Read the forum code of contact
By: - 30th December 2003 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These are generalisations..........
The Boom method is used only by the USAF.
It provides a faster fuel transfer rate.
It requires a dedicated tanker aircraft with a boom - and an operator.
It requires that the receiver has a receptacle.
The receiver only has to keep station - the boom operator does all the work(?)
The probe-and-drogue method is used by the rest of the world - including the US Navy and Marines.
The fuel transfer rate is slower.
Any aircraft can be a tanker - with the necessary plumbing and a refueling pod.
The receiver needs to have a probe - either built-in or a fixed addition.
The tanker only has to keep station - the receiver does all the work(?).
You can have multi-point refueling with P&D - max is 3 receivers (although haven't I seen a pic with a Convair Tradewind refueling FIVE Panthers?).
Anyone have any input as to which method is easier - from a receivers point of view ??
Anyone have comparative figures for fuel transfer rates for each method?
Which is easier - fitting a receptacle or a probe??
AFAIK, you can retrofit a probe - but not a receptacle ?
Ken
By: - 31st December 2003 at 00:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about CoG issues for the tanker?
By: - 31st December 2003 at 01:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Flanker_man
The Boom method is used only by the USAF.
Add to that the Air Forces of France, Turkey and Singapore - I've just read International Air Power Review Volume 10!!!
Ken
By: - 31st December 2003 at 02:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Israel, Iran and the Netherlands also have boom-tankers, but that has more to do with being compatible with US-supplied gear than anything else.
The reason why boom-refuelling has become the way to go with the USAF (and hence with all apostle-air forces also taking up boom refuelling) is that this way of refuelling allows for the largest quantity of fuel transferred through the shortest amount of time. Don't forget, boom refuelling was initially ment to refuel bombers like the B-47 and B-52 on their 24/7 alert patrols around the USSR. Back in the early days, USAF tactical fighters like the F-100 and F-104 used the good old hose&drogue refuelling system. Only because the SAC with it's B-47s and B-52s wasn't just the main recepient but also the main operator of KC-95 and -135, the boom refuelling method became the main way of refuelling within the USAF.
For strategical operations, one single large bomber sucking fuel out of a tanker airplane via boom refuelling makes perfect sense. But tactically, it's a lot more efficient to refuel three tactical aircraft out of one tanker via hose and drogue refuelling. But since it was SAC which called the shots in the 1950s and early 1960s USAF, we're stuck with boom refuelling these days.
Which is fine with me, because it has given us nitwit enthusiasts some awesome aerial photography.
By: - 31st December 2003 at 05:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Big aircraft like a B-52 or C-5 can spend as much as 20-25 minutes give or take "on the boom" getting fuel. The faster you can get it into the jet the better.
By: - 31st December 2003 at 07:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The faster you can get it into the jet the better.
but then you can refuel three aircraft at a time using the drouge and probe methods.
By: - 31st December 2003 at 08:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The RAAF will be operating Boom equipped strategic tankers (either KC-767 or A330 MRTT) from 2005.
but then you can refuel three aircraft at a time using the drouge and probe methods.
By which time you could have refuelled how many fighters via a boom tanker?
By: - 31st December 2003 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Flanker_man
Anyone have any input as to which method is easier - from a receivers point of view ??Anyone have comparative figures for fuel transfer rates for each method?
Which is easier - fitting a receptacle or a probe??
AFAIK, you can retrofit a probe - but not a receptacle ?
Ken
Can anyone answer my questions ???
As for the fitting of a receptacle/probe...
Imagine trying to convert an F-16 to use a probe-and-drogue and converting an F/A-18 to use a boom - which would be easier ?
Ken
By: - 31st December 2003 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ken,
AFAIK, there was only one fighter plane ever converted from Probe to boom receptacle: the A-7. As you can see on that one, adding the receptacle is possible, but will normally suppoer a "hump" on the fuselage.
In opposition, the Israelis for example have created a way to refuel F-16s through Probe and Drogue system: they simply put a probe in front of a fuel tank...
Other examples could be the British E-3s and C-130s... There you just need the probe, and a hose that runs to a fuel tank... It is a far simpler system.
As for your other questions, I can't say. I guess the ease will depend from what both planes are, which turbulences they create, and what the meteorological conditions are... If the drogue is hopping left and right because of wind gusts, I guess a boom will be easier, but only a "pro" could say that.
By: - 31st December 2003 at 20:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can some one tell how much is the transfer rate difference btn the boom and probe-and-drogue re-fuelling.......and which one is more safer
I feel the probe is more safer as it gives the manoverinf room??... than the boom type... can some one post details abt the whole thing abt these two type of refuelling, like h fuel is transferred etc etc.....
By: - 1st January 2004 at 04:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by aditya
The faster you can get it into the jet the better.but then you can refuel three aircraft at a time using the drouge and probe methods.
Yeah but not big jets like an E-4, or C-5. Those jets push a wake in front of them that is felt by the tanker. You can only do one of those at a time.
There is a tanker guy on here that posts once in a while maybe he can give fuel flow figures.
The drouge has other advantages too for small jets like buddy refuel packs.
By: - 1st January 2004 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by frankvw
Ken,Snip...
Other examples could be the British E-3s and C-130s... There you just need the probe, and a hose that runs to a fuel tank... It is a far simpler system.
snip....
IIRC, the E-3D is unique in the RAF inventory as the ONLY aircraft that can use BOTH methods of AAR.
It retains the receptacle for the flying boom - and is fitted with a probe for P&D.
I'm not sure if the crews train on both methods?? Anyone ?
Ken
PS - Thinks - what will happen with the F-35?? Will the USAF versions have a boom receptacle - and US Navy, Marines, FAA, RAF variants etc have probes ?
By: - 1st January 2004 at 15:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason why boom-refuelling has become the way to go with the USAF (and hence with all apostle-air forces also taking up boom refuelling) is that this way of refuelling allows for the largest quantity of fuel transferred through the shortest amount of time.
yes but IIRC drogue method allows multiple users to refuel. Boom only allows one aircraft to be refueld at one time (correct me if am wrong here) you can refuel as many as three aircraft with the drogue method.
By: - 1st January 2004 at 19:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the -135, even with the MPRS system and a basket on the boom you CAN NOT refuel three aircraft at a time... There is a receiver wingspan issue to look at. It would be all but impossible to not have a mid air, even with two f-18s on the wing pods it is close to being dangerous. Now that being said, you can have two on the wings and one in about a 500-700 ft trail behind the basket on the boom and he can make contact once the other two back off. Just my .02
Phil
By: - 1st January 2004 at 19:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Frank, you conveniently forget about the F-4, when you mention the A-7's probe to boom conversion.
The F-4, orginally being a Navy plane had probes to begin with, and only when the USAF began to get the jet did it get the boom/receptacle system.
Ironically, some Phantoms have switched back again, with Israeli F-4's having fixed probes plumbed into the receptacle system.
By: - 1st January 2004 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also, as said the USAF chose the boom method for speed, you can transfer over 6500+ lbs per minute with the system vs 1000 something per minute with a basket, it would take for ever to do a heavy with that method (heck, I would fall asleep in the back, and it is cold back there :D )
By: - 1st January 2004 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cool stuff
By: - 2nd January 2004 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a company that makes IFR systems that can be loaded on to an aircraft like a droptank.
Is the Russian A-50 equipped with IFR?
Yeah but not big jets like an E-4, or C-5
:) i guess since most contries dont have an AWACS at all, let alone refuel em in mid-air.
By: - 2nd January 2004 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The boom-method nowadays used by the whole USAF is a reminder of the day when SAC was the dominant force within it. They needed tankers for their huge bomber fleet, and obviously the boom method was far more effective for this than the low-capacity probe method. Also, because bombers were big aircraft multi-aircraft refuellings (like probe-equipped fighters can do from multi-hose equipped tankers) was out of the question anyway.
Being the dominant arm in the USAF, it was SAC which got to buy the KC-135s from Boeing. And since SAC didn't need any probe-equipped tankers, none were bought. Obviously, TAC was not happy about this since they were operating quite a few probe-equipped fighters from the 1950s on, which were perfectly capable of drinking fuel from a KC-97. The F-100 and F-104 for example have always been probe-refuellable fighters, and the F-105 prototypes also had retractable probes (so there are more than just the A-7 and F-4). Of course, when later light combat aircraft like the F-5 and A-37 were found in need of a refuelling capability, it was simply impossible to cram a boom receptacle in those small airframes so they got probes as well.
Although i doubt SAC was deliberately a selfish ass in their preferred way of refuelling, it's interesting to note that MPRS KC-135s only really entered after SAC and TAC were merged together to form Air Combat Command.
Is the Russian A-50 equipped with IFR?
Yep.
Posts: 2,264
By: Indian1973 - 30th December 2003 at 20:31
usaf f16/15/22/b2/f117 do not have a refueling probe, the
tanker inserts a probe into the fuel slot on the feeder usually
along the upper dorsal behind cockpit.
USN f18/14/E6 have probes. EU a/c Mirages, Tornadoes, Rafale
have probes. Russian a/c have probes. could be fixed or folding.
Which method is better for
(a) ease of use in adverse conditions (night, winds)
(b) fuel transfer rate
(c) number of babies suckling in parallel (probes can manage 3)
the lack of probe no doubt reduces weight of fighter by a few
Kg maybe 20kg?