Voyager Completes 3 Point Tanking Flight

[CoffmanStarter]

I may well be asking a daft question ... but here it goes ...

Having read this Press Release by AirTanker ...

https://www.airtanker.co.uk/images/default-source/news/qbd5017-008e600.jpg?sfvrsn=0.7537831804131412

1st 3 Point Tanking Flight (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/news-centre/news-item/2014/04/01/raf-completes-first-voyager-three-point-tanking-flight)

Could someone explain the advantage of having dissimilar configured Tanking Point Aircraft on the RAF fleet ?

In all seven aircraft have now been delivered to the programme. The latest arrival, ZZ337, which was delivered at the end of January, brings the total number of aircraft flying on the MAR to six, (2x two-point tankers and 4x three-point capable tankers).

[Somph]

Would have thunk that the external plugs depended more on the internal configuration of the air vehicle, rather than other way around, ie. more seats/baggage capacity = less space for fuel = not enough fuel to warrant trying to get three up.

Either that or the need to fuel larger aircraft (think Albert or C-17) limits space at the back of the tanker. Having three points when you can only use two?

Just my tuppence worth.

[BEagle]

When the business case was developed, a decision would have been made regarding the total number of tankers needed and their capabilities - this clearly didn't lead to a requirement for all Voyagers to be fitted with the FRU, given the necessary support required for large aircraft. Which should have included MRA4, but is now limited to Atlas, Sentry and C-130J. Sentinel was supposed to have had a probe, but performance issues were such that it was deleted.

In the sunset years of the VC10 fleet, there was a mix of 2-point and 3-point tankers, which didn't seem to cause much of an issue.

Perhaps, though, someone is thinking a bit further out of the box and has considered the inclusion of a boom on some of the 2-point Voyagers, so that the UK could support its own C-17s and Rivet Joints, plus Sentry?

On second thoughts.....:uhoh:

[CoffmanStarter]

Many thanks BEagle ... that all makes some sense. Sounds expensive to retrofit a boom capability to the 2 Pointers though :eek:

[Willard Whyte]

Too many people banging on about joined-up thinking; too few actually doing any.

[Arty Fufkin]

Is there a plan to add probes to the Rivet Joints to make them compatible? It worked on the E3 and would presumably be less of a challenge/ cost than putting booms on the tankers. Likewise with the C17s, although I guess that is slightly less charted territory.
Just an idle thought.

[vascodegama]

Arty, as far as I know there is no plan to add probes to the RJ

The E3 had the probe incorporated into the design - not added later.

The C17 would be uncharted territory not less charted!

Coffman -I think that any boom configuration would be added to the ac not yet built which presumably would not be that difficult since there are A330 tankers with that configuration already

Somph-not sure I even understand your second point!

BEags the only reason a mixed fleet of VC10s was not an issue was the lack of large rx.

[CoffmanStarter]

Many thanks Vascodegama :ok:

[D-IFF_ident]

Surely that's a 1-point tanking flight? :}

[billynospares]

Bit of a con. Pretty sure that pic is from the trials

[D-IFF_ident]

I think you might be right Billy - the "Boyaher" in the pic has those little red Flight Test jobbies on the wings and tailplane.

[MrBernoulli]

Whatever! It is still an Frogbus - sh1te!

[Tankertrashnav]

Coffman -I think that any boom configuration would be added to the ac not yet built which presumably would not be that difficult since there are A330 tankers with that configuration already




Not just a matter of fitting a boom - you then have to train up boom operators. In the probe and drogue method, as I am quite happy to admit, the refuelling operator has a pretty simple job - just trailing the hoses and monitoring operations - the receiver pilot does all the hard work. Not so with the boom system - presumably that would require one more in the crew to operate the boom, which is an ongoing cost.

[BEagle]

Tankertrashnav, the 3rd person on the Voyager flight deck, the Mission System Operator, would also double as boom operator. In addition, if the Mission Planning System is ever fit for purpose :hmm:, he/she would also amend and update any AAR deployment trail plan or AARA towline fuel plan....

There's an awful lot more to it these days, than being a food-powered airborne fuel pump attendant!

[vascodegama]

TTN

I never suggested that there was only the issue of fitting a boom-simply that the work would likely be done to ac that have not even been built. As stated-the configuration already exists so design is pretty much done.

[Tankertrashnav]

There's an awful lot more to it these days, than being a food-powered airborne fuel pump attendant

Damned glad I had the job in the good old days, then :ok:

Seriously, are we saying that the third man on the current fleet of Voyagers are already trained up as boom operators? If not, they are still going to need some serious training I would have thought. What if they dont hack it? After all, as you say - "there's an awful lot more....etc " ;)

[Indicating Full]

Beagle,

Surely if the MSO were to operate the boom and the MPS simultaneously he would need more hands than the current cadre of MSOs are issued with.

[BEagle]

Not if the MPS is designed properly....:rolleyes:!

There should be no need for any MPS interaction during actual boom operation - just as there is no need for any MCS interaction during the period of the MEO's actual AAR work in the A310MRTT.

[beardy]

From mr Bernouilli:

Whatever! It is still an Frogbus - sh1te!

Another well written and informative post that adds to the debate I see.

[Wensleydale]

I was led to believe that the probe was added to the Sentry because it was in the original specification. GEC would have had a field day if the Sentry did not meet spec.. after all, the Nimrod Mk3 was cancelled because it didn't meet spec although perhaps in more important areas. (You may be surprized at some of the Sentry add-ons to make it meet spec and to keep GEC happy). The boom receptacle was kept because it was too expensive to remove it!


Although the twin refuelling system on the Sentry does give a degree of flexibility, it also doubles the flight deck currency requirement as they have to be trained on both systems (in the past, some flight deck crews were only current on one type I believe). The preferred option during operations is the USAF boom system. It is much quicker to transfer fuel giving less time off station mid-mission and I understand that it is easier for the pilots (jousting with a large aircraft when sticking an aerodynamic radome into its jetwash is not much fun). I also believe that the Sentry is cleared for centre line only so the "twin" tanker would be no good.