In-Flight Refueling Commercial Airliners

In-flight refueling is bleeping expensive.

The only time you'd use it is when you can't land for fuel- hence it only being used for record attempts and military/strategic requirements.
 
The Air Force says that fuel is 15x more expensive in the air than on the ground. They are sorely disappointed that they didn't take that into account when they made the decision not to reengine the B-52...
 
Old Geek said:
The Air Force says that fuel is 15x more expensive in the air than on the ground. They are sorely disappointed that they didn't take that into account when they made the decision not to reengine the B-52...
Click to expand...


But.....

Didn't they re-engine the B-52 with high bypass motors???:dunno::dunno::confused:

Never mind.... That must have been the KC-135's...:goofy:
 
N801BH said:
But.....

Didn't they re-engine the B-52 with high bypass motors???:dunno::dunno::confused:

Never mind.... That must have been the KC-135's...:goofy:
Click to expand...

Yes, the KC-135 R model has the high bypass engines.
There was a discussion to re engine the B-52H from the current 8 to 4 hi bypass. More net power, less fuel consumption, less number of aging engines to maintain. It did not happen.
 
I think the FAA is a long way from authorizing in-flight refueling of part 121 passenger jets.
 
I've said for a long time now that any day they're going to hollow out a couple 777s and use them to aerial refuel RJs. That way they can keep them going indefinitely !
 
Art VanDelay said:
I've said for a long time now that any day they're going to hollow out a couple 777s and use them to aerial refuel RJs. That way they can keep them going indefinitely !
Click to expand...

Ha..... Riding in a RJ will give passengers DVT in less then an hour..... Extending airbourne hours will only kill more Pax....:yikes::redface:.......:D
 
Turbines are much less efficient at low altitude, right? Just load up your RJ, fly it continuously over the various routes it would take, install an airlock, have passengers parachute out at their respective destinations, and refuel in the air as needed. The expensive fuelling will be compensated by not having to take off and land as much, and avoiding gate fees. Plus, first class passengers get routed directly over their hotel.
 
Umm, your refueler has to take off and land, too. With a real heavy load.

You don't get fuel from the Fuel Fairy. Something big has to haul it up.
 
I know nothing of this topic so thought I'd toss it out for comment, along with a link to the article I'd read.
Lots of interesting observations and learning points. Some of the points pro and con were addressed in the cited article but there is no internal evidence that any of the respondents read the article to comment on whether it has valid points or not.
That is, of course, to be expected and is probably just as well. :) All internet reality is virtual.
 
The military pilots I know talk about in-flight refueling being the most intense op that they train for and perform. It's probably not realistic for commercial pilots to maintain that level of proficiency or for insurers to sign off on the risk.
 
And would it really even be necessary? Seems that most airliners have enough range for their intended destination without stopping.
 
Stewartb said:
The military pilots I know talk about in-flight refueling being the most intense op that they train for and perform. It's probably not realistic for commercial pilots to maintain that level of proficiency or for insurers to sign off on the risk.
Click to expand...
Way back in the dawn of time, me and a batch of ROTC cadets got to ride on a KC-135 during a refueling mission. We had to don parachutes during the refueling portion. That alone would make the insurers squawk....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Stewartb said:
The military pilots I know talk about in-flight refueling being the most intense op that they train for and perform. It's probably not realistic for commercial pilots to maintain that level of proficiency or for insurers to sign off on the risk.
Click to expand...

I know many aircrew that have said the scariest part of a combat mission was the night aerial refueling. Lots of aircraft, some low on fuel, converging onto a tanker usually flying with other tankers not too far away.
 
I sent the article to an airline pilot friend. His reaction: "This would require additional training on top of my usual yearly lobotomy! (... and a contractual side letter). Besides, I'd probably be required to stow my cockpit tray table for this procedure. That alone is a non-starter in my book."

:D
 
wanttaja said:
We had to don parachutes during the refueling portion. That alone would make the insurers squawk....
Click to expand...

Weird, we don't have to do that in the 10, the pax just have to put on their seat belts.

With how expensive it is already. I dont see this working for the airlines from a cost point and only see it potentially being needed if you were doing direct flights of extremely long distances. Receiver air refueling is a delicate operation and I'd put it as the most difficult along with taxiing.
 
jnmeade said:
I know nothing of this topic so thought I'd toss it out for comment, along with a link to the article I'd read.
Lots of interesting observations and learning points. Some of the points pro and con were addressed in the cited article but there is no internal evidence that any of the respondents read the article to comment on whether it has valid points or not.
That is, of course, to be expected and is probably just as well. :) All internet reality is virtual.
Click to expand...

I went back and read the whole article. Doesn't really change anything that I posted. My numbers on the cost of in-flight refueling were based on an article in Aviation Week a couple of months ago.
 
TL;DR; - Your airline needs to stock plenty of extra large sick-sacks for it's air refueling flights.


When I was a student WSO in the F-4, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was impressed with how effortless air-to-air refueling (AAR) was. My student pilot did it with me after one demo with an IP.

None of the student pilots in my class had any problems doing AAR. I liked AAR because that was the one time the airplane flew straight and level for a few minutes. I had a bad airsickness problem that has never completely gone away, even after 40 years.

I only saw one breakaway in the F-4, and that was the ops officer of my student squadron. I chalked that up to his being an ancient relic of ~45 years old.

Fast forward a year or so, my wife and I got a space-A hop from California to Hawaii. On a C-5. We were warned that this was an AAR mission, so we could pass on it without losing our place on the space-A list.

I told my wife that AAR was nothing, it would be the smoothest part of the flight.

Ahhh, no, Lieutenant.

That C-5 wallowed like a beached whale, for what seemed like an hour! I think the pilots must have been going to lock to lock in roll the whole time.

Passengers were puking right and left, and I didn't feel so hot myself.

That day I learned that refueling a big airplane is WAY harder than refueling a high performance fighter with excellent throttle response, like an F-4.

Later when I transitioned to the F-111 I noticed that the Vark was often a challenge to refuel, what with the temperamental TF-30 turbofans and the propensity to fly near gross weight a lot.

In my EF-111 squadron our poor squadron commander had a lot of issues with AARs, it was quite embarrassing.

There I learned that one of the most impressive sights in aviation is a KC-10 doing an AAR breakaway. That thing lights up enough strobes for the White House Christmas tree, and powers away sounding and accelerating like a top fuel dragster!
 
MAKG1 said:
Umm, your refueler has to take off and land, too. With a real heavy load.
Click to expand...
They make it up on volume.

You don't get fuel from the Fuel Fairy.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. By pushing in on the Extend-O-Range knob in my Cherokee the refueling arm would extend to take upwards of 56 gallons of the best grade of 100LL. This option was discontinued in 1973 due to OPEC.
Something big has to haul it up.
Click to expand...
That's their problem. OTOH, that would explain the huge fuel bills I saw.
 
Have never enjoyed tanking. I think this proposal would probably be the easy way, ie USAF style, but even then, I'd imagine their method is still challenging for a large transport category aircraft. Not that civilian pilots are less capable or anything, just more trouble than it is worth in my opinion. I did always enjoy watching the E-3 grab gas from the tanker. We just stayed well clear and watched the show......2 whales mating is what it looked like
 
Someone please think of the children.

What would happen to the people on the ground if some fuel spilled while hooking/unhooking to the probe? Wouldn't the spilled fuel kill vegetation on the ground? Would elementary school test grades drop? Would Ed Begly jr still be able to drive his solar powered car at night?

:yes: I have been drinking, why do you ask.?? :lol:
 
Jim-in Texas has it right. When you ride in the back of a C-5 the aircrew hands out barf bags right before refueling. I don't know if the pilot is being bounced around but way in the back we were doing dutch roles the whole time.
 
Stewartb said:
The military pilots I know talk about in-flight refueling being the most intense op that they train for and perform. It's probably not realistic for commercial pilots to maintain that level of proficiency or for insurers to sign off on the risk.
Click to expand...

Gosh do ya think any of the commercial pilots MIGHT have already done that in the military?????
 
Art VanDelay said:
Gosh do ya think any of the commercial pilots MIGHT have already done that in the military?????
Click to expand...


AAR isn't rocket science. If a pilot can land a 707 with CFM-56 engines in a gusty crosswind, then he/she can certainly AAR safely.

But that doesn't make it a good idea for an airline.
 
Richard said:
...By pushing in on the Extend-O-Range knob in my Cherokee the refueling arm would extend to take upwards of 56 gallons of the best grade of 100LL.
Click to expand...
The prop-hub terminal was cheaper.
longrange.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
Zeldman said:
Someone please think of the children.

What would happen to the people on the ground if some fuel spilled while hooking/unhooking to the probe? Wouldn't the spilled fuel kill vegetation on the ground? Would elementary school test grades drop? Would Ed Begly jr still be able to drive his solar powered car at night?

:yes: I have been drinking, why do you ask.?? :lol:
Click to expand...

Gosh, just think of the thousands of pounds of fuel that get dumped by military aircraft and some civilian (?) when they need to land for some emergency and have to get down to a reasonable landing weight.
 
Russians seriously considered refueling for MS-21 (now renamed "Yak-242") right about the beginning of 2013. Their problem was that the design missed its weight targets and was unable to fly from Frankfurt to Shanghai without a fuel stop, as was expected. That, in turn, made expenses grow so much that Aeroflot said "screw you guys, we'll just buy some Airbuses". This brouhaha went all the way up into Kremlin. The solution was to use an Il-78 based somewhere around Tyumen'. But as mentioned in the thread, keeping a tanker base and flying tankers killed the profits just as well as a fuel stop.

IIRC, the compromise now is to fly with a stop in Moscow, same route their 777s make now. It's possible that the 242 will get a "midlife" refresh with a new wing right about the time it's 3 years in the service, or perhaps even a short-body version a-la 747SP. Even that is better than in-flight refueling, as it turns out.
 
Zeldman said:
What would happen to the people on the ground if some fuel spilled while hooking/unhooking to the probe? Wouldn't the spilled fuel kill vegetation on the ground? Would elementary school test grades drop? Would Ed Begly jr still be able to drive his solar powered car at night?
Click to expand...

Happens already with military air refueling all the time.

Art VanDelay said:
Gosh do ya think any of the commercial pilots MIGHT have already done that in the military?????
Click to expand...

Yeah, but less than 30% of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top