Laughing_Jakal

big guns.....big drag......

In the Shadow.....a KC-10 would suck you right in once you got thru the Bow wake.........even I could do it.

Ferd149

KC-10
I agree (can an old figher pilot agree and old tanker dude? what's next, cats and dogs sleeping together?)

But, maybe it was just the picure in the AF Mag, but it looked like that Bus put up an A330-300 which is almost 777 sized (vs the 767 frankentanker)?

Ferd

KC10 FATboy

Yes, very simple. Drogues do not have the transfer rates of the boom -- not even close. And even with two drogues going at once, which is rare because the WARPs have serious reliability and maintenance issues, the boom is still faster.

You might be in the minority about not having any problem getting gas from a drogue. I can tell you from experience, I've seen more pilots (fighters) who couldn't refuel from drogues (for a multitude of problems) as compared to the boom.

One last thing since I'm now the official APC drogue hater, you guys refuel WAY TO SLOW. Anytime I have to slow an airplane below its minimum maneuver speed in order to refuel another aircraft, I'm not happy.

But to throw you a bone, I loved refueling F-14s, they were just too cool and there were too many "watch this" moments from the tomcat pilots. Now I look forward to B-1s for excitement.

BDGERJMN

KC10......is 280KIAS really that slow for you guys? I dont ever recall tanking slower than that from a KC10 or a KC135.

papyco

280kts seems pretty standard to me. Never had any tankers tell me that they had issues with that airspeed.

Speaking of tanker issues. How often do KC-135s need to practice tanking with the Auto Pilot off?

L'il J.Seinfeld

With the radical and swift shift of power in the USAF from the F-22/F-35 crowd to the UAV proponents I doubt that we will ever see another tanker. The Blk 40 KC-135 will get more and more expensive to maintain but it will be a viable alternative to the megaexpensive alternatives.

The Army is the main game these days. I never would have thought that would be the case 10 years ago. Those USAF leaders pushing UAV technology will be the ones in power sooner than later. It is no longer a fighter pilot's Air Force, which is bad news for the new tanker programs.

KC10 FATboy

The book answer is 280kts .. but on deployments, we had to to 260kts. And yes, 280 is in some cases too slow.

XL 0901

True...but are the turbies a result of the higher gross weight or the engine configuration? Maybe Fatboy has the answer.

BDGERJMN

Just out of curiosity, when would 280 or even 260 be too slow. My point is sometimes taking gas(in a Hornet) at FL330 for instance with 2 tanks and 3 2Klb JDAM on the pods on the outside of a turn makes staying in the basket much higher than 280KIAS a difficult chore.

Winged Wheeler

It's been a bit long for me to quote numbers, and I can only speak from KC135 experience, but I think the dash 3 (or whatever they call the document that replaced it) has most of your answers.

I will speak generally for OPSEC reasons--Normal AR altitudes for most planes are well below the altitudes you are talking about. An optimum, or planning altitude for receivers, is published. At higher altitudes, mach effects may be significant. The tanker gross weight may affect AR speed or tanker flap configuration.

Turbulence you've sometimes seen is likely from higher than normal power settings and high AOA for relatively low speed/high gross weight AR.

Autopilot off is (or used to be) a low frequency continuation training event. Receivers doing their own training will request this and generally cover our requirements. You may see a spike in tanker requests in JUN and DEC as laggards complete their requirements.

By the way, it is not possible to "lock the boom" for drogue receivers.

I'm just an old tanker guy, so I don't know much, but I think the DOD wants the big tankers not to replace the 135, but to replace the C141 or, rather, the C17s that we did not buy. They want a big plane for lift, if it does AR too so much the better. LJS is right, the 135 isn't going anywhere for a long time.

I'd bet on a big investment in sims for the 135 so volume training and qual and inst checks could be done in the sim. Innovations on the actual aircraft would be a lot cheaper than new plane--improved leading edge devices, thrust reversers (yes, I know), VNAV capability, autothrottles, etc. are unlikely but possible.

WW