![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When was the first modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean
"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)". This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems would not be compatible with a modern airplane. For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done? Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy system works. -Charles Talleyrand |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, Charles Talleyrand writes When was the first modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean "compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)". This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems would not be compatible with a modern airplane. AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems. http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-c...-air-refuellin g-takes-off.aspx For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done? Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy system works. Possibly FR again. I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen, a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo? -Charles Talleyrand -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 3, 12:57*pm, Peter Twydell wrote:
In message , Charles Talleyrand writesWhen was the first modern air-air refueling? *By modern I mean "compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)". This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems would not be compatible with a modern airplane. AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems. http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-c...r-to-air-refue... g-takes-off.aspx That's true. But the early work by them was using the "loop" method, and a modern F-18 could not hook up. The early KC-29s were also incompatible. For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done? Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy system works. Possibly FR again. I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen, a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo? I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. -Randy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, Charles Talleyrand writes On Jun 3, 12:57*pm, Peter Twydell wrote: In message , Charles Talleyrand writesWhen was the first modern air-air refueling? *By modern I mean "compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)". This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems would not be compatible with a modern airplane. AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems. http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-c...r-to-air-refue... g-takes-off.aspx That's true. But the early work by them was using the "loop" method, and a modern F-18 could not hook up. The early KC-29s were also incompatible. Yes, the early work was the loop method, as the article says. Read it carefully and you'll see that they developed the probe and drogue system, which is one of the two modern systems. The latest versions might well differ from the early ones, but the principle is the same. FR (now Cobham) have always been at the forefront, so it's probably them in any case. For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done? Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy system works. Possibly FR again. I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen, a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo? I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. Depends how much the receiver needs, I suppose. Enough to get you back to the carrier would do. -Randy -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote:
In message , Charles Talleyrand writes On Jun 3, 12:57 pm, Peter Twydell wrote: In message , Charles Talleyrand writesWhen was the first modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean "compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)". This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems would not be compatible with a modern airplane. AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems. http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-c...r-to-air-refue.... g-takes-off.aspx That's true. *But the early work by them was using the "loop" method, and a modern F-18 could not hook up. *The early KC-29s were also incompatible. Yes, the early work was the loop method, as the article says. Read it carefully and you'll see that they developed the probe and drogue system, which is one of the two modern systems. The latest versions might well differ from the early ones, but the principle is the same. FR (now Cobham) have always been at the forefront, so it's probably them in any case. For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done? Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy system works. Possibly FR again. I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen, a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo? I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. Depends how much the receiver needs, I suppose. Enough to get you back to the carrier would do. -Randy -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "guy" wrote in message ... On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote: Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/ Lincolns for the assault on Japan? Guy Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay. 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations. Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable. Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs. Keith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about 10K total to give. Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6 for the recovery. Might get a bit more by consolidating from the offgoing tanker. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 3, 11:05*pm, "John Weiss" wrote:
Charles Talleyrand wrote: I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about 10K total to give. *Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6 for the recovery. *Might get a bit more by consolidating from the offgoing tanker. Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks. -Still learning -Charles |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:05 pm, "John Weiss" wrote: Charles Talleyrand wrote: I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about 10K total to give. Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6 for the recovery. Might get a bit more by consolidating from the offgoing tanker. Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks. -Still learning -Charles The buddy refuel was to top off an aircraft that was cat launched. That way the receiving aircraft could launch with more ordnance and replace the fuel used during launch. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know when this was developed. There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing something. In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about 10K total to give. *Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6 for the recovery. *Might get a bit more by consolidating from the offgoing tanker. Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks. An F-4 or A-6 burned 4-5,000 pph at loiter; an A-7 less. The 2K off the cat was essentially a top-off after the afterburner takeoff and climb so the F-4 left the carrier at altitude (~5,000') with full tanks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best modern jet fighter??? | Icarus | Military Aviation | 19 | November 28th 11 10:57 PM |
Modern Air Travel | Canuck[_8_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 22nd 09 06:16 PM |
Modern Life | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 30 | March 1st 07 02:12 PM |
Best modern jet fighter | Icarus | Military Aviation | 28 | September 22nd 04 02:51 PM |
Modern aces | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 12 | January 12th 04 11:06 PM |