Air Force Research Lab is talking a 'stealthy' tanker

originally posted by: bryan2006
a reply to: bryan2006
I don't post or reply much on here, but if someone can find the link to the post I had going last... Actually I think almost two years ago now.? That is exactly what I saw multiple times flying in Alaska and I had other friends see it too. It is also very quiet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is this what you are after ?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Two or three drogues means two or three aircraft, not multiple connections to one aircraft. Interestingly, when ground refueling, if you plug in multiple trucks to an aircraft, it slows the fuel intake way down.

I wasn’t saying multiple to one aircraft I’m saying being able to serve 2-3 aircraft at once versus faster flow rate from the boom, and serving one at a time. So if you have say two tankers one with one probe versus 3 drogues and they each have to service 6 craft seems the drogue is going to be able to service the 6 craft faster than the boomer...

Yeah never had to hook up to a plane I’m just the dummy who dumps into storage.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Yes and no. You can refuel two to three aircraft at a time, but the fuel flow rate is lower through a drogue than through a boom. You can get the max fuel rate through a boom into a fighter, but it's still faster than through the drogue. The fastest you can get through a drogue is 4500 pounds per minute, but on average, you're looking at 2,000-3,000 pounds a minute. A boom, even at the reduced flow rate is probably looking at 4,000+ still. So you only get one at a time, but you can refuel them faster. So it balances out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Yes and no. You can refuel two to three aircraft at a time, but the fuel flow rate is lower through a drogue than through a boom. You can get the max fuel rate through a boom into a fighter, but it's still faster than through the drogue. The fastest you can get through a drogue is 4500 pounds per minute, but on average, you're looking at 2,000-3,000 pounds a minute. A boom, even at the reduced flow rate is probably looking at 4,000+ still. So you only get one at a time, but you can refuel them faster. So it balances out.

That’s what I said that it was at first that it’s a wash between the two.

a reply to: anzha

Well hey, doesn't this look kind of similar?

a reply to: BigDave-AR

The boom gives you a lot more flexibility though.

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

Hideous.

Take a perfectly good flying wing and put a frickin tail on it.

a reply to: Phage

I couldn't agree more. I was merely saying this schematic from a few years ago looks very similar to the OP's picture.

a reply to: Phage

Because flying wings suck as tankers.

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

Form follows function.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Tell that to Boeing. Especially the phantom works UAV division.

a reply to: HomeyKXTA

Right, because a drogue that can move around with the airflow around it is the same as trying to tuck up under the aft of a flying wing and plugging into a rigid boom.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phage

Because flying wings suck as tankers.

Being somewhat cognizant of the aerodynamics of flying wings I understand the stability issues. They tend to the unstable. But with fly by wire, that problem seems to go away.

Granted, the wing would have to be more voluminous to accommodate the fuel load but the empenage would seem to get in the way of fueling ops. Without it, more transfers at once would seem to be possible.

You have to admit. It's ugly as sin.

a reply to: Phage

It's a lot more than that. The boom affects the aircraft a lot more than you think. The pilots feel the boom moving the aircraft around if you have to swing it back and forth, or extend it down beyond a certain point. That's in addition to the airflow coming off the airframe affecting the receiver as it tries to plug into the boom. A tail helps a lot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know a tail helps a lot. I flew one of these for a year, until I got my senses back.


The bell bottoms are required flightwear.



Really, I understand why the tail.

a reply to: Phage
You have bigger balls than I sir.

My holiday week got a big dampener one of my best friend’s father who did his 20 years in the AF and was a friend of mine as well passed. I have a military funeral to attend Thursday. He was a great guy and had all kinds of Barksdale B-52 and SAC
stories.
Rest easy my friend...

sooooo its a fat B2?
yay i guess

a reply to: nelloh62

Yep and that plane looks just like what I saw. A triangle with a v tail. Lol

originally posted by: humanoidlord
sooooo its a fat B2?
yay i guess

Survey says...
BBZZZZ

a reply to: BigDave-AR
Refueling more than one aircraft at a time works with smaller aircraft. It doesn't work with large aircraft like a B-1.