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.