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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versusHose-and-Drogue
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in
: Guy, I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden." The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge. OK, I found WARPs, but what's WOPR? All I could find was "War Games" references. Dave in San Diego |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versusHose-and-Drogue
On 7/3/06 5:32 AM, in article
, "Dave in San Diego" wrote: "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in : Guy, I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden." The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge. OK, I found WARPs, but what's WOPR? All I could find was "War Games" references. Dave in San Diego It's my age/early onset of senility... Sorry, Dave. When the KC-135 first got wing refueling pods, the acronym that we were using (word of mouth only) was Wing Outboard Pod Refueling (WOPR). Turns out the correct acronym is Multi-Point Refueling System (MPRS). Might have even been a squadron thing. I think it's widely known that WARPS is associated with the KC-10. MPRS is with the KC-135. 'Scuse me for the faux pax. --Woody |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versusHose-and-Drogue
Took a couple of days off.
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:54:29 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: snip We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had brought it home on a flight. So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-) Guy Hah! You recall I mentioned that the hose was twelve feet from connection knuckle to basket fitting. If you've ever stood next to a Thunderchief you would appreciated that even if all 12 feet had been grabbed, the hose would not quite reach the ground. The only time I had the chance to standunder a Thud on its wheels was at airshow at Travis many years ago. They'd just got a D model, 62-4299, in for their museum (which hadn't opened yet) from the AFR unit at Hill. ISTR it was about 9 feet from the ground to the bottom of the wing. He only had about three feet of hose and most of it shredded away. The real concern was that either the basket was going to come off the probe or the probe was going to break off and go down the intake to FOD the engine. Keeps the job from getting too routine ;-) Happy Fourth, although personally I've always thought September 17th would be a more appropriate date. But I know I'm swimming against the tide. Guy |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versusHose-and-Drogue
Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 7/2/06 2:48 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: Guy, I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden." The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge. Thanks. That's 180 deg. from every other opinion I've read (and the explanations for the difficulty), so it just goes to show that when it's a matter of opinion there's rarely 100% agreement on anything. I wonder if this might be a/c specific - which a/c were you flying in which you experienced both locations so you could compare? I've tanked Intruders behind KC-135's and KC-10's (without WARPS or WOPR), Victors, S-3's, A-7's, and of course KA-6D's and A-6E's. By the way, I agree with that A-7 issue. I've tanked Hornets off of KC-135's and KC-10's with WARPS and WOPR, Victor, Omega, and S-3's. I'll refine my statement slightly. It's much harder to get INTO the wing mounted baskets. It's much harder to stay in the iron maiden. Thanks for the above. So, what was a typical onload, and your maximum? Fuel transfer rate? I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue. Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off and the picture gets pretty scary. Multiple receiver stuff isn't that hard. Truly, the guy on the other side is merely an afterthought--except I seem to remember that on the Brits' Victor, there was a significant aileron trim required to keep the jet from turning inboard. The wingtip vortices always were trying to pull you in. As another example of a/c specific refueling behavior, an acquaintance, ex A-7E, mentioned that he found it easier to tank off an A-4 carrying a buddy store on the C/L, than off an A-7 carrying one underwing. IIRC, he said that with the A-7 his vertical tail was in the tanker's wing vortice, and a fair amount of cross-control was needed. Not a big deal either way, but something he was aware of. So that brings up another question. In the opinion of pilots here, preferably with direct personal experience, what was the easiest/hardest combination of tanker and receiver? Do you know of any combinations that weren't cleared for refueling? If you want to offer opinions based on what you've heard from other people that's fine, but secondhand information is, well, secondhand;-) Guy Hardest, Hornet versus KC-135 WOPR, in the goo, at night in moderate turbulence. Easiest, A-6E from KA-6D. Okay, building up a database here;-) Guy |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
As an EA-6B guy, I always prefer the nice KC-10 centerline basket. My next
favorite is either WARP or MPRS, however, you do not have enough lateral trim to compensate for the roll induced by airflow off of the tanker's wing. So, your arm can get tired and you may not be as smooth as you would like. But, the wingtip refueling systems are better than the iron maiden during turbulence once you are in the basket. Although, I have had some rough KC-135 pilots whip into a 40 degree AOB turn at night and try to rip my probe off with the maiden basket. Of course, they told me before hand that the previous receiver had his probe ripped off just ten minutes prior. I did not think much of it before the big honking turns since I was over Iraq and had to get back on station to cover rest of my vul. It all worked out but I remember being fairly frustrated with the tanker pilot. So, my choices for non-organic tanking is centerline drogue, wingtip drogue and then KC-135 Iron Maiden. On another note though, I am disappointed with the lend/lease fiasco from a few years ago that has delayed suitable replacements to the strategic tanker force. Moe "Joe Delphi" wrote in message news:ODSpg.10012$6w.7545@fed1read11... "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. But seriously folks .....an IR LED on the probe with a receiver on the basket - should do the trick - with appropriate software & control surfaces, of course. So, do any of our local experts who've BTDT think any of this would be worthwhile, or are they satisfied with the current capability? I am sure that there is a defense contractor out there who thinks this idea is worthwhile.... JD |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
Just happy I was Navy so I could poke instead of getting poked
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|