Trying to find resources on tanker history

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 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

"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.

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?

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

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

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

"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

"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