▶ Visit brilliant.org/NewMind to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription

My grandfather was a pilot of B-29's during WWII and was selected to be one of the first pilots to test in flight refueling after the war in the GEM program. He said he was selected because of his formation flying abilities and that it was very intense training that required the upmost concentration. Throttle control was paramount when the tanker was loosing lots of weight and his plane was taking on weight.

@KUSHxKiNG

4 ай бұрын

That was before computers controlled everything. I couldn’t imagine the concentration it would take and having to constantly monitor your engine power and watching the other plane to make sure you stayed connected and didn’t crash into each other🫡🫡

@garyjohnson1970

4 ай бұрын

Immensely brave men and women!!

@RILEYLEIFSON_UTAH

4 ай бұрын

Wow...I never really thought about that for some reason. The refueling plane would be wanting to climb, while the plane getting fuel would be losing altitude and speed. Them boys in WWII were a different breed. They don't make 'em like that anymore, sadly.

@twerktospec

4 ай бұрын

Me me me me my I my

@tracyrreed

4 ай бұрын

​@@RILEYLEIFSON_UTAHPilots today can indeed still handle increasing/decreasing weights in flight manually.

36 year Boom Operator here with 6400 flight hours all on the -135. 1980-2016, I got to fly through 3pm different engine variants and the cockpit modernization from the old “round dial” cockpit. For all the mods done to the aircraft during my tenure, the boom pod only saw a couple of mods to include a tail mounted floodlight and a boom trim mechanism.

@artjohnLagas-gk6mg

4 ай бұрын

Awesome thanks for everything you've done

@BattShytKuhraezy

4 ай бұрын

DIFFICULT to be lN military over 3O yrz ... flag ranx exceptionz

@Ceemysix

4 ай бұрын

@@BattShytKuhraezy Why is it difficult to be I. The military for more than 30 years?

@GaryHall-kx9mw

3 ай бұрын

Obviously you've never heard of the Guard and Reserves...I had a good Friend Serve 30 Years Active duty...Retired...and then went to the reserves for an additional 10 years

@asymsolutions

19 күн бұрын

@@GaryHall-kx9mw 30 in AD is huge, but yes. My chief is at 37 years in my unit and was my senior when I came back from AIT. There is no max TIS in the guard to where if you don't make rank you are non-retained. HOWEVER you do have to see a board after 20, so you can get non-retained if you are holding up others from progressing and not bringing a benefit to the unit.

It’s crazy how the kc-135 was only the second aircraft built from the factory to be a tanker aircraft and is still in service today.

@daleolson3506

4 ай бұрын

When it’s right it’s just right.

@Absaalookemensch

4 ай бұрын

@@Patient-957 87.5% of it's engines remained in place. That's better that some ground vehicles.

@jamesocker5235

4 ай бұрын

Built by Boeing when Boeing was run by engineers rather than useless MBAs

@billhanna2148

4 ай бұрын

almost makes you think that we stopped innovating since then 🤔....yes we did ..😡we need to find a better way already....using robotics or something !!😠

@T-Dawg123a

4 ай бұрын

@@billhanna2148 we have newer refueling tankers but the military keeps the old ones around because they often don't need the extra fuel capacity of a newer tanker. Additionally with newer fighters and new engines that are more efficient you just don't need that many new tankers, at least until the old airframes wear out.

My son, Alex is a KC135 pilot in the Air National Guard. Their tankers are the 'newest' 135s in service. Their date of manufacture is 1965!

@Lt_Tragg

4 ай бұрын

My son is an IP on the AWACS. The most challenging of all operations for his charges to master is taking on fuel from those 135’s. Tried it myself in a simulator and I definitely agree. …….and yeah, those E3 AWACS just as old.

@Cristieagle

4 ай бұрын

@@Lt_Tragg Thankfully the E3's are being replaced by E7 Wedgetails

@TheRogueX

3 ай бұрын

Just goes to show you that if you build it well and then put a lot of effort into maintaining it, an aircraft can last a long long time.

0:20 The same event in Libya was also the first anti-aircraft warfare in history because the Turkish troops fired back at the Italian airplane.

I'll admit that I'm biased since I started my military career as a KC-135 crew chief, but I don't think that drone tankers are going to oust large manned tankers from service, probably ever. Tactically, in contested environments forward, the drone tankers definitely have an advantage, but that's only part of what tankers do. Tankers have the ability to drag fighters from their main bases, plus carry the support equipment and maintainers to sustain those fighters at the same time. Also, in the procurement game the Air Force has a "no more vanilla tankers" policy, so your tankers have cargo, medevac, and roll on command, control and communications capabilities. Even current KC-135s are equipped with the ability to mount pretty impressive communications networking capabilities. There will definitely be drones in the aerial refueling mix, though especially when they put booms on them to support the non-probe USAF birds. A hypothetical mix would be manned tankers supporting a strike package from CONUS to within the range of enemy air defenses and then the smaller, stealthy drone tankers supporting the strike package within EAD range.

@RealCadde

4 ай бұрын

When it becomes possible, on paper, to make an unmanned aircraft do the same things as a human operator does in terms of the specific mission. One needs to take note. When an unmanned aircraft successfully completes a few missions, without failure... One needs to worry. When unmanned aircraft start planning their own missions, without human intervention... One needs to turn it off before Skynet is formed. Unfortunately, as automation matures and the biggest players in that game start pushing out standardized machines that do most jobs out there, we humans will stop manning because the robots/drones/AI is cheaper than human labor/crews are. It is inevitable because profit margins is all that matters to the heads of big business. Is this a bad thing? Depends on which side you are on. But if you are on the "right side", you will benefit from increased standards of living at the expense of your income security/stability. Eventually, humans will just be consumers, they won't actually work for a living. It will be Wall-E basically, bunch of obese space tourists.

@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis

4 ай бұрын

What drones may do that is a game changer is make in-flight refueling affordable for commercial aircraft.

@robertheinkel6225

4 ай бұрын

I am a retired tanker crew chief also. The Navy has a drone refueler that can take off and land on a carrier, and fly a pattern that any aircraft that can connect to its basket, can get fuel. The drone is on autopilot, so no big deal. The receiving aircraft still has to make the contact, and stay in position.

@lazystart

4 ай бұрын

​@robertheinkel6225 yeah, the drone definitely helps the Navy do their thing. For joint air operations in general, the thing that drones can't keep up with is pure volume. When your theater planning sections are doing their thing, they're planning on how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds of on-station offloadable fuel they have available, which you're not going to get with the navy sized drone. Manned or unmanned, generated sortie count is generated sortie count and has manpower demands for maintenance. If one were to design an unmanned tanker sufficient to support large, modern air wars one would probably end up with something like a 737 sized drone that's all fuel tank. And then you'd be losing out on the ability to move cargo, people, or do stuff like roll on airborne ops centers or airborne battle management suites. Maybe you could have a large manned tanker top off smaller, stealthy drones and then the drones could go directly deliver fuel to 5th or 6th gen aircraft deeper in the higher threat zones on demand.

@lazystart

4 ай бұрын

​@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis I work for an airline now, and I'm not so sure about that. Modern airliner engines are reliable, efficient, and capable enough that the pacing factor is the average person's endurance to be in a noisy tube in the sky with hundreds of strangers. When I was going through some initial ETOPS training years ago, medical emergency diversions were more common on long distance flights than engine or aircraft systems faults and failures.

Great work! In the FWIW department. The USAF solved the early issues with Tanker/Receiver speed differentials (rather than the receiver nearing stall speed) by flying a “toboggan”. Both aircraft would start a shallow descent, allowing the tanker to speed up to an appropriate speed for the receiver. It was still a thing we kept in our bag of tricks if we ever had a speed-limited refueling.

@THE-X-Force

4 ай бұрын

Awesome bit of info! ☮

@JohnSmith-zi9or

3 ай бұрын

The toboggan maneuver is still used today for receiver aircraft that are power limited. (A-10, C-130). By descending, this allows the receiver aircraft to be able to move into position where it would otherwise be impossible during level flight.

One thing you missed was why the USAF chose the flying boom for it's primary refueling method for decades...refueling fuel capacity on the refueler plane and greater the of fuel flow...very important considerations when you need to gas up large planes like B-52s. The Navy is generally size-limited on it's planes -- specifically carrier planes -- so the higher fuel flow rate is not needed, thus the P&B works well. Now, USAF tankers can employ both methods for better cross-service fueling.

@professorx4047

4 ай бұрын

I believe there are also stealth considerations. P&B requires an outshooting connection point to make contact with the drogue, however it is much easier to engineer a boom receptacle such as the one in the B2 that can hide itself and not contribute to radar cross section while not in use.

@samsignorelli

4 ай бұрын

@@professorx4047 Refueling ops tend to take place far out of range of enemy defenses, since the tankers can't defend themselves. Stealth isn't much of a worry at that point. Plus, the 2 systems haven't really changed that much since before the stealth era. Besides, the tankers are not stealthy in the slightest, and they have a FAR bigger radar cross-section than the refueling systems they deploy.

@WS-nv6cp

4 ай бұрын

@@samsignorelli The stealth concern is for the boom on the receiving aircraft rather than the tanker. You'd have to engineer the receiver boom to completely retract into the airframe which adds weight and complexity (moving parts, bearings, motors, etc)

@samsignorelli

4 ай бұрын

@@WS-nv6cp The planes fly so close together during refueling, they're going to make one big signal...a radar that misses the stealth plane -- even with the small radar return on the probe -- is going to pick up the tanker. Retracting the probe fulling into the receiving plane is not exclusively a stealth plane thing...the F-14 Tomcat had a probe that fully retracted into the right side fuselage, and it was not remotely a stealth plane.

@ethanandresen8794

4 ай бұрын

@@professorx4047 this outshooting connection can be retracted, such as on the F35B and F-35C, which are some of the stealthiest aircraft on the planet.

The Guinness World Record was set in 1958 in a Cessna 172 that flew nonstop for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes and covered 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers). That's about six times around the Earth or 15 Sydney-New York flights without touching the ground.

@harryparsons2750

4 ай бұрын

Where did they go to the bathroom?

@fruitymf6952

4 ай бұрын

@@harryparsons2750 there is a documentary about this story somewhere on youtube and I think they were 2 pilots and it was probably in bags

@haweater1555

4 ай бұрын

The aircraft was refuelled in flight with a hose dropped down to a speedy car on the runway, and engine oil and food hoisted aboard. The C172 was equipped with an auto pilot, but there was one point in the flight where the human pilots found themselves both asleep for over an hour. Days later, the autopilot failed so it was vital that it never happen again. They finally landed when the engine was badly overdue for service, and fuel and oil consumption became more excessive than was practical to resupply. The engine was not making enough power for a full load of fuel, and refueling needed the attention of both pilots at once too often so not they were not getting uninterrupted rest to continue. To the pilots it must have been a great relief.

This documentary is also a lost opportunity to remind about a formidable achievement of the (British) Royal Air Force, who in 1982 bombed targets needing 7,600 mi / 12,200 km round trips, during the Falklands War. Check "Operation Black Buck" in Wikipedia. During each of those operations, 11 tankers took off to feed only one bomber, the only bomber through the whole mission. They were not supplying only the bomber, but also in between, and those who emptied first left the formation earlier.

@petermostyneccleston2884

4 ай бұрын

The RAF had to rebuild the in air refuelling capability, for the Vulcan Bomber. One of the most important components was being used as an ashtray, but the Victors were already converted to in flight refuelling capabilities.

Any story of military flight refuelling should mention the Black Buck raids mounted during the 1982 Falklands war. Port Stanley airfield was attacked five times from Ascension Island, in mid-Atlantic near the equator, using two Vulcan bombers and eleven Victor air tankers. The 7600 mile round trip was a world record for a bombing raid at the time and involved the primary and reserve attack Vulcans being refuelled multiple times, and the Victor tankers had to refuel each other as well using FRL's refuelling system. The military value of the raids has been questioned but they were prodigious feats of flight refuelling.

@FlorinSutu

4 ай бұрын

I read yours after posting mine about the same subject.

I was a flight test boom operator. Thanks for making this and keeping the heritage.

Very cool and heart warming that the first company to develop a functional refueling system was given a second kick at the can to make an even more efficient refueling system than the one that outmoded their original design.

I never ever would have guessed aerial refueling came about so quickly after the airplane was invented. Just mindblowing how fast planes improved

@braiansingh9730

4 ай бұрын

What always amazes me is that the first plane that ever flew was made in 1903, and the yet to be broken record for the fastest air breathing manned plane was set in the 70s. Its nuts, even more so when 50 years have past

Thanks. I learn things every day. I've been following the history of air-to-air refueling since the 1970's and knew some of the history, but this video had new items.

Those people climbing onto the wings were nuts!

I just cannot thank you enough, all of your videos are just so amazingly interesting and educational. The depth and breadth of your research across prodigiously diverse topics is astonishing. Kudos and truly, thank you!

Neat video. Interesting subject for sure. When my dad retired from the USAF, after 20 years of service, our family moved to Moreno Valley, CA which (mostly) surrounded (then designated) March AFB. At the time, just prior to the base's decommissioning and redesignation of "Air Reserve Base," the base was a primary deployment center of KC-135s. I remember being able to see whole flights of KC-135s spread across the tarmac of the base, as well as witnessing numerous take-offs, landings, and training flights (including in-flight refueling) of the aircraft. My brother, who did JROTC in high school, got to go with other members of his class on a training refueling flight on one occasion.

The amount of information you put into a ~20 minute video is impressive. Awesome video, and keep up the good work.

You always have to drop everything when Newmind uploads a new video. Great content !

From what I understand, the pilots of the chicks (receiver aircraft) prefer probe and drogue because: 1. A safer distance between tanker and chick is maintained. 2. The chick pilot is is in full control of the connection process. My former father-in-law was a flight engineer on RAF VC10 tankers of 101 Squadron, he was in control of the refueling system. The Eng deployed the drogues and balanced fuel in the tanks to keep the tanker in trim. Once the Eng had deployed drogues he sat back and let the chick pilot do the work, a bit like a self service gas station!!! Also, on the plus side, more than one chick can be refueled at one time, with up to three aircraft being refueled, depending on aircraft types. This was particularly useful for squadron deployment when the entire unit is being deployed. The RAF use a live firing range in Cyprus for exercise deployment, the units being deployed are regularly tankered out, with ground crews as passengers on the tanker aircraft and very often with support equipment. Note: Chick is the term used in the RAF for the recieving aircraft, sort of like a hen feeding it's chicks.

7:50 When mommy and daddy airplanes love each other very much.....

"At 12:32 p.m. on June 4, 1935, brothers Al and Fred Key lifted off the grass strip of Meridian's airport in an effort to break the world record for sustained flight... The record they established in their 27 days aloft, totaling 653 hours and 34 minutes, remains unbroken in conventional flight. Not until orbiting space labs did man stay aloft longer. When they landed at 6:06 p.m. on July 1, 1935, before a crowd of between 30,000 and 40,000 fans gathered at the airfield... Some 300 gallons of oil were used and they consumed 6,000 gallons of gas... The flight of Al and Fred Key proved that air-to-air refueling worked."

@heathb4319

4 ай бұрын

I agreed with you until i remembered this and had to check the date. But it was broken in 1958 by a Cessna. The Guinness World Record was set in 1958 in a Cessna 172 that flew nonstop for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes and covered 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers). And that is a little before manned space flight and labs. But still a darn good reference of history from you. Keep reminding others on why it is a good to push limits and achieve.

Excellent video. Good detail .. great research and history .. nice footage .. just all-around excellent.

absolutely fascinating presentation. Thank you!

A company called “Flight Refueling” based at Wimborne Dorset, Manufacturing FR near my hometown on the South Coast of England.

@richardwillson101

4 ай бұрын

Big up Flight Refuelling Limited 👊 what a history the company has! Did my apprenticeship there and can thank it for my ongoing career in Aviation.

Great video, a lot of information I never knew about. Thanks!

You missed an important event. Two brothers in Meridian Miss were the first to perfect the connecting valve. Their plane is in the Smithsonian. It is a very interesting story

@mcswato1

4 ай бұрын

"The Wright engine made more than sixty-one million revolutions, consumed six thousand gallons of fuel, and used three hundred gallons of oil while maintaining an average airspeed of eighty miles per hour. It received fuel and supplies from the other aircraft 432 times."

Keep up the fantastic work, Your recent number of releases is a very pleasant surprise

I was down in San Diego on the 100th anniversary and they had a KC-10, KC-46, and two KC-135s do a fly over in honor of that event. It was so cool.

I was fortunate in that while in the Navy I flew a number of refueling hops in the backseat of our TA-4F’s and after I was out was able to fly a couple of flights that included refueling in an Air Force KC-10 and a C-17. Both systems were very educational.

@thgiresimorp9004

4 ай бұрын

I've done both sides too, ta4 andkc10 ferkin AWESOME for an e5 jarhead

I’ve always found this fascinating and with drones it is at another level!

I feel like YT is literally reading my mind sometimes. The other day I had a fleeting thought wondering how Ariel refueling came to be and now there is a channel I never watched before with a great explanation video.

Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜

Brilliant and informative.

Dad, Colonel Richard H Sorenson was a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot Class 56-D. During his time in the school and as Chief of Flight Test Engineering at Wright Patterson AFB the ability of our strategic bombers to refuel in-flight. This capability was a key component of the Cold War Strategic planning and ultimately, its success.

I'm pretty new to your channel but just wanted to say that this was a fantastic video that seems to have been well researched and very well presented - cool!!

Great Video, you somehow always make videos that pique my interest and curiosity.

One of the KB-29 tankers that refueled the "Lucky Lady ll" over the Philippines DID NOT MAKE A CRASH LANDING KILLING IT'S CREW!!! Returning to Clark Air Force base, flew into a mountain. All 9 crewmen were killed instantly. Myself and Others built a memorial dedicated to those 9 men. It is located in front of the Strategic Air Command Museum in Ashland, Nebraska.

@heathb4319

4 ай бұрын

I heard him say that and see what you corrected him on. And awesome for yall to build that memorial. And even though you both mentioned the men lost it was stated in two different types of crashes. He didn't even have to mention the crash but he did in a respectful way. So in his research of the topic could he have misunderstood the wording such as...on its way back to land, or...on its final approach it somehow was to low and hit a mountain top and he just shortened the details and called it a landing accident? I didn't know if you knew if it was way out or close to the landing field for clarity.

@richardjohnson9275

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. The KB-29 flew into a mountain 23 miles NW of Clarke AFB.

@heathb4319

3 ай бұрын

@@richardjohnson9275...well then he certainly got the facts wrong :) Thanks for the reply, clarification and knowledge. Peace

@richardjohnson9275

3 ай бұрын

@heathb4319 Heath, If I offended somebody I didn't mean to. I'm just very close to the family's of those 9 great Americans.

@heathb4319

3 ай бұрын

@@richardjohnson9275...you are all good brother. I don't think you offended anyone.

Most outstanding content!!!

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Excellent video!!

Can you imagine crawling out of a plane and walking out on the wing with a fuel tank to refuel anotrher plane!!!! The stuff that was undertaken in early aviation is hard to get your head around and I had no idea they were experimenting with air to air refuelling eas early as then. I wonder if there will ever be a time they will conduct air to air refuelling with commercial flights? I really enjoyed that video, thanks.

Great overview.

As always - top notch content right here

That was interesting and well presented 😊👍

Excellent video 🎉

A flying stealth tanker drone might be an interesting concept. One advantage might be the ability to send drones on one-way missions in emergencies or strategically important flights. Saving an entire flight crew or creating more stand-off distance for an entire carrier.

Very good and informative video

The Navy's "Approach" magazine had a very interesting story of a refueling mishap, it has been over 30 years that I read this but it has stuck in my memory because of the unusual event. Either an F-4 or A-4 was lining up to refuel, they hit the basket which subsequently looped itself into a granny knot and then wrapped itself around the probe, tying the two aircraft together. Break out the HATOPs flight manual for inflight emergency and geez, absolutely nothing in the book for this one. The pilot finally got the knot to loosen by quickly applying power numerous times and then backed off power to let the hose and drogue slide off the probe.

No mention of the KC10.. or the new KC46?? I was a boom operator on the KC10 from 2018-2022. It was an insane job. Even with all the knowledge and experience you get, for me it never stopped feeling like a stunt.

@DHEFDAWG

4 ай бұрын

The KC-10's Automatic Load Alleviation System (ALAS) is so sick and definitely a fun point to touch on for boom refueling. Definitely better than the KC-46's "stiff boom" xD, such a shame they're being phased out. At least some of them will be sold to contractors and then contracted out to the Navy.... Can you imagine, a Navy KC-10?!

@Daniel-cl6hj

4 ай бұрын

@@DHEFDAWG Right?? The ALAS made life so easy! Felt sorry for the 135 guys who had to live without it. It is a shame the 10 is getting phased out for the 46 though. The latter jet has so many problems from what I hear, but I suppose they all have problems at first. The KC10’s cargo door was notorious for flying off in flight when they were first converted 😂 at least the 46 hasn’t had a problem that catastrophic yet…

@Daniel-cl6hj

4 ай бұрын

@@Patient-957 I don’t really care for the politics of it, but it’s probably one of the most capable aircraft in the AF. It can do AR, cargo, and passengers all at the same time. And also switch between boom and drogue AR to accommodate different receivers in the same flight (the 135 needs crew to attach and detach the drogue adapter on the ground). I don’t know why you think it was a bad decision, but it’s an awesome airframe regardless, though I’m probably biased.

@DHEFDAWG

4 ай бұрын

@@Daniel-cl6hj Yes everything has growing pains, DC-10 & KC-46 are no exception. Probably the KC-46 will be great one day. But it will never have the cargo or fuel capacity that KC-10 does! Of course the KC-46 has better efficiency and better commercial mx/support to pull from, but I still believe retiring the KC-10 is a bad move. Hopefully enough of them end up in the hands of contractors so they still have a good impact for a couple more decades.

The KC-135's airframe was the basis of the Boeing 707 airliner. They were both developed about the same time with the 135 being the lead design.

@danielota4990

4 ай бұрын

The 367-80 airframe was the prototype for the 707 and 135

Great video! However, no refueling video would be complete without a dedicated segment on the KC-10. It's worth noting that the KC-10 had the remarkable capacity to transport an astounding 200,000 pounds of fuel, accommodate up to 75 passengers, and handle a cargo load of up to 170,000 pounds. Moreover, it introduced pivotal advancements in air refueling systems that continue to influence the design of newer tankers produced today. Whether in the context of Desert Storm or Allies Refuge, the KC-10 truly stands out as one of the most remarkable tankers in aviation history. ✈✈

@lawless201

4 ай бұрын

and the most problematic, they ever get the camera thing fixed?

@robertheinkel6225

4 ай бұрын

@@lawless201 tats on the KC-46, not the KC-10.

@robertheinkel6225

4 ай бұрын

Although it could do all those things, it was limited on its takeoff weight. Once airborne, it could be refueled and get all that cargo anywhere.

@lawless201

4 ай бұрын

@@robertheinkel6225 ohh, my bad, anyways is that thing certified yet, (the KC-46) they work out all the bugs yet?

It's amazing how many different complicated schemes they tried before someone though of the probe/drogue.

Excellent

At 1:15 you are talking about "Immediately after WW1..." and showing a sowjet produced An-2 in a crop duster variant. The An-2 had its 1st flight on 31.August in 1947. I guess your knowledge in aircraft history is improvable.

Not to mention, the probe and drogue system gave us the memorable title sequence in Dr Strangelove….

Was everyone nervous when they were pushing the program with piston engines and props? Amazing courage by The Boys. KC-135 still stroking it at 50y! B-52 still keeping America safe at 60y! We certainly stand on the shoulders of giants.

Awe. The planes are mating. Gonna have baby drones soon.

4:47 I'm surprised that the earlier attempts of mid air refuelling where someone had to balance off the wings of the aircraft produced no casualties, despite being more dangerous.

I'm always disappointed when the flight of the "Question Mark" is told, that only Ira Eaker & Carl Spaatz are usually mentioned. Left out is Elwood "Pete" Quesada, Harry Halvarson, and Roy Hooe. Like Eaker & Spaatz, Quesada became a general during World War II commanding IX Tactical Command. Halvarson was an engineer but flew bomber missions in the Mediterranean Theater during World War II reting as a Colonel in 1946. Hooe was an enlisted mechanic and retired as a Master Sergeant (E7) in 1950 after a 30 year career.

Presumably the original system just had a loop, and any slack was taken up by it, with the later systems they have a feedback system to adjust the length of the boom/cable as everything moved around.

Ive always wanted to know this ❤

You completely overlooked the Key brothers, Fred and Al. They and their mechanic designed a valve that allowed them to perform in-flight refueling in order to break the flight endurance record at the time (27 days). That valve went on to be used by the US military and their plane (the Ole Miss) is in the Smithsonian.

Another story not well told in the history of AAR, the KC-10 was one of the first tankers which could also be a receiver aircraft. This meant a KC-10 tanker could ferry fighter aircraft over long distances (oceans) while carrying their maintenance personnel and required ground equipment all in one package non-stop. By "extending" the KC-10, the fighter aircraft could move with their support system simultaneously to their destination. This significantly reduced the time and the number of tankers and cargo aircraft required to move fighters squadrons around the world. Additionally during combat operations, because the KC-10 can be refueled as a receiver, combat planners had a solution to "consolidate" unused fuel on other tankers whose missions were complete to an airborne KC-10. By consolidating airborne fuel into one tanker, this reduced the number of tankers airborne which reduced total fuel burn per hour. Tanker planners often cancel tanker missions scheduled near the end of the operational day because of the amount of fuel transferred/saved. Finally, the KC-10 flying as a receiver can push/transfer fuel through a tanker's refueling boom into the tanker KC-10. Reverse AR. Why would you do this? If a KC-10's refueling boom or drogue system (or both) become unusable, and there are combat receivers airborne who are relying on that fuel being available, you could transfer the fuel to another fully operational KC-10. Although the transfer of fuel from the receiver to the tanker is not as fast as traditional air refueling, there are many documented "saves" where planners directed this so as to not cancel combat missions. The KC-10 was a game changer for AAR operations.

Still watching, but the quality of your stuff is impeccable.

1:46 man back in the day they did the damn thing huh. It was like filling up your car but in the air at speed faster than current highway speeds with no safety line or parachute🤯🤯 safe to say all the current refueling people had flawless records… because one mishap and your done so anyone that had that job didn’t have any thing against their record lol

What is that sr71 carrying in the back? 12:12

Can somebody tell me what the aircraft is at 18:45? i can't remeber what that UAV is called

I had a very different idea of "aerial refueling" from the thumbnail 😂

Drone fueling will not replace a2a any time soon.. think of it like this. Walmart ( kc10/kc135) can sell you anything you need including fuel.. but you may need top off your tanks ( 7-11 / buc-ee's) to get to the parking lot of the Walmart.

you didn't mention the C172 refueled by truck 😁

@paulis7319

4 ай бұрын

Yep, it stayed airborne for 64 days by doing that. The video is easily found here on YT. Interesting stuff!

When planes are electric then a plane flying from New York to Los Angeles will be met halfway by a flying charging station.

@daleolson3506

4 ай бұрын

Not necessary they will have an extension cord.

@nmarks

4 ай бұрын

Or could they recharge from lightning strikes? 😉

wow.

It's the one thing I can't do well in Sims, that last couple of inches get squirrelly! And I wind up hitting the auto....

If you ever questioned the viability of aerial refueling just look at the Falkland War air raid.

Thank you for not putting the word "insane" in the title.

Anyone know the aircraft @ 14:45? I thought it was a B-47 but the engines don't seem quite correct.

Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" movie makes it look very exciting 😂

It won't be long before we see in flight recharging. Using the generator power from the engines to charge electric drones.

19:03 mahs-SKOOTAH, Illinois

Think the Lancaster refuelling was in expectation that the US not having a plain ready to drop the first atomic bomb. So been the attack on Japan. Can understand why this was not mentioned by an American channel.

came to see the design of the inner probe ending and drogue coupling, pictured in the thumbnail, left with nada :(

i think you should have mentioned the fulklands raid

Interesting shot of the SR-71 at 12:07. What's the object mounted on the fuselage? I thought it was a D-21 drone, but it looks remarkably un-streamlined to be fitted to a mach 3 aircraft.

@misterprimeminister473

4 ай бұрын

I think it's the Linear Aerospike Experiment (LASRE)

@matthaxx7137

4 ай бұрын

@@misterprimeminister473 Yes. Wikipedia confirms. Thanks.

That thumbnail is seductive to Ai

Not a single mention of Helicopter Air-to-Air refueling and how the USAF developed a game-changing capability for Rescue and Special Operations😥

Manned refuelers aren't going anywhere. As was pointed out, they can also carry cargo, personnel, and surveillance equipment, all at the same time. That's a capablity that unmanned refuelers can't do. When you have existing aircraft that can provide multi-role support, it doesn't make sense to trade that for single purpose aircraft.

Cool

The KC-135 is slated to remain in service for many more years.

Giulio in Italian is pronounced Julio with the dj-sound.

Interesting fact. If you take off from and airfield and fly all the way around the world nonstop and land at the same airfield it's logged as a local flight.

Informative video. However, if you listen closely, the narrator mispronounced some place names.

i love how they named the plane "?". It's like they wanted to fuck with future historians talking about the event. lol

I gotta be honest. I just clicked the video because of the pristine enamel red painting on that nozzle on the thumbnail.

How the technology existed since the 20s but was never used with fighters ecorting the bombers over Europe, or in the Pacific theater remains a mystery !! How all those flyers in the pacific never looked into aerial refuleing ?

FOKKER just HAD to fail smh 6:38

Notification Squad! :)

He had reached the point where he was paranoid about being paranoid.