Avionics-Equipped F-35 Joins Edwards AFB Test Jets

A French tanker, with a boom system, refuelling a Belgium F16
Suppose without a camera system and the boom operator in the tail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=THV8u61CUt4

As far as I know a KDC 10 twice as many fuel than a KC135 ?

A Tanker Remote Vision System

http://www.tno.nl/downloads/def_lucht_T ... 070047.pdf

Things can go wrong with Probe and Drogue
Did not search for videos about a boom system, but surely there are too

Air-to-air refuelling - when things go wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckOaHGMEQ68

Long story about new RAAF tankers and simulation training and whatnot:

Synthetic fuelling By Mike Gerzanics 07 Dec 2010

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-350497/

"...Additionally, inter-operability with allied nations would be enhanced with a dual mode air refuelling capability. The KC-30A, Australian for A330 MRTT, promised to offer both a hose and drogue and boom refuelling capability.

Test and development flights are being conducted to certificate the aircraft. One highlight was in June, when two A330 MRTTs built for the RAAF performed buddy refuelling. Airbus expects to deliver its first A330 MRTT to the RAAF by the end of this year....

...For the RAAF, two underwing Cobham 905E air refuelling pods are installed in the wings, while other operators have chosen to add a third centreline fuselage hose and drogue refuelling unit. An EADS-developed aerial refuelling boom system is installed in the tail section of ghe RAAF aircraft.

To control the air refuelling operation, a two-place remote air refuelling operator (RARO) console is installed on the flightdeck. As the air refuelling operator does not have a direct view of the boom or refuelling aircraft, EADS also installs a boom enhanced vision system (BEVS)....

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=37279
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=37281

For When SkyNet Goes Active....

High juice: in-flight refuelling for UAVs 14 November 2011 By Andrew Czyzewski

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/a ... 86.article

"Researchers are using robotic simulators to explore the possibilities of autonomous aerial refuelling.

Earlier this year, two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - Northrop Grumman’s Proteus and NASA’s Global Hawk - flew as close as 40ft (12.2m) apart at an altitude of 45,000ft (13.7km). The test flight was intended to be a first stepping stone on the path to entirely autonomous aerial refuelling. But, in truth, it was very much a tentative baby step. 40ft might not seem like a long way, but it’s when an aircraft crosses this threshold that the pilot’s skills are tested to the maximum....

...’If unmanned aircraft systems [UAS] are going to fulfil their complete potential, there’s a good chance they’ll have to refuel,’ said Richard Bourne, a former naval officer and now programme manager of research and technology at Cobham Mission Equipment.

’That may seem bizarre in the non-military sense but it’s where refuelling started - Cobham’s initial concept was to support Imperial Airways, enabling its flying boats to get across the world without having to land and refuel regularly.’

Indeed, conventional air-to-air refuelling was originally explored in a civilian setting, with the US interested in achieving trans-Atlantic flights for a faster postal service to Europe, while Britain wanted to service the Empire with its flying boats.

However, the cost of the equipment and the complexity and skill involved in actually executing the procedure meant that aerial refuelling to this day has been confined to military operations....

...For cost and practicality purposes, the project will work on the assumption that UAVs will use existing refuelling tankers employing the ’drogue-and-probe’ method. Most of the development will therefore go into the autonomous receiver aircraft, which will make positional decisions...."

Complete STORY at the URL.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Pictures/w ... 20rob4.jpg
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Pictures/w ... 20rob2.jpg

There appears to be much more 'padding' on that basket than the ones the manned receivers use.



I would think a 40' hose would provide a reasonable 'buffer'. However a remote PIO while hooked up would probably be spectacular. Would bring new meaning to the phrase 'tail wagging the dog'.

Gums says/sends: "...- The Navy likes the probe as it primarily uses smaller jets and the "tankers" can be basic attack jets with external tanks carrying a small amount of fuel. Not so good for long ferry missions, as those reqwuire taking on thousands of pounds of gas while far away from the boat. think about it...." Oz Super Hornets travelling US to Oz did some trans-Pacific tanking (via Omega?) AFAIK with diverts at crucial waypoints - if needed. Planning will help solve 'not able to take on fuel' issues. Anyhoo a good excuse for some Super Tanking video. Complete clip is on YEWtube with an excellent 'over the shoulder view' of pilot carrier landing - but I digress - attached is only the tanking segment:

VFA-2 Cruise Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUKsJ5b-QU

The boom might be a little safer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyAMC7miuy4

spazsinbad wrote:
VFA-2 Cruise Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUKsJ5b-QU

The sequence towards the end showing the pilot "stirring the pot" seem excessive.

I found the actual 'over the shoulder view' of an actual carrier landing of value. Can't say about the top left insert. However here is an actual 'under the shoulder view' of an actual Hornet FCLP pilot actions. An inside view of a good carrier landing is not smooth - even it it may look 'smooth' on the outside. LSO grades on accuracy - not smoothness - although one can go over the top to then affect glideslope / angle of attack accuracy. Anyhoo....

An explanation for some of the stick stirring (and there are different auto/manual configurations for approach). The respective NATOPS for Hornet/Super Hornet will have that information.

‘Paddles monthly’ Nov 2010

http://www.hrana.org/documents/Newslett ... er2010.pdf [1.4Mb]

ATC and Me [page 8]
This month I wanted to talk about some flying qualities of the Super Hornet behind the boat. Please think of this article as an editorial and my opinion and techniques only. People I have talked to generally comment that they like the Legacy ATC better than the Rhino ATC. I disagree. When I was a Squadron Paddles I was a big fan of auto flying and preached a small rapid “stick shake” technique to keep the engines “spooled up” with “energy” on the Rhino. Back then I didn’t know why this technique worked, only that it did. Hopefully with this article I can shine some light on the why this technique is so effective.

In the Legacy ATC the FCC’s send commands to a drive unit on the throttle control attached to the engine that eventually moves the actual fuel control valve. The throttles move because they are directly connected to these linkages. The Rhino throttles are “fly-by-wire.” When you move the throttles a throttle angle sensor measures the position of the handle and sends a signal to the FADECs which controls engine response. A back-drive motor moves the throttles simply to let the pilot know what the engines are doing. I think this is why all Rhino throttles feel and respond very similarly. However, in every Legacy I fly the throttles feel a little different. The direct link to the FADECs make the throttles and ATC much more responsive in the Rhino.

I found flying a Legacy pass in ATC is very nice. I can see why people say they like it better than the Rhino. You smoothly move the stick forward and back and the velocity vector rapidly follows, allowing the pilot to proactively fly the ball. Large glideslope corrections require you to smoothly move the stick. However, when flying the Rhino I’m constantly “shaking” the stick, the ride is bumpy because the huge stabs are aggressively flapping throughout the entire pass (see last month’s article). I go to make a large glideslope correction by smoothly pulling back on the stick, the nose comes up and you flash a huge green chevron. In the mean time the throttles slowly creep forward, catch the slow, you release some back stick and you are back in business. It seems to me that the Rhino throttles are slower to respond. Why else would I have gone slow? The same correction in the Legacy keeps me on speed.

The key to this conundrum is how the two airplane’s ATCs are mechanized. When you move the stick in ATC you are changing two variables: pitch attitude and power. For the following discussion I will over-simplify and look only at the power response part of moving the stick. In a Legacy, the magnitude of the throttle response is tied to the how fast the stabs are moving, which is based on what the FCCs are telling them to do. Basically, if you move the stick back 1 inch and it took you 1 or 2 seconds to do it, the power addition is the same. In a Rhino it is not so simple. Rhino ATC response is based directly on the rate in which you move the stick. If I were to move the stick back 1-inch in 1-millisecond the power addition would be much greater than a 1-inch movement in 1-second. So the key to the Rhino ATC is how rapidly you move the throttles not how far you move them. In the Rhino if you want a big glideslope correction, make a rapid stick movement not a large one. With rapid inputs the throttles will be a much more responsive!

In our previously example if you were low and made a very rapid back stick input you would very quickly get a larger power addition and would not go slow. The same is true for high corrections as well. So the ATCs in the Rhino ARE much more responsive then the Legacy, you simply need to make rapid inputs.

As pilots we are great compensators. If you give us a task to do we will rapidly figure out how to do it. Years ago I did not know how the ATC worked; I just knew that if I moved the stick rapidly I kept “energy” on the jet. In reality those small rapid movements were making bigger throttle corrections than if I had made small, smooth movements. Keep this knowledge in your bag of tricks. Next time during FCLPs experiment with the rate of your stick inputs and figure out what works best for you. As always, if you need to make more than a 1-ball correction, click out and do it the old fashion way.
Keep’em safe paddles.
LT Dan "Butters" Radocaj
VX-23 Ship Suitability
301-342-4647
daniel.radocaj@navy.mil
__________________

ARB 10-10: General Information

· Optimum wind over the deck which minimizes burble effects and allows for optimal aircraft performance is 25-30 knots.

· When a 3.75 degree basic angle is commanded, LSOs shall use published ARB data for a 4.0 degree glide slope.

Some info on differences to the unflappability of various Hornets on Approach.

‘Paddles monthly’ Oct 2010

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2010.pdf [1.1Mb]

“Rhino Flying!!!
This month I thought I would try to answer some questions that people may have asked themselves or others, but have never found the answers. One question may be, “Why is the approach speed of the Super Hornet slower than the Hornet?” Think about that one…“How can an airplane that has roughly the same planform layout yet is 25% larger and close to 30% heavier at carrier landing weight fly slower?” Another question that comes to mind is, “Why do the stabilators of the Super Hornet seem to flap and move so much more than the Hornet on approach?” especially considering the fact that they have similar flight control systems and flying qualities.

The answer for these questions is actually contained simply in one sentence in the Super Hornet’s NATOPS manual that states, “…the basic airframe is statically neutral to slightly unstable…” I bet you’re thinking, “I fly the Super Hornet and I know it’s not unstable.” From the pilot’s perspective that’s true. It is very stable and even departure resistant, but that is completely the result of the FCS, which maintains aircraft stability at all flight conditions. Aerodynamically speaking, the aircraft is statically unstable, particularly in the landing configuration. Well, what does that mean? What follows is a quick, broad overview intended to give you a general understanding but not to delve too deeply into the technical aspects.

From flight school we all learned that lift is directly related to velocity and weight. The heavier an aircraft weighs, the faster it must fly to generate the necessary lift to keep it airborne.

Conversely, the more lift an aircraft can generate, the slower it can fly. Flaps generate that lift, but let’s just consider both the Hornet and Super Hornet in the landing configuration. Both have the same LEFs and TEFs, so roughly the only difference between them is size and weight. Since the F/A-18E/F is larger, so are its flaps and wings in relation. The best we could hope for is in scaling up the Super Hornet the resulting wing area would balance its increase in weight and it would fly the exact same speed as the F/A-18C. Well, why does it fly slower? It flies slower because of the unique trim position of the tail. Since the E/F is statically unstable, its tail position is set at a different angle than the Hornet, which is a statically stable.

Not considering the roles or function of an FCS, a statically stable aircraft will respond to a disturbance by tending to return to its “trimmed” condition. For instance, if a wind gust increases the AOA of an aircraft, a stable aircraft (through pitching moments, etc.) will naturally decrease the AOA back towards the initial condition. An unstable aircraft will respond by increasing the AOA. How does that affect the tail? After trudging through the aerodynamic equations, the overall result is that the tail trim position for an unstable aircraft at higher angles of attack is increasingly trailing edge down (TED). For a stable aircraft we trim the stick aft to fly at a higher AOA, which is more trailing edge up (TEU). The following two pictures show the result:

The arrows roughly represent the lift generated by the wings and body combination and the stabilators. As you can see, the lift generated from the stabs in the TEU configuration of the F/A-18C does not contribute to lifting the aircraft. However, in the E/F the stabilators actually contribute to the total lift of the aircraft. Therefore, since the Super Hornet’s configuration is generating more lift it can fly 10-15 knots slower.

So…“Why do the tails on the E/F move so much more?” It’s because the FCS has to work so much harder to keep the aircraft balanced and stable, just like how much hand motion you have to use to keep a stick vertically balanced on the tip of your finger.
Any other questions, please send it our way. Fly Safe.
LCDR Ted “Sheeza” Dyckman
VX-23 Ship Suitability”

Further to 'lamoey' comment some pilot info: “In previous aircraft there was very little "north/south" movement of the stick behind the boat because you should be trimmed on speed. But in the Rhino/Growler there is just as much north/south movement on the stick as there is east/west.”

In my experience (with A4G) the aircraft would retain Optimum Angle of Attack trimmed attitude very well. Glideslope is controlled with power and speed with nose position for angle of attack or Fast/Slow/On Speed. However the lineup has to be changed constantly 'nibbling' to the right because the angle deck of the carrier is moving away to the right constantly, even when lined up correctly during the carrier approach. Of course all controls are actuated simultaneously, with corrections being made through anticipation and to keep the aircraft 'alive' - ready to change again - with corrections (to corrections) hopefully diminishing in degree the closer the aircraft gets to arrest with all parameters correct 'meatball, lineup and airspeed' (Optimum Angle of Attack). The A-4 series had an incredible roll rate (720 deg/sec at opt roll speed of 250 KIAS) so roll responsiveness in the groove - dirty - was still excellent but the nose did not move nor need to move much with lots of nibbling to the right. Some pilots (especially those with previous RN FAA experience 'throttle bashed' more than others - once again I think their thinking was to keep the engine RPM moving and not allow it to unwind in the low region - thus increasing windup time. Remember the power controls glideslope in carrier aircraft.

KC-30A Tanker Refuel Drogue my Probe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFwnckC3 ... r_embedded

"Uploaded by AirForceHQ on Nov 30, 2011
Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) KC-30A aircraft are conducting air-to-air refuelling trials with RAAF F/A-18 Hornets. Commencing with the first air-to-air contact on October 18, the trials are a mixture of 'dry' and 'wet' contacts (confirming safe connections can be made and fuel transferred respectively), and are intended to provide a partial clearance for hose-and-drogue refuelling contacts with the KC-30A, expected to be declared in December 2011. The test program will then expand throughout 2012 to increase the envelope of hose-and-drogue refuelling to other conditions, as well as train additional KC-30A personnel to conduct these tasks. Initial Operational Capability, which will include the KC-30A clearance to conduct hose-and-drogue refuelling and strategic air lift missions for the Australian Defence Force, is expected in late 2012. Air Force is receiving five KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transports, to be operated by No. 33 Squadron at RAAF Base Amberley.

Photos: http://ra.af/rSdPAC

More about the KC-30A: http://bit.ly/hb37Bb

http://images.airforce.gov.au/fotoweb/f ... 71_002.jpg

The 'Photos' RAAF website above for photos is probably deliberately CRAP! Good luck downloading anything from there.

http://www.airforce.gov.au/Multimedia/i ... C30A06.jpg