratio of the F-15 is 3.01 (span is 42' 9.75": Aspect ratio is span^2 /area). By comparison, an F-111C at 110,000 lb. has a wing loading of at least 200 lb./sq.ft. and an aspect ratio of 2.10. I say "at least" because I only have handy the area for the wing when at minimum sweep, 550 sq. ft. At max sweep (span 33' 11.5") some of the wing area will be covered by the fairing. Tornado's wing loading is a bit higher (on unverified MTOW and area I get 215 lb./sq.ft.) than the F-111, while its aspect ratio at max. sweep is also a bit higher, about 2.78. As the aspect ratio increases, small changes in wing angle of attack will cause relatively larger changes in lift than is the case with a lower aspect ratio wing. In bumpy air down low (caused by the wind flowing around/over/through terrain, as well as differential heating of the ground), every bump may cause a change in wing angle of attack and lift (and thus instantaneous g loading, positive or negative), as the a/c is constantly going up and down. These changes in lift will be greater on a higher aspect ratio wing, causing the ride to be much bumpier than on a lower aspect ratio wing. In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747 (at the same speed). Guy |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"John S. Shinal" wrote in message ... I get goosebumps thinking about the Tornado crews with that Hunting runway denial weapon - what a nasty job. It always amuses me to see US objections to the Hunting JP233 airfield attack weapon. It was originally a joint US/UK program but the US withdrew beause they did not believe that it was practical to attach a Warsaw Pack airfield that way. When their own stand off airfield attack weapon did not materielise they bought the French Duardal (spelling in doubt!) which required a direct flight over the runway - at a higher altititude that the JP233! During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the ground for the key first 24 hours of the war. David |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "David
Nicholls" confessed the following: During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the ground for the key first 24 hours of the war. Interestingly enough, a co-worker flew F-16s in DS. His first combat sortie was part of a daylight 16 ship that dropped Mk-84s (2000 pounders) in a 45 degree high dive profile on an Iraqi airfield. His mission was on the first *day* FWIW I have my "lady's aide" (weapons guide) close at hand and the numbers look like...12k' release, airspeed limit 550 KIAS with two bags of gas. Robey |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
confessed the following: The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect ratio. .... In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747 (at the same speed). IMO this is all "relative"...I remember Phantom and Aardvark guys knowingly opining on the quality of the ride in an F-16. "Ah, those guys in their toy jet will get the **** beat out of them down low." Funny thing was the Viper was a sweet ride down low. On a hot, humid day the Phantom's air conditioning was often suspect. Not so with the F-16. Perhaps it was just me, but sweat pouring down my face (and into my eyes) during a low level was routine in the Phantom, but usually in the Viper it only happened pulling several (6+) Gs during BFM/ACM. Robey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
review: new magazine "Bomber Legends" | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 7 | April 24th 04 06:00 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
WWII bomber crews recall horror of Ploesti | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 5th 03 10:58 PM |
US plans 6,000mph bomber to hit rogue regimes from edge of space | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 14 | August 5th 03 01:48 AM |