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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.