The Airplane Thread

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The C-390 can also perform the aerial refueling role with drogue refueling pods under the wings.

Practically any aircraft can be an aerial refueler with refueling pods, first invented in the UK (where else?) in the late 1940s. The U.S. Navy and Marines have used them extensively since the 1950s for "buddy refueling" where a fighter or attack aircraft refuels a second aircraft to extend its range. More recently, pods are attached below the wings on large transports to make them into tanker/transports.

As previously posted, the U.S. Navy plans to integrate 5 unmanned MQ-25A aircraft in each carrier air wing to perform aerial refueling using a pod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling

[Artemis]

When people speak about "range anxiety" these days, most will think about electric vehicles. Some will think about planes.

[Llarry]

Some more vintage Navy aerial refueling photos:
1) North American AJ Savage (with internal reel) refueling F2H Banshee (1956; these were the early days of Navy aerial refueling)
2) Douglas AD Skyraider with refueling pod refueling FJ Fury (1958)
3) Grumman KA-6 Intruder refueling F-14A (1982) (Note: The KA-6D had an internal reel but it was often troublesome and therefore the aircraft often carried a refueling pod on the centerline as well.) (It's Tomcat Thursday!)
and a more recent Marine photo:
4) Lockheed KC-130J Hercules refueling MV-22B (present)

[Llarry]

And a vintage USAF Tactical Air Command Boeing KB-50J tanker with three drogues refueling an F-101, an F-100 and a B-66 simultaneously.

The Air Force was buying the Boeing KC-135A tanker in large numbers, but the Strategic Air Command jealously guarded their prerogative to operate these modern boom-equipped tankers to refuel heavy bombers. The Tactical Air Command had to make do with leftover obsolescent tankers for a number of years.

Note that the KB-50 refueling pods were near the wingtips -- facilitating the triple refueling setup. Note also that in an attempt to better match the speed of the jets, the KB-50J has a pair of jet engines added.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

All complaining about "global warming" & humanities carbon footprint.

Speaking of aerial refueling tankers and VIP transports, Britain's final version of "Blair Force One" (A330) supposedly retains its tanker and troop transport functions when not shuttling the royals and ministers around. The UK was late to the VIP transport game, making everyone fly commercial. I remember Blair or some other PM crossing the pond on a BA Concorde, but don't recall if it was a regular scheduled flight or a government charter.....

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles...r-global-role/





.

[Artemis]

Special mention: 01:06:16 - 01:07:43 ("Did you ever have any close calls ?" + "happy snaps"):

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Special mention: 01:06:16 - 01:07:43 ("Did you ever have any close calls ?" + "happy snaps")

I'm currently reading "Flying the SR-71 Blackbird: In the Cockpit on a Secret Operational Mission."

The book explains in great detail everything it takes to put the SR-71 in the air. The ground support, the training, suiting up, flight planning, staging KC-135Q tankers, weather, everything.

The workload for the crew was just insane - computers were pretty crude back then.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

The book explains in great detail everything it takes to put the SR-71 in the air. The ground support, the training, suiting up, flight planning, staging KC-135Q tankers, weather, everything.

And that is what killed the SR-71: The incredible cost of all that infrastructure including the tanker support. It was a national treasure, but the high cost led to its demise.

For those interested in the SR-71, Rich Graham's books are a must-read.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Llarry

And that is what killed the SR-71: The incredible cost of all that infrastructure including the tanker support. It was a national treasure, but the high cost led to its demise.

For those interested in the SR-71, Rich Graham's books are a must-read.

I'd guess that if you asked anyone involved with the SR-71 today, they'd all agree that pissing off the Russians made it well worth the effort. The SR-71 came home with film showing the feeble attempts by the Russians to intercept the SR-71. The Migs were always too late, too slow and too low.

[chassis]

Last night.

[chassis]

Big bird today, -8i for the ride home. 747-830 D-ABYR Bremen.

Nigel and Sixteen need to move over!

[Llarry]

There are traditionally two logistics support squadrons in the U.S. Navy operating carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft and supporting aircraft carriers at sea. VRC-30 (Pacific fleet) and VRC-40 (Atlantic fleet) performed this function for many years using the Grumman C-2A Greyhound.

The Navy has purchased 44 CMV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to replace the C-2As and established a small training squadron and two replacement COD squadrons flying the Osprey: VRM-30 (Pacific fleet) and VRM-40 (Atlantic fleet) are in the process of assuming the COD mission.

VRC-30, based at the Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California, has just completed the squadron's last flight of a C-2A; On the Pacific side, VRM-30 will now carry the load. On the Atlantic side, the end is imminent as well.

Here's a photo of the last VRC-30 C-2A on its last flight, ending almost sixty years of service to the fleet.

And a photo of the new CMV-22B, the C-2A's replacement.

Edit - bonus photo of the C-2A front end on the ground.

[M5Rick]

Some more news on that F-35 out of Charleston, appears it went into 'safe' mode while on autopilot avoiding built up areas, it seemingly completely disintegrated after crashing into a field and exploding, the pilot hearing a loud bang 25 minutes after ejecting.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-plane-is.html

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Navy has purchased 44 CMV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to replace the C-2As and established a small training squadron and two replacement COD squadrons flying the Osprey: VRM-30 (Pacific fleet) and VRM-40 (Atlantic fleet) are in the process of assuming the COD mission.

It will be a steep learning curve transitioning from the Greyhound to the Osprey. Assuming of course that the current crews are being considered. Two very different types of birds.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

It will be a steep learning curve transitioning from the Greyhound to the Osprey. Assuming of course that the current crews are being considered. Two very different types of birds.

I think they are starting over on the crews. A young C-2A pilot can transition to the CMV-22B or the E-2D or any other platform. The older pilots are simply left behind.

[Llarry]

The training program for V-22 pilots is rather interesting, as it is an aircraft that mostly flies like a fixed-wing aircraft but can also hover like a helicopter.

The training pipeline (mostly for Marine Corps pilots):
-- The usual flight screening and pre-flight training in common with all pilots
-- Primary flight training in the T-6B for about 90 flight hours, also in common with all pilots
-- Intermediate helicopter flight training in the TH-57 or new TH-73 for about 60 flight hours
-- Advanced training in the King Air (T-44; soon to be the new T-54) for about 65 flight hours

Following which MV-22 Osprey flight training with the Marines in the MV-22B. Navy COD pilots then go on to a final course at VRM-50 for CMV-22B finishing touches.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

-- Advanced training in the King Air (T-44; soon to be the new T-54) for about 65 flight hours

I was wondering why the King Air, then I found this:

"The T-54A will provide crucial advanced instrument and asymmetric engine handling training to student naval aviators selected for multi-engine fleet communities. This includes branches of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Training with the T-54A will be applicable towards flying P-8, EP-3, KC-130, E-6, E-2, CMV-22 and MV-22 aircraft. "

https://kingairnation.com/blog/king-...-6772-million/

[3798j]

.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I think they are starting over on the crews. A young C-2A pilot can transition to the CMV-22B or the E-2D or any other platform. The older pilots are simply left behind.

I see Osprey's around here quite often. Their unique sound gives them away miles before they pass by.

We were having lunch at our county airport a few years ago when two Ospreys fired up and left. We were dining on the patio, so we ended up with grass cuttings on our food.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

We were having lunch at our county airport a few years ago when two Ospreys fired up and left. We were dining on the patio, so we ended up with grass cuttings on our food.

Perfect for a little extra garnish for the salad.

[Llarry]

The changing of the guard is underway for U.S. Navy airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection. Unmanned Patrol Squadron 19 (VUP-19) of the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, has flown at least one and possibly several upgraded Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicles to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Guam is the planned home base for up to four MQ-4Cs to conduct broad-area ocean surveillance (using an advanced onboard radar) as well as SIGINT collection in the Pacific Ocean. VUP-19 conducted a test deployment of two MQ-4Cs to Guam in 2020 and now in 2023 has returned -- probably to stay.

The MQ-4C's claim to fame is high altitude cruise and long endurance and range. While it is controlled by satellite link, it also has considerable autonomous capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northr...n_MQ-4C_Triton

Note: The Wikipedia article is way off on the numbers; the newest Navy plan is to buy 27 MQ-4Cs = 4 per location X 3 bases, leaving 15 for training, heavy maintenance and attrition. (The original far more ambitious plan was for 5 bases; the two other planned bases are currently unknown.) The Navy currently has fewer than 10 active MQ-4Cs.

The Navy's plan is to retire the veteran Lockheed EP-3E Aries II manned SIGINT aircraft once the MQ-4C is in place and functional. The number of EP-3Es has dwindled over the years; 10 remain in service, although I suspect far fewer are operational at any given time.

One of the major selling points of UAVs used to be that they were cheaper than their manned counterparts; this certainly does not apply in the case of the MQ-4C, which runs $250 million or so per aircraft.

[Llarry]

After the Japanese were defeated in 1945, the Chinese Nationalist forces -- and for that matter the Chinese Communist forces as well -- were left with a ragtag assortment of aircraft of varying provenance.

Japanese combat aircraft in decent shape were used for several years. This Nakajima Ki-43 (Allied reporting name Oscar) was used by the ROCAF briefly after 1945.

The Ki-43 was a Japanese Army aircraft and was often confused by U.S. fliers with the Mitsubishi A6M Type Zero (Zeke) Navy fighter. In fact, my Dad shared a credit for shooting down a "Zero" in late 1944 over Taiwan. I suspect that what he and his squadron mate shot down was actually an Army Ki-43.