Hi,
I've never been in an aircraft whilst its either refueling or fueling another aircraft. I've been on board a VC-10 tanker, a Vulcan and a Victor at an airshow.
I know that turbulence plays its role in the slipstream of tanker aircraft and also the takeoff weight. Which is why I've gone for the What-if the...was a tanker.
I've never heard or seen helicopters used as buddy refuelers either. Fighter aircraft are ruled out as we could be here for a very long time discussing this.
The largest aircraft that could possibly be used in reality would be the C-17. I know some whiffers have used an Airbus -380, I've also suggested the BAe Nimrod MK2 and MK4, a long with the Lockheed Neptune.
These are proposed aircraft that were never actual tankers during their service lives
The B-52 has to be in the running.
B-1B
B-2
Tu-142-Bear
BAe 146- a proposal was made into a lockup and a model built as a sample but never made it into production.
Any others?
Another aspect to consider is the use of the 'flying boom' system, which considerably eases the dramas associated with IFR via a drogue & hose. Unfortunately, of course, the USAF are the only users of the system from memory, but it does give the various B- aircraft something to consider.
An important consideration with tankers is their secondary cargo role and fuel volume to be viable aircraft. Bombers & the like aren't routinely built with large cavities (excepting the bomb-bay) which tends to negate any cargo capacity or even extra fuel carriage. 'Bomber' types that did make the transition were of course the A-3 and A-6 and with 'buddy' refuelling pods almost anything can serve as a tanker in a pinch, but the baseline requirement is usually internal volume which continues to be the domain of the airliner/transport type.
Regards,
Mav
Thanks Mav,
That's why I added the Whiff bit for all you budding builders, to join in.
How about "emergency" tankers? Say a war breaks out suddenly, and lots of tankers are lost (shot down or destroyed on the ground) - an emergency conversion programme is implemented, taking civilian airliners and adding refuelling pods to them. So any medium-sized airliner, adding two wing-mounted drogue pods, and basic self-defence systems (off-the-shelf RWR, chaff and flare launchers). Quickly repainted in a basic grey, or even just strip the airline names off and add roundels.
Helicopters would be difficult to use as tankers; the rotor downwash makes the drogue move around more. It's not impossible, though, the Americans have refueling probes on some CH-53s. If it can receive fuel that way, using it as a tanker might work.
The BAe-146 has very limited cargo capacity.
I'd take the Tu-114 or An-22 over the Bear due to the internal volume issue mentioned by Mav.
As the Russians use the IL-76 as a tanker, how about the USAF using the C-141 in a similar role?
It would need some trick engineering to fit a flying boom to a C-141, perhaps attach it to the bottom of a set of non-opening cargo doors, but carrying a pair of hose reels should be easy.
To date the largest aircraft tested/used in the tanker role is the 747.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patricksaviation.com%2Ffiles%2Fphotos%2Ffull%2F27508_21046.jpg&hash=fd4c426aaffd378d66d26c3519aa553090406f8d)
Aerial refueling of helicopters has been in use since the 1960s and, in theory, a large helicopter could
probably refuel a smaller machine. However there aint' much point as the fuel fractions simply aren't there.
Converting an airliner to a tanker is way more complicated than just attaching a refueling pod, the aircraft
has to have its fuel system plumbing and controls modified to connect with the pod. Structural mods are
also required.
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 09, 2011, 07:05:10 AM
How about "emergency" tankers? Say a war breaks out suddenly, and lots of tankers are lost (shot down or destroyed on the ground) - an emergency conversion programme is implemented, taking civilian airliners and adding refuelling pods to them. So any medium-sized airliner, adding two wing-mounted drogue pods, and basic self-defence systems (off-the-shelf RWR, chaff and flare launchers). Quickly repainted in a basic grey, or even just strip the airline names off and add roundels.
An easy conversion would be adding mounting points for the Airbus MRTT wing pods on civilian A310 and A330s. Arrange something akin to the USAF Civil Reserve Air Fleet to organize (and subsidize) the airlines. When the balloon goes up, fit the pods, IFR drogue operator's station, countermeasures suite, etc., and you're off to the races.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mrtt/
Several possibilities spring to mind.
American:
DC8
DC9
737
727
757
777
787
French:
Caravelle - Mach 2 do a 1/72 kit and Airfix did a 1/144 one
Mercure
Russian:
AN-125
AN-225
Tu-104
Tu-107
Tu-110
Tu-124
Tu-114
Tu-154
British:
Sperrin
Trident
I'd like to see a 757 - it's one of my favourite airliners (there was a RNZAF one that did an amazing display at Kemble a few years ago). Also the BAC 1-11, and maybe the Convair 880/990?
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 09, 2011, 11:25:55 AM
Converting an airliner to a tanker is way more complicated than just attaching a refueling pod, the aircraft
has to have its fuel system plumbing and controls modified to connect with the pod. Structural mods are
also required.
For an emergency conversion maybe you can get away with using tanks in the cabin only, i.e. forego attaching it to the aircraft fuel system. Install a single HDU in the cargo bay, to limit airframe modifications to a single penetration of the skin.
I'm actually surprised they haven't thought of a RORO module for the C-130 to give it ad-hoc tanker capability, beyond the standard KC-130s or any other ramped cargo bird. A roll on-roll off system should take care of the structural issues that Jon alluded to and a drogue could be unreeled out the cargo bay without too much trouble I'd think.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: McColm on March 09, 2011, 04:17:46 AM
B-1B
Well the B-1B has been proposed:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fnew%2520one%2FKB-1B.jpg&hash=455bbfa6d146f74ee924c0713e8d759a37ec21d4)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 09, 2011, 08:36:20 PM
I'd like to see a 757....maybe the Convair 880/990?
A buddy of mine did 880 and 990 kits with hose and drogue mods.
And while I'd love to see a KC-757, I'd really love to see a KC-737 as that "Last Gas for x nautical miles" tactical refueler. Leave the KC-10s, 135s, and 46s out where they're less apt to get shot down.
Quote from: Maverick on March 10, 2011, 01:24:44 AM
I'm actually surprised they haven't thought of a RORO module for the C-130 to give it ad-hoc tanker capability, beyond the standard KC-130s or any other ramped cargo bird. A roll on-roll off system should take care of the structural issues that Jon alluded to and a drogue could be unreeled out the cargo bay without too much trouble I'd think.
Regards,
Mav
They've done it for firefighting tanks, so it shouldn't be too hard to do with fuel tanks. Although, it should be noted most tankers use flexible tanks, rather than rigid ones, as I understand it.
If you were careful about the design of the drogues, you could borrow from trawling gear designs so that they flew "wide" and have two hose and reel units, one in each side of the cargo bay.
Just thought of several more.
USA:
Lockheed Electra/P3 Orion
C-133
DC-7
B-36
B-47
B-52
UK:
Canberra (didn't someone do one here?)
HP Dart Herald
HS 748/Andover
Netherlands:
Fokker F.27
Fokker F.28
French/German
C-160 Transall
European
A-400
Russian
An70
UK:
Brittania
Argosy
Belfast
Japan:
Shin Meiwa flying boat: infinite loiter time!
Soviet Union:
Beriev Be-12 (refuelling Yak-38s from the carriers)
Lockheed did commission a study to see if the C-141 could be turned into a tanker.
Boeing did propose the 757/767s as tankers in the Australiain bid. The Australians were keen to use B-747s, Boeing however tried to promote newer models and even the Dreamliner.
Quote from: rickshaw on March 10, 2011, 03:34:39 AM
Just thought of several more.
UK:
Canberra (didn't someone do one here?)
They did it for real too, and somewhere I've got a piccie of the singleton aircraft they converted. Can I find it? No............ :banghead:
I think you will find it was FRADU who tested the Canberra as a buddy tanker, even had inflight refueling probe plumbed in.
see its not just me, who wants to see a KB-52!!
Most tanker transports are based on airliners, with extra fuel tanks in the under-floor baggage spaces to keep the cabin floor clear. This makes perfect sense if you're converting an airliner, but the result is a less than ideal military transport because the cargo deck has awkward access: side door only and high off the ground.
If you were designing a tanker/transport from the ground up, you could do it like this:
Cargo in the lower deck, with all the access advantages of the C-130 layout,
Cockpit, fuel tanks and wing carry-through in a smaller-diameter upper deck,
Nose loading door, C-5 style,
Conventional, non-opening tail cone with side paradrop doors and a flying boom,
Wingtip HDU pods, with retractable rigid arms that lower the hoses below the level of the wings (seen this on a real aircraft but can't remember which).
You could load it up with max fuel or max cargo or any mix in the middle. Of course, it's unladen weight would be higher than a pure tanker or pure transport, but that's the price of flexibility. Just about the only military transport job it couldn't do is para-dropping large loads, but then a KC-10 can't do that either! (and you could have a tail ramp if you were willing to forego the flying boom)
Quote from: McColm on March 10, 2011, 04:14:28 AM
The Australians were keen to use B-747s
Evidence please. Beyond one certain individual trying to promote it, this is the first I've heard of this.
Regards,
Greg
There has been a proposed C-17 based Tanker Transport - see here (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1996/09/18/11685/mdc-reveals-kc-17-cargotanker-details.html). I also know this was briefly considered to be offered to the RAAF as part of a comprehensive total overhaul of the Airlift and related capability (also involved V-22s I believe). Not sure if it was ever formerly offered though.
On another direction, back in 2002, there was some talk by Lockheed of a dedicated, purpose built tanker aircraft - the Force Employment Tanker (FET) (http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2002/2002%20-%202480.html). Also see attached pic.
Regards,
Greg
Whilst looking for other things, I came across this which kinda does the whole "hose & drogue" out of a 'normal' transporter.
Regards,
Mav
I didn't think anything could fly slow enough to be refueled by a 'Bou...must do it in a dive ;) :thumbsup:
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 11, 2011, 12:35:41 AM
On another direction, back in 2002, there was some talk by Lockheed of a dedicated, purpose built tanker aircraft - the Force Employment Tanker (FET) (http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2002/2002%20-%202480.html). Also see attached pic.
Regards,
Greg
I bet that'd put on a keen display at airshows with it's tanks nearly empty! :blink:
Makes you wonder why they didn't go the whole Hog and make it a flying wing...
Thinking some more about that FET, you could adapt some of the ideas to my ground-up tanker transport:
1. Extend the boom fairings into full twin tail booms which carry twin fins and possibly tailplanes. The rear of each boom could carry an HDU, giving twin-point refuelling for either type of receiver,
2. Truncate the rear fuselage and go back to a tail ramp now the boom's out of the way,
3. Mount the engines high over the wing centre-section to avoid interference.
Quote from: McColm on March 10, 2011, 06:12:31 AM
I think you will find it was FRADU who tested the Canberra as a buddy tanker, even had inflight refueling probe plumbed in.
More like the Flight Refuelling Co. itself rather than FRADU. I don't think FRADU actually existed when they did the Canberra trials some time in the '50s.
Cheers me dears,
I'll get back on the Australian transport KB-747 proposal.
Thanks Weaver, now that I've sliced the front off my BAe Nimrod. A ramp would be feesable for internal access or sissor lift. Just have to see whether a landie will fit, in its cargo hold. The cockpit being on a hinge set at its widest angle or pointing towards the wing. Or hinged upwards, using the kneeling option as on the AN-124. Front under carriage will need attention.
The Lockheed box-wing concepts from the '90s have always held great Whif potential.
Quote from: rickshaw on March 10, 2011, 03:34:39 AM
Just thought of several more.
USA:
Lockheed Electra/P3 Orion
C-133
DC-7
B-36
B-47
B-52
UK:
Canberra (didn't someone do one here?)
HP Dart Herald
HS 748/Andover
Netherlands:
Fokker F.27
Fokker F.28
French/German
C-160 Transall
European
A-400
Russian
An70
Here is my Canberra tanker, I made it for my Honduras air force a while back. I envisioned it using the bomb bay and under wing tanks for fuel storage, and I put 2 refuelling pods from a Victor tanker on it.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,27576.0.html
Chris.
Navy S-3 Viking. Replace the bomb bays and sonobouy storage with fuel storage, and the MAD boom with a hose and drogue system, it'd give the Navy something with a bit more capacity than buddy packs. And if you add a USAF receptacle, you can tank off of KC-10s and 135s without having to refit them.
Scooter, there was talk of a dedicated KS-3 to be developed, but it ended up going away and stock S-3s were buddy-tank fitted instead when they were nearing the end of their service.
Regards,
Mav
KS-3A:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeonemagazine.com%2Fimages%2Fmedia%2F2010_12_03_Spotlight_KS3_1267828237_1740.jpg&hash=183c4f6981d5afe4789b945ff3463f96253a55a0)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 11, 2011, 12:27:31 AM
Quote from: McColm on March 10, 2011, 04:14:28 AM
The Australians were keen to use B-747s
Evidence please. Beyond one certain individual trying to promote it, this is the first I've heard of this.
Regards,
Greg
I also wondered about that...
Quote from: rickshaw on March 11, 2011, 10:49:20 PM
Quote from: GTX on March 11, 2011, 12:27:31 AM
Quote from: McColm on March 10, 2011, 04:14:28 AM
The Australians were keen to use B-747s
Evidence please. Beyond one certain individual trying to promote it, this is the first I've heard of this.
Regards,
Greg
I also wondered about that...
Don't forget that the Iranians modified at least 2 of their Boeing 747's as tankers before the fall of the Shah.
In 1970 the ACTA-advanced cargo transport aircraft was out for tender, the contract was won by McDonald Douglas with the KC-10. Boeing proposed the KC-33A based on their 747-100 series.
Check out: www.aussieairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
I don't think Greg and I are disputing that the could be modified to the air-tanker role. Rather we are questioning this supposed RAAF interest in the 747 for the role.
Quote from: Maverick on March 11, 2011, 04:36:13 PM
Scooter, there was talk of a dedicated KS-3 to be developed, but it ended up going away and stock S-3s were buddy-tank fitted instead when they were nearing the end of their service.
Regards,
Mav
Figures I go about reinventing the wheel. :banghead:
Quote from: rickshaw on March 12, 2011, 06:57:06 AM
I don't think Greg and I are disputing that the could be modified to the air-tanker role. Rather we are questioning this supposed RAAF interest in the 747 for the role.
Exactly.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: McColm on March 12, 2011, 01:59:25 AM
Boeing proposed the KC-33A based on their 747-100 series.
Not exactly, the C-33 version of the 747-400 was a 1990s proposal and the KC-33A is pretty much a fantasy.
The actual military 'C' designations used on 747s are C-19A for the converted Pan-Am aircraft of the
CRAF - Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and VC-25A as used for the Presidential transports. Both of these designations
post-date the early '70s tanker contest, so even if the 747 had been chosen it's unlikely it would have been
designated KC-33A.
Quote from: Fulcrum on March 12, 2011, 12:35:34 AM
Don't forget that the Iranians modified at least 2 of their Boeing 747's as tankers before the fall of the Shah.
Not quite, the IIAF purchased twelve used 747-100s and Boeing Wichita modified them into military cargo aircraft.
All received aerial refueling capability and three were equipped as tankers complete with the Boeing flying boom.
These were followed by a later purchase of four 747-200F freighters.
Thanks
Quote from: Maverick on March 11, 2011, 12:40:22 AM
Whilst looking for other things, I came across this which kinda does the whole "hose & drogue" out of a 'normal' transporter.
Regards,
Mav
Hey great find John :thumbsup:
The USAF must have loved the army for this experiment ;)
M.A.D
The mach 1 aircraft i.e. KB-1 ( T-Steak) might work, but in real terms would it need to slow down at all in refueling?
What about the use of Concorde and the Russian Concordiski?
McColm,
IFR is a tricky game at the best of times (eg clear weather, experienced tanker & receiver crew, etc). To throw in supersonic speed to the mix would be asking for trouble even if a hose & drogue or flying boom could be deployed at that speed. I can't think of any operational reason that would see the necessity for an aircraft being refuelled at anything other than a pedestrian speed.
Regards,
Mav
"Pedestrian speed"? First time I've heard 500+ mph called that! :lol:
I guess it's relative. Not all refuellers will perform the operation or even be capable of reaching 500mph. In any case, supersonic refuelling is still a pipe dream IMO.
Regards,
Mav
thanks :banghead:
I saw this bit of news today. DARPA are testing for the possibility of using modified RQ-4 Global Hawks as in-flight refueling platforms.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-20041781-42.html
Donning a psuedo JMN hat (perish the very thought....) shouldn't we be talking about 'AAR' rather than 'IFR'?
'IFR' means 'Instrument Flight Rules' in the real aviation world, and in flight refuelling is called 'Air to Air Refuelling', thus 'AAR'.
[JMN mode off........]
Otehr contenders for refuelling helicopters: DHC Buffalo, Dash-7 and Dash-8 -- they can fly really slow, for example the DHC-7's stall speed is 85kt...
YOu could also look at the Bombardier CRJ and derivatives as a smaller alternative.
The Bear might have some issues. The big turboprops make a mighty propwash and the air behind them is supposedly hellishly turbulent, according to pilots who have intercepted them.
How about P-3 Orions? The USN has boatloads of them (so to speak).
Continuing on the patrol aircraft theme, the RAF will soon have a bunch of remaindered Nimrods...
Returning to the USN, Fokker proposed a version of the F.28 Fellowship as not only a tanker, but as a COD aircraft as well, with suitable mods for launching and recovering from a carrier:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv426%2FRallymodeller%2FF28COD.jpg&hash=e41fcbae3013b7b1efed7a3d44bfb686c14f98a8)
Hi Rally,
where did you find that F-28 pic?
Quote from: rallymodeller on March 17, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
Continuing on the patrol aircraft theme, the RAF will soon have a bunch of remaindered Nimrods...
No they won't, the MoD will scrap them all very quickly, just so they can say 'What's a Nimrod? ' when the question comes up in the next few months....... <sigh>
Quote from: Hobbes on March 17, 2011, 01:19:02 AM
Hi Rally,
where did you find that F-28 pic?
It's actually out of the Operating Manual for the Project Fokker Jetsim FS9 F.28. You can get this stuff in the weirdest places.
Which reminds me. I was going to do a USN F.28...
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 18, 2011, 02:36:26 AM
Quote from: rallymodeller on March 17, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
Continuing on the patrol aircraft theme, the RAF will soon have a bunch of remaindered Nimrods...
No they won't, the MoD will scrap them all very quickly, just so they can say 'What's a Nimrod? ' when the question comes up in the next few months....... <sigh>
I think all the MR.2s have already gone to scrapyards or museums. The MRA.4s were scrapped where they stood, of course (nearly all gone now.... :banghead:)
Re supersonics,
refuelling at supersonic speed might be fraught with difficulties, but you could see advantages to the tanker having supersonic dash capability to get to where it's needed quicker and the get out of trouble! The result might be like that B1 proposal, with swing wings for efficient subsonic loiter and high speed dash. Yes, the swing wing mechanism would cut into the payload, but B1's arn't exactly short of bombs, and VG tends to make more sense with bigger aircraft than smaller ones.
Quote from: rallymodeller on March 18, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
It's actually out of the Operating Manual for the Project Fokker Jetsim FS9 F.28. You can get this stuff in the weirdest places.
Which reminds me. I was going to do a USN F.28...
ah, thanks. The F.28 COD is intriguing, and one I might build one day...
Quote from: Hobbes on March 18, 2011, 07:51:35 AM
Quote from: rallymodeller on March 18, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
It's actually out of the Operating Manual for the Project Fokker Jetsim FS9 F.28. You can get this stuff in the weirdest places.
Which reminds me. I was going to do a USN F.28...
ah, thanks. The F.28 COD is intriguing, and one I might build one day...
What kits are there?
Regards,
Greg
The only one I'm aware of is a Gatwick Miniature resin kit. I've considered using a Fokker 100 kit instead.
I've got one lying around minus engines.
Quote from: rallymodeller on March 18, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
Quote from: Hobbes on March 17, 2011, 01:19:02 AM
Hi Rally,
where did you find that F-28 pic?
It's actually out of the Operating Manual for the Project Fokker Jetsim FS9 F.28. You can get this stuff in the weirdest places.
Which reminds me. I was going to do a USN F.28...
Looking forward to what you come up with!!
Are you going to do various variants of the carrier-based F.28....i.e ASW, AEW etc?
M.A.D
Try Kitkrazy.
Any thoughts on this?
shorts Belfast C.1(K)
Comet C.1(K)
SeaMaster, Grumman Trader,Blackburn Beverley.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's for the very thought of a tanker Beverley. They flew so slowly that the only aircraft in the RAF they could refuel would have been the single or Twin Pioneers! ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 17, 2015, 11:48:36 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's for the very thought of a tanker Beverley. They flew so slowly that the only aircraft in the RAF they could refuel would have been the single or Twin Pioneers! ;D
I was told a story of a Beverley airdropping a Saladin armoured car or some similar heavy load. Rear doors off, close to max weight and off from Abingdon to Stamford Training Area on a bit of a blustery day. They make good progress with the tail wind, which picks up as they go so the drop is cancelled. Incredible as it may seem, it is possible to reduce the aerodynamic efficiency of a Beverley by removing the doors, and the with the now very-strong head wind and not having dropped the load progress is slow. When the captain asked the nav for an ETA to Benson there was furious calculation and recalculation until the answer comes back 'Boss, we're stationary...'
Quote from: GeorgeC on January 17, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 17, 2015, 11:48:36 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's for the very thought of a tanker Beverley. They flew so slowly that the only aircraft in the RAF they could refuel would have been the single or Twin Pioneers! ;D
I was told a story of a Beverley airdropping a Saladin armoured car or some similar heavy load. Rear doors off, close to max weight and off from Abingdon to Stamford Training Area on a bit of a blustery day. They make good progress with the tail wind, which picks up as they go so the drop is cancelled. Incredible as it may seem, it is possible to reduce the aerodynamic efficiency of a Beverley by removing the doors, and the with the now very-strong head wind and not having dropped the load progress is slow. When the captain asked the nav for an ETA to Benson there was furious calculation and recalculation until the answer comes back 'Boss, we're stationary...'
Hehehe love it! ;D
I can well believe that having spent some hours in the hold of various Beverley's in my youth. Without the doors, an essential step if any heavy drops were to take place, and even with the deflectors installed the turbulence in the rear 10 ft of the hold was unbelievable. It was mandatory to wear a harness and a safety strap if you were doing anything down there, like throwing out the pilot chute prior to a heavy drop.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 17, 2015, 11:48:36 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's for the very thought of a tanker Beverley. They flew so slowly that the only aircraft in the RAF they could refuel would have been the single or Twin Pioneers! ;D
Lol :thumbsup:
1920's attempt to keep fighters on patrol or to fly them out to outposts of the Empire. A Vimy or Victoria dangling a hose with a tap on the end. Bristol Fighter or DH 9 A sideslips in underneath and the observer refills the tanks.
sone years ago, there was a proposal/offering from Israeli Aircraft Industries to convert a number of used Boeing 737's into small low-cost tactical tankers. ive been playing with the idea for some time now and im thinking of converting a revell 1/144 boeing 737-800 into such a tanker. giving the size of the aircraft, and the structural integrity, my guess is the proposal was for a 2 or 3-point hose & drogue tanker.
also, some time ago, BAe Systems offered a tanker version of the BAe146, mostly offering the conversion for used airframes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dsei-bae-146-offered-as-tactical-air-to-air-refueller-390417/
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fassets%2Fgetasset.aspx%3Fitemid%3D52494&hash=f95aea6390dc1706135608e49345035de4a4c062)
also, Russia recently ordered 2 tanker versions of the Ilyushin IL-96 Camber, the IL-96-400VT.
i dont know what the advantages are of the IL-96 compared to the IL-78 (or updated IL-478). but its great to see Russia keeping an open mind when it comes to potential tanker platforms.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/il-96-400v.htm
there was also a tanker version of the C-17 in the videogame Ace Combat 3 (EK-17B, with a flying boom system)
http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/C-17B_Globemaster_IV
Large Image (http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/3011/ek17uglobemasteruhf2.png)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Facecombat%2Fimages%2F6%2F6a%2FC17btv9-2.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20120908235214&hash=7942b50a373ee0c7e6b3505f9d3adcebbb99b415)
Quote from: Nils on January 18, 2015, 11:16:32 AM
there was also a tanker version of the C-17 in the videogame Ace Combat 3 (EK-17B, with a flying boom system)
http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/C-17B_Globemaster_IV
Large Image (http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/3011/ek17uglobemasteruhf2.png)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Facecombat%2Fimages%2F6%2F6a%2FC17btv9-2.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20120908235214&hash=7942b50a373ee0c7e6b3505f9d3adcebbb99b415)
That C-17 is about to suffer a major failure of its mainspar. The engine's exhausts are in the MIDDLE of the wing!
Nice story about the beverly !
I have a half built Tracker COD type that was going to have a pallet for AAR.
I think that BAe 146 idea is a good one.
:cheers:
I've started to build a Lockheed Constellation tanker with the flying boom and two hose & drogue refuelling pods.
Instead of the four compound turbo engines normally found on a EC-121L, this model retains the two inner engines and has four jet engines, two where the outer engines would have been.
Not too keen on an all metal finish as used on the KC-97G /KC-97L.
The Avro Lancastrian was used as an in-flight refueling tanker and so too was the Avro Lincolnian although they never entered service in this role.
So in theory the Avro Shackleton could be converted into a tanker either the Mk2 or Mk3 with a pair of C-130 refueling pods.
It just so happens that I have the Attack Squadron 1/72 KC-130J set in the stash.
I did attempt to build a Lockheed Neptune tanker with a flying boom and deeper fuselage tank similar to the fire/water bomber. I think that I will stick with the pods next time.
after reading about Russia's deal for buying 2 IL-96-400TZ tanker aircraft, i was thinking about a similar tanker conversion of the IL-86 Camber.
perhaps as a 3-piont tanker, using the systems from the IL-78 Midas. :mellow:
Quote from: GTX on March 11, 2011, 12:47:40 AM
I didn't think anything could fly slow enough to be refueled by a 'Bou...must do it in a dive ;) :thumbsup:
Regards,
Greg
The refueling aircraft is a Mohawk ... not the fastest bird. :)
Quote from: Maverick on March 16, 2011, 04:58:10 AM
McColm,
IFR is a tricky game at the best of times (eg clear weather, experienced tanker & receiver crew, etc). To throw in supersonic speed to the mix would be asking for trouble even if a hose & drogue or flying boom could be deployed at that speed. I can't think of any operational reason that would see the necessity for an aircraft being refuelled at anything other than a pedestrian speed.
Regards,
Mav
Well, Concorde needn't be supersonic whilst refueling, but the dash capability would be nice to have. I've always thought there were plenty of military applications for Concorde - transport, for instance. Yes, only 120-odd passengers, but what about using it to deliver, say, a detachment of SAS or Paras in a hurry? 'Cos when you need those blokes, you generally need them yesterday.
I was going to suggest refueling, but McColm beat me to it. :) I still think it'd work, though. Someone mentioned slip-stream causing problems for the drogue- well, Concorde was just about the slipperiest aircraft out there, I think.
Quote from: Scotaidh on August 18, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Well, Concorde needn't be supersonic whilst refueling, but the dash capability would be nice to have. I've always thought there were plenty of military applications for Concorde - transport, for instance. Yes, only 120-odd passengers, but what about using it to deliver, say, a detachment of SAS or Paras in a hurry? 'Cos when you need those blokes, you generally need them yesterday.
I was going to suggest refueling, but McColm beat me to it. :) I still think it'd work, though. Someone mentioned slip-stream causing problems for the drogue- well, Concorde was just about the slipperiest aircraft out there, I think.
If you were shifting fully armed troops then probably 60/80 would be the most she could carry but I see your point :thumbsup:
I've always thought she should have been kept on either simply as a Royal Flight aircraft, just for the prestige and the glamour ? Also a couple as emergency relief aircraft ? They could get a team of medics out to where needed quickly and the heavy equipment could follow latter ? You always need to get a team on the ground as quickly as possible to sort out what is actually needed. Opportunities missed in my view.
It'd be not so much the actual slipstream that would cause problems, but the shockwave off the AAR drogue I suspect. that would interact with the shockwave coming off the nose of the receiver to cause all sorts of problems for the poor pilot trying to hook up.
Chinook tanker for helicopter refuelling.
H-Tail, jet-powered C-123 COD :wacko:
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/7d49/f/2014/296/3/a/versorger_c2_by_scooternjng-d83uq3b.png)
If you thought of adding in-flight refueling pods to your Revell Airbus A400M Grizzly/Atlas kit as a whiff, the German Luftwaffe has beaten you to it.
Airbus also recently equiped the C295 with refueing equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rggB-YkzKaU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcDdHmyNxAs
Also, IAI is offering tanker conversions for various aircraft, including the larger Gulfstreams and the Boeing 737 as tactical tankers.
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/38471.pdf