Trying to find resources on tanker history

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

I would be very greatful if anyone could point me to a good
online resource on the history of tankers and air-refueling.


Here is a very nice photo of a KC135 refueling a Raptor I
came by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Usaf.kc135.750pix.jpg



Regards...

[Henry J Cobb]

Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
> I would be very greatful if anyone could point me to a good
> online resource on the history of tankers and air-refueling.

Start here http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/tanker.htm

-HJC

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in
:

> Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>> I would be very greatful if anyone could point me to a good
>> online resource on the history of tankers and air-refueling.
>
> Start here
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/tanker.htm

A thousend thank's. It soon led me to this:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/tanker.htm

In 1921, stunt pilot, Wesley May, put on a "refueling"
demonstration for a crowd at Long Beach, California. May
strapped a gas can to his back and walked out to the wing
tip of his Lincoln Standard biplane, stepped onto the wing
skid of a Curtis JN-4 and poured five gallons of fuel into
the Jenny's tank. This feat was proclaimed the first
"air-to-air" refueling.



Regards...

[Cub Driver]

The British were into aerial refueling first, if you don't count the
Piper Cubs that used to stay up for days during the Great Depression,
for the very good reason that British aircraft didn't have the range
to cross the Atlantic. The USAAF began mucking about with it at Wright
Field in 1944 by passing drop-tanks from a B-24 to a P-38, in
preparation for raids on Japan. (The twin-fuse Mustang came out of the
same need.) The USAF got serious in 1948 as the Cold War began to
percolate into consciousness. The British by this time were actually
using the "crossover system" on trial flights London-Montreal. Each
plane trailed a cable with a grappling hook. The tanker moved left,
crossing over the recipient aircraft and engaging the hooks. The
recipient reeled them in, followed by the hose from the tanker.

The British also came up with the probe & drogue system, which I think
is what Wright Field was experimenting with in 1948.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>
>The British were into aerial refueling first, if you don't count the
>Piper Cubs that used to stay up for days during the Great Depression,
>for the very good reason that British aircraft didn't have the range
>to cross the Atlantic. The USAAF began mucking about with it at Wright
>Field in 1944 by passing drop-tanks from a B-24 to a P-38, in
>preparation for raids on Japan. (The twin-fuse Mustang came out of the
>same need.) The USAF got serious in 1948 as the Cold War began to
>percolate into consciousness. The British by this time were actually
>using the "crossover system" on trial flights London-Montreal. Each
>plane trailed a cable with a grappling hook. The tanker moved left,
>crossing over the recipient aircraft and engaging the hooks. The
>recipient reeled them in, followed by the hose from the tanker.
>
>The British also came up with the probe & drogue system, which I think
>is what Wright Field was experimenting with in 1948.

The OP might google for a Brit company called 'Flight Refuelling'.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Ian]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> The British were into aerial refueling first, if you don't count the
> Piper Cubs that used to stay up for days during the Great Depression,
> for the very good reason that British aircraft didn't have the range
> to cross the Atlantic. The USAAF began mucking about with it at Wright
> Field in 1944 by passing drop-tanks from a B-24 to a P-38, in
> preparation for raids on Japan. (The twin-fuse Mustang came out of the
> same need.) The USAF got serious in 1948 as the Cold War began to
> percolate into consciousness. The British by this time were actually
> using the "crossover system" on trial flights London-Montreal. Each
> plane trailed a cable with a grappling hook. The tanker moved left,
> crossing over the recipient aircraft and engaging the hooks. The
> recipient reeled them in, followed by the hose from the tanker.
>
> The British also came up with the probe & drogue system, which I think
> is what Wright Field was experimenting with in 1948.
>

Is it still the case that the USN uses the trailing drogue (as the RAF/RN
do), with the USAF using the tanker to steer the probe? If so, why the
different approaches?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
>
> Is it still the case that the USN uses the trailing drogue (as the RAF/RN
> do), with the USAF using the tanker to steer the probe? If so, why the
> different approaches?
>
>

The flying boom method has a higher transfer rate but probe
and drogue can be fitted to buddy tankers.

Keith

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> >
> > Is it still the case that the USN uses the trailing drogue (as the RAF/RN
> > do), with the USAF using the tanker to steer the probe? If so, why the
> > different approaches?
> >
> >
>
> The flying boom method has a higher transfer rate but probe
> and drogue can be fitted to buddy tankers.

Right. Originally (1950s) SAC used the boom method, while TAC used probe and
drogue on their fighters (KB-50P? tankers), starting with F-84s. There were
air-refueled test combat missions flown during the Korean War using KB-29
tankers; the F-84s couldn't be given airframe mounted probes in a hurry, so
were given drop (tip) tanks fitted with a probe on the front (a method that has
recently been revived to allow F-16s to refuel from drogue-equipped tankers).
There was no internal transfer possible, so the procedure was to refuel one
drop tank to about half full, disconnect, reposition for the other tank and
fill it full, then disconnect and reposition on the original tank and fill it
the rest of the way. Filling one tank completely first resulted in too much
lateral assymetry for the ailerons to compensate.

F-100s, F-104Cs and EB-66s all had probes. At the end of the 1950s SAC and TAC
were both operating versions of the F-101, so that a/c was given both types of
refueling capability (and had the room). The F-105B had the probe, but the D
model was eventually given both methods. After that the USAF decided to go
over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
(presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their fighters and
bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be more
reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c that can
be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

"M. J. Powell" wrote:

<snip>

> The OP might google for a Brit company called 'Flight Refuelling'.

Now Cobham PLC after Sir Alan Cobham, who did most of the early refueling
work and started Flight Refueling Ltd.

Guy

[Henry J Cobb]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> After that the USAF decided to go
> over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
> (presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their fighters and
> bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be more
> reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c that can
> be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.

Will the F-35B be the first USAF aircraft since then to be built with
just a probe?

-HJC

[Ian]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> >
> > Is it still the case that the USN uses the trailing drogue (as the
RAF/RN
> > do), with the USAF using the tanker to steer the probe? If so, why the
> > different approaches?
> >
> >
>
> The flying boom method has a higher transfer rate but probe
> and drogue can be fitted to buddy tankers.
>
> Keith
>
Maybe a bit simplistic but couldn't they equal the transfer rates by just
increasing the bore of the drogue feed pipe? It all ends up in the same fuel
system (on the refuelling aircraft) so it can't be a pressure constraint?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> Maybe a bit simplistic but couldn't they equal the transfer rates by just
> increasing the bore of the drogue feed pipe? It all ends up in the same
fuel
> system (on the refuelling aircraft) so it can't be a pressure constraint?
>
>

That means increasing the bore of a longer length of pipe
than on a flying boom. I suspect there are weight restraints
at work here.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > Maybe a bit simplistic but couldn't they equal the transfer rates by just
> > increasing the bore of the drogue feed pipe? It all ends up in the same
> fuel
> > system (on the refuelling aircraft) so it can't be a pressure constraint?
> >
> >
>
> That means increasing the bore of a longer length of pipe
> than on a flying boom. I suspect there are weight restraints
> at work here.

And size (hose takes up space, after all), and drag. More importantly, there are
limits on the size at the other end. While large a/c can carry around a large
diameter fixed probe with little effect on performance, fighters and attack a/c don't
have that option. So, for instance, on their Victor tankers the RAF used Mk. 20 wing
pods with smaller diameter hose/drogues (and lower flow rates) to refuel
fighter/attack a/c, and a centerline Mk. 17 HDU of greater diameter hose/drogue to
refuel bombers/transports (which have larger diameter probes than fighter/attack
aircraft, so can accept higher transfer rates, although still not as high as a boom).
A fighter just can't be carrying around such a massive piece of hardware all the time,
especially if it's fixed external (there wouldn't be enough room to house it
internally on a fighter, and no one seems to have tried a bomber-sized extendible
probe).

A boom receptacle, OTOH, is theoretically only limited in diameter by the fuel flow
rates that the a/c's internal fuel piping is designed to deal with; since the flow
rate in A/B is quite high, and since none of this is adding weight/drag outside the
airframe, transfer rates can be much higher with little/no weight penalty on the
receiver. The tanker is paying the weight/drag penalty of the boom, but it's a lot
larger and can afford it.

Guy

[Henry J Cobb]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> A boom receptacle, OTOH, is theoretically only limited in diameter by the fuel flow
> rates that the a/c's internal fuel piping is designed to deal with; since the flow
> rate in A/B is quite high, and since none of this is adding weight/drag outside the
> airframe, transfer rates can be much higher with little/no weight penalty on the
> receiver. The tanker is paying the weight/drag penalty of the boom, but it's a lot
> larger and can afford it.

And then you've got three pilots.

One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
to fly the boom.

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > A boom receptacle, OTOH, is theoretically only limited in diameter by
the fuel flow
> > rates that the a/c's internal fuel piping is designed to deal with;
since the flow
> > rate in A/B is quite high, and since none of this is adding weight/drag
outside the
> > airframe, transfer rates can be much higher with little/no weight
penalty on the
> > receiver. The tanker is paying the weight/drag penalty of the boom, but
it's a lot
> > larger and can afford it.
>
> And then you've got three pilots.
>
> One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
> to fly the boom.

The boom operator is neither trained nor paid as a pilot, so your point
would be...?

Brooks
>
> -HJC

[Henry J Cobb]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>And then you've got three pilots.
>>
>>One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
>>to fly the boom.
>
> The boom operator is neither trained nor paid as a pilot, so your point
> would be...?

"Fly the boom" is a common phrase in the USAF.

http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/Feb/0226-03.htm

You need three people adjusting airfoils to make boom refueling work.

That's one more person than is needed for a probe and drogue refueling.

Heck, you could make an unmanned tanker for probe and drogue refueling.

-HJC

[John Keeney]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > After that the USAF decided to go
> > over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
> > (presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their
fighters and
> > bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be
more
> > reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c
that can
> > be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.
>
> Will the F-35B be the first USAF aircraft since then to be built with
> just a probe?

Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
refuelers during the last 30 some years.

[Buzzer]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:00:49 -0400, "John Keeney" >
wrote:

>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>> Guy Alcala wrote:
>> > After that the USAF decided to go
>> > over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
>> > (presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their
>fighters and
>> > bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be
>more
>> > reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c
>that can
>> > be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.
>>
>> Will the F-35B be the first USAF aircraft since then to be built with
>> just a probe?
>
>Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
>Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
>refuelers during the last 30 some years.
>
A-7D?

[Henry J Cobb]

John Keeney wrote:
> Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
> Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
> refuelers during the last 30 some years.

How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?

Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

-HJC

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:17:23 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
>to fly the boom.

The boom handler is a pilot? Why?

There used to be a joke about flying up dead-end canyons: don't do it
unless you've learned how to fly a plane backwards. Presumably a boom
operator could do just that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Buzzer > writes:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:00:49 -0400, "John Keeney" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>> Guy Alcala wrote:
>>> > After that the USAF decided to go
>>> > over completely to the boom/receptacle method, as their tankers would
>>> > (presumably) always have airbases to operate from, just as their
>>fighters and
>>> > bombers would. The boom gives better transfer rates and seems to be
>>more
>>> > reliable and easier to tank from, but it does limit the types of a/c
>>that can
>>> > be tankers, and it requires a lot more money and work to convert.
>>>
>>> Will the F-35B be the first USAF aircraft since then to be built with
>>> just a probe?
>>
>>Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
>>Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
>>refuelers during the last 30 some years.
>>
> A-7D?

Nope. The Air Force's A-7s had a slipway & boom socket on the upper
fuselage. The only non-helicopter probe-only USAF airplane I can thig
of, post 1960, was the A-37.

I wouldn't doubt that if teh USAF were to take on an F-35B flavor,
that it would have a boom recepticle fitted. It's not a hard thing to
do, and it doesn't take up much space.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Henry J Cobb > writes:
> John Keeney wrote:
>> Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
>> Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
>> refuelers during the last 30 some years.
>
> How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?

Somewhere around 95 - all the HC-130s and MC-130s have been set up for
it.


> Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

The USAF actually has more than the marines. The USMC's got 75
KC-130s - many of those are set up for refuelling fixed-wing
aircraft. That requires a different hosereel & drogue.

One more, Henry typed before gaining even the most basic understanding
of his subject.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
> > Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
> > refuelers during the last 30 some years.
>
> How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?
>
> Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)

Never heard of the old HC-130? Now renamed MC-130P, IIRC?

Brooks
>
> -HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>And then you've got three pilots.
> >>
> >>One pilot for each aircraft and then somebody in the back of the tanker
> >>to fly the boom.
> >
> > The boom operator is neither trained nor paid as a pilot, so your point
> > would be...?
>
> "Fly the boom" is a common phrase in the USAF.
>
> http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/Feb/0226-03.htm
>
> You need three people adjusting airfoils to make boom refueling work.
>
> That's one more person than is needed for a probe and drogue refueling.
>
> Heck, you could make an unmanned tanker for probe and drogue refueling.

You are still not making any sense. A boom operator is not a pilot. Flying
boom tankers are proven to handle a greater transfer rate than
hose-and-drogue tankers. So again, your point would be...?

Brooks
>
> -HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Henry J Cobb > writes:
> > John Keeney wrote:
> >> Clearly USAF helicopters have been built with "just a probe".
> >> Outside of the rotory wings I can't think of any USAF probe
> >> refuelers during the last 30 some years.
> >
> > How many helicopter capable tankers does the USAF have?
>
> Somewhere around 95 - all the HC-130s and MC-130s have been set up for
> it.
>
>
> > Or do they have to call in the Marines? ;-)
>
> The USAF actually has more than the marines. The USMC's got 75
> KC-130s - many of those are set up for refuelling fixed-wing
> aircraft. That requires a different hosereel & drogue.
>
> One more, Henry typed before gaining even the most basic understanding
> of his subject.

Don't tell me you are surprised by that...? :-)

Brooks

>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster