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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 47 | May 22nd 04 03:36 AM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
EADS aims at USAF tanker market | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 03 05:54 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |