A byproduct of this development effort and the building of large numbers of jet planes waiting in the air to be refuelled for was that these tankers were also available to refuel cargo aircraftfighter aircraftand ground attack aircraftin addition to bombers, for ferrying to distant theaters of operations. Name required. Share this: Twitter Facebook. If it is pushed too far, it can loop around the probe or nose of the aircraft, damage the windscreen, or cause contact with the rigid boom. Like Like. Even my female kitten leaves brown spots on the grass

The exercise has a colorful history. The first airborne refueling occurred in between two biplanes. With a five-gallon fuel canister and at an altitude of some 1, feet, Wesley May worked his way down the right wing of a plane flown by Frank Hawks; he then climbed onto the left wing of another plane and eventually poured the fuel into its gas tank. Although an impressive stunt, it did obviously not represent a practical way to refuel while airborne. The refueling aircraft released a fueling hose that did the deed.

That hose idea has stayed with us. The hose now has a basket the drogue, which is shaped something like a bowl on the end, and the combat aircraft has a probe, which is retractable except on the French-made Rafale and Mirage fighters. That probe locks into the drogue so that fuel can transfer. With this system , the onus is on the pilot of the plane accepting the fuel; they have to manipulate the craft so that the probe enters the drogue.

Boeing invented another system—the flying boom—in the s. Instead of a flexible hose, it involves a telescoping tube. For example, on the Airbus A MRTT that stands for Multi Role Tanker Transport , this boom, attached to the underside of the tail, is 38 ft long when retracted and 60 ft long when fully extended.

The boom has two small wings on it, and these help the operator control it and place it into the fuel tank—a port on top of the receiver aircraft. The method can transfer up to 1, gallons of fuel per minute. With this system the workload lies more with the boom operator.

This led to the development of the first production jet tanker, the KC The last KC entered the U. Air Force in and today nearly are still in service.

They are to be partially replaced by the Boeing KC Pegasus—except that this program has ratcheted up five Category 1 problems , meaning the aircraft cannot perform one or more of its core missions. The latest of those problems, announced by the U. Air Force at the end of March, is that the fueling system leaks.

They can both offload fuel by boom, or by hose-and-drogue. Obviously they need fuel themselves so cannot offload that entire amount. Airbus says that a MRTT loitering for four hours at 1, miles from take-off can offload , pounds of fuel.

This means that, theoretically, it could refuel about 15 single-engine aircraft such as an F, which holds about 7, pounds. When refueling fast jets helicopters and propeller aircraft can also be refueled in the air both tanker and receiver would be flying at between mph and at an altitude between 20, to 30, feet.

Aviation Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for aircraft pilots, mechanics, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. Right now if an airliner wants to fly a really long distance eg. This, of course, makes the flight of the aircraft less efficient than it could be 1.

Thus, if the craft could theoretically carry half as much fuel, that should increase the fuel efficiency of the craft, right? Of course, landing would add a heck of a lot of time to the flight, so it seems the better option would be mid-air refueling. It would allow for the aircraft to be more efficient, without the need for stopping on a long journey. Boeing and Airbus both make a few airplanes that can do mid-air refueling , in fact one of them is a highly modified properly called a VC used as Air Force One:.

But I'm not sure what that reason is. Less fuel would mean less induced drag or, if mid-air refueling were common practice, a wing that was designed to be more efficient because it was required to handle less weight. Fuel Quantity Unlike smaller fighter jets, you would need to offload a substantial quantity of fuel. For a B, you're looking in the range of 60 tonnes of fuel for half a tank. The boom of a KC faster than a basket can do around 3 tonnes a minute.

The math comes to then 20 minutes of aerial refuelling. The KC can do perhaps tonnes, so you might squeeze out three refuelling operations from one flight. Risk This is considerably more dangerous than the very conservative safety margins aircraft normally operate within. A quick search on YouTube is enough to propose this entire thing is very dangerous. Furthermore, you need to consider that the aircraft needs safety margin to divert should refuelling not work, which cuts into the benefits you can expect.

Refuelling Area Looking at the route you proposed, the closest airfield would probably be in Alaska, at least km away. Even if you did reroute, you'd get away from the jetstreams that aircraft over the Pacific use lying considerably further south, reducing efficiency.

The same scenario applies for eastbound Atlantic flights. The receiving aircraft crew would also need special training. The airframe modifications would be complicated and require certification. Furthermore, you would need to get everybody to agree on some common standard.

Logistics Planning is difficult. Each aircraft would have to be rerouted to intercept the tanker at a certain time and place. You want to refuel them perfectly one after an other, which is almost certainly not possible. There's just not the volume of aircraft movements feasible for this, especially for the ultra-long flights where it may have the greatest benefit.

Other Landing Benefits Include changing crews and possibly offloading passengers. Applicability The number of flights where this can be practically implemented and used is very limited and for all intents and purposes, you can just land the plane itself and refuel it. Even for the route you propose, it's around 7, km which is not a lot for a B Don't look at the fuel consumption of the airline flight in isolation.

An airline would need to combine the fuel used by both the revenue-earning flight and the tanker, and then add the cost of operating it, too. Even if this could be shared by four or five revenue-earning flights, the total would still be worse.

To find out how big the fuel saving by in-air refueling is, the Breguet equation is your friend. The saving fuel equivalent to 2. Add more if the tanker needs to do even as much as to take off, let alone fly to a refueling point and wait there. And the fuel saving needs not only to pay for the tanker's fuel needs, but also for its crew, maintenance and depreciation.

Aerial refueling is a great technology to make complex military scenarios possible , but is a very ressources-hungry beast. See wayback machine here :. Here is part of the abstract from a paper describing their approach:. In this paper it will be described how the safety of air-to-air refuelling has been assessed, and how proposed new or amended regulations and acceptable means of compliance have been defined. In their papers, you will find data for which flights mid air refuelling is worth it, how they want to make it happen, and some interesting facts.

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Why don't airliners use in-air refueling systems? Ask Question. Asked 5 years, 7 months ago.

Active 1 year, 3 months ago. Viewed 21k times. Boeing and Airbus both make a few airplanes that can do mid-air refueling , in fact one of them is a highly modified properly called a VC used as Air Force One: source: wordpress.

Does anyone know why airlines do not use aircraft that are capable of mid-air refueling? Improve this question. Glorfindel 1 1 gold badge 10 10 silver badges 19 19 bronze badges. Jay Carr Jay Carr Where as the way the military uses them Actually if you have a moment to describe the difference in mission ie. Especially since you know directly :.

Woodworking Projects 2020 Apk Lumber Products In Metairie Us Oneida Dust Collector Reviews 64 Hammer Woodworking Machines Uk