Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Yes but if they had made it to China they would have gotten home. China was at war with the Japs too so they were allied with the allies.
wmaxt said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Yes but if they had made it to China they would have gotten home. China was at war with the Japs too so they were allied with the allies.
The Dolittle B-25s were always supposed to go to the Chinese/Flying Tiger Air Force. for use in China for use against the Japanese. There never was a thought of returning to the carriers.
Found this for KC-10's: During boom refueling operations, fuel is transferred to the receiver at a maximum rate of 1,100 gallons (4,180 liters) per minute; the hose and drogue refueling maximum rate is 470 gallons (1,786 liters) per minute.
Found here: KC-10 Extender > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display
Might help a bit. Boom is almost 4 times faster than the drogue.
but was actually used on at least one flying-bloat aircraft.
I've often wondered, and have never really found a satisfactory answer, as to why the US Air Force uses the exact opposite refuelling probe arrangement on it's aircraft from the Navy and Marine Corps.
To be honest I really dont know, but I would say it is because in tradition the US military can not agree on anything whether it is uniforms, equipment or aerial refueling.
Hahahahaha! Sorry about that!
60 gallons a minute...There was one "bloat" (S.30 G-AFCU Cabot) that was refueled in flight from a Handley Page Harrow in '39.
900 gallons took 15 minutes to transfer.
Why?Look at the Technical Orders (manuals) as another prime example. In WW2 the military started to have AN Technical Orders where the same manual was used by both services for aircraft and other material used by both services. That is why many of the wartime TO's have a number prefixed with AN for Army/Navy.
About the time the USAF became separate that fell apart -- even before the war was over the brass felt that fighting over document numbering systems was as important as fighting the enemy.
Either way maintaining three numbering systems costs the taxpayer three times what a single system would cost.
AND the brass behind this like to pretend they are responsible adults!