Cleared Pre Contact....
 

....STABILIZE!!

Bad Day for the AWACS - YouTube

Wow!! That looked like just a couple of feet based on the shadow. Good reaction by the boom operator though. The AWAC pilot... not so much.

Learning to air refuel in a heavy ain't easy!

Hope everyone in the AWACs was strapped in for that one! Either that or they got a big headache! :eek:

Best done without "binary" control inputs in most cases. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of a deployment riding on a KC-10. Somewhere over the north atlantic, the new 2Lt co-pilot is getting checked out on AAR. We were trying to play dice and I think I picked them out of the air at least twice as we went to zero-G. In between "bunts" we got to hear the boom clattering across the top of the fuselage as the boomer tried to plug the dancing tanker. Not comfy at all.

This and about 1,000,000 other reasons is why NATO will never will a war.

1:That video could have ended at about the 45 second mark.

2: Who actually guides the plane in? Does the boom operator give final closure commands? Once in close (since the port is on the roof) I am assuming that the boom operator is the one who actually makes the connection?

3: On the side for other videos was a 1:30 minute video of a fueler refueling a 737 at BOS using the underwing single point.....who the hell would think to record, let alone post something like that??!!

Air Refueling is completely a visual or close formation procedure. The boom operator will signal or radio for the receiver to move into position. There are Pilot Director Indicators (PDIs) which tell the pilot if the receiver aircraft is high, low, fore or aft. These lights will only work if the boom operator gives commands to the pilot prior to a contact (perhaps to a pilot who is struggling) or they're automatic once a contact is initiated.

In my opinion, it appears both aircraft are at fault. The receiver failed to stabilize in the contact position. The receiver aircraft kept moving in and up. The boom operator made contact to the receiver while they weren't stabilized (still moving in and up). This caused either an inner limit or upper limit disconnect. Now the fun part. After the disconnect, the receiver moves down too fast. This causes (can't tell without more information like a flight data recorder) the tanker's autopilot to kick off and sent the tanker nose down. From what we see looking out the back, it appears the AWACS pitched up into the tanker ... this is probably not the case. So then the AWACS pilot pushes over really hard to keep from hitting the tail of the tanker. Also, we can't hear the radios, but it appears that neither aircraft called for an emergency breakaway, a procedure designed to quickly and safely separate the aircraft.

Thanks for the explanation. That all makes sense.

We had a guy connect like that then brain fart during the breakaway and pull UP....the IP took it and dove... No fun

PS read the comments-a guy/girl who says he/she was the boom posted

My old man told me a couple stories about hooking up w/a 135 when he was on the 10 and C-5. The bow wave could force the tail of the 135 up and the its autopilot tried to compensate and there you go...emer brake.

Refueling is close trail. Not hard. And not hard in a heavy. The PF just did a crappy job of it.:rolleyes:

He should've passed his tail number...

Really good one. I spit my drink out.:)

Says the man in his office chair...

<looking around>

....are we on baseops?

"Refueling is close trail. Not hard. And not hard in a heavy"

"winning the Super Bowl is not hard, just score more points than the other team"

PS, Some jets are much more difficult than others, which heavies did you fly, just curious not being a smart ass. I was told by my F/O yesterday, after watching the video that his RC-135 was rock solid under the tanker, my C-17 not so much (at times) the 141 very stable as well.

E-3 is a mixed bag behind the tanker. At intermediate weights it is stable enough, but at extremely heavy gross weights it becomes very pitch sensitive and very fatiguing esp. after taking 80K of fuel.

Are you kidding? I hope so.

You guys act like I haven't done this a few times. Please. I flew Buffs with no ailerons. This crap isn't hard. It's just the hardest thing that some mws's do.

Where's Rainman to commence the belittling?

You could also say that about a lot of stuff that is just admin to some MWSs.

The KC-135 and the B-52 -- A match made in the Armageddon of Mutually Assured Destruction!

Some days it just seemed that the Buff was designed to sit in pre-contact behind the KC-135.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...es/kc13503.jpg

Difficulty, In Perspective
 

My first airline was Evergreen. We did our 747 training at United's Training Center, in the same sim (747-200) that the Air Force uses for the E-4B (Looking Glass/NAACP). My Evergreen IP was a retired Air Force E-4B pilot.

One day, we finished early and he told the Instructor Engineer working the sim panel "Hey, bring up the KC-135!" Sure enough, a KC-135R-model pops into view, one mile ahead. I was amazed at the sim detail; it even had the lower TACAN antenna that we used as a visual reference in the F-4.

He taxied in and plugged, took a few thousand pounds, and disconnected.

Knowing my background, he said (with a sly grin) "You've done this a few times....you try it."

At this point, I had somewhere between 700 and 800 air refuelings in the Phantom. I thought to myself "Well, it won't be pretty, but I can get on the boom."

I lost track of how many times I hit the tanker. The big differences were:

1. Throttle lag. The F-4 is turbojet; not much lag. JT-9Ds: lots of lag, and once the behemoth starts moving forward, lots of inertia.

2. Receptacle location. In the F-4, top of the fuselage, roughly over the aerodynamic center. It means when the nose is raised or lowered, the receptacle doesn't really move.

Receptacle in the 747: in front of the windscreen, about 100-120 feet in front of the aerodynamic center. Move the pitch half a degree? The receptacle just moved 1-foot vertically.

3. Inertia. Big airplanes have inertia in pitch, roll, and speed. Once started, hard to stop.

I had watched a KC-10 get refueled by a KC-135A on an ocean crossing once (I was in the F-4). I couldn't believe how much the -10 was moving, and I swear I could see the fuselage flexing.

I never did get a contact. I had a new respect for refueling a heavy.

You got it Hacker.

ReCALcitrant,

I get your vibe about the "admin" aspect of AR to some airframes, but thats not what the discussion was about, B-52's seem like they are relatively stable behind the tanker. One ex-Buff IP posted a picture of a Buff doing a "whiff" manuever, it looked like he was in a 80 degree bank! Impressive! try doing that same manuever in the C-17 and you'll be in the newspapers the next day.
The conversation was about the difficulty of some airframes in AR not how difficult it is. C-141 = easy, C-17=not so much, B-52=easy I guess. SOLL II not so much, look it up, though Hacker15E may know about it too.
Take Care,
Vito

I only have a bit over 1000 hours in the Buff, and I can tell you AR is not easy. Especially when you are on the boom for 20+ minutes to get a 100K onload. For us at least, AR was not admin. With anything else, a good Buff pilot behind the tanker will make it easy, however ask the boomers what a Buff looks like behind the boom on with a brand new Buff AC on upgrade ride #1 trying to hook up.

Nope. Your attititude reeks of overconfidence and complacency. Please stay away from my tanker.

Appears the autopilot on the tanker kicked off...not sure the AWACS necessarily did anything wrong - hard to tell for sure.

Fifty years ago (this month) I was a B-52 Electronics Warfare Officer flying 24 hour 35 minutes Chrome Dome Missions during the Cuban Crisis. We would depart Westover AFB, fly across the Atlantic (no GPS - Celestial Navigation ), find a tanker over Spain, refuel, fly to the eastern Med and orbit for "HOURS" with four nuclear weapons ready for delivery. Departing orbit we would find another tanker over the Med and fly back to Westover. - thee times in ten days. Think about a night in flight refueling with pilots that have flown 65 hours in ten days and have been airborne for almost eighteen hours. Hundreds of missions were flown safely - a tribute to both the tanker and bomber crews.

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.

In the F-4, the Tech Order told the Tanker to use 2 pumps to deliver fuel to us. I learned quickly during the Gulf War (from my Flight Lead, a much more experienced guy) that with 2 pumps, we were burning it as fast as we were taking it.

He told the boomers "Four pumps!" A few times they protested (I believe four was only supposed to be used for B-52s!), but he always got them to do it.

With 4 pumps, we would take 6-8000 lbs in about 6-8 minutes. I honestly believe with 2 it would take at least 35 minutes....if you made any progress at all.

If the tanker was above FL240, and we were getting full (with three tanks and a load of missiles), you would have to put one engine in minimum afterburner to hang on during the turns. You would use the other engine to modulate your position.

And I would disconnect from the boom, and having the biggest freaking knot in my back from the nervous tension of trying to hang on. Refueling the slatted-wing F-4 was not easy.

The highest I ever refueled was FL290 or 300, and I was physically a wreck when we disconnected. I think we all were.

Wow...It doesn't get said enough - nothing but respect for you guys.

AWACS Refueling Breakaway
 

I flew E-3 from mid 2000 until late 2007. Couple of things I want to bring up.

1) When the KC-135 refueled us with 4 pumps working the transfer rate was around 6000lbs per minute. The most fuel I ever had in the tanks was just under 155k, 344K inflight max weight with some flight/g restrictions.

2) Gross weight of the E-3, gross weight of tanker, CG, what country the KC-135 tanker was from, refueling altitude, and refueling track (straight line) or anchor (25 miles turn 180 degrees, race track pattern) all affect the difficulty refueling. I am sure I missed some items, which affect the process. I have never refueled above FL260 because the E-3 was a pig above 260. If a KC-10 showed up to refuel us and she was at max gross weight and I was going to max gross weight there was no way I was going to be able to keep up on an anchor toward the end of the refueling process. Anchors where used most often while we where deployed. As I got close to my max weight we would be in at MRT (Military Rated Thrust).

3) Refueling in an E-3 is all hand flown. We don't have an autopilot for refueling nor do we have any systems that make it easier like power assist. I am not a Buff guy but I have been told that they have something like power steering that is used in AR (air refueling). One of you Buff guys can chime in here.


KC10 FATboy did a good job explaining the process.

For me the hardest time air refueling was when I was over Afghanistan behind a French KC-135 at night. The French crew would not turn their lights up at all. I think they where on the lowest setting and instead of leaving their throttles alone in the turns (we where on an anchor) they would push up the throttles every time they turned and pull away from us. I had to cheat to the inside of the turn just a bit to hang on, as we got close to the end of the refueling cheating to the inside of the turn wasn't enough and we would fall off the back end of the boom.

My longest flight was 18.8hrs with three refuelings, Tinker to somewhere in the Middle East non-stop.

The best AR pilots I saw were the Buff pilots that transferred to the E-3. Maybe something to do with CFIC that they went too.

You'd be late to the arip anyway.

Nobody uses the ar mode of the autopilot. It sucks. All hand flown for 99% of Buff guys.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?





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.







.

Pretty sure EVERY receiver pilot is hand flying the closure from precontact/astern. For tanker pilot...optional.

I'm sure the reason a breakaway wasn't called was because both the Boom & the AWACS were probably caught off guard with the near mid air. As a receiver pilot, I care more about using my limited brain cells to fly my jet away from the tanker rather than to toggle the mic and say breakaway.

Roughly 15 mins to take a "big gulp" in the E-3.

"Video removed"
Is this the same one?
E-8 AWACS Air Refueling gone wrong.. - YouTube