Simviation Forum - Yippee! The RAF gets NEW planes...

Reply #15 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 11:01am

HawkerTempest5 Offline
Colonel
Hawker Tempest MK V
United Kingdom

Gender:
Posts: 3149

Quote:

the USAF doesn't use the VC-10 either...

The US Navy and Marine Corps often use VC-10 and TriStar tankers Wink

Flying Legends

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 11:36am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

...of course the tanking stuff is still new for EADS. Boeing has much more experience with it (eg the KC-135 series)...

EADS are very lucky in that part of their consortium is Cobham Plc, and therein Flight Refuelling Ltd, the "Daddies", so to speak, of air-to-air refuelling, back in the early days, and Sargent-Fletcher, who provide many of the US militarys refuelling needs already...

Charlie

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 11:58am

Mr. Bones Offline
Colonel

Posts: 4304

Quote:

The US Navy and Marine Corps often use VC-10 and TriStar tankers Wink

yes, but the USN isn't the USAF! Wink

Raw power...the J-58.&&&&&&My Anet collection.&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 12:23pm

SilverFox441 Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1467

The RAF isn't the USAF either. Shocked

Most inflight refueling is done the probe-drogue way, everybody else got it right, only USAF uses that silly boom.

Steve (Silver Fox) Daly

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 1:09pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I copied this from Hansard dated 23 Oct 2003 . Hansard is an edited verbatim report of proceedings in the Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in Standing Committees (in the House of Commons).

Quote:

Why choose the Airbus option over the Boeing competition? The A330 can carry 50 per cent. more fuel than alternative aircraft, without the need for auxiliary fuel tanks. That means that it can deploy more aircraft further, to frequent destinations such as Bahrain and Canada. Twice as many fighters can be carried by one A330 aircraft. Equally important, it can remain on station longer and refuel more aircraft in operation. The 330 can carry passengers and cargo without the aircraft having to be reconfigured, as the Boeing would have to be. Those are all major advantages in taking the AirTanker option.

Quote:

Airbus is the only aircraft manufacturer with current experience of refuelling pod integration, and Cobham's Flight Refuelling Ltd., which works exclusively with AirTanker and Airbus, is the only company in the world with experience of providing refuelling pods and fuselage refuelling units. Airbus is currently converting A310s into tanker aircraft for the German and Canadian Governments, using the Cobham pods. As a modern aircraft, the A330 will cost less to operate over the 27-year life of the contract than the Boeing alternative.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 3:59pm

Tequila Sunrise Offline
Colonel
Nunquam non paratus
Glasgow Scotland

Gender:
Posts: 4149

Quote:

only USAF uses that silly boom

Actually, the Royal Netherlans AF uses a boom system due to requirments imposed by its F-16 force. The boom system is also easier for the crews of both aircraft to use.

If someone with multiple personality disorder threatens suicide, is it a hostage situation?

Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed lest the ground shalt rise up and smite thee

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jan 28^th, 2004 at 12:27am

SilverFox441 Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1467

My bad...I forgot about the KDC-10's. Sad

They'll probably go when the Dutch select their new fighter...most of the competitors use a probe.

Just thinking about it...don't the Suadis use KE-3's?

Steve (Silver Fox) Daly

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jan 28^th, 2004 at 6:13am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

The boom system is also easier for the crews of both aircraft to use.

But also requires at least one extra crew member in the tanker, which in these days of letting as few people in an aeroplane as possible, is a downer.

It also has the problem of only refuelling one aeroplane at a time, unlike most hose and drogue tankers (the Tristar is an exception) which can do two...

Charlie

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jan 28^th, 2004 at 8:45am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

It also has the problem of only refuelling one aeroplane at a time, unlike most hose and drogue tankers (the Tristar is an exception) which can do two...

Charlie

It used to be three. Your reference to Cobham PLC (& its subsidiary Flight Refuelling Ltd) made me wonder if anyone appreciates Sir Alan Cobham's considerable contribution to in-flight refuelling. I found this photo of 3 RAF Meteors being refuelled by a B-29 tanker using the probe & drogue system pioneered by Alan Cobham & his Flight Refuelling company based at Tarrant Rushton airfield in Dorset. The company had moved there from Ford, Sussex, in 1947. http://www.tarrant-rushton.ndirect.co.uk/index.html

This is exactly the same as the system in use today. It doesn't give any explanation as to why the B-29 is in USAF markings.

This photo of a Meteor F.8 on display at the Tangmere Museum shows the refuelling probe.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jan 28^th, 2004 at 9:53am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

It used to be three.

So it did:). I think its a NATO AAR regulation which would now restrict it (Strangely enough, my final year University group project was to design an aeroplane to meet the requirements of the FSTA). I think its a problem with the middle a/c having nowhere to go if it goes pear shaped...

Quote:

Your reference to Cobham PLC (& its subsidiary Flight Refuelling Ltd) made me wonder if anyone appreciates Sir Alan Cobham's considerable contribution to in-flight refuelling...

I doubt very few people know about Cobham PLC or FRL/FRA... I doubt many people know about Sir Alan Cobham...

Quote:

This is exactly the same as the system in use today. It doesn't give any explanation as to why the B-29 is in USAF markings.

Shows how good the system is

. As for the B-29, what were the RAF using as tankers originally, as the earliest I know of is the Valiant...?

Charlie

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jan 28^th, 2004 at 10:35am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Shows how good the system is

. As for the B-29, what were the RAF using as tankers originally, as the earliest I know of is the Valiant...?

Charlie

If I ever knew it's now lost in the depths of my memory banks. ??? I shall endeavour to find out.
I seem to recall that Cobham's pre-WWII experiments involved a converted RAF Handley Page Harrow as the tanker with maybe the Gloster Gauntlet on the receiving end. FR owned & operated a number of Avro Lancastrians during the Berlin crisis. It's possible these were later used for tanker research.

The B-29 served with the RAF as the Washington. It's possible that some were converted as tankers or more likely a conversion kit was developed in case they were needed. This might explain the one in my photo. I don't think in-flight refuelling was used in anger during the 50s as the RAF was not involved in much long-range action. I remember that FR had to hastily convert RAF aircraft with probes during the Falklands conflict & also produced a number of conversion kits.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jan 29^th, 2004 at 6:41am

Mr. Bones Offline
Colonel

Posts: 4304

silly boom? did you see the first refuelling flight with the X models of the JSF. Lockheed did it with a boom...went perfect! Boeing used the hose drogue system...the damn thing didn't want to connect (ok, fault of boeing) and the fuel went everywhere. but that same damn basket almost got sucked into the engine intake! Undecided

and that's not Boeing's fault. i think the boom is much safer. that's my opinion. i'm sure this reply will enter in a quote window bellow very soon, but you can't change my mind about this. Wink

Raw power...the J-58.&&&&&&My Anet collection.&&

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: