F-14 squadrons removing refueling cover plate?

[dave999]

Why are the F-14 squadrons currently removing the plate covering the
refueling probe?
I'm assuming they're ripping off in the slipstream or something, but
wouldn't it make more sense, since they're employed by the Federal
Gov't., to have some type of really expensive beefing-up kit to bolt
them on stronger?

--
send replies to

GOT JETS?
http://www.rfsm.net/

Dave Stein - President
Red Flag Scale Modelers
Las Vegas, Nevada
YOU NEED A HOBBY!

GET SOME!
http://www.cheapesthobbies.com/

[John Carrier]

Government employment has nothing to do with it. Parts availability does. If the panel in question isn't in the supply system, it doesn't get replaced. Considering the F-14 is to be retired soon, the Navy isn't investing much money in that aircraft's logistics effort.

R / John

"dave999" > wrote in message news:w9nXa.1229$2g.1164@fed1read05...
Why are the F-14 squadrons currently removing the plate covering the refueling probe?
I'm assuming they're ripping off in the slipstream or something, but wouldn't it make more sense, since they're employed by the Federal Gov't., to have some type of really expensive beefing-up kit to bolt them on stronger?

--
send replies to

GOT JETS?
http://www.rfsm.net/

Dave Stein - President
Red Flag Scale Modelers
Las Vegas, Nevada
YOU NEED A HOBBY!

GET SOME!
http://www.cheapesthobbies.com/

[Drewe Manton]

The cover plates are removed generally when the aircraft is going to be
refuelling from air force tankers on a regular basis. The short adaptor
hose which trails from the boom when the likes of KC-135's are modified to
refuel probe equipped aircraft causes the basket to whip around a lot and
was a frequent cause of Tomcats losing the cover on engaging or
disengaging. Easiest solution was to remove the cover. The problem doesn't
present itself with buddy refuelling from S-3s or cross force ops with RAF
VC-10s or Tristars because the longer hose makes the basket more stable.

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[John Carrier]

Interesting. Didn't know that. I never did a 135 from the F-14, although
I've had the pleasure a number of times in the F-4. The short
non-retractable hose made the effort a bit more challenging.

R / John

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
> The cover plates are removed generally when the aircraft is going to be
> refuelling from air force tankers on a regular basis. The short adaptor
> hose which trails from the boom when the likes of KC-135's are modified to
> refuel probe equipped aircraft causes the basket to whip around a lot and
> was a frequent cause of Tomcats losing the cover on engaging or
> disengaging. Easiest solution was to remove the cover. The problem doesn't
> present itself with buddy refuelling from S-3s or cross force ops with RAF
> VC-10s or Tristars because the longer hose makes the basket more stable.
>
> --
> --------
> Regards
> Drewe
> Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[Errol Cavit]

Drewe Manton > wrote in message >...
> The cover plates are removed generally when the aircraft is going to be
> refuelling from air force tankers on a regular basis. The short adaptor
> hose which trails from the boom when the likes of KC-135's are modified to
> refuel probe equipped aircraft causes the basket to whip around a lot and
> was a frequent cause of Tomcats losing the cover on engaging or
> disengaging. Easiest solution was to remove the cover. The problem doesn't
> present itself with buddy refuelling from S-3s or cross force ops with RAF
> VC-10s or Tristars because the longer hose makes the basket more stable.

Likewise with other dedicated hose tankers like the RAAF 707s, I assume?

Cheers
Errol Cavit

[Tom Cooper]

In the 1970s, Drewe, Iran purchased a total of 14 Boeing 707-3J9C and four
Boeing 747-2J9C tankers (up to 17 Boeing 747s were purchased for military
purposes by Iran, however, only four of these were tankers).

All of these were equipped with booms, and were originally intended to
support the large fleet of F-4Es, which were equipped with the USAF
IFR-system ("boom-and-receptacle").

As F-14s were equipped with the USN-system ("drogue-and-probe"), it was
decided to re-equip them with the USAF-system at a later stage: for testing
purposes of such a system on the Tomcat, the 80th F-14A sold to Iran was
held back in the USA (and was also never delivered).

Before this could be done a temporary solution was found through the
purchase of some eight Beech 1800 IFR-pods: either four or six Boeing 707s
were modified to carry these, and so the IIAF F-14A-pilots could do their
IFR-training in the 1970s (and later operate with extensive tanker support
during the IPGW - or the "Iraq-Iran War") without any problems.

Therefore, the Iranian tankers were not equipped with the adaptor drogue
that can be mounted on the USAF-style flying boom, and - in turn - this all
was of no influence for the Iranian decision to remove the covers for
IFR-probe from their Tomcats.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationjetage/0764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Drewe Manton]

"Tom Cooper" > waxed lyrical
:

> In the 1970s, Drewe, Iran purchased a total of 14 Boeing 707-3J9C and
> four Boeing 747-2J9C tankers (up to 17 Boeing 747s were purchased for
> military purposes by Iran, however, only four of these were tankers).
>
> All of these were equipped with booms, and were originally intended to
> support the large fleet of F-4Es, which were equipped with the USAF
> IFR-system ("boom-and-receptacle").
>
> As F-14s were equipped with the USN-system ("drogue-and-probe"), it
> was decided to re-equip them with the USAF-system at a later stage:
> for testing purposes of such a system on the Tomcat, the 80th F-14A
> sold to Iran was held back in the USA (and was also never delivered).
>
> Before this could be done a temporary solution was found through the
> purchase of some eight Beech 1800 IFR-pods: either four or six Boeing
> 707s were modified to carry these, and so the IIAF F-14A-pilots could
> do their IFR-training in the 1970s (and later operate with extensive
> tanker support during the IPGW - or the "Iraq-Iran War") without any
> problems.
>
> Therefore, the Iranian tankers were not equipped with the adaptor
> drogue that can be mounted on the USAF-style flying boom, and - in
> turn - this all was of no influence for the Iranian decision to remove
> the covers for IFR-probe from their Tomcats.
>
>
Thanks Tom. The good bit about my consistently incorrect postulations is
that I'm constantly learning! ;)

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[Tom Cooper]

"Drewe Manton" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. 4...
> "Tom Cooper" > waxed lyrical
> :
>
<snip>

> Thanks Tom. The good bit about my consistently incorrect postulations is
> that I'm constantly learning! ;)

It's not only you who's learning here, Drewe: this reminds me about an
important fact we'll have to add to the manuscript for the next book,
"Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat" (to come out next year).

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationjetage/0764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585