From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #63 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Saturday, July 19 1997 Volume 06 : Number 063 In this issue: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ Re: Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle? Aurora "scouting" Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ Re: Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle? Re: Aurora "scouting" Regarding Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle Re: Aurora "scouting" AC-130U tests Recent Magazines Re: Recent Magazines Re: Recent Magazines sk works list Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ One time message on my SR-71 article F-22 and JSF refueling question Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97 11:10:46 GMT From: "Art Hanley" Subject: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ Andreas, A couple of additions on thrust vectoring a/c. Sukhoi SU-30 as bought by India "MiG-33" (not sure of this one) advanced derivative of MiG-29 which reportedly entered flight test within the last two years, but probably won't enter service. I do not beleive this is the same aircraft as the MiG-35, which may be single engine. I also don't know if this designation was ever officially applied (this isn't the "MiG-33" project for a "F-16ski" postulated some years back). MiG I.42, which it was claimed at Paris has finaly flown, but has already been canceled Paddles: F-14 was tested with paddle deflectors, before F/A-18 or X-31, although the system was not as sophisticated. YF-23: It's my understanding that Northrop/MDD never intended for thust vectoring to be used on their ATF, considering it not worth the complexity. They intended to achieve their supermanueverability purely through aerodynamics. This seems credible, if you look at where and how the engines and exhuasts were mounted. The large recess at the exhuasts was originally intended for the thrust reversers. When USAF dropped the requirement that the ATFs would actually have to be able to stop in a realistic distance on a damaged runway, the YF-23s were too far along in production to modify them to eliminate the shape and housing for the reveresers. Had the YF-23 won, they would have been eliminated and a different, lighter structure would be on the production aircraft. YF-22 construction was not so far along, so the reverser rear never showed up on the prototype. Art Hanley "Holmes, what may we deduce about his employers' views from this message"? "Nothing, Watson, because there's no relationship between the two" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:59:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > Paddles: > > F-14 was tested with paddle deflectors, before F/A-18 or X-31, although the > system was not as sophisticated. About 3 months ago, one of the head engineer at Grumman came to my school. He is consider one of the best engineer in the world specilize in air intake. He was telling us that right now, they are doing studies in putting 3-D thrust vectoring in the F-14. I hope they win the proposal to fit thrust vectoring in the F-14. He was telling us that one of the reason to put the thrust vectoring is for safety reason (landing and take off in aircraft carrier). With thrust vectoring will safe the famose accident of the F-14 girl pilot whom die during landing. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian." Brian Nicklas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97 17:12:27 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re: Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle? Perhaps the extreme ends of the gene pool, the rabid believer and the hostile skeptic are missing the point. The secret is out and the cover-up is the continuing disinformation campaign, whether by design or by inertia. The just published _The Day After Roswell_ by Colonel (Ret.) Philip A. Corso albeit anecdotal and a tad shy of good references is an interesting spin on reverse engineering alien technology as foreign technology. Anyone interested in three or four skeptical reviews of the article may e-mail me at < colvint@fhu.disa.mil > for copies. Terry Terry W. Colvin < colvint@fhu.disa.mil > "No editor likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." -- Mark Twain _____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle? Author: "David K. Probst" at smtp-fhu Date: 7/1/97 8:14 PM Well, I've never replied to a chain letter, and I would have bet a bottle of single-malt whisky against my ever writing anything on UFOs. First, a disclaimer. I don't follow UFO "issues", and I haver never participateparticipated in any black-aircraft projects. At most, I have analyzed how progress in supercomputing, and modelling and simulation, was an enabling technology for formerly black projects. In a word, I know nothing. But let's use common sense for a moment. Think back to the work at the national labs on the various generations of nuclear weapons. This was work stemming from reasonably well-understood physical principles. Nonetheless, a constellation of first rate scientific minds (all of whom are world famous) was necessary just to think things through, to say nothing of the problems of actual engineering implementation. Trust me as a scientist when I tell you that anti-gravity is not a well-understood physical principle. :-) It is implausible that there is a critical mass of top gravitational scientists working at any skunk works, or at any national lab. Such people do not grow on trees. It follows that it is implausible that any federal anti-gravity project is being worked on at funding levels above projects on ESP, dolphins, and whatnot. Heaven knows the government still has a few secrets to keep, but---I fear--- nothing this big. David K. Probst ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97 17:16:17 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Aurora "scouting" I came across two references to Aurora: AURORA ARCTURUS CP-140 AURORA The latter is an ASW aircraft. Does anyone know more about these two aircraft? Terry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 12:26:38 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ > > "MiG-33" (not sure of this one) advanced derivative of MiG-29 which reportedly > entered flight test within the last two years, but probably won't enter > service. I do not beleive this is the same aircraft as the MiG-35, which may be > single engine. I also don't know if this designation was ever officially > applied (this isn't the "MiG-33" project for a "F-16ski" postulated some years > back). > The MiG-33 that has flown is actually the MiG-29M..the -33 was used for marketing purposes. MiG-33 was originally going to be the designation for the 80-86 project-the "F-16ski" but this went no further than models: http://hungerford.chch.cri.nz/k/pic/migx.jpg (alot of the MiG 80-86 design work is now being used on the Chinese/Pakistani/ Russian FC-1 project) The MiG-35 thats talked about these days is a MiG-29 redesign similar in concept to what the F-18E/F is to the earlier Hornets..redesigned wings etc etc. Its also supposed to have canards, moving nozzles and every other current aviation buzzword system..as far as I know its still exists only on paper K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:51:37 -0700 (PDT) From: dadams@netcom.com Subject: Re: Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle? ... > Perhaps the extreme ends of the gene pool, the rabid believer and the > hostile skeptic are missing the point. FYI: the only people who find skepticism "hostile" are the rabid believers. > The secret is out and the cover-up is the continuing > disinformation campaign, whether by design or by inertia. Whatever... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:02:25 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Aurora "scouting" At 05:16 PM 11/07/97 GMT, you wrote: > I came across two references to Aurora: > > AURORA ARCTURUS > CP-140 AURORA > > The latter is an ASW aircraft. > > Does anyone know more about these two aircraft? The latter is the Canadian version of the Lockheed P-3 Orion. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:02:22 +0100 From: phraesius@rfhsm.ac.uk (gilbert blythe) Subject: Regarding Veracity of Skunky Black Triangle I just wanted to apologise to those list-members who felt a little offended by the "Veracity of Skunky BT?" post. I had merely wondered if those subscribers with an obvious expertise in one field, would have cared to express an opinion about something that however tenuously, was connected to their professional knowledge and experience. I never intended to irritate anyone. Gil Blythe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:06:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Aurora "scouting" Terry Colvin wondered: >I came across two references to Aurora: > AURORA ARCTURUS > CP-140 AURORA >The latter is an ASW aircraft. >Does anyone know more about these two aircraft? Actually, both are more or less modified versions of the same aircraft, the Lockheed P-3C Orion. Canada ordered 18 CP-140 Aurora for the ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) role as LRPA (Long Range Patrol Aircraft) in 1976 (CAF serials '140101' - '140118'). An order of six additional aircraft were cancelled in 1989 (proposed CAF serials '140119' - '140124'). Instead, 3 CP-140A Arcturus (CAF serials '140119' - '140121') were ordered in 1989 (comprising the last three P-3Cs from Lockheed's Burbank production line), for the (unarmed) surveillance role. Those three don't have a weapons capability and are also missing the MAD gear. A very good article by Jeff Rankin-Lowe on the CP-140 Aurora and CP-140A Arcturus can be found in AirFan international, Vol. 1, No.5, July 1996. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:08:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: AC-130U tests The last two Lockheed Star magazines had two interesting shots of Skunk Works (Ontario) modified AC-130Us (USAF serial '89-0569' and another, unidentifiable), currently test flown at Hurlburt Field, FL. Like all AC-130Us, they are assigned to the 4th SOS, 16th SOG, 16th SOW, AFSOC. Neither of the two photo captions divulge anything about the aircraft nor the type of modification or tests, but both show the starboard side of an AC-130U. I couldn't find a single other photo of a 'U-boat' which shows the starbord side (the one without the weapons and sensors), so I don't know which modifications were unique to those aircraft. Things I noted include: * Changed exhaust for the engines, apparently box-like enclosures with movable/actuated (?) end plates. I am not sure if these are IR-suppression kits or if they may have thrust-vectoring capabilities? * RWRs and air-scoops, which are probably standard for AC-130Us. * A single, large, round window below the wing and above the landing gear fairing, (plus two smaller behind it and one in front of it), as well as the all-glass observation hatch in front of the wings and the bubble window in the rear ramp. * A discolored area behind the rear side door seems to indicate a di-electric panel or something similar. In the center of this area, is a square composed of 4 smaller squares, each about a foot wide, and about a half foot apart. I suppose they are chaff/flare dispensers? * In the airborne shot, (the serial of this aircraft is not visible, and it could actually be the same as the other one), it appears that the Ball Aerospace ALLTV turret is replaced with a flat fairing, but maybe the turret is retractable. All other sensors and weapons seem to be in place, as far as one can see from that perspective. Any 'U-boat' specialists here want to comment? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:10:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Recent Magazines Some interesting articles: * Airpower (Vol. 27, No. 4, July 1997): I want to point out that I really liked Art's SR-71 article, and that I hope everybody (especially in this group) is getting this magazine. Wings and Airpower are generally pretty good, have a lot of photos (most b&w, though), and are the best value for fans of (US) military aviation history in the USA (their price of $3.95 is more than reasonable!). But I still have the compulsive urge to point out those caption errors, especially after they had also several grave errors in their captions in one of their previous SR-71 articles (in Wings, I believe). * Combat Aircraft (Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1997): Has an article on the F-22, including some info on thrust-vector aircraft. Contains some minor errors (NF-16D VISTA's serial is 86-0048, not 86-1048) and the civil registration of the 2nd YF-22A (PAV-2) was not 'N22XF' but 'N22YX'), but the photos and "F-22 Program Chronology" sidebar are nice. * Monitoring Times (Vol. 16, No. 7, July 1997): I usually don't get this magazine, but the cover story of the current issue is about Area 51, titled "Phantom in the Desert -- Area 51". It lists a bunch of frequencies for the DoE, NTS, Nellis AFB, Groom Lake, TTR and so on, and has some b&w pictures. It lists some site allocations of Area 51 in an "exclusive list", which also has some minor errors (the Lockheed 'A-11' should be the 'A-12' and the F-117 is 'Senior Trend' and not 'Have Blue', while neither NGCs B-2A Spirit nor TRAs Tier 2+ 'Global Hawk' were ever based at Area 51). They also mention the TRA Tier 3+ UAV, which is new to me! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:10:42 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Recent Magazines >Airpower (Vol. 27, No. 4, July 1997): >I want to point out that I really liked Art's SR-71 article, and that I >hope everybody (especially in this group) is getting this magazine. Unfortunately, it was sold out by the time I got to the store. I was looking forward to reading it too! Oh well. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 97 11:56:51 GMT From: "Art Hanley" Subject: Re: Recent Magazines You can buy a copy from the publisher, if you want. Look in the front of "Wings" or "Airpower" to get the phone number and address. Including them here would be a commercial use of this system, and that's a no-no. I can probably send them from home, though. Art Hanley Those of you who search for any opinion here that reflects my employers' views do so in vain. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:37:31 -0400 (EDT) From: PattonP@aol.com Subject: sk works list did you get my posting for the list re: saving the Skunkworks buildings in Burbank? I didn't see it, but may have missed one. To help save these historic buildings, write Mayor Bob Kramer Burbank City Hall 275 E. Olive Avenue Burbank CA 91502 The local leader of the movement to make a museum of these is R.C. “Chappy” Czapiewski 10720 Hortense St North Hollywood, CA 91602 818 761 4182 Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:54:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ 86-0048 _started_ as the VISTA, flew five acceptance flights and the USAF took possession. Then the USAF had the airplane converted into the MATV before being returned to the VISTA configuration. Tail markings include an AFMC badge and, on the only flight for which there is in-flight video, the NASA meatball. (Carrying the meatball was the price the USAF had to pay Dryden to get the otherwise free photo chase.) The VISTA should be back at EDW for acceptance testing of the TV mod fairly soon. A member of this mailing list is the only civilian woman to have flown the VISTA. (She's also the only civilian woman to have flown the variable-stability NT-33A, as well as being the last evaluation pilot to fly the NT-33A before it was retired to the Air Force Museum.) ACTIVE is the S/MTD airframe, as is obvious from the numbers. It was flown with the original thrust vectoring when it first came to Dryden, I believe. If I'm correct, then, ACTIVE will have had both 2D and axisymmetric TV. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > * NF-16D-30D-CF '86-0048; > - '86', '048', and 'VISTA', on tail; > - operated by Calspan Corp., but currently at LMTAS; > - the VISTA (Variable Stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft) was > modified by LMTAS with a larger, MCID (Modular Common Inlet Duct) and > an F100-PW-229 IPE (Improved Performance Engine), and is scheduled to > be equipped and then test flown with an axisymmetric thrust-vectoring > PYBBN (Pitch/Yaw Balanced-Beam Nozzle) from P&W, when (and if) the funds > are made available; > - was previously NF-16D MATV (Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring) test aircraft, > equipped with an F110-GE-129 engine and the AVEN (Axisymmetric thrust > Vectoring Exhaust (or Engine) Nozzle); > - this one is also not mentioned in this WAPJ; > > Other recent or future aircraft with thrust-vectoring capability include: > * 2D TVNs (Two-Dimensional Thrust-Vectoring Nozzles): > --------------------------------------------------- > - 1 MDC F-15B S/MTD (STOL/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator); > (USAF '71-0290') > (2 F100-PW-100 engines); > * AS TVNs (AxiSymmetric Thrust-Vectoring Nozzles): > ------------------------------------------------ > - 1 MDC F-15B ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles); > (former F-15B S/MTD, USAF '71-0290', 'NASA 837') > (2 F100-PW-229 IPEs with PYBBNs); ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 97 01:34:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: One time message on my SR-71 article I'm really not doing this to use the list to plug something, honest. I've been getting a few messages at home asking where they can find the Airpower magazine with my article about the real reason for the Blackbird's retirement and the story of its restoration. Airpower and Wings are distributed somewhat intermittently in some parts of the country. Also, some dealers do not leave them on the stands for the full contract ural period. In either case, that issue is scheduled to be replaced with the next issue in a couple of weeks. Here's the publisher's address where you can mail for it until they run out of copies: Sentry Books 10718 White Oak Ave. Granada Hills, CA 91344. Send them a check for $4.00 per copy. That includes postage, and is actually cheaper than what it would cost from a newstand if your jurisdiction taxes magazines. Specify you want the July 1997 issue of Airpower. The article is 28 pages long, including photo pages. Let me reiterate that I'm not sending this message to make money, the fee was fixed. I'm just doing this because I have gotten a few messages, and this might help out. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 97 02:14:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: F-22 and JSF refueling question Since the list is slow right now. I'd like to post a thought here and elsewhere for some discussion which might prove thought-provoking. We're at the start of developing two new systems (F-22 and JSF), and in the next decade there may be a few more. Do y'all think USAF should abandon their "flying boom" method of refueling and replace it with the "probe and drogue" method on the F-22, JSF and all future aircraft? From the '50s until it was disestablished, USAF was dominated by SAC and they were the one that got boom adopted (the early USAF fighters used probe and drogue). Their sole interest was in getting the fastest possible fuel flow to refuel their fleets of bombers, and since they were in the driver's seat, flying boom it became. Now, the SAC folks are gradually retiring, and by the middle of the next decade there will be less than 200 bombers left. The B-52 and B-1 could easily adapt to "P&D", and it wouldn't be hard to keep around a few "boomers" to service the B-2. Keep in mind that there already is an adapter that allows USAF booms to carry the basket, so converting most tankers wouldn't be hard. During the transition or whenever you had to refuel an aircraft that still had to have the boom, you just take the adapter off. Arguments in favor: No other air service in the world uses the boom. If a USN or any other aircraft has a fuel emergency and there's no Navy tanker around, it can plug into any tanker from any country, get a drink, and later on get yelled at for making an "unauthorized" hookup (this happened in Desert Storm). If a USAF aircraft runs low and there's no USAF tanker around, all the crew can do is punch out. You can buddy-refuel with P&D. Virtually any aircraft can be cleared to carry a pod to refuel any other aircraft. You can multiple refuel simultaneously with P&D. It's relatively easy to add P&D reception capability to existing aircraft, even if the aircraft wasn't designed for it. Witness the F-16, C-130, etc. There are no stealth penalties for P&D, as long as it is designed into the aircraft from the start (that's why I don't think you could change the B-2;, There aren't that many F-117s, and USAF's going to retire them early anyway). For example, the naval F-22, A-12, A/FX and A/F-117X would all have used probe and drogue. Also, all JSFs built for anyone but USAF will use P&D. The F-22's still early enough along that the change can get made. It's probably safer since there's no rigid boom coming close to the cockpit. You can turn virtually any large aircraft into a P&D tanker, including already built ones. It's too expensive to convert surplus a/c into "boomers". Arguments against: P&D can't transfer fuel as fast as boom. The receiving aircraft has to do somewhat more work than in booming, but the tanker gets to do less. AF pilots would have to be retrained, but they probably can handle this. It isn't a USAF idea. I'd be curious as to other folks thoughts on this for the upcoming generations of a/c. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:48:46 -0500 (CDT) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 betnal@ns.net wrote: > Arguments in favor: > > No other air service in the world uses the boom. ===> Not true. French C-135FRs use the boom without the BDA to refuel the E-3F for proficiency. Iranian 707 tankers carry the boom. Israeli 707 tankers carry the boom. Turkish KC-135Rs carry the boom. KC-135Rs destined for Singapore carry the boom. Saudi KE-3As use the boom. Aircrews from dozens of other countries are proficient in boom air refueling: Luftwaffe F-4Fs refuel from USAF KC-135Rs using the boom. RoKAF F-4s and F-16s routinely refuel from boom-equipped KC-135Rs. Indeed, this is all part of "interoperability" and "compatability," a critical issue facing NATO, especially with the admission of three new countries equipped with Soviet designs. > If a USN or any other > aircraft has a fuel emergency and there's no Navy tanker around, it can plug into > any tanker from any country, get a drink, and later on get yelled at for making an > "unauthorized" hookup (this happened in Desert Storm). If a USAF aircraft runs > low and there's no USAF tanker around, all the crew can do is punch out. ===> Not entirely true. There are "hard" and "soft" baskets, and there are some difference which make international "bagging" somewhat more complex. > You can buddy-refuel with P&D. Virtually any aircraft can be cleared to > carry a pod to refuel any other aircraft. ===> Yes, but wave good bye to your stealth characteristics when configured as a tanker. Moreover, the disadvantage of buddy refueling is that an A-4 carrying a buddy pack still has the range limits of an A-4, thus, the strike range is limited by the maximum range of the tanker-configured aircraft. That's one reason why you'll never see a K/A-18 Hornet! > > You can multiple refuel simultaneously with P&D. ===> Usually. It depends upon the size of the receiver. Mirage IVs, for example, until they retired recently, did NOT simultaneously refuel. You can't simultaneously refuel C-130Js or VC-10s. Moreover, in an emergency you CAN simultaneously refuel from a boom-equipped airplane. During the Vietnam War a KC-135 refueled a buddy-equipped receiver which itself refueled a probe-equipped receiver. > It's relatively easy to add P&D reception capability to existing > aircraft, even if the aircraft wasn't designed for it. Witness the F-16, C-130, > etc. ===> Yes, witness the Israeli F-4Es with the "bolt-on" probes. > > There are no stealth penalties for P&D, as long as it is designed into > the aircraft from the start (that's why I don't think you could change the B-2;, > There aren't that many F-117s, and USAF's going to retire them early anyway). For > example, the naval F-22, A-12, A/FX and A/F-117X would all have used probe and > drogue. Also, all JSFs built for anyone but USAF will use P&D. The F-22's still > early enough along that the change can get made. ===> Provided the _tanker_ is not already stealth configured. Imagine a KF-22 as part of a stealth SEAD package. Unless the hose and basket were carried internally, the pod would radiate to the degree that it would nullify the stealth capabilities. Moreover, if the hose and basket _were_ internal, and were streamed out only during a/r, there would be a notable radar signature associated with not only the basket (a stealth basket, maybe?), but I would be genuinely curious to learn about the function of stealth capability in a two-ship tight formation. Are the radar cross-sections in that close self-defeating? > It's probably safer since there's no rigid boom coming close to the > cockpit. ===> This is generally meaningless. Since 1956, only four KC-135s have been lost in air refueling collisions. Granted, more receivers have been lost, some by collisions with the boom, but this is still a function of training and proficiency than of design. In addition, the basket has a nasty habit of causing lots of damage as it whips around, or occasionally breaks off and gets stuck. > > You can turn virtually any large aircraft into a P&D tanker, including > already built ones. It's too expensive to convert surplus a/c into "boomers". ===> I doubt that very much. Ask the Israelis who converted their 707s into boom equipped tankers and have been trying to sell them ever since. > > > Arguments against: > > > P&D can't transfer fuel as fast as boom. ===> True, but high transfer rates are often a hindrance to smaller aircraft. I took on 600 pounds of gas in an OA-37B from the BDA and the tanker could use only 1 of its 4 pumps. If the receiver is a "heavy" like a C-5 or RC-135, then waiting to pass 100,000 pounds of fuel at 7,900 pounds per minute with the boom versus 4,800 pounds per minute with the basket is a simple exercise. Do _you_ want your E-3 blind those extra ten minutes as the radar must be shut off for a/r? > The receiving aircraft has to do somewhat more work than in booming, but > the tanker gets to do less. I found that receiver air refueling with a boom is easier in bad weather and turbulence than with a basket and probe. On night one of DESERT STORM, only one (1) Italian Tornado completed its air refueling because of turbulence and bad weather. The rest aborted. With the boom, you have two people working to make the connection and keep it. This is especially important as fatigue sets in. Imagine a B-2 crew, as one did this past week, setting a 44-hour record flight. Isn't is nice to know that the boomer will help with that last refueling when you're pretty puckered out? > > AF pilots would have to be retrained, but they probably can handle this. ===> Yes, some of them would have to be retrained. That would take about 20 minutes. Seriously, it is not a big problem. In fact, if proponents of the basket are right, any idiot can use it. > It isn't a USAF idea. ===> You know, this is the REAL issue. The Air Force did consider probe and drogue for the F-16 and F-15 very recently. See AW&ST 19 Sep 94, 67; AW&ST, 6 Nov 95, 69. When the KC-10 was undergoing initial testing, the folks at Wright-Patt and Edwards were testing a program called HOSE REEL. They put a hose in the aft boat tail on the starboard side of NKC-135A 55-3127, making it capable of refueling both probe-equipped and boom-equipped receivers on the same flight. The USAF and SAC demurred on the program as it threatened the KC-10 as cheaper and more effective. Look at the current MPRS on the KC-135R (I think 62-3499 is the first USAF R model so equipped, the French have been for a year or so). A great idea and gaining in popularity, and it finally addresses the whole problem: the need to refuel ANY kind of receiver, large or small, in any weather conditions, at any speed. It takes TWO to be most efficient, and until the USAF admits that we will see the same problems now as in 1949 when the probe versus boom issue was so acute. ===> Sorry to have rambled on so on so many off-topic issues. I trust this august body will forgive me. ===> At NO time should any of enthusiastic remarks be considered as vitriol toward Art! :) DrBob Hopkins Boom Tanker and Receiver Probe Tanker and Receiver - --Been There, Done That, Got the T-Shirt, Saw the Movie, AND Bought the Action Figure! ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #63 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@netwrx1.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@netwrx1.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica