|
Originally Posted by alarkyokie
(Post 1282007)
Same video.... |
Originally Posted by DirectTo
(Post 1281695)
Stupid civilian question here - obviously this would differ mission to mission but just roughly, once connected, how long would it take to fill up a heavy? How about a fighter? Just trying to imagine how long you guys have to hold that position.
Originally Posted by alarkyokie
(Post 1282007)
|
How it all started:
The first actual transfer of fuel from one aircraft to another was little more than a stunt. On November 12, 1921, wingwalker Wesley May climbed from a Lincoln Standard to a Curtiss JN-4 airplane with a can of fuel strapped to his back. When he reached the JN-4, he poured the fuel into its gas tank. Needless to say, this was not the most practical way of refueling an airplane in flight. |
That's the one.
|
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
While the first word which came to my mind is a form of excrement, I am compelled by polite company to instead declare you are full of bluster.
Because you found it hard? Everybody does it, by definition, the worst AF pilot can do it. When I went through Castle in the early 80s on my way to a receiver variant of the -135, I had an opportunity to spend one brief session in a facility specifically designed and dedicated to teaching receiver air refueling. The B-52 Air Refueling Part Task Trainer consisted of a dedicated building with a simulator, complete with realistic (for its time) visual, an array of supporting training devices and computer banks, all supported by a dedicated staff of technical support and maintenance, as well as schedulers and instructors. It was there where I got my first glimpse of A/R from the receiver end of the boom. Yea, that thing hasn't been used since Castle closed. So must have been important.:rolleyes: Ask yourself this. If receiver A/R was so dadgum easy, why did the Air Force invest so much money and resources into a device dedicated to teaching that task, and that task only? If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie. Because the Air Force is stupid and wastes money. I don't know what all the different communities do or have done in the past, or what they do today. I do know that in some airframes, copilots are not allowed to close beyond pre-contact without an Instructor who is specifically certified to instruct air refueling. Where I was, every aircraft commander could supervise copilot refueling. We did an awful lot of refueling -- rarely flying a sortie without it. Other folks had a hard time staying current. I would venture that the pilot flying in that video was on the low experience end of that spectrum. But whether you did it a little and struggled with it, or did it a lot and were very proficient -- it was hard, and dangerous. Really? Hard, dangerous? We do it every day all over the country. Remember when B-52 pilots had to wear parachutes and helmets to A/R? Was that a measure taken for comofort, or did it recognize the hazard? We still do. It's because it's considered a critical phase of flight by the Life support reg. Like landings, high level bomb runs with 30 degrees of bank, and Takeoff. Very dangerous stuff. CFIC -- Consolidated Flight Instructor Course, for KC-135 and B-52 Instructors. As long as the weather allowed, we all did the whifferdill while in contact. It was a confidence maneuver which demonstrated that the success of the aerial refueling had little to do with the attitude of the two airplanes -- bank, pitch, speed. Successful refueling depends on the smooth, stable platform provided by the tanker and the deliberate, steady inputs made by the receiver. If the receiver concentrated on the tanker, he would be surprised to see the strange horizon relative to the airplanes shown in the pictures. I never said the whiff was easy, just AR. But certainly if you can stay on the boom at 90 degrees of bank, straight and level should be cake. I'll give you the last word. I'm tired of discussing how difficult normal AR is. My opinion after doing it for 9 years in B-52's is that it is easy. Certainly if it's night, weather, and bad turbulence, it's harder, but day to day....not rocket surgery. . |
As a former BUFF driver of 23 years and almost 5000 hours, I'd hardly tell folks that AR is easy. Sure, it gets easier with experience. And in the BUFF, AR was easier the farther aft the CG. Before they changed the fuel sequence, we'd usually hit AR at about 28-30% MAC (mean aerodynamic chord). The change in fuel sequence moved the CG farther forward.
As a BUFF pilot, IMO you are most proficient at AR after graduating from CFIC. Your proficiency will go down somewhat from there due to lack of "yoke" time as an instructor. The old ARPTT was way more difficult than flying the actual aircraft, but it did teach you the very fine control inputs required by AR. I was a co-pilot during the first gulf war when we did 3 ARs (2 pre combat, 1 post). We spent 7 months flying out of DG (6 months training, 1 month combat) and it wasn't long before I could take a 100K off load in a single contact. Again, as with anything, practice makes perfect. The BUFF AR autopilot mode was never used in CFIC because we were always flying limits. IMO, that was somewhat negative training because the AR AP mode was quite useful when taking on large offloads. As an instructor, I always made a few contacts with and without the AP mode engaged and encouraged line pilots and trainees to do the same. The scariest moment I had during AR was when the tanker autopilot kicked off without warning while approaching contact. A tanker AP disconnect with a heavy receiver passing through the tanker downwash will pitch the tanker tail down into the receiver. It is an eye opener to say the least. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened in this video. |
This is the part where I post the shot of whales mating over Afghanistan in '07:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...E/DSC_2643.jpg |
Always good stuff Hacker.
|
Couple of "old" war stories (key word is old). During the Viet Nam war we used to refuel the B-52s coming out of Guam. We would leave Okinawa and meet over the Phillipines. Lots of fun with 3 tankers, 3 B-52s, thunderstorms so high you couldn't paint the tops, max offloads, bombers had wall to wall externals (the old D Models) and we were all trying to fit through a hole in the weather about 5 to 10 miles wide with moderate turbulence. Guess I was too young to know it was scary.
Many years later, trying to get 6 Hornets over to the Gulf for the first war. Another one of those nights off the coast of Canada. Moderate (or greater) turbulence, visibility about 1/2 mile, St. Elmo's rolling off the windscreen, trying to get on the iron drogue. 2 of them never did get their fuel and one poor guy had the hose wrapped around his radome twice. They were Marines and were trying to hack the mission. I kept hinting about "bingo fuel", abort points, etc. Just kept pressing on. Finally passed them to a KC-10 about 40 West. Guess it went okay, never heard about anybody going swimming. Ah, the good old days!! |
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
(Post 1282363)
This is the part where I post the shot of whales mating over Afghanistan in '07:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...E/DSC_2643.jpg |
It can't be that tough, I've done it at 90 degrees of bank and even inverted in the weather...
Oh...well...I meant I THOUGHT I was in 90 degrees of bank. ;) The ADI must have been broke, because every cell in my body said that dumbass tanker pilot wanted to do the entire AR in a knife edge pass. No idea why he did it that way, but the AR wasn't the toughest part. The hard part was going BACK to the observation position on the wing flying the knife edge for the next 20 minutes. These days when the flying gets tough I just go back to the galley and get a fresh cup of coffee. Sometimes getting old ain't all bad. :D I do not miss night IMC tanker ops. |
Nothing like being on the wing and realize you can't see the engine pod. Are you f'ing kidding me? We're going lost wingman from the tanker!?!?.
Guy on the boom must have had extreme vertigo. Everyone hung in there but it wasn't fun. |
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 1282572)
It can't be that tough, I've done it at 90 degrees of bank and even inverted in the weather...
1.) If there is a cloud in the sky...fly through it! 2.) Once the fighters are setting up their rejoining...turn into them! These are found in the attachments. The main body of their TTPs consist of finding the highest per diem/ best party spots throughout the world, and above all else...get their tail number.
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie.
I do know that in some airframes, copilots are not allowed to close beyond pre-contact without an Instructor who is specifically certified to instruct air refueling. But whether you did it a little and struggled with it, or did it a lot and were very proficient -- it was hard, and dangerous. We still do. It's because it's considered a critical phase of flight by the Life support reg. Like landings, high level bomb runs with 30 degrees of bank, and Takeoff. Very dangerous stuff. |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie.
It is actually just an "also..." during a syllabus sortie in which something else is the primary mission. That first AAR is just something you do on the way to or from the real learning point on that day. |
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
(Post 1283884)
This is how it is done in the F-15E FTU.
It is actually just an "also..." during a syllabus sortie in which something else is the primary mission. That first AAR is just something you do on the way to or from the real learning point on that day. Hacker, Is it designed that way or just implemented that way by the FTU...for instance in the F/A-18 syllabus day/night IFR are separate sorties and solely dedicated to tanking. I was curious if they are separate events on paper for y'all and you just combine them in flight or if a particular flight or group of flights in the syllabus call for the 'add on'. Just curious... Bdger |
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 1283599)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie. I guess this depends on what you're flying. This is exactly what my airframe does. Granted, my aircraft is much more responsive.
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
(Post 1283884)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie. It is actually just an "also..." during a syllabus sortie in which something else is the primary mission. That first AAR is just something you do on the way to or from the real learning point on that day.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1280204)
Refueling is close trail. Not hard. And not hard in a heavy.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1281146)
You guys act like I haven't done this a few times. Please. I flew Buffs with no ailerons. This crap isn't hard. AR in a heavy is not close trail in a T-38. I would certainly hope that it's easier to maneuver a fighter on the boom than a heavy. ==================================================
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 1283599)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
I do know that in some airframes, copilots are not allowed to close beyond pre-contact without an Instructor who is specifically certified to instruct air refueling. Sweet ... . |
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
(Post 1282363)
This is the part where I post the shot of whales mating over Afghanistan in '07:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...E/DSC_2643.jpg Great picture, but "whales" are B-747s. . |
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
While the first word which came to my mind is a form of excrement, I am compelled by polite company to instead declare you are full of bluster.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
When I went through Castle in the early 80s on my way to a receiver variant of the -135, I had an opportunity to spend one brief session in a facility specifically designed and dedicated to teaching receiver air refueling. The B-52 Air Refueling Part Task Trainer consisted of a dedicated building with a simulator, complete with realistic (for its time) visual, an array of supporting training devices and computer banks, all supported by a dedicated staff of technical support and maintenance, as well as schedulers and instructors. It was there where I got my first glimpse of A/R from the receiver end of the boom. The ARPTT was built when standard simulators could not replicate the task. Today, the full-motion simulators with life-like visuals are up to the task. The task of air refueling is still taught in the same way, just in a different device.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
Ask yourself this. If receiver A/R was so dadgum easy, why did the Air Force invest so much money and resources into a device dedicated to teaching that task, and that task only? If it was so easy, they should have been able to teach the procedures in a classroom, and go practice it in flight on the first sortie. The answer is that the task is not so dadgum easy in a heavy, and if you put a brand new pilot in the seat with no prior simulator training, he might never get the first contact. Every refueling track has an exit, and they cost a ton of money. That's the same reason you train landings in the sim before you train them in the jet.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
I don't know what all the different communities do or have done in the past, or what they do today. I do know that in some airframes, copilots are not allowed to close beyond pre-contact without an Instructor who is specifically certified to instruct air refueling. Where I was, every aircraft commander could supervise copilot refueling. We did an awful lot of refueling -- rarely flying a sortie without it. Other folks had a hard time staying current. I would venture that the pilot flying in that video was on the low experience end of that spectrum. But whether you did it a little and struggled with it, or did it a lot and were very proficient -- it was hard, and dangerous.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
Remember when B-52 pilots had to wear parachutes and helmets to A/R? Was that a measure taken for comfort, or did it recognize the hazard?
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1281807)
CFIC -- Consolidated Flight Instructor Course, for KC-135 and B-52 Instructors. As long as the weather allowed, we all did the whifferdill while in contact. It was a confidence maneuver which demonstrated that the success of the aerial refueling had little to do with the attitude of the two airplanes -- bank, pitch, speed. Successful refueling depends on the smooth, stable platform provided by the tanker and the deliberate, steady inputs made by the receiver. If the receiver concentrated on the tanker, he would be surprised to see the strange horizon relative to the airplanes shown in the pictures. I'll give you the last word. I'm tired of discussing how difficult normal AR is. My opinion after doing it for 9 years in B-52's is that it is easy. Certainly if it's night, weather, and bad turbulence, it's harder, but day to day....not rocket surgery.
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1282259)
Last word is yours Toad driver.:D I am now absolutely convinced of your superiority. . |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1283899)
Ehh, didn't take long, did it? Attempt to elevate yourself by putting others down.
Sweet ... . Oh come on Tony, you had to have known that was a joke! http://cdn.styleforum.net/5/52/52e19...p_francis.jpeg |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1283910)
....The ARPTT was built when standard simulators could not replicate the task. Today, the full-motion simulators with life-like visuals are up to the task. The task of air refueling is still taught in the same way, just in a different device.
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1283910)
...The answer is that the task is not so dadgum easy in a heavy...
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1283910)
... and if you put a brand new pilot in the seat with no prior simulator training, he might never get the first contact.
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1283910)
...That's the same reason you train landings in the sim before you train them in the jet...
|
Hey Tony. Agree to disagree on some points. However, I didn't mean for the honest ribbing to come off as arrogant. The Toad comment was in loving jest for my tanker bros. Sarcasm and humor don't get through with no voice inflection. Peace out.
|
Crewdawg,
You wrote, "This is valid, there is a reason they were sent to an aircraft requiring two pilots... " Whether you said that in jest or not I can tell you that my C-17 squadron has a few ex F-15, F-16, A-10, and B-1, oh I forgot an F-4 guy years ago, either way they all said how difficult it was AR'ing in the heavies, compared to their fighters etc. Again, the discussion revolved around the difficulty of some airframes vs others in AR, not whether heavy drivers were less skilled at it or whether a C-17 pilot was as skilled as BUFF pilots who view AR as admin (?) really, No offence to BUFF drivers ReCALcintrant, but Nobody wanted a Buff back in 87 when I graduated, so I'm glad to see the skill level of the Buff fleet has risen so much over the years, It was pretty bad back in the day. Also, to dispel a myth my unit has at least 10 DG's/Top Sticks from UPT that wanted to fly heavies for whatever reasons, so don't be too fast throwing the "heavy drivers=less skilled moniker around. Personally I'd have given my left leg to fly fighters, but my class washed out over 65% of us in UPT, and we were only assigned 2 fighters for 25 students. Much different times (1986-1987 Columbus AFB) than now, where a class starts out with 25 studs and graduates 23...I wonder how some of you superior types would have fared back then? BTW a common reason for washing guys out was if they were too cocky or good, they would test them and turn the heat up to see if they could handle the added pressure. I kid you not, we washed out some really good guys because they couldn't handle the stress. That was the mentality then..maybe others can chime in to confirm my Numbers but they are listed |
Originally Posted by Vito
(Post 1284386)
Crewdawg,
You wrote, "This is valid, there is a reason they were sent to an aircraft requiring two pilots... " Whether you said that in jest or not I can tell you that my C-17 squadron has a few ex F-15, F-16, A-10, and B-1, oh I forgot an F-4 guy years ago, either way they all said how difficult it was AR'ing in the heavies, compared to their fighters etc. Again, the discussion revolved around the difficulty of some airframes vs others in AR, not whether heavy drivers were less skilled at it or whether a C-17 pilot was as skilled as BUFF pilots who view AR as admin (?) really, No offence to BUFF drivers ReCALcintrant, but Nobody wanted a Buff back in 87 when I graduated, so I'm glad to see the skill level of the Buff fleet has risen so much over the years, It was pretty bad back in the day. Also, to dispel a myth my unit has at least 10 DG's/Top Sticks from UPT that wanted to fly heavies for whatever reasons, so don't be too fast throwing the "heavy drivers=less skilled moniker around. Personally I'd have given my left leg to fly fighters, but my class washed out over 65% of us in UPT, and we were only assigned 2 fighters for 25 students. Much different times (1986-1987 Columbus AFB) than now, where a class starts out with 25 studs and graduates 23...I wonder how some of you superior types would have fared back then? BTW a common reason for washing guys out was if they were too cocky or good, they would test them and turn the heat up to see if they could handle the added pressure. I kid you not, we washed out some really good guys because they couldn't handle the stress. That was the mentality then..maybe others can chime in to confirm my Numbers but they are listed |
Originally Posted by Vito
(Post 1284386)
Whether you said that in jest or not I can tell you that my C-17 squadron has a few ex F-15, F-16, A-10, and B-1, oh I forgot an F-4 guy years ago, either way they all said how difficult it was AR'ing in the heavies, compared to their fighters etc.
I didn't realize people would get so butt hurt or defensive about a joke. So I'll just leave this here... http://www.alldaypharmacy.co.uk/prod...93778_zoom.jpg |
Just thought of another "war" story about AR (sort of). TDY to MacDill for a week to support F-16 new guy AR training. Took off in an A model and had some problems getting the nose gear to retract. During the big departure turn back over the field we cycled the gear a few times and finally got the nose gear to safely retract (boom operator had left the downlock in!). After the flight, we were in the squadron drinking a few beers when one of the new F-16 guys who had observed all of this from the ramp asked us why the gear cycled so many times. My copilot jumped in and started some tale about the heavy gross weights, long taxi and takeoff roll, gear needs cooling, automatic temperature sensing system detemines number of times for doors to cycle, yadda, yadda. Four 2nd Lts. are all eating this up while four F-16 IPs are trying to keep a straight face.
|
Crewdawg,
That is funny! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands