Originally Posted by
LTCTerry
My dad flew USN F-4s. I recall him describing refueling as closing at some level of minimum thrust and having one engine in burner before being done. Not a lot of performance overlap yet it has worked for 50 years.
I'm idly wondering if that's me in ancientaviators picture...
Anyhow as I recall it ( Spey engined F-4M, tanking off C-130, generally at low level, "down south"), things like stall margin,
lack of power, etc was never an issue, no need for burner or "tabogganing"..During my time on the F-4M I had the pleasure of tanking off the Victor, Vulcan, C-130, KC-135 (with the short hose attachment on the boom) and the VC-10 - the C-130 was the easiest by far IMHO..
The main issue/gotcha with the 130 was obviously (?) being aware that you were dealing with a tanker with a lower IAS than you normally dealt with, so watch the overtake..and if at low level
not to stuff a handful of power on if you started were dropping back.. ..because the result could be spectacular...
As to the argument over RT ..I really can't get fussed..I spent plenty of years post mil flying into/out of the States - it's their train set and their R/T phraseology is their own, e.g... "position and hold" rather than "line up and wait"...etc..whatever, it all works out..