B52 Air refueling

[havoc]

I was told you might like this photo of a KC-135 and B-52 refueling.

The crews on both aircraft were Instructor candidates. The purpose of the maneuver was to key in on the visuals to remain connected. Climbing and descending turns (60 degrees of bank) were flown throughout the maneuver.


http://www.gunners.net/images/photos/B-52/whif.jpg

I had the "windowless" seat as the gunner but have since upgraded to windows as a "flingwing" driver.

[A10 Thundybox]

An obvious fake:}

[Safeware]

'An obvious fake'

And not even as 'entertaining' as the piccie of the Bucc refuelling the Tristar.

sw

[Tarnished]

Great at first glance but I've now spotted the obvious fake mistake

Tarnished

[havoc]

Sorry to disappoint you but the photos real, every Instructor crew
flew the profile going through Castle AFB.

Heck they even were able to train cross over fighter types to fly the Buff, and eventually become IPs.

Not sure since I have been out of Buffs since 90, but they may still teach the profile, especially since the Buff will be around for another 30 years or so.

[Off-Black]

So what is the 'obvious fake/mistake'? The underside reflection matching the horizon and the deployed starboard spoiler do lend an air of authenticity.......

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Perhaps Tarnished and Safeware will do us all the honour of sharing their views on what the 'fake mistakes' are?

It doesn't appear to me to be a fake, and frankly, the only way to prove that it is would be to examine a much higher-resolution copy of it.

As far as what there is to go by, the lighting is consistent across the image, there are no digital artifacts that would point to electronic manipulation, and the reflections all match-up.

Looks good to me.

[SASless]

Seems odd,

The poster said he had first hand knowledge of the event depicted in the photo....thus it would seem he is putting his reputation on line. I would suppose that the photo and his account are accurate or he would not have posted.

I know who this nice fellow is...and would be most surprised to find it not to be all and exactly as he states.

If you doubt the photo or his account...and state such....prove your case or remove your post....seems fair to me.

[Tarnished]

OK my theory, a theory which is mine and belonging to me....

The shadow of the boom is on the centre line of the Buff and they are in at least a 70 AOB manoeuvre, meaning the sun must be pretty low close to the horizon. To me the terrain and horizon in the photo do not look like they are being illuminated by a low sun.

As to other considerations:

If this were a routine element in IP training course syllabi we would have seen more pics like this.

If I were taking the photo I would have dozens of them, come to think of it I would go for video.

The USAF training world is risk averse, I do not believe there is a training benefit to be gained from manoeuvring two types in such an extreme manner.

Both types are very old and must be worried about structural fatigue, again why waste fatigue with little or no training benefit.

KC135 (and KC10) have a very satisfactory set of visual markings for position capture and maintenance. They also have director lights on the bottom fuselage which the boomer can operate to guide the receiver aircraft.

The photo is taken from a point over the right shoulder of the boomer who lies in a prone position. The boomer may be strapped in (but I can’t recall ever seeing straps) and for sure there are highly unlikely to be straps for such a circumstance.

Lastly, the wings of the Buff don’t look very bent to be under any g (granted the manoeuvre may be unloaded or ballistic at the time).

I stand by to be proved wrong.

Tarnished

PS

Found this pic:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/penric/kc-135r-990917a.jpg

Looks like there is a strake across the window as well, and the bed/bench on the right of the boomer looks like it would be difficult to stay on it and take a photo in such a manoeuvre.

[BEagle]

Your theory, Miss A Elk, is precisely what I deduced as well - the boom shadow corresponding to a sun elevation which is inconsistent with the terrain illumination.

Irrespective of the age of the aircraft, sustained 2G in contact would be barking mad and has absolutely no operational or training value. We used to use 30 deg in the VC10, but that was later reduced to 20 deg to fit in with ATP-56(A) requirements.

When flying the Vulcan at low level in the US, the SAC Oil Burner routes assumed 13.5 deg AoB for the B-52 whereas we used 45 deg AoB. Hence we flew a number of short straight legs interconnected with 45 deg bank turns to stay in the route. So I can hardly see anyone racking up fatigue by jousting at 60 deg AoB. If they did, they deserve a "Your hat, my office" style chat....

But I may be wrong?

[wiggy]

Dunno about the illumination BEagle but as I'm sure you know 60deg of bank does not always mean 2g.....

[BEagle]

In level flight it does!

N = sec AoB

Or are you trying to say that, not only were they conducting AAR in a 60 deg banked turn, but that it wasn't even a stabilised turn?

[DaveyBoy]

If the sun was in the aircraft's 3 o'clock then yes, it would have to be 30 deg above the horizon to produce the shadow in the pic, but it could also be much higher in, say, the 1 o'clock position and produce the same one.

[Safeware]

SASless, I don't feel the need to remove my post, cos if we just blindly accepted everything put in front of us without question, where would we be? (other than in Iraq)

My thoughts, posted later than Tarnished but a few along the same lines:

a) The sun /shadow / background lighting seem inconsistent.
b) The apparent geometry of the aircraft seems inconsistent - the B-52 orientated more as if it is heading right out of the picture, the KC135 seeeming to be orientated to head left.

Also, I'm no flyer, but I did wonder what the value in such a move in 2 large ac in such close formation would be and how would you sustain it. But my more learned compadres in this filed seem to have covered that.

sw

edited to add that I do stand to be corrected :)

[MajorMadMax]

There is a retired BUFF EWO where I work, I emailed the pic to him (pic only, no comments) and asked if he had any info. Here is his reply:

It is an actual photograph taken from the boom operator’s position on the tanker. This maneuver was routinely practiced (demo’ed, actually) by pilots assigned to CFIC (Certified Flight Instructor Course) pilots. CFIC existed for the purpose of training experienced SAC pilots how to become Instructor Pilots. I don’t know if CFIC still exists, but I can tell you that the maneuver was routinely accomplished. It clearly falls into the “don’t try this at home” category.

He had no reason to BS me, nor has he ever done so in the past; so I am taking this as an honest picture...

Cheers! M2

[ZH875]

The pilots must be Commisioned Warrant Officers to achieve such a great flying display.


[Yes, I do know the USAF doesn't have/need CWO, bit of a brit p1$$ take on the CWO thread, not to be understood by the septics!)

[SASless]

Sorryo....Air Force has no Commissioned Warrant Officer Pilots....ordinary commissioned pukes only. :uhoh:

[Yeller_Gait]

Tarnished,

Here is a picture taken from the other side, which shows the window does not have a strake, as in your picture.

http://uk.msnusers.com/4n0q7i3tstdoujmbnenv40ii63/Documents/P6230080.JPG

It also appears to show some extra windows from which the picture could have been taken?

Anyone know the person in the seat? ... 128 ARW WI ANG

Y_G

[Tarnished]

Yeller,

Sorry can't view your picture sadly.

Anecdotal evidence from Buff EWO seems pretty hard to refute. Can just about believe it in the good old days but would be surprised if it happens today.

Again my outstanding questions are:

Why haven't we seen more pics of the "routine" spectacular training event?
What is the training benefit of something so far outside the normal envelope?

Nevertheless, great picture.

Tarnished

[BEagle]

So Buff EWOs have attitude indicators, do they?

I still reckon it's bolleaux!

[KC-10 Driver]

I don't know if this particular photo is a fake.

However, I can assure you that the Strategic Air Command DID indeed include up to 90 degree banked turns in the contact position as part of the syllabus for the B-52 and KC-135 Combat Flight Instructor Course (instructor upgrade course) at Castle AFB, California and Carswell AFB, Texas.

This picture is at least 10 years old (the B-52 is a G-model, the last of which retired about 10 years ago), and the maneuver in question was removed from the syllabus at least 15 years ago (or perhaps longer).

havoc-

Pls check your PMs.

[Tarnished]

I'd like to change my theory, which is mine and belongs to me.

SAC was thin at one end, thick in the middle and thin at the other end.

That is my theory, thank you.

Still think its barking mad.

Any more pictures?

Thanks KC-10 Driver.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Beagle

I think that the EWO does have an attitude indicator (from memory), as well as altimiter, ASI and HSI. In any case, you should know from your own experience that the entire crew is involved in the pre-flight brief, not just the blokes sitting with the stick and thottles.

Tarnished

Perhaps the training benefit came from the fact that there were a couple of life saving instances of unusual attitude AAR conducted by SAC tankers during SEA? Perhaps those that were expected to teach the theory to studs were expected to have accomplished such manouvers in real life?

[SASless]

Familiar refrain....we don't/can't/wouldn't do that....therefore it can't/shouldn't/couldn't be done.:{

[BEagle]

"However, I can assure you that the Strategic Air Command DID indeed include up to 90 degree banked turns in the contact position as part of the syllabus for the B-52 and KC-135 Combat Flight Instructor Course (instructor upgrade course) at Castle AFB, California and Carswell AFB, Texas."

What on earth for? And what the heck is a so-called 'Combat' Flight Instructor?

Sounds suspiciously like spurious elitism which will ultimately lead to a fatal accident.

As happened at Fairchild AFB in 1994 when a crew flew a B-52 in a 90 deg turn at low level. All on board were killed.....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/B-52FairchildAFB1994.jpg

See http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/crmdevel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Beagle

You can't compare what happened when a rogue pilot flew a B-52 into the ground at an airshow practise, with a highly-controlled advanced flying training programme.

There is a modern-day weapons school for the KC-135 and KC-10 communities, but I doubt very much that the effect it achieves is to form an elite who then go on to fly into the ground. What an absurd suggestion.

[wg13_dummy]

There is a modern-day weapons school for the KC-135 and KC-10 communities,

What do they learn. Kero carpet bombing?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

They learn about threat systems, threat capabilities and how to give themselves the best chance when in the ****.

Not sure about the RAF, but historically at least, US tanker crews have a reputation for putting themselves on the line when the calls for gas come through. At least, they did in SEA, GW I and GW II.

[plans123]

Ewan, I saw a program on this incident - I don't think you can really call a B52 captain with more hours on type than you can shake a stick at 'rogue'.

He made a mistake and paid the ultimate price for it.

[wg13_dummy]

They learn about threat systems, threat capabilities and how to give themselves the best chance when in the ****.

Isnt that day one, week one for all military pilots?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Plans

I think Ewan is quite correct. IIRC the pilot in question used to be used as a case study on many flight safety courses.

[BEagle]

So what caused the Thunderhawks fatal crash at Fairchild on 13 May 1987? Rehearsals were described by spectators as 'scary'.....

The utterly pointless B-52 and KC-135 extreme AAR manoeuvre was supposedly termed 'The Whiff'.....

What on earth was the point of it? I only did 20 years in the AAR game in war, peace, instructing and examining. I never came across such a daft idea - but am intrigued to learn why the Spams did it.

Regarding the other Fairchiled accident, yes, it was a rogue pilot. But institutional failures failed to stop him despite numerous other cases of flying indiscipline.

[Tarnished]

Ewan,

I would venture that there is little training value to be had in doing something once, all flying tasks are perishable skills, if not practiced on a regular basis their degree of difficulty returns to the TFD category. If it was so worthwhile why did KC-10 Driver tell us it was binned 15 or more years ago? If you need to be doing that sort of manoeuvre to get gas in a battle zone then is it because the tanker is bust or the reciever is bust? Nope don't believe that is a valid reason

SASless

Not a familiar refrain. More a case of asking the question "is what we are doing safe/valuable/worthwhile, does it have relavance". I've flown with USAF, USN and RAF and of the 3 the USN have the most relaxed approach to sticking to the rules, closely followed by the RAF and a long way behind is the USAF who are incredibly well disciplined and regulation bound. We regularly flew illegal formation aeros in the Hawk for the studes who were doing better at it - confidence building and related to getting the leans in cloud - fly the references irrespective of what your head tells you or what the leader (trust) is doing.

Regards

Tarnished

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Plans

Suggest writing to the programme makers telling them they need to do more research. The pilot was most certainly a rogue, and one with whom certain members of the squadron refused to fly.

Beagle

I understand your point. Perhaps we can hear more from Mad Max's EWO friend?

WG

Of course, but the level of deatail into which the weapons school (WIC) goes far exceeds anything you'll find in a typical threat briefing. Importantly, the WIC is placing more and more emphasis on understanding 'the bigger picture' behind large-scale operations like OIF. Finally, it enables graduates of the programme to come back to the squadrons and teach the latest techniques and tactics to non-WIC aircrew.

Tarnished

Fair 'nuff. Just vacantly thinking aloud.

[wiggy]

Beagle

Rewinding to the 2 g question, why should it be a stabilised turn, many a stude doing basic formation was (is?) taken up to well over 60 degrees of bank in close formation by means of a wing over . I see no reason why the same wasn't done in the case of this piccy................

Regards

[BossEyed]

The pilot was most certainly a rogue

Darker Shades of Blue: A Case Study of Failed Leadership (Major Tony Kern USAF) (http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm)

[BEagle]

wiggy, quite so.

But not whilst conducting AAR in large aeroplanes, I would venture to suggest....

[wg13_dummy]

Finally, it enables graduates of the programme to come back to the squadrons and teach the latest techniques and tactics to non-WIC aircrew.

......Climb to FL nosebleed, set up a race track, give fuel, land.......:confused:

[Tarnished]

Found a tame Ex Buff instructor under a pile of boxes here in what was once known as Carswell AFB and he confirms that this was part of the IP course.

Tarnished

[Ewan Whosearmy]

......Climb to FL nosebleed, set up a race track, give fuel, land.......

FL Nosebleed? Take a look at the first and second GWs and you'll see that the tanker guys often pushed north to 'rescue' pointy nose jets at well below that and, in the case of the first GW, well within the intercept range of IqAF fighters.

[wg13_dummy]

Sorry to doubt the tac ability of the tankers. How did they deal with the IqAF Fighters? Was it a FOD hazard?

[Gainesy]

Talking about wacky tanker stuff, anybody have pictures of the Kiwi Reds' A-4s display plugged-in buddy tanker barrel roll?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

WG

Not sure why you're making such a big deal out of tanker crews going to WIC.

Given the extensive emphasis placed by the school on 'problem solving' excercises, and on the planning and succesful execution of large-scale air operations, it matters little whether those attending fly the pointy-nose jets that drop bombs and fire off missiles, or tankers etc..

Why does it not make sense to prepare aircrews for war - whatever their MDS - to the best of an air force's ability?

[John Eacott]

Talking about wacky tanker stuff, anybody have pictures of the Kiwi Reds' A-4s display plugged-in buddy tanker barrel roll?

Gainsey,

No, but I've got the 1963 Farnborough Fred's Five brochure, doing the same in their Sea Vixens :ok:

Although Beagle was probably there, in one of the coal holes ;) :p

[wg13_dummy]

Im not making a big deal out of it, mucka. You are the one justifying it. :ok:

[henry crun]

Gainesy: This one taken during a practice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/crun9/A3.jpg

[Gainesy]

Henry,
Yer picture is upside down.:) :ok:

[Onan the Clumsy]

That's probably just the Australian Air Force doing routine ops :8


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/onan_the_clumsy/A3.jpg

[passpartout]

Did they not lose some jets a couple of years ago doing this at an airshow?

[Tarnished]

The aforementioned Buff EWO provided me with this:



"The comments in the thread were correct when they said it was demo’d during CFIC at Castle AFB. I don’t know if any gas was actually passed in this position, but the stated object of the exercise was to demonstrate the stability of the platforms. Also correct in the threads is that this is an old pic. It is a G model B-52 which was retired around ’92. The significance is that this was in a different AF than what we have now. At the time of this pic, both the B-52 and the KC-135s belonged to SAC, and had been since time immemorial. The main reason for the maneuver was “Because we Can!”.

At the time I went through CFIC (~1988), it was called Consolidated Flight Instructor Course, not “Combat” Flight Instructor Course, the reason being that aircrews from both the bomber and the tanker (and RC-135) went through the same course. They just had different tracks. It was THE instructor course for SAC aircrews. The WHIF was practiced without the full complement of crewmembers on board, just the pilots and the navigator team. The gunner and I (EWO) normally didn’t partake in this exercise. We had no attitude instruments back in our section. Our ADI was looking over our shoulders towards the front of the airplane, over the pilot’s shoulders and seeing what the horizon looked like.

There were two air refueling routes where this was done in northern California; two, big hour long A/R tracks that drove straight north with a 180 turn on the north end at the midpoint. One was centered over the Sierras and the other over the coast range to the west. It was always a mark of distinction for the student pilot to “hang on” during the turn. I’m sure that was the genesis of this.

CFIC was a fun course. The instructor candidates had to demonstrate that they could instruct aircrew members in how to fly and fight a B-52. Their “students” were actually instructors with a million hours who would pull every stupid trick in the book on the instructor candidate. They were very creative. Their goal was to teach the instructor candidate not to let the student exceed the instructor’s limits, and then defined those limits. That’s what the course was all about, finding your limits. Thus, the Whif.

(There is some video of this being done that I’ve seen. It’s a very graceful looking maneuver. Constant motion, constant turns, really pretty.)"


Would love to see the video.

Tarnished

[henry crun]

passpartout: No

[KC-10 Driver]

I have never performed this maneuver -- nor do I think I would want to. I prefer my flying to be routine and benign!

However, I think I understand the rationale behind this part of the syllabus. I was considered to be a "confidence building maneuver".

It was performed with constant positive G's, and looks quite graceful in the videos I've seen.

But, one would never see anything like it in today's risk averse USAF.

[Dan Winterland]

Passpartout, nearly correct. During a practice in Feb 2001, the lead (tanker) flew into the ground. The number 2 (receiver) manged to unplug in time and avoid impact.

There used to be a picture on the wall of 101 Sqn of a VC10 plugged into a Kiwi A4.

[BEagle]

There was indeed, Dan.

I have the video of that VC10 prodding A4 event! Now safely stored on DVD.

There was originally only one copy, which the boss at the time used to keep safely locked up in his office, as he was the prodder involved. One day we were having a coffee break and he agreed to show it on the crew room video. As we were watching it, his PA came in and told him that the Stn Cdr was on the phone for him....

Whilst he was out, we rushed out to get the old TTF portable video recorder and the appropriate wires, connected it all up and made a tape-to-tape transfer, then tidied away all evidence as though nothing had happened.....

Back came the boss from his office; having told him we'd stopped the tape for him, we then watched the rest, successfully feigning innocence. He then ejected it and left saying "I'd better lock that safely away.....!"

One of these days I must get round to telling Jim, I mean, him. :E

[Off-Black]

PASSEPARTOUT, in addition to the 2001 incident that Winterland mentioned, another A4 was lost along with its pilot during a display practice in October 1989, after a mid-air collision during a "roll-under break" manouvre that concluded the routine at the time.
The photo posted earlier actually predates the 'Kiwi Red' era (1988-1990). I think its a PR shot for the team formed for a 1983 display, which was the first time the plugged barrel roll was performed as I understand it. The teams apparently weren't officially named before the 1988 season.

[SASless]

Beags,

Did the A4 get moved about by the bow wave coming off the bigger bus? Would seem that would be a sporty refuel with the different sized machines involved.

[West Coast]

Y'awl are pussies till you AR on a helo...

Yeah Beag's that includes you.


Now donning titanium based underwear and preparing for battle.

[Dan Winterland]

No, you have my respect for such foolhardiness, sorry bravery. Do you have to have your flight suit modified around the groin area to accomodate your massive cojones?

Once was part of a mixed type flypast which involved me being wingman to a helo. It was like trying to get as close as possible to a circular saw without getting cut. Still gives me nightmares!

[Off-Black]

There's an interesting quote from a book about the RNZAF A-4's referring to the VC-10-A-4 refuellings.
"Apparently the A-4 drivers regarded the briefing they were given by the RAF as 'rather basic'"
Any comments? Not looking for dirt, just curious.

[US Herk]

But, one would never see anything like it in today's risk averse USAF.

No kidding - they have now limited bank to 15* for C-130 receivers!!:confused: Used to do auto-pilot off, 45 degree banked S-turns, now all I get are 15-degree banked "wiggles" - every once in a while, there'll be some crusty O6 at the controls & I'll get 30-degrees...all too rare anymore.

I'm submitting a change to the dash-3!

Just noticed this thread, having flown with many former Buff crewmembers can only state that they also confess to the "whiff" maneuver at CFIT...

FWIW, the old Buff pilots have always been our best on the boom...3D boom limits demos & what not:ok: :ok:

[Trumpet_trousers]

....ISTR a picture of a Bucc 'towing' a tri-motor too....

[MajorMadMax]

Here's another pic of the same manuever...

http://tinypic.com/ei8k14.jpg

A KC-135 pilot stated that...

CFIC still exists, and there are still CFIC-only maneuvers, but this one is no longer one of them. The maneuver was to teach the Buff pilots to trust the visual references of the KC-135 as an ADI in the sky, and to not worry about the bank. Simply keep the aircraft in position behind the tanker using proper control and throttle inputs, and it will all work itself out. I'm sure it taught the tanker crews how to anticipate pitch and power changes during the maneuver, kind of like the old Vertical S at UPT, but that's merely speculation.

A BUFF driver from Barksdale adds...

There are photos of the 90-degree refueling all over the squadrons here (Barksdale), particularly in the FTU. The maneuver existed for the same reason as 90-degree wingwork does in UPT. It was a confidence building maneuver as well as a demonstration that whatever forces are acting on the tanker are also acting on the reciever.

I am sure there are still some doubters out there, the same folks that believe the world is flat...:ooh:

Cheers! M2