Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Mid air refueling


Recommended Posts

I read this about mid air refueling. Criticize or laugh!
 

 

 

Refueling is almost a science now. Very few surprises. Having said that, the most “dangerous” receivers might surprise you. Those are:

  • Air Force One
  • C-5
  • One unacknowledged aircraft

Heavy jets produce a bow wave in front of the nose. As the receiver closes to refuel, the tanker autopilot senses a change in barometric pressure.

The autopilot falsely “detects” the jet is climbing and initiates an automatic descent to compensate.

If the tanker pilot is an idiot, he could descend right into Air Force One.


Obviously, such a mishap has never occurred…and will never occur. Refueling crews own a small slice of military aviation. But they are “PhD experts” in that area.

Crews know the idiosyncrasies of every aircraft in the inventory. That includes Air Force, Navy, Marines, and all our allies.

In some cases, we knew the tendencies of individual receiver pilots. We also knew how to help them excel on their check rides.


Bottom Line

Tanker pilots are not Pretty Boys. But they definitely know their business.

Good luck!


Addendum 1 of 2

In certain wartime scenarios, the Pentagon can order tanker pilots to offload all their fuel to high-value receivers. 100%.

My crew once gave our unit mission briefing to a JAG General. He asked: What happens then?

I said: We crash and die.

He was shocked—both that a USAF General would issue that order and that we would follow it.

That day, I understood the difference between Combat Ops and the Combat Support Group.


Addendum 2 of 2

Astute commenters asked about parachuting or gliding to a “dead stick” crash landing.

Well, those were our two main options. But our refueling tracks were near the Arctic. We were not enthused about either option.

main-qimg-ae38598c7ff81b00a59f34433abb16cd

Major Bill Tompkins was the briefer for the Alaskan Tanker Task Force (ATTF). Halfway through our briefing at Eielson AFB, he got a very serious look on his face:

I know some of you are worried about crash landing or jumping out in this blizzard. Conditions along your route tonight are -70 degrees with 150 knot winds and blowing snow.

You are also worried about terrible magnetic disturbances which make it impossible to navigate.

Do not be concerned. We have the finest search and rescue in the world.

Besides…by the time SAR reaches your location, you will all be Popsicles.

We laughed until we were red. Military humor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Bottom Line

Tanker pilots are not Pretty Boys. But they definitely know their business.

Good luck!

 

Crazy Pilot Ranking:
1.) Crop Duster Pilots

2.) Borate Bomber Pilots (I know, term is out of date by 2 or 3 decades)
3.) Tanker Pilots

And God bless and preserve their brave and insane souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then we have the case of the KC-46.  Manual refueling with the boom operator in the tail of the tanker, guiding the receiving aircraft has worked well for years.  So some idiot aircraft engineer...who probably never was near a KC-135 or other aircraft, decided that a more sophisticated system, using television, with the boom operator sitting up front was the "better" way to do things in the -46.  Now they are finding, this arrangement doesn't present the boom op with sufficient 3D presentation.  So they are trying to redesign the system...again, costing us taxpayers more millions, and with no guarantee it will work any better!  The perfect is the enemy of the good! :wacko::wacko::wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

And then we have the case of the KC-46.  Manual refueling with the boom operator in the tail of the tanker, guiding the receiving aircraft has worked well for years.  So some idiot aircraft engineer...who probably never was near a KC-135 or other aircraft, decided that a more sophisticated system, using television, with the boom operator sitting up front was the "better" way to do things in the -46.  Now they are finding, this arrangement doesn't present the boom op with sufficient 3D presentation.  So they are trying to redesign the system...again, costing us taxpayers more millions, and with no guarantee it will work any better!  The perfect is the enemy of the good! :wacko::wacko::wacko:

Thanks for the post, I was unaware of it. Another big problem is they couldn't refuel A-10s. Here's an article from March. I'm betting nobody thought about them when the boom was being developed as the Air Force had been trying to dump the A10s from service.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/03/31/the-air-forces-kc-46-tanker-has-another-serious-technical-deficiency-and-boeing-is-stuck-paying-for-it/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Navy/Marine Corps procedure much better. The tanker extends the basket and we plug into it. All the tanker has to do is maintain airspeed and altitude. We do all the compensating. Works good. Lasts long time; much cheaper.

 

PF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dubious Don #56333 said:

I just read that article Slim,

Makes you wonder why the designers don't ask the people who actually use these systems.....LOL.

Because that’s not how it works! :blink: Never has been. Apparently never will. The few times that designers actually ask, it seems they end up ignoring what they heard. Because .....what do Those people know?

Been there. Seen that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2020 at 5:13 PM, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Because that’s not how it works! :blink: Never has been. Apparently never will. The few times that designers actually ask, it seems they end up ignoring what they heard. Because .....what do Those people know?

Been there. Seen that.

:lol::lol::lol:

Back about...um, close to forty years I was working at this armored transport company. We had a staff mechanic on site that did all the maintenance. Since he worked outside the "secure area" he carried an 8 3/8" S&W 29 in a Bianchi shoulder holster. I came in off route one afternoon and after unloading inside the vault went around to  the shop to drop it off for PM. Charlie was butt-deep under the boss's Chevy Citation cussin' up a storm. "Be right with ya" LOL. After some more cussing, he explained he was doing the plugs and a tune-up and since some engineer at GM decided that A, they wanted to mount the engine crossways, they'd put the plug side of the block up against the firewall. Oh, GM had a special wrench for that but you still hadda unship the tranny from the engine, loosen the rear motor mounts and jack the block away from the firewall so you could USE that special wrench to get to the plugs. LOL. Some people. (not Charlie, he was awesome.) The dudes that designed such a.....cluster LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

There is often an extra tanker if for example a half dozen bombers are flying halfway around the world 

 

I took your point to be that for a specific mission tankers were the more expendable of the two.  But overall both are equally important.   Like with an interna combustion engine,  which is more important,  the piston or the valve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2020 at 5:04 AM, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

 

Addendum 1 of 2

In certain wartime scenarios, the Pentagon can order tanker pilots to offload all their fuel to high-value receivers. 100%.

 

 

I had a boss about 25 years ago who'd been a tanker navigator.  Started in B-47's, then he was one of several who got pulled for tanker duty, first in KC-97's then KC-135's.  He said they were quite miffed - but when they were later offered transfers back to bombers they politely declined.  Anyway, he had told me about that potential order when he was in '135's - "If that order came, we were to drain every drop - even the standpipes, and be ready to swim." 

 

Tony had some good stories!  At one point he'd been stationed in Thailand.  While flying a mission they'd heard an emergency call from an F-104 pilot... he'd taken a hit and was losing fuel over Cambodia.  The tankers were under orders to NOT enter Cambodian airspace, but the crew took a quick vote and headed toward the fighter... they rendezvoused,  clamped on the boom and literally "wet towed" him back.  Cut 'im loose over their base and watched him safely land.

 

Later, he said, they went to the O club and the 104 jock was there telling everyone about the wonderful tanker crew that had dragged his sorry butt out of Cabodia - "We wished he'd kept his mouth shut!"  In addition to a bunch of free drinks, they all received a royal arse chewing - and then were given some sort of commendation.  ^_^ 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.