Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Highest Speed / Altitude For Air Refuelling?  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4375 posts, RR: 19
Posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9975 times:

Curious to know what the highest speeds / mach no's and altitudes have been or are used for in flight refuelling.


I would guess the SR71 was the highest but what about other types and what sort of speeds and altitudes are used normally ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9967 times:

AFAIK air refueling is tailored to the individual lift charateristics of the aircraft being refueled.

The tanker itself is not the problem, they are optimised for a much higher cruising speed than some of the fighters they refuel.

IIRC in one of the Gulf Wars some of the USAF tankers had been given the wrong profile for the F14 and the the guys in fully loaded F14A's (which has quite a low cruise speed when it's wings are forward) were having to use afterburner to stay hooked up!! Not an efficient way to refuel.
A little bit of back room coordination and it was sorted by flying a different profile, although for some reason I recall they still preferred to refuel from RAF tankers than USAF, can't remember why though.

The SR-71 on the other hand, I believe was quite tricky to refuel as there was only a few knots airspeed between the cruise and stall at refuel altitude. It's been a while since I read Brian Shuls book 'The Untouchables' but IIRC this was around 30,000 feet.

I'm a bit hazy on all this so hopefully KC135 will be along shortly and he'll have all the first hand experience you could possibly want on all this.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

I just checked 'The Untouchables', the normal refueling altitude for the SR-71 was 25,000 feet at which it would require one afterburner to be lit as the tanks neared full. Refueling at higher altitudes required both after burners.
In the Libya missions they refueled at 300 knots at 30,000 feet. Shul reports that this was just 10 knots above Vmin.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9400 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 1):
A little bit of back room coordination and it was sorted by flying a different profile, although for some reason I recall they still preferred to refuel from RAF tankers than USAF, can't remember why though.

If I had to guess I would think that it was because the KC-135 used an attachment to the end of the boom to refuel probe type aircraft, and the RAF tankers reeled out the drouge. The short hose on the -135 would be harder to hold in position then the longer one of the the VC-10s and L1011's.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

IIRC, refueling the SR-71A from the KC-135Q was done between FL-310 and FL-250 at 335 KIAS. If more speed was required the tanker would start a 'taboggan manuver' which was a decent during refueling. Many fighter aircraft refueled at between 305 KIAS and 330 KIAS. The FB-111A would refuel at FL-220 to FL-200 at 315 KIAS from the KC-135A/E/Q.

Keep in mind the KC-135A/Q were faster than the KC-135E/R/T. I believe the E/R/T has a max mach. number around .90M, while the A/Q had a max mach. number of .95M. For the KC-135A/Q at most refueling altitudes, .95M comes out around 355 KIAS.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Many fighter aircraft refueled at between 305 KIAS and 330 KIAS. The FB-111A would refuel at FL-220 to FL-200 at 315 KIAS from the KC-135A/E/Q.

We used to run from Pease and drag the FB-111A's to Nellis and back. While the 111's hit the range we would drop in to McConnell or Offutt refuel get airborne and catch them for the round trip back. It was a long day.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Keep in mind the KC-135A/Q were faster than the KC-135E/R/T

The J-57 sucked on T/O but kept the A model rolling at altitude. The one thing I do not miss was dragging the A-10's across the Atlantic or Pacific..Adding multiple hours to the mission. Also refueling the C-130's by dropping flaps to get slow enough...



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2300 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8886 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 5):
Also refueling the C-130's by dropping flaps to get slow enough...

Did a TDY to Eglin once and played with those guys for a week. How slow can you go...  



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8612 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 5):
windy95

When were you at Pease? I was there in 1978-1980 and again in 1985-1990. I was the "Wing Boom", and 509th AREFS First Sergent in 1986-1988 and the wing flight scheduler after that.

My name was painted on the "Wing Tanker", (then) KC-135A 62-3509 during that time, I believe she is an "R" model now stationed in the UK now. The "Wing Bomber" was FB-111A 69-6509,


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8377 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 5):
windy95

When were you at Pease? I was there in 1978-1980 and again in 1985-1990. I was the "Wing Boom", and 509th AREFS First Sergent in 1986-1988 and the wing flight scheduler after that.

My name was painted on the "Wing Tanker", (then) KC-135A 62-3509 during that time, I believe she is an "R" model now stationed in the UK now. The "Wing Bomber" was FB-111A 69-6509,

I was there from 1985 to 1990...62-3509 was "the Spirit of the Seacoast". I crewed 3502, 3633 and lastly 2599.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8305 times:

There were two Booms used on the KC-135A, the "High Speed Boom" which was rated and approved to refuel up to 355 KIAS, or .95M, the max allowed airspeed of the tanker. The "Low Speed Boom" was rated at 315 KIAS, but all of them were eventually converted to High Speed Booms.

All Booms had high speed ruddervators after 1972. The 'canoe' atop the boom, which hosed the cable attachment and the ring for the hook to stow it was shorter on the low speed boom. Most, but not all high speed booms also had a boundrey layer wrapped around the boom at the longer 'canoe'.

Low speed booms were installed on the first 300, or so, KC-135As and high speed booms on all remaining 432 KC-135As, The booms were interchangeable. They could be changed out at the base level, and were always removed at depot. So any boom could be on any KC-135A. All of the KC-135Qs only had high speed booms.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4375 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8249 times:

Thanks Top Boom, always enjoy your posts. I did not realise the KC135 was that fast, that is impressive. .95 Mach is the fastest MMO I have heard of on any subsonic, transport Aircraft !


Apart from the SR71, what was the Aircraft with, routinely the fastest refueling speed you worked with ?

[Edited 2011-07-25 21:47:46]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineHarleyDriver From United States of America, joined May 2010, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

I was a boom up with the MAINEiacs from '96 to '00 then at McGuire from '00 to '03. I took a severe downgrade to become a loadmaster and now doing the load thing but I REALLY miss being a boom! Loved that job!!!

The reason probe equipped receivers preferred the drogue from the KC-10, RAF L-1011 or the VC-10 was the soft basket. The basket on the -135 was solid and bounced off the receiver fairly hard as they were making contact where the soft basket would just softly brush up against their aircraft as they are making contact. The one advantage to the -135 hose and drogue was the shorter hose and less whipping where the longer hose of the centerline drogue on the KC-10 tended to move around more in turbulence. I got this info from an F-14 pilot many years ago after dragging them across the pond and having beers at Rota, Spain as an en route stop on their way to Sigonella. I did lose a basket once on a Red Flag mission refueling F-18's. It was determined there was corrosion where the basket connected to the hose and the basket stayed on the F-18. We heard it stayed with the F-18 all the way until landing. The basket is part of the hose aerodynamics and we did get some whipping around of the hose but nothing that came close to hitting our jet.

The fastest A/R I have done was just your standard F-15 and F-16 refuelings at 315 KIAS typically around FL280 to maybe FL330 for training and higher for drags across the ocean, maybe FL350. I remember we had a couple of low speed booms up in Bangor and the overrun speed of 335 KIAS when refueling fighters came into play. The low speed of the boom didn't into play at cruise, only when the boom was lowered for A/R. I never refueled the F-111, just watched it when I was a crew chief before being a boom so I couldn't tell you that A/R seed and although I refueled German F-4's once, I don't remember that A/R airspeed.

The fastest I ever saw at cruise in an E Model was M.86 and I know we were close to barber pole on the airspeed indicator. We were behind for a HHQ mission and pushed it up. Now TACC is closely following fuel burns and you need TACC permission to go with anything higher then the scheduled fuel load and the Aircraft Commanders name is high lighted if more fuel then minimum necessary is added to the mission so no more pushing it up if you need to offload a certain amount of fuel as a minimum and I hear it's not uncommon for receivers to ask for a bit of extra fuel and the tanker crew being unable as TACC allowed only the minimum for the mission scheduled.



Department of Redundancy Department
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8079 times:

Quoting HarleyDriver (Reply 11):
Now TACC is closely following fuel burns and you need TACC permission to go with anything higher then the scheduled fuel load and the Aircraft Commanders name is high lighted if more fuel then minimum necessary is added to the mission so no more pushing it up if you need to offload a certain amount of fuel as a minimum and I hear it's not uncommon for receivers to ask for a bit of extra fuel and the tanker crew being unable as TACC allowed only the minimum for the mission scheduled

That is crazy, especially the very last part. Interesting.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8012 times:

Quoting HarleyDriver (Reply 11):
I did lose a basket once on a Red Flag mission refueling F-18's. It was determined there was corrosion where the basket connected to the hose and the basket stayed on the F-18. We heard it stayed with the F-18 all the way until landing. The basket is part of the hose aerodynamics and we did get some whipping around of the hose but nothing that came close to hitting our jet.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a photo of that F18 coming in to trap with the basket hanging off it somewhere!!!
Can't remember if it was on here or in one of my books at home. Must go check.

Excellent story though  


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

Quoting HarleyDriver (Reply 11):
I did lose a basket once on a Red Flag mission refueling F-18's. It was determined there was corrosion where the basket connected to the hose and the basket stayed on the F-18. We heard it stayed with the F-18 all the way until landing.

Couldn't find the F18 but I did find this  


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2300 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

Was talking with a friend who worked on KC-135s and B-52s back in the 1960s and '70s. He remembered losing at least one basket to a Navy fighter, and also told me about the day he was on the flight line (somewhere down south) when a "unicorn" B-52 came in. He didn't remember how it happened, but the boom got punched through the forward fuselage, in the cockpit area, of the B-52, and broke off the tanker. The BUFF returned to base with the boom sticking out the top of the fuselage. They stopped and shut down on the runway - one of the navigators, flight suit soaked with fuel, was out of the airplane almost before it stopped, diving into the drainage ditch alongside the runway, pulling off his flight suit as he went.


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7794 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 1):
The SR-71 on the other hand, I believe was quite tricky to refuel as there was only a few knots airspeed between the cruise and stall at refuel altitude. It's been a while since I read Brian Shuls book 'The Untouchables' but IIRC this was around 30,000 feet.

He also recalls the trick used when the SR-71 got quite heavy near the end and they'd use the reheat on one engine for the last bit of the refuel. You can imagine how tricky that would have been.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 hours ago) and read 7687 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
Apart from the SR71, what was the Aircraft with, routinely the fastest refueling speed you worked with ?


Most fighter sized, including the FB-111, aircraft boom refueled at 315 KIAS. It was different with USN or USMC aircraft as you had to use NAVTOPS manuals for speeds. altitudes, etc. NAVTOPS was really written with the KA-3s and KA-6s in mind, not the faster KC-135.

I can recall draging the 49 FIS (we called them the 49 MACS for mid air collision squadron) to Iceland from their hame base at RME and they wanted to refuel at 325 KIAS, but the 'standard' refuel speed was 315 KIAS. On an ORI where the FB-111As were running very late we refueled them at 335 KIAS, they were also normally refueled at 315 KIAS. They made their TOT times good. Word got back to the Wing King, and he wasn't happy when we landed as he thought we broke the peacetime flying rules, thus cost him the ORI because thos bombers and our refueling would not be scored. We told him there was no such restriction, but he didn't believe us until the SAC-IG himself stepped in and congradulated us for the "innovated" and "fully mission oriented" attitude my crew had in helping to get the FBs to their targets "on-time" When the bomber crews landed he congradulated them, too. The Wing King changed his attitude and gave us a written "well-done", along with buying is a drink at the Officer's Club.

Quoting cpd (Reply 16):
when the SR-71 got quite heavy near the end and they'd use the reheat on one engine for the last bit of the refuel. You can imagine how tricky that would have been.

Actually I had many receivers light a burner during refueling as they got heavier, not just the SR-71. F/EF/ FB-111s, F/RF-4s, F-105s, F-106s, etc. did that a lot, too. It actually stabilized them a lot. They only went to min. burner on one engine, in the daytime you couldn't see it, but you could see it at night. The F/RF-4C was doing that on almost every refueling I had with them as they had the lower thrust engines compared to the F-4D/E/F/G.

In contrast, most heavies like the B-52, EC/RC/KC-135, C-5, etc refueled between 255 and 275 KIAS.

Of course there are exceptions to both the fighter sized and heavies refueling speeds, the A-10 refueled at 205 KIAS and slower and the EC/AC/MC/C-130s refueled as slow as 180 KIAS (AC-130 because of all the drag they had).


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4375 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 hours ago) and read 7648 times:

Thanks TopBoom,



I would imagine they would have to put some flap out at the lower speeds ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Yes, for refueling the C-130s we had to set the flaps to 20, IIRC.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I can recall draging the 49 FIS (we called them the 49 MACS for mid air collision squadron) to Iceland from their hame base at RME and they wanted to refuel at 325 KIAS, but the 'standard' refuel speed was 315 KIAS.

I forgot to mention these aircraft were F-106A/Bs.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Highest Speed / Altitude For Air Refuelling?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Decent Hand-held Scanner For Air Shows? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 01:55:12 by ChrisNH
More Info For Air Force Week. posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:04:19 by Jacks757
Bilateral Agreement For Air Space Violation posted Thu Feb 16 2006 10:35:07 by 777
Replacement For Air Force 1? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 23:37:02 by Futurestar68
Australia Selects A330-200 For Air Force Tanker posted Fri Apr 16 2004 11:06:30 by KEESJE
Why 744 For U.S. Air Force posted Sun Feb 8 2004 03:12:19 by 3lions
Security Measures For Air Force One posted Thu Mar 20 2003 14:58:07 by Ryanb741
Air-to-Air Refuelling Fuel Spillage posted Thu May 30 2002 11:40:52 by Trent800
Peru Buys 12 Twin Otters For Peruvian Air Force posted Thu Jun 16 2011 22:05:13 by Arrow
Wrist Watches For The US Air Force Pilots? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 21:37:02 by wardialer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format