The Surprising Story Of Aerial Refueling
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 12. 2023
- ▶ Visit brilliant.org/NewMind to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription
In the early days of aviation both the civil and military world, a practical method for traversing large distances was highly sought after. While airframe and engine designs were constantly evolving, air-to-air refueling was seen as the only immediate solution to the range extension problem, particularly for military applications.
The first attempts at air-to-air refueling were carried out as dangerous stunts performed by civilian pilots known as barnstormers at flying circuses. The first true systematic attempt of inflight refueling was conducted on October 3, 1920 in Washington D. Cabot of the United States Naval Reserve.
Finally, in 1923, WW I veteran pilots Captain Lowell Smith and Lieutenant John Richter, would devise a method to deal with the flight duration limits that plagued them during combat. A few months later, numerous test flights were flown over a circular course, with the team achieving their first flight endurance record on June 27th, at 6 hours and 39 minutes of flight time.
Using the refueling technique developed by Smith and Ricther, the tankers carried a 50 foot hose that would be lowered to the receiver aircraft, which itself was modified with a large fuel funnel that led to its fuselage tank. Throughout the entire flight, forty-two contacts were made with the tankers, with almost 5,000 gallons of gasoline and 245 gallons of oil being transferred.
By 1935, Cobham's would demonstrate a technique known as grappled-line looped-hose air-to-air refueling. In this procedure, the receiver aircraft would trail a steel cable which was then grappled by a line shot from the tanker. The line was then drawn into the tanker, where the receiver's cable was connected to the refueling hose. Once the hose was connected, the tanker climbed slightly above the receiving aircraft where fuel would flow under gravity. By the late 1930s, Cobham company, Flight Refuelling Ltd or FRL would become the very first producer of a commercially viable aerial refueling system.
In March of 1948, the USAF’s Air Material Command initiated the GEM program, in the hopes of developing long range strategic capabilities through the study of aircraft winterization, air-to-air refueling and advanced electronics. The air-to-air refueling program in particular was given top priority, within GEM. After a year of training and testing with the modified FRL air-to-air refueling system, it would be used by the B-50 Superfortress "Lucky Lady II" of the 43rd Bomb Wing to conduct the first non-stop around-the-world flight.
The solution to the problem came in the form of a flying boom refueling concept. The flying boom aerial refueling system is based on a telescoping rigid fueling pipe that is attached to the rear of a tanker aircraft. The entire mechanism is mounted on a gimbal, allowing it to move with the receiver aircraft. In a typical flying boom aerial refueling scenario, the receiver aircraft rendezvous with the tanker, and maintain formation.
The receiver aircraft then moves to an in-range position behind the tanker, under signal light or radio guidance from the boom operator. Once in position, the operator extends the boom to make contact with the receiver aircraft where fuel is then pumped through the boom.
Simultaneously, Boeing would develop the world's first production aerial tanker, the KC-97 Stratofreighter. . Over the next few years, these Boeing would develop the first high-altitude, high-speed jet-engine powered flying-boom aerial tanker, the KC-135 Stratotanker.
By 1949 Cobham had devised the first probe and drogue aerial refueling system. Probe-and-drogue refueling employs a flexible hose that trails behind the tanker aircraft. During aerial refueling, the drogue stabilizes the hose in flight and provides a funnel to guide the insertion of a matching refueling probe that extends from the receiver aircraft.
When refueling operations are complete, the hose can is then reeled up completely into an assembly known as the Hose Drum Unit. Operational testing of the first probe-and-drogue refueling system began in 1950.
On June 4th, 2021, The US Navy conducted its first-ever aerial refueling between a manned aircraft and an unmanned tanker, using a Boeing MQ-25 Stingray and a Navy F-18 Super Hornet. Conducted over Mascoutah, Illinois the 4 and half hour test flight performed a series of both wet and dry contacts with the UAV, with a total of 10 minutes of total contact time and transferring around 50 gallons of fuel.
SUPPORT NEW MIND ON PATREON
/ newmind
▶ Visit brilliant.org/NewMind to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription
My grandfather was a pilot of B-29's during WWII and was selected to be one of the first pilots to test in flight refueling after the war in the GEM program. He said he was selected because of his formation flying abilities and that it was very intense training that required the upmost concentration. Throttle control was paramount when the tanker was loosing lots of weight and his plane was taking on weight.
That was before computers controlled everything. I couldn’t imagine the concentration it would take and having to constantly monitor your engine power and watching the other plane to make sure you stayed connected and didn’t crash into each other🫡🫡
Immensely brave men and women!!
Wow...I never really thought about that for some reason. The refueling plane would be wanting to climb, while the plane getting fuel would be losing altitude and speed. Them boys in WWII were a different breed. They don't make 'em like that anymore, sadly.
Me me me me my I my
@@RILEYLEIFSON_UTAHPilots today can indeed still handle increasing/decreasing weights in flight manually.
36 year Boom Operator here with 6400 flight hours all on the -135. 1980-2016, I got to fly through 3pm different engine variants and the cockpit modernization from the old “round dial” cockpit. For all the mods done to the aircraft during my tenure, the boom pod only saw a couple of mods to include a tail mounted floodlight and a boom trim mechanism.
Awesome thanks for everything you've done
DIFFICULT to be lN military over 3O yrz ... flag ranx exceptionz
@@BattShytKuhraezy Why is it difficult to be I. The military for more than 30 years?
Obviously you've never heard of the Guard and Reserves...I had a good Friend Serve 30 Years Active duty...Retired...and then went to the reserves for an additional 10 years
@@GaryHall-kx9mw 30 in AD is huge, but yes. My chief is at 37 years in my unit and was my senior when I came back from AIT. There is no max TIS in the guard to where if you don't make rank you are non-retained. HOWEVER you do have to see a board after 20, so you can get non-retained if you are holding up others from progressing and not bringing a benefit to the unit.
It’s crazy how the kc-135 was only the second aircraft built from the factory to be a tanker aircraft and is still in service today.
When it’s right it’s just right.
@@Patient-957 87.5% of it's engines remained in place. That's better that some ground vehicles.
Built by Boeing when Boeing was run by engineers rather than useless MBAs
almost makes you think that we stopped innovating since then 🤔....yes we did ..😡we need to find a better way already....using robotics or something !!😠
@@billhanna2148 we have newer refueling tankers but the military keeps the old ones around because they often don't need the extra fuel capacity of a newer tanker. Additionally with newer fighters and new engines that are more efficient you just don't need that many new tankers, at least until the old airframes wear out.
My son, Alex is a KC135 pilot in the Air National Guard. Their tankers are the 'newest' 135s in service. Their date of manufacture is 1965!
My son is an IP on the AWACS. The most challenging of all operations for his charges to master is taking on fuel from those 135’s. Tried it myself in a simulator and I definitely agree. …….and yeah, those E3 AWACS just as old.
@@Lt_Tragg Thankfully the E3's are being replaced by E7 Wedgetails
Just goes to show you that if you build it well and then put a lot of effort into maintaining it, an aircraft can last a long long time.
0:20 The same event in Libya was also the first anti-aircraft warfare in history because the Turkish troops fired back at the Italian airplane.
I'll admit that I'm biased since I started my military career as a KC-135 crew chief, but I don't think that drone tankers are going to oust large manned tankers from service, probably ever.
Tactically, in contested environments forward, the drone tankers definitely have an advantage, but that's only part of what tankers do. Tankers have the ability to drag fighters from their main bases, plus carry the support equipment and maintainers to sustain those fighters at the same time. Also, in the procurement game the Air Force has a "no more vanilla tankers" policy, so your tankers have cargo, medevac, and roll on command, control and communications capabilities. Even current KC-135s are equipped with the ability to mount pretty impressive communications networking capabilities.
There will definitely be drones in the aerial refueling mix, though especially when they put booms on them to support the non-probe USAF birds.
A hypothetical mix would be manned tankers supporting a strike package from CONUS to within the range of enemy air defenses and then the smaller, stealthy drone tankers supporting the strike package within EAD range.
When it becomes possible, on paper, to make an unmanned aircraft do the same things as a human operator does in terms of the specific mission. One needs to take note.
When an unmanned aircraft successfully completes a few missions, without failure... One needs to worry.
When unmanned aircraft start planning their own missions, without human intervention... One needs to turn it off before Skynet is formed.
Unfortunately, as automation matures and the biggest players in that game start pushing out standardized machines that do most jobs out there, we humans will stop manning because the robots/drones/AI is cheaper than human labor/crews are.
It is inevitable because profit margins is all that matters to the heads of big business.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on which side you are on. But if you are on the "right side", you will benefit from increased standards of living at the expense of your income security/stability. Eventually, humans will just be consumers, they won't actually work for a living. It will be Wall-E basically, bunch of obese space tourists.
What drones may do that is a game changer is make in-flight refueling affordable for commercial aircraft.
I am a retired tanker crew chief also. The Navy has a drone refueler that can take off and land on a carrier, and fly a pattern that any aircraft that can connect to its basket, can get fuel. The drone is on autopilot, so no big deal. The receiving aircraft still has to make the contact, and stay in position.
@robertheinkel6225 yeah, the drone definitely helps the Navy do their thing. For joint air operations in general, the thing that drones can't keep up with is pure volume. When your theater planning sections are doing their thing, they're planning on how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds of on-station offloadable fuel they have available, which you're not going to get with the navy sized drone. Manned or unmanned, generated sortie count is generated sortie count and has manpower demands for maintenance. If one were to design an unmanned tanker sufficient to support large, modern air wars one would probably end up with something like a 737 sized drone that's all fuel tank. And then you'd be losing out on the ability to move cargo, people, or do stuff like roll on airborne ops centers or airborne battle management suites.
Maybe you could have a large manned tanker top off smaller, stealthy drones and then the drones could go directly deliver fuel to 5th or 6th gen aircraft deeper in the higher threat zones on demand.
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis I work for an airline now, and I'm not so sure about that. Modern airliner engines are reliable, efficient, and capable enough that the pacing factor is the average person's endurance to be in a noisy tube in the sky with hundreds of strangers. When I was going through some initial ETOPS training years ago, medical emergency diversions were more common on long distance flights than engine or aircraft systems faults and failures.
Great work!
In the FWIW department. The USAF solved the early issues with Tanker/Receiver speed differentials (rather than the receiver nearing stall speed) by flying a “toboggan”. Both aircraft would start a shallow descent, allowing the tanker to speed up to an appropriate speed for the receiver. It was still a thing we kept in our bag of tricks if we ever had a speed-limited refueling.
Awesome bit of info!
☮
The toboggan maneuver is still used today for receiver aircraft that are power limited. (A-10, C-130). By descending, this allows the receiver aircraft to be able to move into position where it would otherwise be impossible during level flight.
This documentary is also a lost opportunity to remind about a formidable achievement of the (British) Royal Air Force, who in 1982 bombed targets needing 7,600 mi / 12,200 km round trips, during the Falklands War. Check "Operation Black Buck" in Wikipedia.
During each of those operations, 11 tankers took off to feed only one bomber, the only bomber through the whole mission. They were not supplying only the bomber, but also in between, and those who emptied first left the formation earlier.
The RAF had to rebuild the in air refuelling capability, for the Vulcan Bomber. One of the most important components was being used as an ashtray, but the Victors were already converted to in flight refuelling capabilities.
One thing you missed was why the USAF chose the flying boom for it's primary refueling method for decades...refueling fuel capacity on the refueler plane and greater the of fuel flow...very important considerations when you need to gas up large planes like B-52s.
The Navy is generally size-limited on it's planes -- specifically carrier planes -- so the higher fuel flow rate is not needed, thus the P&B works well.
Now, USAF tankers can employ both methods for better cross-service fueling.
I believe there are also stealth considerations. P&B requires an outshooting connection point to make contact with the drogue, however it is much easier to engineer a boom receptacle such as the one in the B2 that can hide itself and not contribute to radar cross section while not in use.
@@professorx4047 Refueling ops tend to take place far out of range of enemy defenses, since the tankers can't defend themselves. Stealth isn't much of a worry at that point. Plus, the 2 systems haven't really changed that much since before the stealth era.
Besides, the tankers are not stealthy in the slightest, and they have a FAR bigger radar cross-section than the refueling systems they deploy.
@@samsignorelli The stealth concern is for the boom on the receiving aircraft rather than the tanker. You'd have to engineer the receiver boom to completely retract into the airframe which adds weight and complexity (moving parts, bearings, motors, etc)
@@WS-nv6cp The planes fly so close together during refueling, they're going to make one big signal...a radar that misses the stealth plane -- even with the small radar return on the probe -- is going to pick up the tanker.
Retracting the probe fulling into the receiving plane is not exclusively a stealth plane thing...the F-14 Tomcat had a probe that fully retracted into the right side fuselage, and it was not remotely a stealth plane.
@@professorx4047 this outshooting connection can be retracted, such as on the F35B and F-35C, which are some of the stealthiest aircraft on the planet.
Any story of military flight refuelling should mention the Black Buck raids mounted during the 1982 Falklands war. Port Stanley airfield was attacked five times from Ascension Island, in mid-Atlantic near the equator, using two Vulcan bombers and eleven Victor air tankers. The 7600 mile round trip was a world record for a bombing raid at the time and involved the primary and reserve attack Vulcans being refuelled multiple times, and the Victor tankers had to refuel each other as well using FRL's refuelling system. The military value of the raids has been questioned but they were prodigious feats of flight refuelling.
I read yours after posting mine about the same subject.
I was a flight test boom operator. Thanks for making this and keeping the heritage.
7:50
When mommy and daddy airplanes love each other very much.....
The Guinness World Record was set in 1958 in a Cessna 172 that flew nonstop for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes and covered 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers). That's about six times around the Earth or 15 Sydney-New York flights without touching the ground.
Where did they go to the bathroom?
@@harryparsons2750 there is a documentary about this story somewhere on youtube and I think they were 2 pilots and it was probably in bags
The aircraft was refuelled in flight with a hose dropped down to a speedy car on the runway, and engine oil and food hoisted aboard.
The C172 was equipped with an auto pilot, but there was one point in the flight where the human pilots found themselves both asleep for over an hour. Days later, the autopilot failed so it was vital that it never happen again. They finally landed when the engine was badly overdue for service, and fuel and oil consumption became more excessive than was practical to resupply. The engine was not making enough power for a full load of fuel, and refueling needed the attention of both pilots at once too often so not they were not getting uninterrupted rest to continue. To the pilots it must have been a great relief.
I never ever would have guessed aerial refueling came about so quickly after the airplane was invented. Just mindblowing how fast planes improved
What always amazes me is that the first plane that ever flew was made in 1903, and the yet to be broken record for the fastest air breathing manned plane was set in the 70s. Its nuts, even more so when 50 years have past
Those people climbing onto the wings were nuts!
Very cool and heart warming that the first company to develop a functional refueling system was given a second kick at the can to make an even more efficient refueling system than the one that outmoded their original design.
A company called “Flight Refueling” based at Wimborne Dorset,
Manufacturing FR near my hometown on the South Coast of England.
Big up Flight Refuelling Limited 👊 what a history the company has!
Did my apprenticeship there and can thank it for my ongoing career in Aviation.
"At 12:32 p.m. on June 4, 1935, brothers Al and Fred Key lifted off the grass strip of Meridian's airport in an effort to break the world record for sustained flight... The record they established in their 27 days aloft, totaling 653 hours and 34 minutes, remains unbroken in conventional flight. Not until orbiting space labs did man stay aloft longer. When they landed at 6:06 p.m. on July 1, 1935, before a crowd of between 30,000 and 40,000 fans gathered at the airfield... Some 300 gallons of oil were used and they consumed 6,000 gallons of gas... The flight of Al and Fred Key proved that air-to-air refueling worked."
I agreed with you until i remembered this and had to check the date.
But it was broken in 1958 by a Cessna.
The Guinness World Record was set in 1958 in a Cessna 172 that flew nonstop for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes and covered 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers).
And that is a little before manned space flight and labs.
But still a darn good reference of history from you.
Keep reminding others on why it is a good to push limits and achieve.
You always have to drop everything when Newmind uploads a new video. Great content !
You missed an important event. Two brothers in Meridian Miss were the first to perfect the connecting valve. Their plane is in the Smithsonian. It is a very interesting story
"The Wright engine made more than sixty-one million revolutions, consumed six thousand gallons of fuel, and used three hundred gallons of oil while maintaining an average airspeed of eighty miles per hour. It received fuel and supplies from the other aircraft 432 times."
The amount of information you put into a ~20 minute video is impressive. Awesome video, and keep up the good work.
Neat video. Interesting subject for sure. When my dad retired from the USAF, after 20 years of service, our family moved to Moreno Valley, CA which (mostly) surrounded (then designated) March AFB. At the time, just prior to the base's decommissioning and redesignation of "Air Reserve Base," the base was a primary deployment center of KC-135s. I remember being able to see whole flights of KC-135s spread across the tarmac of the base, as well as witnessing numerous take-offs, landings, and training flights (including in-flight refueling) of the aircraft. My brother, who did JROTC in high school, got to go with other members of his class on a training refueling flight on one occasion.
Thanks. I learn things every day. I've been following the history of air-to-air refueling since the 1970's and knew some of the history, but this video had new items.
I just cannot thank you enough, all of your videos are just so amazingly interesting and educational. The depth and breadth of your research across prodigiously diverse topics is astonishing. Kudos and truly, thank you!
From what I understand, the pilots of the chicks (receiver aircraft) prefer probe and drogue because:
1. A safer distance between tanker and chick is maintained.
2. The chick pilot is is in full control of the connection process.
My former father-in-law was a flight engineer on RAF VC10 tankers of 101 Squadron, he was in control of the refueling system. The Eng deployed the drogues and balanced fuel in the tanks to keep the tanker in trim. Once the Eng had deployed drogues he sat back and let the chick pilot do the work, a bit like a self service gas station!!!
Also, on the plus side, more than one chick can be refueled at one time, with up to three aircraft being refueled, depending on aircraft types. This was particularly useful for squadron deployment when the entire unit is being deployed. The RAF use a live firing range in Cyprus for exercise deployment, the units being deployed are regularly tankered out, with ground crews as passengers on the tanker aircraft and very often with support equipment.
Note: Chick is the term used in the RAF for the recieving aircraft, sort of like a hen feeding it's chicks.
absolutely fascinating presentation. Thank you!
I was fortunate in that while in the Navy I flew a number of refueling hops in the backseat of our TA-4F’s and after I was out was able to fly a couple of flights that included refueling in an Air Force KC-10 and a C-17. Both systems were very educational.
I've done both sides too, ta4 andkc10 ferkin AWESOME for an e5 jarhead
Excellent video. Good detail .. great research and history .. nice footage .. just all-around excellent.
One of the KB-29 tankers that refueled the "Lucky Lady ll" over the Philippines DID NOT MAKE A CRASH LANDING KILLING IT'S CREW!!! Returning to Clark Air Force base, flew into a mountain. All 9 crewmen were killed instantly. Myself and Others built a memorial dedicated to those 9 men. It is located in front of the Strategic Air Command Museum in Ashland, Nebraska.
I heard him say that and see what you corrected him on.
And awesome for yall to build that memorial.
And even though you both mentioned the men lost it was stated in two different types of crashes. He didn't even have to mention the crash but he did in a respectful way.
So in his research of the topic could he have misunderstood the wording such as...on its way back to land, or...on its final approach it somehow was to low and hit a mountain top and he just shortened the details and called it a landing accident?
I didn't know if you knew if it was way out or close to the landing field for clarity.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. The KB-29 flew into a mountain 23 miles NW of Clarke AFB.
@@richardjohnson9275...well then he certainly got the facts wrong :)
Thanks for the reply, clarification and knowledge.
Peace
@heathb4319 Heath, If I offended somebody I didn't mean to. I'm just very close to the family's of those 9 great Americans.
@@richardjohnson9275...you are all good brother. I don't think you offended anyone.
Keep up the fantastic work, Your recent number of releases is a very pleasant surprise
I was down in San Diego on the 100th anniversary and they had a KC-10, KC-46, and two KC-135s do a fly over in honor of that event. It was so cool.
Great video, a lot of information I never knew about. Thanks!
Awe. The planes are mating. Gonna have baby drones soon.
Dad, Colonel Richard H Sorenson was a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot Class 56-D. During his time in the school and as Chief of Flight Test Engineering at Wright Patterson AFB the ability of our strategic bombers to refuel in-flight. This capability was a key component of the Cold War Strategic planning and ultimately, its success.
Most outstanding content!!!
Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜
I feel like YT is literally reading my mind sometimes. The other day I had a fleeting thought wondering how Ariel refueling came to be and now there is a channel I never watched before with a great explanation video.
As always - top notch content right here
I’ve always found this fascinating and with drones it is at another level!
Brilliant and informative.
Not to mention, the probe and drogue system gave us the memorable title sequence in Dr Strangelove….
Excellent video!!
That was interesting and well presented 😊👍
A flying stealth tanker drone might be an interesting concept. One advantage might be the ability to send drones on one-way missions in emergencies or strategically important flights. Saving an entire flight crew or creating more stand-off distance for an entire carrier.
Great overview.
Can you imagine crawling out of a plane and walking out on the wing with a fuel tank to refuel anotrher plane!!!! The stuff that was undertaken in early aviation is hard to get your head around and I had no idea they were experimenting with air to air refuelling eas early as then. I wonder if there will ever be a time they will conduct air to air refuelling with commercial flights? I really enjoyed that video, thanks.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Great Video, you somehow always make videos that pique my interest and curiosity.
At 1:15 you are talking about "Immediately after WW1..." and showing a sowjet produced An-2 in a crop duster variant. The An-2 had its 1st flight on 31.August in 1947.
I guess your knowledge in aircraft history is improvable.
The KC-135's airframe was the basis of the Boeing 707 airliner. They were both developed about the same time with the 135 being the lead design.
The 367-80 airframe was the prototype for the 707 and 135
The Navy's "Approach" magazine had a very interesting story of a refueling mishap, it has been over 30 years that I read this but it has stuck in my memory because of the unusual event. Either an F-4 or A-4 was lining up to refuel, they hit the basket which subsequently looped itself into a granny knot and then wrapped itself around the probe, tying the two aircraft together. Break out the HATOPs flight manual for inflight emergency and geez, absolutely nothing in the book for this one. The pilot finally got the knot to loosen by quickly applying power numerous times and then backed off power to let the hose and drogue slide off the probe.
No mention of the KC10.. or the new KC46?? I was a boom operator on the KC10 from 2018-2022. It was an insane job. Even with all the knowledge and experience you get, for me it never stopped feeling like a stunt.
The KC-10's Automatic Load Alleviation System (ALAS) is so sick and definitely a fun point to touch on for boom refueling. Definitely better than the KC-46's "stiff boom" xD, such a shame they're being phased out. At least some of them will be sold to contractors and then contracted out to the Navy.... Can you imagine, a Navy KC-10?!
@@DHEFDAWG Right?? The ALAS made life so easy! Felt sorry for the 135 guys who had to live without it. It is a shame the 10 is getting phased out for the 46 though. The latter jet has so many problems from what I hear, but I suppose they all have problems at first. The KC10’s cargo door was notorious for flying off in flight when they were first converted 😂 at least the 46 hasn’t had a problem that catastrophic yet…
@@Patient-957 I don’t really care for the politics of it, but it’s probably one of the most capable aircraft in the AF. It can do AR, cargo, and passengers all at the same time. And also switch between boom and drogue AR to accommodate different receivers in the same flight (the 135 needs crew to attach and detach the drogue adapter on the ground). I don’t know why you think it was a bad decision, but it’s an awesome airframe regardless, though I’m probably biased.
@@Daniel-cl6hj Yes everything has growing pains, DC-10 & KC-46 are no exception. Probably the KC-46 will be great one day. But it will never have the cargo or fuel capacity that KC-10 does! Of course the KC-46 has better efficiency and better commercial mx/support to pull from, but I still believe retiring the KC-10 is a bad move. Hopefully enough of them end up in the hands of contractors so they still have a good impact for a couple more decades.
I'm pretty new to your channel but just wanted to say that this was a fantastic video that seems to have been well researched and very well presented - cool!!
Excellent video 🎉
Very good and informative video
Presumably the original system just had a loop, and any slack was taken up by it, with the later systems they have a feedback system to adjust the length of the boom/cable as everything moved around.
I'm always disappointed when the flight of the "Question Mark" is told, that only Ira Eaker & Carl Spaatz are usually mentioned. Left out is Elwood "Pete" Quesada, Harry Halvarson, and Roy Hooe. Like Eaker & Spaatz, Quesada became a general during World War II commanding IX Tactical Command. Halvarson was an engineer but flew bomber missions in the Mediterranean Theater during World War II reting as a Colonel in 1946. Hooe was an enlisted mechanic and retired as a Master Sergeant (E7) in 1950 after a 30 year career.
It's amazing how many different complicated schemes they tried before someone though of the probe/drogue.
4:47 I'm surprised that the earlier attempts of mid air refuelling where someone had to balance off the wings of the aircraft produced no casualties, despite being more dangerous.
Excellent
Great video! However, no refueling video would be complete without a dedicated segment on the KC-10. It's worth noting that the KC-10 had the remarkable capacity to transport an astounding 200,000 pounds of fuel, accommodate up to 75 passengers, and handle a cargo load of up to 170,000 pounds. Moreover, it introduced pivotal advancements in air refueling systems that continue to influence the design of newer tankers produced today. Whether in the context of Desert Storm or Allies Refuge, the KC-10 truly stands out as one of the most remarkable tankers in aviation history. ✈✈
and the most problematic, they ever get the camera thing fixed?
@@lawless201 tats on the KC-46, not the KC-10.
Although it could do all those things, it was limited on its takeoff weight. Once airborne, it could be refueled and get all that cargo anywhere.
@@robertheinkel6225 ohh, my bad, anyways is that thing certified yet, (the KC-46) they work out all the bugs yet?
Was everyone nervous when they were pushing the program with piston engines and props? Amazing courage by The Boys.
KC-135 still stroking it at 50y! B-52 still keeping America safe at 60y! We certainly stand on the shoulders of giants.
you didn't mention the C172 refueled by truck 😁
Yep, it stayed airborne for 64 days by doing that. The video is easily found here on YT. Interesting stuff!
Ive always wanted to know this ❤
You completely overlooked the Key brothers, Fred and Al. They and their mechanic designed a valve that allowed them to perform in-flight refueling in order to break the flight endurance record at the time (27 days). That valve went on to be used by the US military and their plane (the Ole Miss) is in the Smithsonian.
Another story not well told in the history of AAR, the KC-10 was one of the first tankers which could also be a receiver aircraft. This meant a KC-10 tanker could ferry fighter aircraft over long distances (oceans) while carrying their maintenance personnel and required ground equipment all in one package non-stop. By "extending" the KC-10, the fighter aircraft could move with their support system simultaneously to their destination. This significantly reduced the time and the number of tankers and cargo aircraft required to move fighters squadrons around the world.
Additionally during combat operations, because the KC-10 can be refueled as a receiver, combat planners had a solution to "consolidate" unused fuel on other tankers whose missions were complete to an airborne KC-10. By consolidating airborne fuel into one tanker, this reduced the number of tankers airborne which reduced total fuel burn per hour. Tanker planners often cancel tanker missions scheduled near the end of the operational day because of the amount of fuel transferred/saved.
Finally, the KC-10 flying as a receiver can push/transfer fuel through a tanker's refueling boom into the tanker KC-10. Reverse AR. Why would you do this? If a KC-10's refueling boom or drogue system (or both) become unusable, and there are combat receivers airborne who are relying on that fuel being available, you could transfer the fuel to another fully operational KC-10. Although the transfer of fuel from the receiver to the tanker is not as fast as traditional air refueling, there are many documented "saves" where planners directed this so as to not cancel combat missions.
The KC-10 was a game changer for AAR operations.
When planes are electric then a plane flying from New York to Los Angeles will be met halfway by a flying charging station.
Not necessary they will have an extension cord.
Or could they recharge from lightning strikes? 😉
I had a very different idea of "aerial refueling" from the thumbnail 😂
Still watching, but the quality of your stuff is impeccable.
Thank you for not putting the word "insane" in the title.
1:46 man back in the day they did the damn thing huh. It was like filling up your car but in the air at speed faster than current highway speeds with no safety line or parachute🤯🤯 safe to say all the current refueling people had flawless records… because one mishap and your done so anyone that had that job didn’t have any thing against their record lol
Anyone know the aircraft @ 14:45? I thought it was a B-47 but the engines don't seem quite correct.
It's the one thing I can't do well in Sims, that last couple of inches get squirrelly! And I wind up hitting the auto....
Can somebody tell me what the aircraft is at 18:45? i can't remeber what that UAV is called
came to see the design of the inner probe ending and drogue coupling, pictured in the thumbnail, left with nada :(
Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" movie makes it look very exciting 😂
19:03 mahs-SKOOTAH, Illinois
What is that sr71 carrying in the back? 12:12
Drone fueling will not replace a2a any time soon.. think of it like this. Walmart ( kc10/kc135) can sell you anything you need including fuel.. but you may need top off your tanks ( 7-11 / buc-ee's) to get to the parking lot of the Walmart.
That thumbnail is seductive to Ai
wow.
It won't be long before we see in flight recharging. Using the generator power from the engines to charge electric drones.
If you ever questioned the viability of aerial refueling just look at the Falkland War air raid.
Interesting shot of the SR-71 at 12:07. What's the object mounted on the fuselage? I thought it was a D-21 drone, but it looks remarkably un-streamlined to be fitted to a mach 3 aircraft.
I think it's the Linear Aerospike Experiment (LASRE)
@@misterprimeminister473 Yes. Wikipedia confirms. Thanks.
i think you should have mentioned the fulklands raid
Not a single mention of Helicopter Air-to-Air refueling and how the USAF developed a game-changing capability for Rescue and Special Operations😥
The KC-135 is slated to remain in service for many more years.
Giulio in Italian is pronounced Julio with the dj-sound.
11:05 "...the disadvantage of having components manufactured overseas..." And we haven't learned that yet? We're not paying attention.
Well, you and I have. The politicians have not.
@@rotorheadv8 The people in charge make more money personally by sending it overseas. Corruption and greed makes the world turn. It's all just like the DEA and the cartels/international drug trade. They're mutually beneficial to each other and aren't going to do anything that puts the other in a tight spot. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
Just think of all that technology America has developed from technology invented outside of America. Like all those jet engines based in the British Sapphire engine.
Actually, the US government insisted that Alan Cobham and his British based company Flight Refuelling Limited licenced out their technology, products and manufacturing methods to a US based firm. So Flight Refuelling Inc was created. Just so it wasn't made abroad, by a foreign company.
It wasn't long before the US government were insisting that Flight Refuelling Limited bought up this company and took over the running of it.
Years later, Sargent Fletcher Inc was also part of Flight Refuelling Ltd, British run but American based.
Let's not get started on the disaster that was the Boeing KC-46 vs the already in production, prototype proven A330 MRTT.
A great example of when "we don't want foreign" cost the US government insane amounts of money, lef the US military with an unsafe, restricted use product and a peacetime capability gap!
Think the Lancaster refuelling was in expectation that the US not having a plain ready to drop the first atomic bomb. So been the attack on Japan. Can understand why this was not mentioned by an American channel.
Interesting fact. If you take off from and airfield and fly all the way around the world nonstop and land at the same airfield it's logged as a local flight.
Cool
I gotta be honest. I just clicked the video because of the pristine enamel red painting on that nozzle on the thumbnail.
Informative video. However, if you listen closely, the narrator mispronounced some place names.
Interesting, I thought the drogue versions was developed first....
He had reached the point where he was paranoid about being paranoid.
Manned refuelers aren't going anywhere. As was pointed out, they can also carry cargo, personnel, and surveillance equipment, all at the same time. That's a capablity that unmanned refuelers can't do. When you have existing aircraft that can provide multi-role support, it doesn't make sense to trade that for single purpose aircraft.
i love how they named the plane "?". It's like they wanted to fuck with future historians talking about the event. lol
FOKKER just HAD to fail smh 6:38