Re: Air Force names fighter jet after city of Branson

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article <43C5E41D.9EF66544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Guy Alcala <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > "> > Since the KB-29's first refuelings were with gasoline-powered planes
> > > > (they were too slow for even the early USAF jets)"
> >
> > The F-84 is an "early USAF jet" by anyone's standards, so the KB-29s
> > were clearly not "too slow" to refuel them. F-86s with
> > probe-equipped tanks were also refueled, albeit (AFAIK) not on combat
> > missions.
>
> Actually, the reason they had to go with the up-engined KB-50 was that
> the KB-29 *was* too slow to reliably refuel the jets of the time. They
> could sorta, kinda hook up, but it was right on the edges of control for
> both planes.

Seems to me the KB-50 (with jet boost), along with the KC-97 (ditto), was as
much a question of increasing refueling _altitudes_ as boosting speeds,
although the limited KB-29 tanking KIAS was certainly an issue (see below).
And then there was the phase-out of the B-29s in general, and passing of the
B-50s (modified into KB-50Js) from SAC to TAC. Assuming the KB-29s had stuck
around, I'm sure they would have received the jet pods for the same reasons.
As to tanking difficulties, specifically with the probe-equipped tanks, here's
Maj. Gen (USAF Ret) 'Tom' Collins, the project officer who taught the ANG
outfits how to do it:

"The receiver pilot was made aware that fuel was being received by that wing
rapidly feeling heavy. During the tests, I found that an extremely dangerous
situation could develop if one tip tank was allowed to fill fully with the tip
tank on the opposite wing empty.

"At the fastest fuel flow rates [ca. 275USG/min. per Collins] this could happen
very rapidly (about one minute) and several times I found myself rolling
uncontrollably at very low airspeed when the weight of the full tank presented
an assymetric moment beyond the rolling authority of even full aileron (full
stick). To avoid this potentially non-habit forming condition, I developed a
technique to disconnect from the tanker when one-half lateral control stick
deflection was required to maintain level flight. Then contact of the probe
into the drogue could be made on the opposite tip tank and it could be filled
completely. A disconnect and re-contact would then be made to top-off the tank
which was only partially filled.

"Although that procedure required three separate contacts, it was more
acceptable than spinning-in uncontrollably or attempting an extremely dangerous
jettisoning of a full tank during a rapid roll at low airspeed when the tip
tank might try to join you in the cockpit. I trained all the FEAF pilots on
this technique and some of the 'doubters' found out the hard way that one full
tip tank and low airspeed do not mix.

"Making contact with the drogue was much more difficult than it appeared.
Since the tip of the drogue was virtually at 90 deg. to the pilot, this kind of
air-refueling put a tremendous premium on depth perception. Additionally, the
tanker could only produce an airspeed of about 190mph [165kts (306km/h)] in
level flight, even at full power, and this presented some control problems for
the fighters. Naturally, turbulence added even further challenges with
everything flying around at once.

"Of all the pilots I trained, none ever collected on my standing offer of a
considerable prize to any who made successful contact on the first try."


> Not to mention, of course, that the F-84 wasn't air-refuelable until a
> year or so *after* the KB-29 was named the KB-29...

I don't see how that's relevant as to whether or not the KB-29 could refuel
early jets. Be that as it may, the original KB-29Ms used the looped hose method
which was OK for multi-crew bombers (B-50D Lucky Lady II was so refueled on its
around-the-world flight in 1949) but not single-seat fighters, so in 1948 the
USAF asked Alan Cobham (Flight Refueling Ltd.) to develop a refueling method
suitable for the latter. He came up with the probe and drogue system. At the
end of 1949, four KB-29s and two F-84s were delivered to FRL for conversion.
The first B-29 was converted to a single-point refueler (KB-29T), two were
converted with probes as receivers, and the fourth was converted as a full-up
three-point tanker. The two F-84Es were modified with probes in the port wing
leading edge, being redesignated EF-84Es. The first air-refueled combat mission
using probe-equipped tanks was flown by three RF-80As on July 6, 1951, with the
first strike missions flown (by 36 ANG F-84Es ditto) on May 29, 1952.

[Details and quote above from two articles, on AAR generally and Project
Collins/High Tide specifically, which appeared in the Nov. 1995 Air
International]

Guy



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How big would an SSTO be?
    ... then once airborne and at a reasonable altitude it could tank ... Problem X by assuming the solution of comparably tough (if not ... If the refueling is done in a speed/altitude regime comparable to ... And, of course, an operations model in which every launch is in fact ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Fuel pressure gauge
    ... Casady) said: ... Nobody said it was. ... First thing in the morning and after every refueling. ... I would love to have a water trap in our tank, as well as a visual sight gauge, but I have to agree with the ABYC that the bottom of a fuel tank should not have such an easy point of failure that could cause a catastrophe. ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... nothing about refueling probe and drogue. ... experiences it is more difficult than using the boom. ... Walt, since you state above that you have no experience of P&D refueling, I ... I do have friends who were Hun or Navy pilots and have clued me in on probe and drogue refueling. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... nothing about refueling probe and drogue. ... experiences it is more difficult than using the boom. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: galvanic isolation of sensors
    ... Being more of a digital than an analogue guy, ... about 0.5" x 1.5" per probe PCB... ... isolation of the inputs, is the CMV really so high that you need it? ... possibly with different water systems (a quarantine tank, ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)