AAR

[Taffmerlin]

Is it better to have a)60 tonnes of fuel to give away with one hose or b)6 tonnes with two hoses ? If the answer is a) Why aren't they recognised as the premier Tanking Squadron ?

Please no B**ching

[Loreto]

Who is?

[Captain Kirk]

TM

I do not think that your give-away figures are at all representative but, from an operators perspective, the ability to get a large formation quickly though the tanker is paramount. Unless the fuel can be squirted out at high pressure/speed (KC135) then 2 hoses are advantageous. Otherwise, by the time numbers 5/6 has taken fuel, numbers 1/2 will need to top up again, having wasted excessive fuel loitering at high AUW and inefficiently low speed.

Hope this helps.

[BEagle]

'Hoses in the sky' are what matters! So better 11 aircraft with 73 tonnes than 7 aircraft with 111 tonnes - always assuming that both have 2 wing and 1 centre-line hose!

Which is the main reason why I think that the 767K would be a better FSTA than the A330K....

[spectre150]

2 hoses are better than one from a redundancy point of view (not that I can remember u/s hoses being an issue) and hoses on wing stations are better then centreline hoses under large rearwards blowing, fin burbling hairdryers. Just my personal view of course.

[Dan Winterland]

I remember sitting in No2 to a KC10 in cell doing a large formation of USN jets. Even with the better flow rate on his one CL hose, it was obvious by the way the chicks were peeling off his wing to come and join us which system was better.

2 hoses anytime :)

[Taffmerlin]

CK

Without giving exact figures I think you'll find that these figures are pretty close to the mark in the latest conflict.

I suspect from the rest of the answers there are a few two hose pilots amongst us who may be a little biased.

. .offical figures are regularly updated in Timmy Times

[Dan Winterland]

Indeed, you may be able to give a lot away (albeit slowly) but there's more to the equasion than just quantity!

[Tonkenna]

Surely, the answer is to use the one hose beast to top up the two hose beast while the pointy things are doing the biz, just like we did in a conflict not so long ago. I know the Tristar mates don't like doing that as it is seen as being below them (for some bizare reason), but that is the way ahead. Do we have to keep re-inventing this round thing?

Tonks

PS, Hi Dan hows life <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Max R8]

Why aren't they (static display unit) recognised as the premier tanker squadron? Cos they're not!! Duh!

[Dan Winterland]

Hi Tonks, I thought we were awesome during that one. Chasing trimotors round square towlines wasn't my idea of fun though!

Lifes good. Have to fly to Jo'burg with 18 girls tonight. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Shame it won't last. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> I have a job flying rubber dog pooh out of Hong Kong to got to in June, but may be taking up an instructing job instead. I'l tell you about it someday.

G'day MaxR8.

Edited for spillong - not an ISS graduate!

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]</p>

[Taffmerlin]

Flasher I think we have earnt it, especially If you compare how much fuel we have given away in the last two conflicts. What yardstick do you use?. .. .MaxR8 you really do produce a powerfull opinion. I suppose you'll be invited to the Oxford debating chambers next.. .. .Beagle I would agree it would better to have pods as well. So why don't we fit them? I was under the impression that a full survey has been c/o by Cambridge and that it was only the finance preventing it.

[15/15 flex]

Taff old chap.... .. .You will never convince the Skoda chaps that the mighty Trimotor is anything more than an "ok" tanker. The fact is that 2 hoses are more valuable than one, but not a lot of point in having them hanging off an aircraft that spends half, or more, of its time u/s. As for the comments about the previous conflict, what a joke that was. Good job on trailing down from Germany etc etc, but as for pitching up on the towline, with no gas, AND needing currency prods........ .. .Keep up the good work - all of you - I'll be home soon... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[The Brown Bottle]

You need both ladies, Its called fexibility. No 2 bunfights are the same.

[Specaircrew]

One the requirements of a good AAR Sqn is the ability to give the impression that you know what you're doing when you're the lead tanker on a trail. With a couple of exceptions most of the lead tanker briefs I've heard from Trimotor crews have been more amusing than informative. For example on a recent trail the brief went something like this " Well it's the same as yesterday.......any questions!" Unfortunately we were at a different airfield on a different continent with a different no of rcvrs going to a different destination!!!! Never mind, we're always willing share our knowledge and experience with you.....you only have to ask :-)

[BEagle]

Perhaps we should just listen to the views of the 'customers'?. .. . Any FJ mate who prefers refuelling from a Lockheed TriShaw rather than a Vickers Funbus, please stand up now and be counted............ . .. .We all hate Timmy when it takes us south. .But we all love Timmy at PNR ASI going north...

[Bolt-On]

Having operated both types, each has advantages in differing scenarios. With a short transit the VC10 is ideal with a reasonable give and quick receiver throughput.However with a long transit time the tristar is the only tanker with a meaningful give! The VC10 has two other major problems, firstly the huge noise footprint which has become unacceptable at many civilian run international airfields e.g recent campaign and secondly the unreliability of the fleet due to it's age.. .. .Finally it is not the aircraft type that makes a premier squadron it's the people on the squadron. From my experience there are quality people on all 3 Squadrons.

[Flap62]

From an (ex)FJ point of view the 10 was the best. Both have their good points and I always found it interesting sitting underneath the mighty tri-motor. After many times behind both on trails, training and ops I have to say that the biggest difference I have found was in the attitude of the crews. Before I start I will quantify things by saying that in general both sets of crews were very professional and it was probably just a few isolated incidents which have coloured my perceptions. I found that VC10 mates had more of an operational, lets do what we have to do to get the task done and we'll pick up the pieces later. Tri-mates (on more than one occasion) said - too difficult we're off to the hotel/diversion or sometimes bar/beach. The attitude of the 10 crews I worked with, on and off, for 4 years in Turkey was spot on.. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 13:15: Message edited by: Flap62 ]</small>

[Taffmerlin]

Flap 62 . .. .I think you'll find that many of the pilots are ex-10 Squadron including the Squadron Boss.

[MrBernoulli]

Taffmerlin,. .. .It is very obvious that you started this thread for no other reason than to fluff your own feathers. Take a look in the mirror boyo - you're still, very obviously, an ugly duckling. . .. .And a self-important idiot to boot.

[Dan Winterland]

The Brize inter Squadron rivalry should be just that - just a bit of friendly rivalry. But it appears that some such as Taffmerlin want to take it a bit further.. .. .For years, I flew the 10 at Brize and partook of the Tristar/VC10 banter. But I got the impression that some on 216 really did look down on us with an element of disdain and did believe that they were vastly superior. And I suppose in a way, they were - in as much that they had a bigger and more reliable jet. And they did more than one job. . .. .But now I fly a bigger modern glass cockpit jet and have to admit that I look down a bit on pilots of older aircraft such as the Tristar, which is an uneconomic and by modern standards, an unreliable scabby old classic jet which been dropped by UK operators and has hit rock bottom price on the second hand market. And also, I now fly air transport routes to great destinations. (For the 101 guys who haven't done it yet - a big secret - it's not very difficult!). .. .I'm glad I flew the VC10, it was a great jet, we did some fun flying (my 2 years as an AARI were the best flying years of my military career) and when I'm asked by the other pilots in my company what I flew in the RAF, It tell them VC10 and they say 'wow - great' and want to know all about it. Not sure about the reaction if I had said 'L1011'.. .. .You can argue from 5.00pm to midnight on a Friday night which aircraft is better, or which pilots are more proficient, but I suspect the result will be inconclusive. I worked with lots of 216 guys on dets or trails and used to fly with some of them on previous Sqns. I mostly had a great rapport and good working relationship, and had a great deal of respect for them. . .. .I have my opinions (friendly banter - honest) which have been expressed on this thread. And my point is.... .. .... Taffmerlin - get a life! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

[NigelOnDraft]

Always preferred the 10 for the flexibility of the hoses... Turkey was critical for both FJs to leave the tanker absolutely full, at the right place, heading and time... can't be done with 1 hose!. .. .Anyone in the know - what are the proposed hose configurations for the 767 and A330?. .. .NoD

[Denzil]

Hey Dan, you didn't add that they are better maintained <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .As for our friend Taffmerlin, i think this is a wind up (he is an ex Victor man after all) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> . .. .Had the misfortune to work on both the VC10 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> & the TriStar <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . From my point of view the TriStar is an under utilised asset and the VC10 overdue retirement, but this is from a maintenance view point NOT operational. . .. .Agree with Dan that this all good banter in the bar and that all three sqns have loads of good chaps (and ladies)

[Art Field]

Can't not chip in on this one but emphasising I am well historical (Beagle note). In days of yore the Deathstar (formation with them was then a real adventure) had too many toys to play with inside the cockpit to always pay attention to the customer. It was well below the dignity of the old brigade on 10 to even accept that another aircraft was allowed within a mile of them. So 101 reigned supreme. I know that now the intermingling of aircrew between the squadrons has greatly levelled things off so its points that mean prizes therefore, though circumstances may vary things somewhat, the 3/2 hosers must just have the edge. In any case all are doing a great job and gaining great credit for the RAF, whatever the future may hold.

[BEagle]

'Some' FSTA will need to refuel probe-equipped large ac is all you can assume but hopefully would not do so with a Mk 17 HDU!! The B767K wing hoses would be further from the engines and from the tailplane than would the A330K's as anyone can deduce by simple measurements from Jane's alone. The A330K would have A340 engines on the inboard pylons and AAR pods on the outboard.. .. .The question of too much 'head-in' with small flight deck crew numbers and inadequate ergonomics is something which has caused me great concern as well, Artfield, but some consider that a 2-person flight deck would be fine on a tanker - right up to the point where the other person is fiddling with the FMS/JTIDS, you've got 2 on, 4 waiting and 2 joining, you can't see whether it's clear to turn because you can't see that far across the flight deck....then some message flashes up on the screen and Neatishead want you to change frequency..........add cloud, dark....

[Denzil]

Beagle what complete poo, the A340 CFM56 engines on the inbd pylons and pods on the outer, I hope you have a VERY long runway <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .I can understand that a hybrid wing will be used having the A340 config, but no way would it use only 2 32,000 lb thrust engines, the 50,000lb Trent 500 from the A340-600 would be better. The only engine would be the Trent 700 as used on the existing A330. . .. .As the Ministry of Desperation is so short of funds, the only affordable option is ex Delta L1011's with the freight door and wing pods. This must be cheaper than used B767's, unless it's a back door way to subsidize our flag carrier <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .To return to the original thread, if the L1011 route is taken (with wing pods and cargo door) they will become the ONLY tanker/transport sqn <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[BEagle]

Denzil - sorry, my typo!! I agree - 'twould indeed need the curvature of the Earth to get airborne!!. .. .The A330K is proposed to have an A340 wing with A330 engines inboard, AAR pods outboard!. .. .More ancient old DeathStars - we really, really hope NOT!!

[Farfrompuken]

Chaps,. .. .Get a grip.. .. .1. Recent events have, regardless of # of hoses, have shown that the VC10 is well beyond it's best before date. Unservicability, huge operating costs, lack of point, and unacceptability for host nations have made all that very obvious.. .. .2. The TriMotor, albeit an old jet too, is still a modern one, with modern engines, modern serviceability, and modern-day operating costs. It lacks wing pods ( could be sorted) and has an old fashioned cockpit, but it can very easily accept a glass one. Most importantly it carries oodles of gas. The KCs are particularly flexible.. .. .3. Squadrons are as squadrons are. Maybe in days of yesteryear, sqn chaps preferred to sup their G+T in preference to providing a good service, but I can assure you all that Timmy's boys of today are all can-do chaps, and are keen to provide, that's what we're there for.. .. .Give us wing pods, and we'd be hard to beat. In the meantime, we'll rest easy in the knowledge that our overseas customers consistantly request our presence, due to the level of service we offer.. .. .Nuff said.

[C130KBloke]

Hi Guys;. .. .I'd better not mention the prematurely -retired C130 Tanker........ .. .Regards...SFS

[Uncle Ginsters]

Chaps please, as i remember, we're all on the same side, trying to work with what we've got. Surely the best AAR solution we have right now is a combination of the mighty 10 and 3*. For the 3* boys, it's not just fuel in the sky that scores points - you are supposed to give it to someone!!. .. .Surely the optimum solution is putting 10s in the sky and periodically consolidating from 3*s.. .As for the serviceability argument - anyone hear the one about the Op Oracle sorties lost due to broken VC10s ? - thought not.. .. .Taff - you put pot there, it'll never be short of stirrers. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

[Farfrompuken]

Dan W, and Mr Ginsters.. .. .Surely you must appreciate what a huge waste of gas it is for a VC10 to plug off a trimotor, or any tanker to 'consolidate' off another. Dan, I think you'll find that's why the 216 mates got a bit shirty about that one. No-one likes wasting gas when there are genuine receivers about.. .. .As far as servicabilty, the only reason sorties weren't lost by the VC10 was due to the fact that a spare was available - and manned!!. .. .10101 Sqn Op Oracle fuel gives as reported recently were inclusive of SSII figures. A tad embarrassing. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 13:46: Message edited by: Farfrompuken ]</small>

[BEagle]

Careful, chaps - some of you are getting close to disclosing details of ongoing operations. This would not be A Good Thing!. .. .Availability of fuel to receivers depends not just upon the volume carried, but also the number of hoses available simultaneously and the number of airframes. One 120T ac with one hose available is rarely going to be more advantageous than 2 x 60T aircraft with 2 hoses each; however, 4 x 30T aircraft would probably be less efficient than 2 x 60T because a larger percentage of the fuel volume would be consumed by the tanker during its own transit. So it's necessary to do some clever number-crunching based upon assessed utilisation, not just to say that a particular type is somehow 'better' because ithas given more fuel away on a particular operation.. .. .The optimum would be an ac available in sufficient numbers to replace the VC10 and TriStar on a one-for-one basis, but which had at least 2 hoses, could use the same aerodromes, parking areas, hangars etc as the VC10, was more serviceable than current RAF tankers, could provide at least as much fuel on task as a VC10K3...... .. .It's called the Boeing 767 Tanker.

[Dan Winterland]

The one aircraft the RAF doesn't need is the L1011 as the replacemant tanker. It's already getting past it's best, serviceability is better than the 10's (but what isn't!) but is poor by modern commercial standards. Buying L1011s now to have in-service in 3 years time will lead us into the same situation we now have with the VC10s.. .. .A massive false economy!

[Denzil]

Dan, your last line sums it up as the most likely option <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .Reading between the line's history will be repeated and BA will get rid of the B767's (probably leasing them back in the short term while waiting for conversion), much as they did with the 6 L1011's. Everybody will be happy, Beagle and pals will get their preferred tanker and BA will get a back door subsidy. Hopefully it will also have a high UK work content, with all work on both airframe (freight door?) and engine (RB211-524H-T?) modification work carried out in UK.. .. .I wonder if Marshalls will be in on the act, as they carry out B767 work now <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[Radar Muppet]

I'd rather be 1 v 2 chicks who have less stamina than 1 v 1 'widebody'.. .. .You can't beat 2 hoses, I'm afraid, but the previous about Tri* refuelling the 10 sounds like its a goer.

[15/15 flex]

But the 10 has to get off the ground for that to be viable............. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[BEagle]

The on-load rate of the VC10 from the TriStar is such that the tanker/tanker refuelling concept advocated here would make neither VC10 not TriStar available for other receivers for extended periods. Not a good idea to reduce your ability to supply your principal customers as a result of the TriStar having lots of fuel, but not enough ways of getting at it!. .. .Point well made about the ability of the '10 to get airborne though! Interesting to read in Defence System Daily about the US concern at the ageing state of their 'Eisenhower era' KC135 tanker fleet - but at least they were supplied as new! No RAF 'force enabler' has ever been supplied new:. .. .Valiant - converted bomber. .Victor - converted bomber. .Vulcan - converted bomber. .Hercules K - converted tactical transport. .VC10K - converted 2nd or 3rd hand airliner. .VC10 - converted strategic transport. .TriStar K - converted 2nd hand airliner. .. .If we were really to learn from the Malvinas, Gulf, Balkan and Afghanistani conflicts, HMG would wake up to the crucial need for AAR assets and we'd join the queue for a couple of dozen brand new Boeing 767Ks. But His Tonyness has got the NHS, Public Transport, Education, Crime etc etc to sort out as well, so there's not much chance of getting what we need for defence as a high priority, it would seem...... . . . <small>[ 16 March 2002, 09:55: Message edited by: BEagle ]</small>

[Al Herbs]

To add to the voice in the wilderness (HercsRUs) I would like to add that as an ex-Rhino mate the best tactical tanker we've had was the Herc despite the initial sceptical voices "210kts too slow for the F4" "handling difficulties.." "slow throttle response at slow speeds". Sorry but the Herc boys were brilliant - "where do you want us? how low did you say? Can you do that? - ok we'll give it a try" A belated thanks. . . Now then. What was all that high falutin'talk again...?