B52 Air refueling
Thread Starter
B52 Air refueling
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.
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.
Thread Starter
photo
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.
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.
Why 'an obvious fake'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Last edited by Tarnished; 21st Sep 2005 at 13:31.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Safeware; 21st Sep 2005 at 19:41.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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
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.
Cheers! M2
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$$ take on the CWO thread, not to be understood by the septics!)
[Yes, I do know the USAF doesn't have/need CWO, bit of a brit p1$$ take on the CWO thread, not to be understood by the septics!)
Last edited by ZH875; 21st Sep 2005 at 20:03.
Sorryo....Air Force has no Commissioned Warrant Officer Pilots....ordinary commissioned pukes only. 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tarnished,
Here is a picture taken from the other side, which shows the window does not have a strake, as in your picture.
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
Here is a picture taken from the other side, which shows the window does not have a strake, as in your picture.
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
Last edited by Yeller_Gait; 21st Sep 2005 at 19:14.
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
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