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
|
|||
|
|||
Only military 747s have an inflight refueling capability. That includes the
VC-25 and E-4. Not sure about the Iranian 747 tankers. Curt wrote in message ... A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a civilian 747 doing so. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ... wrote: | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a | civilian 747 doing so. At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would even consider it an option. Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. Keith |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"C Knowles" wrote:
| $19 per gallon? What does that represent? The actual cost of each gallon delivered to the aircraft being refueled. It equals the price of the fuel and the average cost of delivering that fuel to the point where it is needed. | Curt | | "Brett" wrote in message | ... | wrote: | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a | | civilian 747 doing so. | | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would | even consider it an option. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message | ... | wrote: | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a | | civilian 747 doing so. | | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would | even consider it an option. | | | | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure. | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:55:02 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Ragnar" wrote in message ... Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is more dangerous. I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52 that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard. I know a guy whose father was the navigator on a KC-135 that a B-52 ran into over Kentucky in 1959. The resulting fireball dropped wreckage over a wide area, including unarmed nuclear weapons. All of the KC-135 and some of the B-52 crew perished. This accident resulted in the "breakaway" procedures. John Hairell ) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote: | "Brett" wrote in message | ... | wrote: | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a | | civilian 747 doing so. | | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would | even consider it an option. | | | | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure. Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777 may be quite large. I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain andSingapore that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the back" were there for more than 24 | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration. The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however and the cost was considered less than the alternatives which were limited. Land planes could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an option for flying boats. Keith |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message | ... | "Keith Willshaw" wrote: | | "Brett" wrote in message | | ... | | wrote: | | | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight | | | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular | | | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to | see a | | | civilian 747 doing so. | | | | At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline | would | | even consider it an option. | | | | | | | | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway | | "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what | the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure. | | | Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only | available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777 | may be quite large. | | I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain andSingapore | that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the back" | were there for more than 24 So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews available. | | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 | | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the | | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow | | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. | | And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial | Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority | passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration. | | | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat, took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander, Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the service and continue operations in 1940.__ http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf | and the cost was | considered less than the alternatives which were limited. What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be willing to pay in peacetime. Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price variations). | Land planes | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an | option for flying boats. How attractive is Botwood in winter? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ... So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews available. The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead. | | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 | | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the | | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow | | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. | | And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial | Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority | passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration. | | | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat, took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander, Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the service and continue operations in 1940.__ http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success. | and the cost was | considered less than the alternatives which were limited. What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be willing to pay in peacetime. Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus. The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service by the outbreak of war. Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price variations). I dont recall advocating this as a policy today, especially since modern aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at that point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point | Land planes | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an | option for flying boats. How attractive is Botwood in winter? Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there during WW2 Keith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message | ... | | So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews | available. | | | | The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume | 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need | to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need | sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead. Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available. | | | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939 | | | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the | | | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow | | | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd. | | | | And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial | | Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high | priority | | passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration. | | | | | | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however | | By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat, | took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly | after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western | flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at | Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its | destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The | Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander, | Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of | these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the | service and continue operations in 1940.__ | | http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/pro...ugherty_sj.pdf | | | So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success. 16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before the start of WWII. | | and the cost was | | considered less than the alternatives which were limited. | | What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in | flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without | inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government | willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be | willing to pay in peacetime. | | Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now | but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in | nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus. Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't become part of Canada until after the war). | The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the | trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service | by the outbreak of war. That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the war. | Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile | costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price | variations). | | | I dont recall advocating this as a policy today, Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with government regulators. | especially since modern | aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from | London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and | even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at that | point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and | clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to | have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the | lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get refreshment and cleaning stops along the way. | | Land planes | | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an | | option for flying boats. | | How attractive is Botwood in winter? | | | Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways | used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there | during WW2 Compared with coastal Iceland? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Storey" wrote:
"David Lesher" wrote [snip] but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days. It's easier than flying formation. I once had a co-pilot who fell asleep during the contact. I was kind of half-paying attention to our position, and just mentioned that we were closing a bit, and nothing happened, so I looked at him and he was asleep! My fear was that he would kick the rudder, so I called a break-away (chop the throttles, speed-brakes, and nose over at about -2 g's all in one move). That woke everybody up! Hee. I'll bet that the real reason for the break away didn't find it's way onto the mission report did it?... -- -Gord. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|