RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2160 times:
Now that the 4 examples the RAF has on lease are being purchased, does anyone know of a timeline for converting these aircraft to probe and drogue refueling equipment?
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter): Now that the 4 examples the RAF has on lease are being purchased, does anyone know of a timeline for converting these aircraft to probe and drogue refueling equipment?
At least while they're on lease, they have to keep them at USAF standards. This requirement was originally in case of lease-return to USAF. I don't know that RAF has ever stated that they would make any modifications. In fact, the mantra of the C-17 production process seems to be "standardization" except in areas of obvious improvement (eg. C-17 -> C-17ER.)
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 1): At least while they're on lease, they have to keep them at USAF standards. This requirement was originally in case of lease-return to USAF.
Yes, I understand that.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 1): I don't know that RAF has ever stated that they would make any modifications. In fact, the mantra of the C-17 production process seems to be "standardization" except in areas of obvious improvement (eg. C-17 -> C-17ER.)
However, the RAF is currently converting the C-130J fleet to probe and drogue, so I see no reason why the C-17 wont get the same treatment once they are fully owned by the RAF. This would not have an impact on C-17 production standards either, because the conversion would be carried out by Marshall Aerospace, which is currently doing the C-130J and has previously converted the L-1011 tankers, the VC-10s, the E-3D Sentries and other RAF aircraft.
The RAF has a mandate to be able to operate independantly of any other country, so having no native refueling ability on the C-17s would be backing away from that mandate.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
It would seem to be a fairly simple modification what with most of the plumbing already in place. Is the location of the probe on the nose a factor? Can it go left, right, or center? How long would it take to refuel a C-17 via the probe and drogue - I bet she takes a loooonnnngggg drink.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2077 times:
The probes were removed from the TriStars because it was determined that they had sufficient range and that they would seldom be used. I see the same scenario for the C-17's. The number of times they actually require in-flight refueling would not justify the expense of adding the probes.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 4): The probes were removed from the TriStars because it was determined that they had sufficient range and that they would seldom be used
The Tristars range is nearly double that of the C-17's unrefuelled range, which in turn is only slightly greater than the C-130J-30's range, which the RAF are converting at the moment.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
Also need to compare range with and without loads(weight), a max loaded C-17 ain't going nowhere far without a tanker.
I'm also not sure how simple it will be, the plumbing in place from the top of the fuselage to the tanks will have to change, as the probe will probably go left or right side of the cockpit, hopefully, the structure can take it, hopefully, it was a "thought" in Boeings original design.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1972 times:
Would they keep the refueling recepticals, like the RAF E-3s have? The RAF AWACS do refuel from both VC-10 and KC-135 tankers., The RAF C-17s could do the same, it only takes a little pilot training.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 8): Boeing did not do the original design the C-17. It is a McDonnell Douglas product that Boeing inherited.
You say that like the C-17 designers, workers, and facilities vanished and somehow the product appeared at a Boeing plant worked on by Boeing people. It's mostly the same people, just a different name.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
The RAF are to buy the now 5 C-17's, it also seems they are considering 3 more too, this is unrelated to any other RAF transport procurement, present or planned.
So once owned, the RAF/MoD can modify to their hearts content.
In the 1990's, MDD proposed to the RAF, the C-17K, RB211-535E4 engines, and a probe refuelling system alongside the boom receptacle, like the refuelling system fitted to the RAF E-3D's.
(I always wished they'd taken this up, buying around 12-15 of these, passing on the C-130J's, re-furbing around 40 of the original C-130K's, replacing them in time with what is now the A400M).
Today, we are past all that, but yes, once owned, a modification for probes seems sensible.
Consider in 1982, before the Falklands war, the C-130's, the Nimrods, did not have refuelling probes, the ones on the Vulcans had been deactivated for 20 years too.
Yet within weeks, the 'Black Buck' assigned Vulcans, some C-130's and Nimrods, had all been modded-the latter two by using surpus Vulcan probes, not that reactivating the Vulcan's ones was easy.
Much better to do the C-17's before an urgent need suddenly arises.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
I don't see as to why the RAF cannot simply bump off of USAF tankers and just have the bill sent to London! Besides, the whole reason the USAF went with the boom was because the drogue system could not transfer fuel fast enough for larger aircraft such as bombers.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1808 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 9): You say that like the C-17 designers, workers, and facilities vanished and somehow the product appeared at a Boeing plant worked on by Boeing people. It's mostly the same people, just a different name.
I say that because it is true. Those McDonnell Douglas people that designed the C-17 may be Boeing employees now but at the time the C-17 was being designed Boeing had nothing to do with it. Lockheed had more to do with the original C-17 design than Boeing as they built the first five (5) sets of wings.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11): I don't see as to why the RAF cannot simply bump off of USAF tankers and just have the bill sent to London!
because
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2): The RAF has a mandate to be able to operate independantly of any other country, so having no native refueling ability on the C-17s would be backing away from that mandate.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
