About the only good thing about the 135 was the basket was much more stable in turbulence compared to the typical soft baskets on the KC-10, -130, etc.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Refueling Basket (current) dimensions???
- Thread starter Citation3
- Start date
Kind of a combination of metal and textile materials - depends on what aircraft they're attached to.
Brett
Back during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980, the Nimitz, with CVW-8 onboard, was pulled out of the Med and sent to the Indian Ocean with the rescue helos. Once there, it became obvious that there was a possibility that strike aircraft might have to go downtown to support a rescue attempt. At 800+ miles one-way, the problem of sufficient fuel became obvious. During one of our "off" days of normal ops, our steel beach activities were interupted by the message that we were to clear the flight deck for a "special" mission. I got chosen as one of the guys to participate. We went to CIC for the brief and found out we were to go join up with a KC-135 and get some practice plugs. We informed the powers that be that none of us had ever tanked off of a 135 before and it would be dark-ass night by the time everything transpired. Welcome to crisis management decision-making we were told. We successfully completed that night, but it was definitely interesting. Just getting rendezvoused was a major challege in itself. This type of stuff was probably common during Iraq and Afghanistan ops, but back then was really different.
Interesting. For those who were around during Vietnam (looking mostly at you A4s), was big wing tanking part of normal everyday ops like it is today, or did you rely on organic assets alone?
Brett
Remember we had our own big wing asset back then in the Whale. Couple of them had a tremendous amount of give.
Some of the T-39 pilots that flew in Vietnam told me they would hit the 135, top off and then promptly dump down to max trap before heading back to the boat. The theory was that, even though they didn't need it then, if they NEVER used it, the Air Force would stop supplying it.
Yup.
Same basket for everyone. That'll do.
NVN Tanking
I'm not A4s, but I was there. In NVN strike ops, our own tankers (mostly Whales, occasionally A-6 or A-4) were primarily for Phantoms. They were in burner a lot launching & chasing/dodging MIGs. A-4s, A-6s seldom required tanking with the exception of the rare "double-cycle" strike.
A Whale also orbited overhead in case of bolter/weather problems or fuel tank battle damaged A/C returning during day/night recoveries.
I guess it was organic assets, as the USAF was never called upon on my 2 deployments in CVW-14. They had their hands full breast-feeding their own Thuds & Phantoms!
BzB
I'm not A4s, but I was there. In NVN strike ops, our own tankers (mostly Whales, occasionally A-6 or A-4) were primarily for Phantoms. They were in burner a lot launching & chasing/dodging MIGs. A-4s, A-6s seldom required tanking with the exception of the rare "double-cycle" strike.
A Whale also orbited overhead in case of bolter/weather problems or fuel tank battle damaged A/C returning during day/night recoveries.
I guess it was organic assets, as the USAF was never called upon on my 2 deployments in CVW-14. They had their hands full breast-feeding their own Thuds & Phantoms!
BzB
ACTUALLY ... A-6's tanked ALL THE TIME ... just because of the TO&E of a 'typical' A-6 'ron ... i.e., 12 bombers & 4 tankers, sometimes more ... whether it was on a strike (usually deferred to the Phantoms and didn't need it unless damaged and/or going to Danang for whatever reason ...), a double cycle (like B'Bee noted --- we needed it), or an off-going/on-coming tanker situation -- then you 'did it' twice per cycle ...
I hate tankers. I love tankers. Max traps = flyin' bombers & tankers ...
I'm not A4s, but I was there. In NVN strike ops, our own tankers (mostly Whales, occasionally A-6 or A-4) were primarily for Phantoms. They were in burner a lot launching & chasing/dodging MIGs. A-4s, A-6s seldom required tanking with the exception of the rare "double-cycle" strike.
A Whale also orbited overhead in case of bolter/weather problems or fuel tank battle damaged A/C returning during day/night recoveries.
I guess it was organic assets, as the USAF was never called upon on my 2 deployments in CVW-14. They had their hands full breast-feeding their own Thuds & Phantoms!
BzB
What aircraft does Whale refer to? I know it's a B747 in the civilian world, but I'm sure that's not what this refers to in this coversation. Thanks.
Refueling Hazard...
On one particular road recce mission in '66, took a rice farmer's rifle shot in the snout. Never knew it 'til after coming back aboard! Would have been fairly interesting had I had to tank on the way home, nice little fuel mist streaming into the intake!:hot_125:
*A "Whale" is/was the Douglas K/A-3B SkyWarrior.
BzB
A Whale also orbited overhead in case of bolter/weather problems or fuel tank battle damaged A/C returning during day/night recoveries.
On one particular road recce mission in '66, took a rice farmer's rifle shot in the snout. Never knew it 'til after coming back aboard! Would have been fairly interesting had I had to tank on the way home, nice little fuel mist streaming into the intake!:hot_125:
*A "Whale" is/was the Douglas K/A-3B SkyWarrior.
BzB
