Re: Can tanker aircraft draw off all their onboard fuel?

[B2431]

>From: Hobo
>Date: 11/30/2003 10:07 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>Can a tanker aircraft draw on the fuel they carry to refuel other
>planes, or are they limited to the fuel that model of plane would
>normally carry?
>
With the exception of specially modified tankers like the KC-135s used to
refuel SR-71s they can use all the fuel on board.

The SR-71 uses a different fuel than the 135.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[C Knowles]

The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
Curt
U. S. Air Force, almost retired


"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Hobo
> >Date: 11/30/2003 10:07 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >Can a tanker aircraft draw on the fuel they carry to refuel other
> >planes, or are they limited to the fuel that model of plane would
> >normally carry?
> >
> With the exception of specially modified tankers like the KC-135s used to
> refuel SR-71s they can use all the fuel on board.
>
> The SR-71 uses a different fuel than the 135.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

[KenG]

Even the KC-135Q could burn body tank fuel. IIRC They could fly on JP7,
but were limited to enroute flight, and not TO, Landing, and a few other
instances.


B2431 wrote:
>>From: Hobo
>>Date: 11/30/2003 10:07 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>Can a tanker aircraft draw on the fuel they carry to refuel other
>>planes, or are they limited to the fuel that model of plane would
>>normally carry?
>>
>
> With the exception of specially modified tankers like the KC-135s used to
> refuel SR-71s they can use all the fuel on board.
>
> The SR-71 uses a different fuel than the 135.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

[B2431]

>From: KenG
>Date: 12/1/2003 5:16 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Even the KC-135Q could burn body tank fuel. IIRC They could fly on JP7,
>but were limited to enroute flight, and not TO, Landing, and a few other
>instances.
>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>>From: Hobo
>>>Date: 11/30/2003 10:07 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>Can a tanker aircraft draw on the fuel they carry to refuel other
>>>planes, or are they limited to the fuel that model of plane would
>>>normally carry?
>>>
>>
>> With the exception of specially modified tankers like the KC-135s used to
>> refuel SR-71s they can use all the fuel on board.
>>
>> The SR-71 uses a different fuel than the 135.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
I stand corrected.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "C Knowles"

<snip
Not sure
>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>Curt
>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
>
>
The HC-130Ns and Ps I worked on carried 2 bensons each. If memory serves they
could transfer fuel from them to be used by the aircraft.

I don't know about the KC-130s.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ron]

>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>Curt
>U. S. Air Force, almost retired

There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[[email protected]]

(Ron) wrote:

>>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
>>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
>>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
>>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>>Curt
>>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
>
>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

More or less the fate of TWA Flt 800.
--

-Gord.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

>>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
>>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
>>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
>>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>>Curt
>>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
>
>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...

That doesn't compute here. The only electric fuel pumps are in the mains
and the aircraft would be down to zero fuel before one was dry. The a/r
pumps are hydraulic are routinely run until the low pressure light comes
on.

--
Ron

[Ron]

>>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
>>>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
>>>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
>>>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>>>Curt
>>>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
>>
>>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
>>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
>>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...
>
>That doesn't compute here. The only electric fuel pumps are in the mains
>and the aircraft would be down to zero fuel before one was dry. The a/r
>pumps are hydraulic are routinely run until the low pressure light comes
>on.
>

Found this online so far in my search...

"On Oct. 4, 1990, an Air Force KC-135A tanker exploded during approach to
Loring Air Force Base in Maine, in an incident that involved a rear refueling
tank rather than the central fuel tank. Witnesses said they saw two explosions
on the plane and then saw the tail section separate. Investigators blamed the
accident, which killed all four crew, on an overheated fuel pump. "



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[David Lesher]

"Gord Beaman" ) writes:

>>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
>>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
>>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...
>>

>More or less the fate of TWA Flt 800.

Naw, that was that sekret manpad test; Ask Jimmy Kellstrom..
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

Hobo > writes:


>Can a tanker aircraft draw on the fuel they carry to refuel other
>planes, or are they limited to the fuel that model of plane would
>normally carry?

I got a private tour of a RAF ?Victor? tanker a few decades ago.
It came across for an air show (with good beer aboard..).
"Say, don't pull anything yellow & black" we were warned.

The crew member in charge of such things showed me the fuel manifold
panel and pointed out it had no separate "our" tankage...if he
screwed up, they all swam.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

>>>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand pounds.
>>>>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
>>>>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not sure
>>>>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
>>>>Curt
>>>>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
>>>
>>>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
>>>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that fuel for
>>>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...
>>
>>That doesn't compute here. The only electric fuel pumps are in the mains
>>and the aircraft would be down to zero fuel before one was dry. The a/r
>>pumps are hydraulic are routinely run until the low pressure light comes
>>on.
>>
>
>Found this online so far in my search...
>
>"On Oct. 4, 1990, an Air Force KC-135A tanker exploded during approach to
>Loring Air Force Base in Maine, in an incident that involved a rear refueling
>tank rather than the central fuel tank. Witnesses said they saw two explosions
>on the plane and then saw the tail section separate. Investigators blamed the
>accident, which killed all four crew, on an overheated fuel pump. "

The terms used don't match the names of any of the tanks. The only thing
close to being a rear refueling tank would be the Aft Body tank. While
the Upper Deck tank is the aftmost, it has no pumps.

Your cite has the tone of ground witnesses filtered through the press.

--
Ron

[mg]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Ron) wrote:
>
> >>>The KC-10 can burn all its fuel or offload all but a couple thousand
pounds.
> >>>>We can easily burn the JP-7 fuel that the SR-71 used, it just doesn't
> >>>>lubricate the fuel pumps as well. I assume the KC-135 is the same. Not
sure
> >>>>about the KC-130 with Benson tanks in the fuselage.
> >>>>Curt
> >>>>U. S. Air Force, almost retired
> >>>
> >>>There was a mid air explosion of a KC-135 about 15 years ago. They had
> >>>offloaded all the fuel they could, and the pumps no longer had that
fuel for
> >>>cooling. Something got really hot, and the remaining vapors ignited...
> >>
> >>That doesn't compute here. The only electric fuel pumps are in the mains
> >>and the aircraft would be down to zero fuel before one was dry. The a/r
> >>pumps are hydraulic are routinely run until the low pressure light comes
> >>on.
> >>
> >
> >Found this online so far in my search...
> >
> >"On Oct. 4, 1990, an Air Force KC-135A tanker exploded during approach to
> >Loring Air Force Base in Maine, in an incident that involved a rear
refueling
> >tank rather than the central fuel tank. Witnesses said they saw two
explosions
> >on the plane and then saw the tail section separate. Investigators blamed
the
> >accident, which killed all four crew, on an overheated fuel pump. "
>
> The terms used don't match the names of any of the tanks. The only thing
> close to being a rear refueling tank would be the Aft Body tank. While
> the Upper Deck tank is the aftmost, it has no pumps.
>
> Your cite has the tone of ground witnesses filtered through the press.
>
> --
> Ron


RE: KC135--In the body, there is a foward body, a center wing, and an aft
body, plus upper deck (no pumps) In the wings, 4 mains and 2 reserve tanks.
The forward and aft body tanks have two "Air Refueling" pumps each
(hydraulic driven). The center tank has two "override pumps" (electric).
The mains have two "boost pumps" each (electric). You can only offload from
the forward and aft tanks, but all the other fuel can drain either forward
or aft depending on the tank, except for a little standpipe fuel in each
main. The accident in question was likely an aft body tank explosion due to
overheated AR pump, but hard one to prove. Result: tank level restrictions
for years until they came up with an auto shutoff system that sensed a low
pressure and automatically turned off pumps when it was low. Almost all
pumps have now been replaced with modern pumps that do not overheat due
improved cooling.

MG

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> I stand corrected.

The little chimp must be back on his meds.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 12/10/2003 2:22 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I stand corrected.
>
>The little chimp must be back on his meds.
>
And you once again resort to personal insults.

At least I admit when I I am wrong. You never have.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired