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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
"Dan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The bang they made was Keith |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The bang they made was Keith There you go using technical terms again. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about 10K total to give. *Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6 for the recovery. *Might get a bit more by consolidating from the offgoing tanker. Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks. An F-4 or A-6 burned 4-5,000 pph at loiter; an A-7 less. The 2K off the cat was essentially a top-off after the afterburner takeoff and climb so the F-4 left the carrier at altitude (~5,000') with full tanks. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
On Jun 4, 7:00�am, Dan wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote: "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. �In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith � � Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S. helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate the end of the war. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dan. Are YOU gloating over destruction and loss of lives? Caught you But I guess it is OK b/c Japan was the enemy, right? I wouldn't call vaporization, loss of eyesight, radiation burns, and radiation sickness plus all the lhysical damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki merely a nice "fireworks" show. BTW, Japan didn't surrender after either of the two A-bombings, but did when the USSR entered the war against them. And, Truman halted the third bomb core from delivery to Tinian. Rob |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
"Rob Arndt" wrote in message ... On Jun 4, 7:00�am, Dan wrote: Keith Willshaw wrote: "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. �In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith � � Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S. helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate the end of the war. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dan. Are YOU gloating over destruction and loss of lives? Caught you But I guess it is OK b/c Japan was the enemy, right? I wouldn't call vaporization, loss of eyesight, radiation burns, and radiation sickness plus all the lhysical damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki merely a nice "fireworks" show. BTW, Japan didn't surrender after either of the two A-bombings, but did when the USSR entered the war against them. That statement is factually correct but misleading. We know from the Japanese that the use of nuclear weapons was the crucial factor. The intervention of the Soviets was important but because it removed any possibility that they might broker a better deal than abject surrender but in itself it would have no more ended the war than did the destruction of the Japanese armies in Burma. The Emperor in his speech to the nation made this clear. Quote Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable. /Quote He made no mention of the Soviet Invasion. Keith |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
Dan wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote: "Dan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The bang they made was Keith There you go using technical terms again. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes. Note also that the destruction was so graphic because Japanese contruction anticipated earthquakes. Houses were lightly built and would be flattenend by the blast wave. The concrete and steel structure at Ground Zero in Hiroshima survives, damaged but not destroyed, vapourised, or the victim of some other fantastic fate. The first "modern" refuelling system would be Flight Refuelling's probe and drogue system, deployed in the late '40's but demonstrated before the war. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey
wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes. Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
wrote: On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes. Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing. Auyp. And that's another point glaringly missed by the anti-nuke crowd. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
First Modern Air-Air refueling
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:14:41 -0500, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:24:40 -0400, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502 wrote: On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes. Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing. Auyp. And that's another point glaringly missed by the anti-nuke crowd. One bomb, one airplane, one crew at risk versus waves of B-17/B-24,Wellingtons, etc. Clear definition of the concept of "economy of force" and "force multiplier". Not to mention the waves of landing craft, carrier aircraft...and Japanese school girls charging Marines while armed with sharpened sticks. Now, consider those weapons were in the 20KT range. The tactical nukes we babied in the cold war were considerably smaller in dimension while overwhelming larger in yields. Indeed. Perhaps my most sobering designation of the Cold War was Certified Nuclear Weapons Delivery Pilot. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best modern jet fighter??? | Icarus | Military Aviation | 19 | November 28th 11 10:57 PM |
Modern Air Travel | Canuck[_8_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 22nd 09 06:16 PM |
Modern Life | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 30 | March 1st 07 02:12 PM |
Best modern jet fighter | Icarus | Military Aviation | 28 | September 22nd 04 02:51 PM |
Modern aces | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 12 | January 12th 04 11:06 PM |