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