Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:22:33 GMT, "Diamond Jim"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

I am not sure, what is the opinion on that of this group, but I guess
the hose-and-drogue system must be cheaper, though seems to required
more pilot skills (as the only one to get the connection, with no
operator from the tanker manoeuvering the device).

Also, hose-and-drogue is more, "portable", easier to adapt on smaller
planes (can you imagine F/A-18E with the flying boom?;-)))

Navy and Marine Corps strike packages - often composed of 24 aircraft -
have required as many as four KC-135s to meet their refueling needs.

One thing to keep in mind. When your in the middle of the Pacific with no
ship or island to land on, and you need fuel, who do you want to depend on?
The guy flying the boom who may be having a bad day, or do you want to
depend on your own skills? (After all you have told everybody in every club
from Cubi Point to Naples, and all over the world that you are the greatest
fighter pilot that ever flew!). All kidding aside, I am sure that the guys
flying the boom are dedicated professionals, but the guy in the cockpit has
a little more motivation to get it right.

There have only been a few aircraft with dual system receiver
capability. The only two I can recall are the F-105 and the F-101.
I've got hundreds and maybe thousands of tanker hook-ups, but only a
handful of drogue sticks. In my limited experience in one aircraft
that had the capability, I will state unequivocally that stabbing a
drogue in the F-105 is the single hardest task I have ever performed
in an airplane. (Please no "mile-high club in a fighter" jokes.)

Different aircraft with different probe locations can provide
different experiences, but with a retractable probe on the F-105 the
aircraft boundary layer airflow caused big interference with the
movement of the drogue as you got within range.

There are a number of factors involved in the debate, not the least of
which is the transfer rate for boom vs drogue. In a heavily loaded
aircraft as part of a large package requiring large volume transfers,
the faster you can take gas the better off you are. Getting a flight
of four through the tanker and then getting them all topped off so
that you drop off with everyone at the same state is critical. Slow
the transfer rate or make the hookup tougher and things go to hell
quickly.

As for the "who do you trust" question, I've been behind boomers in
training and the crustiest National Guard E-9s who have been doing it
for a zillion years. That old-timer could reach out and grab you if he
could see you. The newbie sometimes was timid, but I've never seen
anyone miss gas because of a boomer.

(For F-105 types, you could always tell the boomer to simply hold it
in place and you could fly the receptacle onto the boom. For F-4s
where the receptacle is behind your head, that option was not
available, but if you could fly formation you could get gas.)
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:22:33 GMT, "Diamond Jim"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

I am not sure, what is the opinion on that of this group, but I guess
the hose-and-drogue system must be cheaper, though seems to required
more pilot skills (as the only one to get the connection, with no
operator from the tanker manoeuvering the device).

Also, hose-and-drogue is more, "portable", easier to adapt on smaller
planes (can you imagine F/A-18E with the flying boom?;-)))

Navy and Marine Corps strike packages - often composed of 24 aircraft -
have required as many as four KC-135s to meet their refueling needs.

One thing to keep in mind. When your in the middle of the Pacific with no
ship or island to land on, and you need fuel, who do you want to depend on?
The guy flying the boom who may be having a bad day, or do you want to
depend on your own skills? (After all you have told everybody in every club
from Cubi Point to Naples, and all over the world that you are the greatest
fighter pilot that ever flew!). All kidding aside, I am sure that the guys
flying the boom are dedicated professionals, but the guy in the cockpit has
a little more motivation to get it right.

There have only been a few aircraft with dual system receiver
capability. The only two I can recall are the F-105 and the F-101.
I've got hundreds and maybe thousands of tanker hook-ups, but only a
handful of drogue sticks. In my limited experience in one aircraft
that had the capability, I will state unequivocally that stabbing a
drogue in the F-105 is the single hardest task I have ever performed
in an airplane. (Please no "mile-high club in a fighter" jokes.)

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

"A Navy tanker cannot refuel an Air Force fighter [caveats about probe-equipped
USAF noted], nor can an Air Force tanker give fuel to a Navy receiver except in
the remote circumstance that the tanker happens to be configured with a
rinky-dink afterthought drogue attachment that bounces around like the Good Ship
Lollipop, and is nearly as impossible to plug into."



Different aircraft with different probe locations can provide
different experiences, but with a retractable probe on the F-105 the
aircraft boundary layer airflow caused big interference with the
movement of the drogue as you got within range.

There are a number of factors involved in the debate, not the least of
which is the transfer rate for boom vs drogue. In a heavily loaded
aircraft as part of a large package requiring large volume transfers,
the faster you can take gas the better off you are. Getting a flight
of four through the tanker and then getting them all topped off so
that you drop off with everyone at the same state is critical. Slow
the transfer rate or make the hookup tougher and things go to hell
quickly.

Then you have to add in the effects of multi-point refueling into the mix. BTW,
did you ever have a tanker unable to pass you gas?

Guy

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

There have only been a few aircraft with dual system receiver
capability. The only two I can recall are the F-105 and the F-101.
I've got hundreds and maybe thousands of tanker hook-ups, but only a
handful of drogue sticks. In my limited experience in one aircraft
that had the capability, I will state unequivocally that stabbing a
drogue in the F-105 is the single hardest task I have ever performed
in an airplane. (Please no "mile-high club in a fighter" jokes.)

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

I didn't say it was good, just that it was the hardest thing I ever
tried to do. I really don't relate it to the installation on the
tanker. It should have been fairly straightforward since the boom
extended the drogue well below any turbulence off the tanker. I
attributed it to the short probe (retractable) on the F-105.

When flying with F-100F Weasels, I never noted them having anywhere
near the difficulty that we did in getting gas using their wing
mounted probe.


There are a number of factors involved in the debate, not the least of
which is the transfer rate for boom vs drogue. In a heavily loaded
aircraft as part of a large package requiring large volume transfers,
the faster you can take gas the better off you are. Getting a flight
of four through the tanker and then getting them all topped off so
that you drop off with everyone at the same state is critical. Slow
the transfer rate or make the hookup tougher and things go to hell
quickly.

Then you have to add in the effects of multi-point refueling into the mix. BTW,
did you ever have a tanker unable to pass you gas?

Guy

I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't
think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few
feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue.
Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of
someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off
and the picture gets pretty scary.

Never had a tanker unable, but have heard of the situation. I relate a
personal screw-up story in Palace Cobra in which I got saved by an
emergency tanker and in that instance the controllers ran a second
tanker in two mile trail with the primary just to cover that
eventuality.

It was somewhat common in the F-4 to have receptacle door problems
which could usually be cured by the boomer hammering to pop it open or
tap it closed. Occasionally "knuckles" on the boom wouldn't grab the
receptacle (or vice-versa) and it simply took a request for the boomer
to keep pressure on the hookup and you could get gas.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

I didn't say it was good, just that it was the hardest thing I ever
tried to do. I really don't relate it to the installation on the
tanker. It should have been fairly straightforward since the boom
extended the drogue well below any turbulence off the tanker. I
attributed it to the short probe (retractable) on the F-105.

When flying with F-100F Weasels, I never noted them having anywhere
near the difficulty that we did in getting gas using their wing
mounted probe.

It would be interesting to see if any F-105 drivers had tanked from regular drogues
and what their experience was. AIUI, the problem with the KC-135 add-ons were two:
1. Lack of hose length (low inertia due to the lack of hose weight causing it to
bounce around a lot), and 2. The heavy metal fitting just forward of the drogue,
which (because of the wild flailing of the drogue due to item 1) was perfectly
capable of smashing the canopy and/or the pilot's head if it made contact. At least
the first was apparently a not-unknown occurrence, which is why many navy pilots seem
to have been actually afraid of the system.

snip

Then you have to add in the effects of multi-point refueling into the mix. BTW,
did you ever have a tanker unable to pass you gas?

Guy

I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't
think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few
feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue.
Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of
someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off
and the picture gets pretty scary.

At least one account I've read, IIRR the flight lead puts his less-experienced
wingman on the left hose, because it's safer and more comfortable (because the pilot
can see both the hose, the tanker and the other fighter without turning his head a
lot), while the more experienced lead is on the right where the view is more
limited. Offhand I don't recall reading any problems as to who comes off which side
(back up to unkink the hose, then clear away from the tanker seems pretty
instinctive), but we've got several people here who can inform us otherwise if that's
the case.


Never had a tanker unable, but have heard of the situation. I relate a
personal screw-up story in Palace Cobra in which I got saved by an
emergency tanker and in that instance the controllers ran a second
tanker in two mile trail with the primary just to cover that
eventuality.

I've always assumed they would have a spare tanker per anchor.

It was somewhat common in the F-4 to have receptacle door problems
which could usually be cured by the boomer hammering to pop it open or
tap it closed.

Nothing like using an expensive, relatively high tech piece of equipment as a
hammer;-) I wonder if the KC-10s do that with what are presumably far more expensive
FBW booms?

Guy

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:27:32 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

I didn't say it was good, just that it was the hardest thing I ever
tried to do. I really don't relate it to the installation on the
tanker. It should have been fairly straightforward since the boom
extended the drogue well below any turbulence off the tanker. I
attributed it to the short probe (retractable) on the F-105.

When flying with F-100F Weasels, I never noted them having anywhere
near the difficulty that we did in getting gas using their wing
mounted probe.

It would be interesting to see if any F-105 drivers had tanked from regular drogues
and what their experience was. AIUI, the problem with the KC-135 add-ons were two:
1. Lack of hose length (low inertia due to the lack of hose weight causing it to
bounce around a lot), and 2. The heavy metal fitting just forward of the drogue,
which (because of the wild flailing of the drogue due to item 1) was perfectly
capable of smashing the canopy and/or the pilot's head if it made contact. At least
the first was apparently a not-unknown occurrence, which is why many navy pilots seem
to have been actually afraid of the system.

The hose on the KC-135 drogue was 12 feet, which sounds like a lot of
range for formation flying, but turns out not to be all that much in
practice.

I never really noticed any turbulence for the drogue in my limited
experience. The issue was pilot technique. The first thing we learned
was that it was virtually impossible to fly the probe into the drogue.
Any attempt to control the end game usually resulted in some form of
PIO gyrations and no hookup.

Best method was to stabilize several feet behind the drogue with the
probe lined up. If you could, line up the probe for about the ten
o'clock position on the basket. Then look straight forward and push
the throttle up to move ahead. Don't look at the drogue. Ideally you
would fly into the basket. More commonly as you closed the airflow
over the nose would push the basket smoothly up and away from the
aircraft.

In the worst case scenario the probe would hook the corner of the
basket nearest the airplane. Two possibilities then--either the probe
would slide into the funnel and connect or the probe would tip the
basket off and it would then flail leading to the aircraft impact you
describe. Even worse situation would be catching the basket, bending
the probe and ripping off the hose leaving unretractable probe
tenously holding heavy metal lined basket and x number of feet of hose
thrashing the side of the airplane in front of your left intake.

We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th
CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had
brought it home on a flight.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed,

More commonly as you closed the airflow over the nose would push the basket smoothly up and away from the aircraft.

This was especially true of the A-6, with its huge, blunt nose. More generally, this was perhaps the trickiest part of learning how to plug - especially at night.

--
Mike Kanze

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."

- Frank Zappa

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:27:32 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):

I didn't say it was good, just that it was the hardest thing I ever
tried to do. I really don't relate it to the installation on the
tanker. It should have been fairly straightforward since the boom
extended the drogue well below any turbulence off the tanker. I
attributed it to the short probe (retractable) on the F-105.

When flying with F-100F Weasels, I never noted them having anywhere
near the difficulty that we did in getting gas using their wing
mounted probe.

It would be interesting to see if any F-105 drivers had tanked from regular drogues
and what their experience was. AIUI, the problem with the KC-135 add-ons were two:
1. Lack of hose length (low inertia due to the lack of hose weight causing it to
bounce around a lot), and 2. The heavy metal fitting just forward of the drogue,
which (because of the wild flailing of the drogue due to item 1) was perfectly
capable of smashing the canopy and/or the pilot's head if it made contact. At least
the first was apparently a not-unknown occurrence, which is why many navy pilots seem
to have been actually afraid of the system.

The hose on the KC-135 drogue was 12 feet, which sounds like a lot of
range for formation flying, but turns out not to be all that much in
practice.

I never really noticed any turbulence for the drogue in my limited
experience. The issue was pilot technique. The first thing we learned
was that it was virtually impossible to fly the probe into the drogue.
Any attempt to control the end game usually resulted in some form of
PIO gyrations and no hookup.

Best method was to stabilize several feet behind the drogue with the
probe lined up. If you could, line up the probe for about the ten
o'clock position on the basket. Then look straight forward and push
the throttle up to move ahead. Don't look at the drogue. Ideally you
would fly into the basket. More commonly as you closed the airflow
over the nose would push the basket smoothly up and away from the
aircraft.

In the worst case scenario the probe would hook the corner of the
basket nearest the airplane. Two possibilities then--either the probe
would slide into the funnel and connect or the probe would tip the
basket off and it would then flail leading to the aircraft impact you
describe. Even worse situation would be catching the basket, bending
the probe and ripping off the hose leaving unretractable probe
tenously holding heavy metal lined basket and x number of feet of hose
thrashing the side of the airplane in front of your left intake.

We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th
CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had
brought it home on a flight.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

In the worst case scenario the probe would hook the corner of the
basket nearest the airplane. Two possibilities then--either the probe
would slide into the funnel and connect or the probe would tip the
basket off and it would then flail leading to the aircraft impact you
describe. Even worse situation would be catching the basket, bending
the probe and ripping off the hose leaving unretractable probe
tenously holding heavy metal lined basket and x number of feet of hose
thrashing the side of the airplane in front of your left intake.

We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th
CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had
brought it home on a flight.

So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a
landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-)

Guy

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:54:29 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

In the worst case scenario the probe would hook the corner of the
basket nearest the airplane. Two possibilities then--either the probe
would slide into the funnel and connect or the probe would tip the
basket off and it would then flail leading to the aircraft impact you
describe. Even worse situation would be catching the basket, bending
the probe and ripping off the hose leaving unretractable probe
tenously holding heavy metal lined basket and x number of feet of hose
thrashing the side of the airplane in front of your left intake.

We had a souvenier basket in the squadron briefing room in the 4526th
CCTS at Nellis when I checked out. A student in a prior class had
brought it home on a flight.

So, was part of the hose still attached when he landed, or had it broken off? Making a
landing in the former case would be, uh, interesting;-)

Guy

Hah! You recall I mentioned that the hose was twelve feet from
connection knuckle to basket fitting. If you've ever stood next to a
Thunderchief you would appreciated that even if all 12 feet had been
grabbed, the hose would not quite reach the ground.

He only had about three feet of hose and most of it shredded away. The
real concern was that either the basket was going to come off the
probe or the probe was going to break off and go down the intake to
FOD the engine.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On 7/1/06 8:48 AM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole
drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with
experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on
a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):


Guy,

I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence
on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden."
The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge.



I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't
think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few
feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue.
Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of
someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off
and the picture gets pretty scary.


Multiple receiver stuff isn't that hard. Truly, the guy on the other side
is merely an afterthought--except I seem to remember that on the Brits'
Victor, there was a significant aileron trim required to keep the jet from
turning inboard. The wingtip vortices always were trying to pull you in.

--Woody

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

On 7/1/06 8:48 AM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed, you only did that on a KC-135, right? If so, I submit that your sole
drogue
experience is with the drogue universally acknowledged (by those with
experience
of 'real' hose and drogues) to be the worst piece of **** ever to be stuck on
a
tanker. Grabbing the first account to hand, John Trotti's ("Phantom over
Vietnam"):


Guy,

I'm personally of the opinion that it is MUCH harder to tank in turbulence
on a WARPS or WOPR (wing mounted KC-135 or KC-10) than on the "iron maiden."
The hoses are so long that the effects of turbulence become huge.

Thanks. That's 180 deg. from every other opinion I've read (and the explanations
for the difficulty), so it just goes to show that when it's a matter of opinion
there's rarely 100% agreement on anything. I wonder if this might be a/c specific -
which a/c were you flying in which you experienced both locations so you could
compare?

I've never been behind a multiple receiver capable tanker. I don't
think I'd be very comfortable knowing that someone else was just a few
feet off my wingtip, not looking at me and trying to chase a drogue.
Throw in night or weather and the inevitable "Murphy" factor of
someone forgetting which side to come off the hookup after topping off
and the picture gets pretty scary.


Multiple receiver stuff isn't that hard. Truly, the guy on the other side
is merely an afterthought--except I seem to remember that on the Brits'
Victor, there was a significant aileron trim required to keep the jet from
turning inboard. The wingtip vortices always were trying to pull you in.

As another example of a/c specific refueling behavior, an acquaintance, ex A-7E,
mentioned that he found it easier to tank off an A-4 carrying a buddy store on the
C/L, than off an A-7 carrying one underwing. IIRC, he said that with the A-7 his
vertical tail was in the tanker's wing vortice, and a fair amount of cross-control
was needed. Not a big deal either way, but something he was aware of.

So that brings up another question. In the opinion of pilots here, preferably with
direct personal experience, what was the easiest/hardest combination of tanker and
receiver? Do you know of any combinations that weren't cleared for refueling? If
you want to offer opinions based on what you've heard from other people that's fine,
but secondhand information is, well, secondhand;-)

Guy