Video: When Aerial Refueling Goes Bad

[Yeff]

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGS8dwQSWzI>

--

-Jeff B.


"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."

~ The Salton Sea

[George Z. Bush]

Yeff wrote:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGS8dwQSWzI>

How embarrassing!! I wouldn't put too much money on how good that pilot
was wielding his weapon in the sack, either!
(^v^))))))))

George Z.

[Dave Kearton]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGS8dwQSWzI>

> How embarrassing!! I wouldn't put too much money on how good that pilot
> was wielding his weapon in the sack, either!
> (^v^))))))))

> George Z.



Aaah yes, the fur-lined refuelliung basket, at least a little movement
there is welcome.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Mike Kanze]

....Proving once again that it's not as easy as it looks. Bow wave from the tankee's nose and burble from the tanker aircraft are constants that the pilot must factor for a successful basket plug.

Note that the hose failed to retract into the tanker as it should have once the second (successful) plug was made and the basket was shoved forward.

Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.

--
Mike Kanze

"I prefer my tragedy and despair in limited doses."
- Sherman the shark

"That's what golf is for."
- Hawthorne the hermit crab

Sherman's Lagoon, 4/5/08

"Yeff" > wrote in message ...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGS8dwQSWzI>

--

-Jeff B.


"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."

~ The Salton Sea

[frank]

On Sep 17, 12:36*pm, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> ...Proving once again that it's not as easy as it looks. Bow wave from the tankee's nose and burble from the tanker aircraft are constants that the pilot must factor for a successful basket plug.
>
> Note that the hose failed to retract into the tanker as it should have once the second (successful) plug was made and the basket was shoved forward.
>
> Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze
>
> "I prefer my tragedy and despair in limited doses."
> - Sherman the shark
>
> "That's what golf is for."
> - Hawthorne the hermit crab
>
> Sherman's Lagoon, 4/5/08
>
> * "Yeff" > wrote in .. .
> * <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGS8dwQSWzI>
>
> * --
>
> * -Jeff B.
> *
>
> * "Excuse me.
> * *I don't mean to impose,
> * *but I am the Ocean."
>
> * * * * ~ The Salton Sea

'Tis true. but afterwards when you land, that's another story.

Had a B-1 once, refuel went wrong during flight test. boom scraped
along right seat, tapped the window. Comment that pilot had for weeks
was, ''Did you see God??"

There is a reason there are marks on the top of airplanes for
refueling recepticle.

But, with the loose recepticle on the end of reel like that one, its
difficult to connect, could be turbulence, anything . As conditions
get worse and the need for gas more extreme, pretty dicey up there.

I've heard some stories of what it was like to refuel from KC-97 from
a B-47 or B-52, tanker is going full bore, receiver is trying not to
stall. Not fun. Way safer now.

[JR Weiss]

"frank" > wrote...

> I've heard some stories of what it was like to refuel from KC-97 from a B-47
> or B-52, tanker is going full bore, receiver is trying not to stall. Not fun.
> Way safer now.

Kinda like refueling an A-6 from a KC-130... Marginal when the A-6 is light;
need at least some slats down when heavy. There were a few ways to get partial
flaps and/or slats down (that weren't in any book) that were useful when high &
hot or heavy...

[Bob Liberty]

Refueling from a KC-97 was frequently done in a decent to get enough speed.
It would do only about 215 knots ias in level flight heavy at 15,000. Not
unusual that a receiver wanted at least 225k . That airplane probably came
closer to getting me killed then an AC130 in SEA

ole nav


"JR Weiss" > wrote in message
. ..
> "frank" > wrote...
>
>> I've heard some stories of what it was like to refuel from KC-97 from a
>> B-47 or B-52, tanker is going full bore, receiver is trying not to stall.
>> Not fun. Way safer now.
>
> Kinda like refueling an A-6 from a KC-130... Marginal when the A-6 is
> light; need at least some slats down when heavy. There were a few ways to
> get partial flaps and/or slats down (that weren't in any book) that were
> useful when high & hot or heavy...
>
>

[Eunometic]

On Sep 18, 3:36*am, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> ...Proving once again that it's not as easy as it looks. Bow wave from the tankee's nose and burble
> from the tanker aircraft are constants that the pilot must factor for a successful basket plug.

It would appear to me that the probe and drogue system is now far more
basic than it needs to be to be and is therefore less effective and
reliable than it should be.

One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively
flown into the recepitcal.

It should be possible to place sensors and controls (flappers, fins or
a basket that can twist to direct itselt) that stabilizes the drogue
and allows it to fly further from the aircraft. Ideally it should
'home' itself towards the probe slightly to help the pilot. A simple
LED lamp with a specific flashing frequency can serve as a homming
point.


>
> Note that the hose failed to retract into the tanker as it should have once the second (successful) plug was made and the basket was shoved forward.
>
> Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.

[JR Weiss]

"Eunometic" > wrote:

> It would appear to me that the probe and drogue system is now far more basic
> than it needs to be to be and is therefore less effective and reliable than it
> should be.

Not really...

First, the pilot in that video was obviously new to air refueling, and didn't
adhere to the concept of looking THROUGH the drogue, not AT the drogue. He was
obviously chasing the drogue on the first attempt, and tried to "stab" it with a
big burst of throttle the next time. That got him excess, uncontrolled closure
that the reel response system could not handle.

Reminds me of some of the Omanis who tried it in Jaguars behind our KA-6s back
in the 80s...


> One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively flown
> into the recepitcal.

However, it still takes a stable receiver airplane...


> It should be possible to place sensors and controls (flappers, fins or a
> basket that can twist to direct itselt) that stabilizes the drogue and allows
> it to fly further from the aircraft. Ideally it should 'home' itself towards
> the probe slightly to help the pilot. A simple LED lamp with a specific
> flashing frequency can serve as a homming
point.

Nope. The receiver pilot can usually figure out the drogue's movement cycle if
the tanker is stable. If unpredictable, extraneous control inputs are made in
the tanker, they upset the rhythm.

An analogous concept has been demonstrated MANY times before, with far more
negative than positive results: On a KC-135 equipped with the drogue adapter,
the "boomer" will sometimes attempt to "help" the receiver by trying to fly or
"tweak" the drogue to the probe. Since the receiver pilot cannot anticipate
what the probe will do, more often than not it results in a worse miss than if
the drogue is allowed to fly naturally.

[Eunometic]

On Sep 19, 3:45*am, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Eunometic" > wrote:
> > It would appear to me that the probe and drogue system is now far more basic
> > than it needs to be to be and is therefore less effective and reliable than it
> > should be.
>
> Not really...
>
> First, the pilot in that video was obviously new to air refueling, and didn't
> adhere to the concept of looking THROUGH the drogue, not AT the drogue. *He was
> obviously chasing the drogue on the first attempt, and tried to "stab" it with a
> big burst of throttle the next time. *That got him excess, uncontrolled closure
> that the reel response system could not handle.
>
> Reminds me of some of the Omanis who tried it in Jaguars behind our KA-6s back
> in the 80s...
>
> > One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively flown
> > into the recepitcal.
>
> However, it still takes a stable receiver airplane...
>
> > It should be possible to place sensors and controls (flappers, fins or a
> > basket that can twist to direct itselt) that stabilizes the drogue and allows
> > it to fly further from the aircraft. *Ideally it should 'home' itself towards
> > the probe slightly to help the pilot. *A simple LED lamp with a specific
> > flashing frequency can serve as a homming point.
>
> Nope. *The receiver pilot can usually figure out the drogue's movement cycle if
> the tanker is stable. *If unpredictable, extraneous control inputs are made in
> the tanker, they upset the rhythm.
>
> An analogous concept has been demonstrated MANY times before, with far more
> negative than positive results: *On a KC-135 equipped with the drogue adapter,
> the "boomer" will sometimes attempt to "help" the receiver by trying to fly or
> "tweak" the drogue to the probe. *Since the receiver pilot cannot anticipate
> what the probe will do, more often than not it results in a worse miss than if
> the drogue is allowed to fly naturally.

If one accepts your point that autonomous probe movement will upset
the pilots ability to mate with the probe there is then still scope to
'stabilize' the probe or rather to smooth its behavior when there are
gusts around.

What about shifting the paradigm a little. The aircraft automatically
or manually formates at an appropriate spot behind and below the
tanker and then remains stationary while the probe flies itself to the
drogue.

[JR Weiss]

"Eunometic" > wrote:

> If one accepts your point that autonomous probe movement will upset the pilots
> ability to mate with the probe there is then still scope to 'stabilize' the
> probe or rather to smooth its behavior when there are gusts around.

Sure. However, dynamic "smoothing" will likely get the basket out of synch with
the airplanes just like unintended autopilot or unbriefed boomer inputs. Static
smoothing methods, e.g., "tuning" of the hose characteristics, might work
better.


> What about shifting the paradigm a little. The aircraft automatically or
> manually formates at an appropriate spot behind and below the tanker and then
> remains stationary while the probe flies itself to the drogue.

I think that automatic stationkeeping would work better with the AF version,
especially with UAVs.

After all, the current concept IS to fly on the tanker, NOT on the drogue! It's
when the pilot tries to fly formation on the drogue that he begins to "chase" it
as the pilot did in the video. When pilots new to air refueling finally "get
it," they wonder why it was so hard in the first place!

[Mike Kanze]

>One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively flown into the recepitcal.

And it is completely impractical for carrier operations. Boom-capable aircraft cannot operate from carriers. Buddy-store equipped FA-18s can.

Boom refueling is certainly the way to go for the heavies, whose inertia precludes the rapid, close-in corrections needed. Hose-and-drogue is compact and ideal for carrier-based tanking assets, and also can be / is fitted onto those land-based tankers that support probe-configured aircraft, as shown in the video.

--
Mike Kanze

"I prefer my tragedy and despair in limited doses."
- Sherman the shark

"That's what golf is for."
- Hawthorne the hermit crab

Sherman's Lagoon, 4/5/08

"Eunometic" > wrote in message ...
On Sep 18, 3:36 am, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> ...Proving once again that it's not as easy as it looks. Bow wave from the tankee's nose and burble
> from the tanker aircraft are constants that the pilot must factor for a successful basket plug.

It would appear to me that the probe and drogue system is now far more
basic than it needs to be to be and is therefore less effective and
reliable than it should be.

One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively
flown into the recepitcal.

It should be possible to place sensors and controls (flappers, fins or
a basket that can twist to direct itselt) that stabilizes the drogue
and allows it to fly further from the aircraft. Ideally it should
'home' itself towards the probe slightly to help the pilot. A simple
LED lamp with a specific flashing frequency can serve as a homming
point.


>
> Note that the hose failed to retract into the tanker as it should have once the second (successful) plug was made and the basket was shoved forward.
>
> Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.

[frank]

> * >
> * > Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.

Some aircraft also have multiple drogues at each wingtip.

Also, drogues breakoff, as shown in the video, hose retracts, when you
get back to station, its easy to fit a new one on and you're good to
go.

[Dan[_12_]]

frank wrote:
>> >
>> > Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.
>
> Some aircraft also have multiple drogues at each wingtip.

Name one.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Weiss[_3_]]

"Dan" > wrote...
>>
>> Some aircraft also have multiple drogues at each wingtip.
>
> Name one.

Dodging the specifics of the unclear language (multiple drogues ON THE AIRPLANE;
on the wing but not necessarily at the "wingtip"), KC-130s have a drogue on each
wing; and most/all KC-10s have been retrofitted with WARP (Wing Air Refueling
Pod) on each wing in addition to the centerline boom and hose.

[Bob Liberty]

Also fuel flow is higher with a boom. About 5000 lbs per min. Important when giving 80,000 or a bunch more to a heavy.
ole nav
"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
>One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively flown into the recepitcal.

And it is completely impractical for carrier operations. Boom-capable aircraft cannot operate from carriers. Buddy-store equipped FA-18s can.

Boom refueling is certainly the way to go for the heavies, whose inertia precludes the rapid, close-in corrections needed. Hose-and-drogue is compact and ideal for carrier-based tanking assets, and also can be / is fitted onto those land-based tankers that support probe-configured aircraft, as shown in the video.

--
Mike Kanze

"I prefer my tragedy and despair in limited doses."
- Sherman the shark

"That's what golf is for."
- Hawthorne the hermit crab

Sherman's Lagoon, 4/5/08

"Eunometic" > wrote in message ...
On Sep 18, 3:36 am, "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> ...Proving once again that it's not as easy as it looks. Bow wave from the tankee's nose and burble
> from the tanker aircraft are constants that the pilot must factor for a successful basket plug.

It would appear to me that the probe and drogue system is now far more
basic than it needs to be to be and is therefore less effective and
reliable than it should be.

One reason the boom method works is that the boom is that the actively
flown into the recepitcal.

It should be possible to place sensors and controls (flappers, fins or
a basket that can twist to direct itselt) that stabilizes the drogue
and allows it to fly further from the aircraft. Ideally it should
'home' itself towards the probe slightly to help the pilot. A simple
LED lamp with a specific flashing frequency can serve as a homming
point.


>
> Note that the hose failed to retract into the tanker as it should have once the second (successful) plug was made and the basket was shoved forward.
>
> Those of you laughing have likely never tried this in a low fuel state / night situation, with a pitching deck awaiting your recovery. Not anyone's idea of happy fun.