Re: aerial re-fuelling

From:         Bill Hensley <>
Organization: TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office
Date:         16 Jul 96 13:59:51 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>On 7 Jul 1996, Dkhodges wrote:
> A question to those who know much more than I about the airline industry:
> Why is it that aerial re-fuelling, which has gained wide acceptance as a
> military technology has not gained the same acceptance in the civiian
> sector.  It seems a reasonable way to fly longer routes with less
> expensive aircraft, and perhaps a lucrative field for a "tanking" service
> as well.

If you had ever sat through an AR, you would know another reason.  The receiving
aircraft generally has somewhat of an unsteady ride due to turbulence from
the tanker.  Even on a 747-200 (Air Force E-4B), there is so much up and
down motion that even experienced fliers frequently get airsick.  You can also
get just so much gas down the pipe, so an AR for a large aircraft still
takes upwards of 30 minutes of slow formation flying.