Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue

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.

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.

--Woody

"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

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

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

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

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

Just happy I was Navy so I could poke instead of getting poked