Q: Buddy store internal fuel?

It came to my mind after reading Lt Stone "A Bridge Too Far" article in
February "Proceedings" that it might be not felt as any special
nobilitation for a fighter pilot to fly tanker missions?

Attack or anti-sub flyers, who probably were more used to "making
history" than to "making movies", and performing support missions more
frequently, probably would not complain. But for a real fighter,
trained for CAP, escort and dogfight?

Though now everything becomes strike fighter communities, so it is
different to tell who is attack and who is fighter pilot;-)

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

In 1957 our North American Fury FJ-4Bs were equipped with buddy stores. The
right wing drop tank carried the basket, hose, reel, valves, switches, etc.
and the left wing drop tank carried just fuel and valves.

WDA

end

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

TIA,

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

My thanks to all who replied.

Guy

In article , l (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.

The same trick is used for Russian Soyuz booster rockets which are
kerosene and liquid oxygen. It doesn't add much performance, but with
satellite launchers, something cheap that stays on the ground is welcome.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

"Mike Kanze" wrote:

Peter,

Thanks for the additional perspective.

I recall seeing a photo long ago of a P2V-1 (?) being fueled for a very long
range flight. The fuel lines from the bowser to the aircraft were all packed
in dry ice for the same reason.

Yes, that was the Truculent Turtle and 'was' a P2V-1. it flew
from New Zealand (?) to somewhere in the States...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Still about this article in "Procedings", because I am afraid my remark
was not what I really wanted to say:

The title "A Bridge Too Far" illustrated by a picture of VFA-94's
F/A-18C refueled by VFA-41's F/A-18F apparently suggests that adopting
Super Hornets to the tanker role was not a good idea...

What's more, in the text the author criticizes replacing a
10-million-dollar tanker (good, but weary S-3B) by a 70-million-dollar
one (brand-new F/A-18E/F). It really surprised me!

And where are these stories about "flying the wings off the planes"
when Vikings were utilized very intensively as tankers???

According to AFM, in OIF VFA-115, additionally charged with tanker
sorties (an S-3B squadron still aboard, too) averaged 30 sorties a day
when other squadrons averaged 20...

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo