Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- From: Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAMLESS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:48:36 GMT
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:38:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
<g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 shit 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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- From: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal
- Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- From: Guy Alcala
- Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- References:
- Prev by Date: "'Marine One' finds home at Nixon site"
- Next by Date: Re: 15 million bombs...???
- Previous by thread: Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- Next by thread: Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
