| Author |
Message |
|
Scorpion82
|
 Posted: Nov 11, 2007 - 12:49 PM
|
 
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Oct 07, 2007 - 07:52 PM
Posts: 992
Status: Offline
|
Hi all,
it is known that the F-35A has the AAR intake on the top for boom refueling. But what about the F-35B/C? The USMC and USN as well as many other nations are used to probes for the drogue/basket system. I suppose the B/C will get a retractable probe in the right forward fuselage, but has this been confirmed? And is there any chance that F-35As will be offered with this for export? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 24, 2013 - 10:46 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
checksixx
|
|
Posted: Nov 11, 2007 - 01:49 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 20, 2005 - 05:28 AM
Posts: 1305
Status: Offline
|
| The X-35B still had the receptacle on the spine of the aircraft...Not sure of the plane for production aircraft though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msupepper
|
|
Posted: Nov 11, 2007 - 04:05 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 13, 2006 - 09:55 PM
Posts: 55
Status: Offline
|
|
checksixx wrote:
The X-35B still had the receptacle on the spine of the aircraft...Not sure of the plane for production aircraft though.
As I recall, CTOL and CV will have a boom refuel system, and STOVL will get the refuel probe. My company handles the hydraulic system, but that's not my circuit (I'm currently working 3BSD). I'll confirm on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAggie
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 04:11 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 12, 2007 - 08:43 AM
Posts: 579
Status: Offline
|
F-35A: Air Force style.
F-35B & F-35C: Navy style probe & drogue. |
_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
|
|
|
|
|
|
SnakeHandler
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 05:28 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM
Posts: 620
|
| Why don't they just put the probe on the A model also? Wouldn't that save cost? Besides, drogue refueling looks easier, rather than having to get plugged without having any say in the matter. Is Lockheed Martin looking for input from line drivers or are they going at this from a test pilot/engineer perspective? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 06:15 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2198
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
From what I've been told by Boomers, fuel can be transferred much faster using the "flying boom" versus the probe/drogue system. They hated refueling C-130s using the probe/drogue because it would take so long...
Then again he said if he turned on all four pumps in the tanker, he could blow the wing tanks right off a Viper. Four pumps are only used for big aircraft like BUFFs and C-5s; jets with BIG tanks.
I believe he was using two pumps at the time for the transfer to a Viper. Not sure what the fuel flow was? |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 06:20 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
|
SnakeHandler wrote:
Why don't they just put the probe on the A model also? Wouldn't that save cost? Besides, drogue refueling looks easier, rather than having to get plugged without having any say in the matter.
Try snaggin' the basket at night, in bad weather, and with some turbulence. Try it again with the same conditions but comin' back from a strike when you're BINGO fuel, fatigued, or still hopped up on adrenaline. Not somethin' I'd like to try and I don't even fly! I would think that keepin' formation with the tanker and letting someone worry about pluggin YOU is preferrable. But that's just me... |
_________________
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SnakeHandler
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 06:48 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM
Posts: 620
|
| All things equal, I think that I'd like to be in charge. Just one reporter's opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msupepper
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 06:17 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 13, 2006 - 09:55 PM
Posts: 55
Status: Offline
|
|
LMAggie wrote:
F-35A: Air Force style.
F-35B & F-35C: Navy style probe & drogue.
Yep, confirmed with the hydraulics group. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SnakeHandler
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 07:33 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM
Posts: 620
|
I need more rounds in the gun too.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightndattic
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 09:14 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 493
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
checksixx wrote:
The X-35B still had the receptacle on the spine of the aircraft...Not sure of the plane for production aircraft though.
That's because the B model was the A model with the STOVL modification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
checksixx
|
|
Posted: Nov 12, 2007 - 09:24 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 20, 2005 - 05:28 AM
Posts: 1305
Status: Offline
|
|
Lightndattic wrote:
checksixx wrote:
The X-35B still had the receptacle on the spine of the aircraft...Not sure of the plane for production aircraft though.
That's because the B model was the A model with the STOVL modification.
Yes, I'm aware of how the aircraft was setup, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAggie
|
|
Posted: Nov 13, 2007 - 01:10 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 12, 2007 - 08:43 AM
Posts: 579
Status: Offline
|
|
SnakeHandler wrote:
Why don't they just put the probe on the A model also? Wouldn't that save cost? Besides, drogue refueling looks easier, rather than having to get plugged without having any say in the matter. Is Lockheed Martin looking for input from line drivers or are they going at this from a test pilot/engineer perspective?
Because about the only thing the Navy and Air Force can agree on is what to the call the airplane. And even then I don't think the Navy really had to do anything with that either. Also, Lockheed Martin consults with pilots ALL of the time from all around the world. |
_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
|
|
|
|
|
|
SnakeHandler
|
|
Posted: Nov 13, 2007 - 03:55 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM
Posts: 620
|
| Cool. I'm not full up on the politics but I know that the Navy/Airforce rivalry runs deep. Too bad, it could've been a great jet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAggie
|
|
Posted: Nov 13, 2007 - 04:25 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 12, 2007 - 08:43 AM
Posts: 579
Status: Offline
|
|
SnakeHandler wrote:
Cool. I'm not full up on the politics but I know that the Navy/Airforce rivalry runs deep. Too bad, it could've been a great jet.
The rivalry has little bearing on how great the jet is. It makes things difficult sometimes, can raise the cost with more changes, but in the end the common goal of each service is a lethal weapon. Each service gets what they want, and it ultimately makes our nation's defense more diverse. |
_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
