Conference repair::reserve_forces

Note 113.56                   Are you warm enough?                      56 of 60
AKOV12::BURKLEY                                      28 lines  10-SEP-1990 18:19
                 -< The Media Goes on a Desert Shield Mission >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anybody from New Hampshire or Mass watch the Channel 9 Manchester, NH
    Six O'Clock News last Friday (9/7)?
    
    They had a minute and half spot on the New Hampshire Air National
    Guard tankers taking part in Desert Shield.  They flew that Friday
    morning with a crew, refueling a C141 mid-air enroute to somewhere east
    for Desert Shield.  I heard they had a ten minute version as well,
    but I was too busy getting crew rest and sleeping for the next
    mission to worry about trying to see that one.
    
    I was one of the crew members (sitting sideways) on that mission with
    the TV crew and Manchester Union Leader newspaper reporters.  Our
    mission was only 3 hours for these guys and went very smooth and
    routine.  They couldn't get over 'how close the other plane gets' when
    refueling on the boom.  Guess they thought we used the probe and drogue
    method like the RAF and U.S. Navy (i.e., a considerable length of hose
    reeled out from behind).  
    
    I got some face time -- but the two colonels that went along hogged all
    the seat and camera time.  Next to the actual refueling, the reporters
    couldn't get over the fact that we really did 'synchronize our watches
    like the movies before a mission.'  They were so impressed, they had us
    recreate the pre-mission crew briefing after we landed--complete with
    another time hack...  Otherwise, they asked some tough questions like
    "So do you want to go to Saudi?".
    
    Rodger Burkley
    Major, NHANG                     

MSBCS::TARMEY                                        16 lines  11-SEP-1990 12:13
                     -< size could make a difference too >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .56
    
    A quick question on distances.  Roughly how long is the boom?  I never
    considered that it was significantly shorter than than the hose and
    drogue.  I have one refueling experience.....on the receiving end.  I
    was in the right seat of an A-3 that tanked from an A-4, and have some
    movies of it.  I've only seen photos of an AF refueling, but they don't
    seem to be that much different....at least in distance.
    
    The major difference might be one of perspective.  The boom arcs
    downward, whereas the drogue trails more in the slipstream.  Physical
    separation is probably not much different, it just appears so.
    
    Am I far off (no pun intended)?
    
    	Bill Tarmey

AKOV12::BURKLEY                                      39 lines  11-SEP-1990 16:09
                        -< Tankers -- We pass the gas >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Re -.1, some general info and trivia.                       
    
    The total distance including the external/flying boom housing and inner 
    sliding tube is 30 feet fully extended.  The inner limit is 15 feet.
    Azimuth limits are about 30 degrees left and right.  Typically, the
    boom trails down at 30 degrees elevation.  Air refueling speeds and
    altitude vary with type of receiver involved.  
    
    Maybe this distance is the same for your Navy 'buddy refuelings' using
    the A4 tankers.  Since they're refueling smaller/fighter type aircraft,
    they can use a shorter hose.  I think they refuel in wing formation
    after the initial hookup.  Photos I've seen of early USAF and RAF probe 
    and drogue refuelings showed  trailing hoses of 75 feet or more. This 
    made it 'easier' for larger aircraft for multiple aircraft to refuel 
    from at the same time.  Ultimately, SAC went to the flying boom
    approach developed by Boeing which placed the task of hooking up
    squarely in the boom operator's hands--and not just the receiver
    pilot's as with the probe/drogue technique.   Besides, the flexible 
    hoses tend to bind up and kink if one isn't too careful...
    
    RE my comments about closeness, remember that not all receptacles are
    located at the very tip of the receiver's nose.  Most are located aft
    along the upper fuselage behind the flight deck or cockpit for large
    A/C and on the inner wing leading edge for fighters.  The F4 receptacle 
    was particularly located well aft.  This places the nose/canopy of the 
    receiver almost directly beneath the boom pod in contact position.  Thus 
    the 'feeling' of close proximity.   
    
    Incidently, KC-135s can refuel the U.S. Navy and RAF aircraft if
    pre-configured with a non-detachable and short-hosed drogue at the 
    tip of the boom.  I think the hose portion is ten feet or so.
    
    In light of the Desert Shield airlift, I'm sure the USAF is glad they
    had Lockheed modify old C-141A transports with air refueling
    receptacles when they did the C-141B stretch and upgrade program during
    the mid-70s.  The C-141A models couldn't be refueled inflight.
           
    Rodger
    

18955::KEEFE "walk swiftly with a porpoise"           7 lines  11-SEP-1990 17:57
               -< not to carry on the tanker discussion, but.. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Isn't the rate of fuel greater/faster with the boom method? I thought
    that that was one reason the Air Force opted for the boom.
    
     KC-10's have both.
    
    Kevin_who's_infantry_but_sure_would_like_to_go_up_on_a_refueling_mission!
    

AKOV12::BURKLEY                                      15 lines  11-SEP-1990 18:17
                      -< Not your 'garden hose' variety >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE - .1, not really.  The hose isn't the limiting factor RE transfer
    rate.  The receiver aircraft's refueling system itself is the
    bottleneck.  We can use up to 4 pumps simultaneously for transfer, and
    that applies to either a straight boom refueling or drogue-equipped
    boom refueling.  It just so happens that most probe/drogue refuelers
    are smaller fighter-type aircraft that can get 'blown off' the boom
    if too many pumps (pressure) are used. 
    
    I can't speak for other tanker aircraft and their transfer rates, though.  
    
    So more trivia:  Using all four pumps we could fill up your car's empty 
    20 gallon gas tank in 1.3 seconds. 
    
    Consult appropriate back issues of "Aviation Week" for further tanker
    info.  I'm amazed what you can read there that is classified for us.

    Couple of trivia:
    
    Is it true that helicopters can be refuelled in mid-air now? 
    
    During the Falklands war in 1982 I read that the only way a C130 could
    be refuelled in mid-air was to put the 2 planes in a dive as the top
    speed for level flight in a Herc was less than the stalling speed for
    whatever was used to refuel it.  
    
    Dave  

    Yes, they've been refueling helicopters inflight for some time now.
    Don't know my 'copter nomenclature, but the big Sikorsky Sea Lion
    and Jolley Green types can be refueled using the probe/drogue system--
    albeit, a long refueling probe tube!.  Typically, a C130 provides the 
    gas.
    
    Also, the KC135 does refuel C130s using the standard flying boom
    system.  The 130's receptacle is located on the upper fuselage just
    behind the flight deck.  Believe me, those big and close rotating
    propos really catch your eye and attention when closing for a hook-up.
    
    The manuever you refer to is called the 'toboggan'.  That's when both
    aircraft go into a shallow constant airspeed descent when one of the 
    aircraft can't maintain air refueling speed for design, loading, or
    some other performance reason.  The old KC97 piston engine tankers used
    to toboggan when refueling the all jet engined B47s.  Also, some of the
    heavily laden 'Century Series' fighters had to toboggan to keep from 
    'falling off the boom'.  
    
      However, I've never had to nor heard of other 135s having to do a 
    toboggan manuever against a 130.  Not saying it's not done.  It 
    just isn't mandatory or common--at least for routine training missions, 
    fuel offloads, etc.  Of course, the C130 AR speed is VERY slow--so is the
    altitude.  I can't say the exact speed, but the 135 has to slow WAY 
    down with flaps, etc. to 'be on speed'.  Consequently, our angle of
    attack is high and the floor really slopes BACK quite a bit when walking
    to or back up from the boom pod.  Naturally, this affects our
    manevering agility/responsiveness (refer to the previous verbage about
    the C130 props!). 
    
    Finally, a bit a trivia--the refueling speed for the slow moving
    C130 is the same for the A10 jet fighter!  Perhaps this fact explains
    why combat survivability is a concern and issue for the A10s.
    It also explains somewhat why you see A10s literally hugging the
    ground.  Speed is not their strong suit--but oh that strong 'Hersey
    Bar' wing and big cannon! 
    
    REB
    

    
    RE:  Tanking helio-choppers
    
    I seem to recall that Clancy described this very well in "A Clear and
    Present Danger".  The Tanker was a C-130.
    
    Aerial refueling for the Navy is step two of most missions.  Step on
    being launching from the Boat.  Launching of a fully loaded Attack or
    Fighter Aircraft sucks up mucho fuel.
    
    	Bill Tarmey

    Air refueling is also Step 2 for most USAF missions.  Receivers can
    take off with more ordinance or cargo and then get topped off
    immediately/soon after T.O.  In fact, they can take on max/max fuel
    up till their inflight maximum gross weight, rather than their T.O.
    max gross weight.  Besides, afterburner take-offs are standard
    procedure for the Air Force as well. 
    
    AR is also step 4 as well (i.e., post strike or an additional enroute
    onload).  In Southeast Asia, tankers were literally parked 24 hours a
    day in certain anchors--just boring holes in the sky refueling whoever
    showed up (from our side, that is!). 
    
    My Navy friends tell me that C130s are used quite a bit for fighter
    refuelings as they carry more fuel and drogue stations than the A6
    buddy tankers.
    
    Rodger