Shipbucket

I think he mean you just should edit the pic so we can see it in "real" and not just in words

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~

I think a standard Tornado-style retractable refuelling probe would work just as well scabbed to the side of the cockpit.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Sorry Tobius, I didn't see your first message before you edited it, but your second is very defensive mate, so I'm sorry you feel put upon. That wasn't my intention.

Progress said "... As always, any ... corrections are welcome!"

I take the above comment to imply permission is given (provided due crediting is given of course). However, I accept you read it differently.

So I apologise for any offence caused.

No worry's mate

Andy

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

In a "small" aircraft that may work Hood, but in a larger aircraft, when the probe is out of sight, you won't be able to see if there are any problems with it. I don't know if that would be an issue or not

Although I suppose the chap in the tanker could relay to the Pilot if there were problems with the refuelling probe. I'm just thinking that by then it might be too late (I'm thinking bird strike on take off or something )

I don't know....

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

As usual I have my reasons for my suggestions.

The plumbing modification is minimal, there is a video camera and steer cue system already existent. the boom could simply pole extend from a sleeve into a drogue to use the USN/RAF drogue and probe system.

The Tornado probe might not work. It is a rather big plane.

As for the tail stinger, that is a simple faring adjustment.

No worries.

I have some vague ideas, but frankly I'd rather see Blackbuck's ideas first, as inferring from the earlier remarks, His ideas might be broadly similar, just more based on in-deep knowledge of the British aerospace industry, so I'd prefer not to make some half-baked attempt of something that Blackbuck could do properly.

In the semi-extended position. I* did not modify the tail. (The RAF wouldn't.)

Thanks to all for the comments! Feel free to modify or edit “my” drawings! maybe I misunderstood the rules, but i believed that one was free of modifying someone's creations, as long as you keep the proper crediting. In fact, I modify the existing B-52 without asking their creators, if they have problems with that, I will remove it.
The problem that prevented me of placing the probe above the roof are the escape hatches of the crew... I´m not sure how they can interfere in a evacuation... Safety first!


If I remember correctly , the issue about using current receptacle location is that the two systems use different philosophies ... while the tanker's boom operator is responsible for guiding it into the receptacle, in the probe and drogue system the pilot of the receiver aircraft is responsible of making the contact, so I consider direct view of the probe a "must"

My other favorite position was over the radome , just in front of the windshield, but that required to relocate/delete the AN /ALQ-155, and cause i don´t know their technical issues, I decided to leave it in place...
I agree that is a very good place for EW equipment, but not being sure about which one to use, I have done what the USAF did and just blank it off …

The problem that i see about a Tornado-type retractable probe, it's that when it pivots open its moves back a little, so they are mounted slighty ahead of the cockpit.. In the case of the B-52, with it's short nose added to the required probe lenght to keep it on the freestream out of the turbulences seems to me like the probe will be aft of pilots vision..

The other option that I though about is an axially-extensible probe as some helicopters use... But honestly, I do not see that the probe is sooooooo long to cause unsolvable and/or catastrophic oscillations... But I don´t have a wind tunnel at home to check it...

_________________
WIP:
Argentine Socialist Republic AU

I think if the RAF is willing to swallow its pride and buy B-52s in this scenario, it makes sense they would go for Stratotankers K.1s or something, with the obligatory UK re-engining, etc. This also has the benefit of allowing cross-cooperation with the USAF and SAC's tankers.

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress

[quoteThe problem that prevented me of placing the probe above the roof are the escape hatches of the crew... I´m not sure how they can interfere in a evacuation... Safety first!][/quote]

Flight engineer and navigator? Change the bailout path to the sides or delete the two unneeded crew. As the BUFF is being re-engined and FADEC is part of the new engine fit, why do you need the engineer? And as for the navigator, what do you think the AI crammed in between the copiliot and pilot is for in the latest USAF mods?

As a piece of color commentary, the NIMROD is an example where the RAF puts mission ahead of safety.
The flying boom (rigid pipe) method is USAF preferred because fuel flow, if the pump fails, can still be gravity feed. There are no hose kinks and the USAF swears the fuel transfer rate is much faster and safer through the pipe as opposed through the hose. Docking with a hose is simpler mechanically and supposedly easier for station keeping.