Q: Buddy store internal fuel?

[Guy Alcala]

I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

TIA,

Guy

[MikeR]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
> fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
> drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
> sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
> can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
> particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
> and its capacity (if any), that would help.
>
> TIA,
>
> Guy

The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the capacity.
What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the internal
components (such as a float switch).

[Dave in San Diego]

"MikeR" > wrote in
:

>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
>> fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
>> drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
>> sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
>> can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
>> particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
>> and its capacity (if any), that would help.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Guy
>
> The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the
> capacity. What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the
> internal components (such as a float switch).

Can't find any good data on the D-704, but the newer Sargent Fletchers
hold 300 gallons of internal fuel.

Dave in San Diego

[[email protected]]

Here is the link to the current one's producer web page:
http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars_charact.htm

If you type "buddy refueling store" to search this ng, you can find
another quite a lovely thread about that.

Dave is right: 300 gallons. It sounds great, bearing in mind the fact
that a standard F/A-18C external fuel tank is ONLY 330 gallons.

Now, when F/A-18E/F carry four 480-gall. tanks plus one ARS, it is
called a "five-wet" configuration. Reportedly, they can transfer up to
12,000 lb of fuel, being better than Viking in speed and self-defence
capability, though (as all Hornets) still suffering from a short loiter
time.

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

[Phormer Phighter Phlyer]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
>
>>I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
>>fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
>>drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
>>sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
>>can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
>>particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
>>and its capacity (if any), that would help.
>
>
> Guy,
> According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
> has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
> there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
> For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.
>

Gotta add this since ya mentioned the F-4J...When in VF-151, we had one
bird with wing tanks and Fox 'have ya seen my moovie' Farrell strapped a
D-704 on the centerline and had one Phantom tank from another. Then did
a fly by on the Midway-maru.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
> fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
> drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
> sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
> can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
> particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
> and its capacity (if any), that would help.

Guy,
According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[Mike Kanze]

Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not
the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from
your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never
seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
notwithstanding.

ISTR that 2,000 lbs. of JP-5 was the correct capacity for either the D-704
or the Sargeant Fletcher but it's been many years now...

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
>> I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
>> fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
>> drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
>> sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
>> can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
>> particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
>> and its capacity (if any), that would help.
>
> Guy,
> According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
> has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
> there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
> For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
>
> Without data, all you have are opinions

[[email protected]]

You mentioned Aeroflot: Now I am living quite near to Warsaw Airport.
Getting used to the metalic and rattling sound of GE engines. But still
what makes me stand stil and look to the sky are the take-offs of these
noisy Russian Tu-154Ms, with this beautiful loud whistle and smoke
trail in the air;-)

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Mike Kanze" > writes:
> Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not
> the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from
> your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never
> seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
> notwithstanding.

Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content -
something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is
figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the
fuel in until it's hot enough.
Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had
bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain -
that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the
tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few
problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon.
JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 -
that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range
of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious
fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also
played hell with the burners and turbine section.
Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially
since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a
lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line.

There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.


--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[Mike Kanze]

Peter,

Thanks for the additional perspective.

I recall seeing a photo long ago of a P2V-1 (?) being fueled for a very long
range flight. The fuel lines from the bowser to the aircraft were all packed
in dry ice for the same reason.

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mike Kanze" > writes:
>> Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts,
>> not
>> the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get
>> from
>> your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has
>> never
>> seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
>> notwithstanding.
>
> Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content -
> something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is
> figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the
> fuel in until it's hot enough.
> Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had
> bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain -
> that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the
> tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few
> problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon.
> JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 -
> that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range
> of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious
> fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also
> played hell with the burners and turbine section.
> Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially
> since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a
> lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line.
>
> There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
> increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
> cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
> to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
> at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
> you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
> would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.
>
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
>
> Without data, all you have are opinions

[[email protected]]

It came to my mind after reading Lt Stone "A Bridge Too Far" article in
February "Proceedings" that it might be not felt as any special
nobilitation for a fighter pilot to fly tanker missions?

Attack or anti-sub flyers, who probably were more used to "making
history" than to "making movies", and performing support missions more
frequently, probably would not complain. But for a real fighter,
trained for CAP, escort and dogfight?

Though now everything becomes strike fighter communities, so it is
different to tell who is attack and who is fighter pilot;-)

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

In 1957 our North American Fury FJ-4Bs were equipped with buddy stores. The
right wing drop tank carried the basket, hose, reel, valves, switches, etc.
and the left wing drop tank carried just fuel and valves.

WDA

end

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
>I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
> fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
> drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
> sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
> can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
> particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
> and its capacity (if any), that would help.
>
> TIA,
>
> Guy
>

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

<snip>

My thanks to all who replied.

Guy

[John Dallman]

In article >, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

> There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
> increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
> cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
> to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
> at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
> you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
> would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.

The same trick is used for Russian Soyuz booster rockets which are
kerosene and liquid oxygen. It doesn't add much performance, but with
satellite launchers, something cheap that stays on the ground is welcome.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Gord Beaman]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>Peter,
>
>Thanks for the additional perspective.
>
>I recall seeing a photo long ago of a P2V-1 (?) being fueled for a very long
>range flight. The fuel lines from the bowser to the aircraft were all packed
>in dry ice for the same reason.

Yes, that was the Truculent Turtle and 'was' a P2V-1. it flew
from New Zealand (?) to somewhere in the States...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

Still about this article in "Procedings", because I am afraid my remark
was not what I really wanted to say:

The title "A Bridge Too Far" illustrated by a picture of VFA-94's
F/A-18C refueled by VFA-41's F/A-18F apparently suggests that adopting
Super Hornets to the tanker role was not a good idea...

What's more, in the text the author criticizes replacing a
10-million-dollar tanker (good, but weary S-3B) by a 70-million-dollar
one (brand-new F/A-18E/F). It really surprised me!

And where are these stories about "flying the wings off the planes"
when Vikings were utilized very intensively as tankers???

According to AFM, in OIF VFA-115, additionally charged with tanker
sorties (an S-3B squadron still aboard, too) averaged 30 sorties a day
when other squadrons averaged 20...

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo