Commercial Airliner In-Flight Refuelling

[V41LEY]

Read this story in the Times and is actively being worked on through funding by the EU.
Surely a winner all round if viable unless they can make the hypersonic thing work.

[Simpo Two]

Is it (commercially) viable if it has to be funded by the EU?

I'd have thought long haul journey times were long enough without doing 20-22 hours in one go.

[Eric Mc]

Most of the advances in aviation would never have happened without government funding. What are NASA and the (now extinct) RAE except government funded research agencies.

However, the notion of in flight refueling for commercial airliners is a bit of a non-starter. It was looked at in the immediate pre war and post war eras but was not proceeded with.

More mileage (literally) has been gained by improving the fuel economy and efficiency of aero engines.

[JuniorD]

I'd be interested to know how it will be possible to transfer all the extra grub and drink to the aircraft in flight, plus empty the overflowing toilet waste storage tanks during a marathon flight enabled by the inflight refuelling.

[maffski]

JuniorD said:

I'd be interested to know how it will be possible to transfer all the extra grub and drink to the aircraft in flight, plus empty the overflowing toilet waste storage tanks during a marathon flight enabled by the inflight refuelling.

As long as it's all liquid you'd be fine, just needs a few pipes. Although I'd avoid the soup, looks like they might have connected the wrong nozzle.

[trashbat]

What's the point?

AAR makes sense for strategic purposes, like if you want to get your military assets to somewhere they couldn't otherwise reach, and money is no object.

I can't see it making any commercial sense.

[anonymous-user]

Shirely it's cheaper to just land and fill her up? Not to mention the risk factors of having to fly two planes close together for the 15mins it's going to take to pump all the fuel across.

[Simpo Two]

JuniorD said:

plus empty the overflowing toilet waste storage tanks during a marathon flight

From what I hear of Delhi you could dump it on there and they wouldn't know the difference.

[kowalski655]

What would be the point? Air to air refuelling would be needed if you have to go from A to B and back again,and can't land as you're too busy dropping bombs on B,but airliners can land at B.

[AlexIT]

I think the OP refers to this research:
http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/country-news/Refue...

EDIT: wasn't the SR-71 operated that way?

Edited by AlexIT on Wednesday 8th April 12:35

[Dr Jekyll]

kowalski655 said:

What would be the point? Air to air refuelling would be needed if you have to go from A to B and back again,and can't land as you're too busy dropping bombs on B,but airliners can land at B.

It depends how far apart A and B are and how heavy a load you want to carry. The military use air to air refuelling for transport flights as well as combat missions.

[V41LEY]

This is the feature I read in the paper.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/...

I was assuming that airlines wouldn't have to pay landing fees, buy kerosene at the cheapest price for their tankers etc which would make
it cheaper to fly long haul. Probably more cons than pros looking at the big picture.

[AER]

I imagine the efficiencies are in not having to haul 100+ tons of fuel up to the stratosphere for every flight. Operating turbines at low altitudes isn't very efficient, so if you can reduce the amount of thrust needed for each flight and a separate flight for the tanker, there might be some gains to be had in the non-linearities of the whole system. The tanker aircraft would then be optimised for climb and loiter capability rather than high-speed flight.

Plus you might be able to negate or minimise fuel reserve requirements if you can re-fuel en-route.

Seems a logistical and safety nightmare though...

[chuntington101]

What about the safety factor? It's nice to know the aircraft your in has enough fuel to make the trip. In flight refuelling with 200 people on board just sound wrong! Lol

What would be the % of flights were this would be viable? Surely it's only the very long haul stuff?

[eharding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLiAAVeYhk

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we'd like to apologise for that slight hiccup during our scheduled in-flight refuelling. We're going to have another crack at it in minute, just as soon as the First Officer has extracted his seat-cushion from his fundamental orifice. In the meantime, please sit back, relax, and enjoy wearing the contents of your overhead locker, your meal-tray, and the stomach lining of the passenger next to you. <click>"

[Dr Jekyll]

There would also be an advantage in being able to load the airliner up to maximum take off weight with mainly payload, then add fuel after take off to well above this level. More of an option for freight of course because passenger numbers are limited by space more than weight.

I can't see it working economically unless you can refuel several airliners/freighters from a given tanker flight though.

[Foliage]

AlexIT said:

I think the OP refers to this research:
http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/country-news/Refue...

EDIT: wasn't the SR-71 operated that way?

Edited by AlexIT on Wednesday 8th April 12:35

I think they did that though because the fuel tanks leaked until they got up to temperature.

I don't see the point of refuelling mid flight for commercial aircraft, surely the positives are out weighted by the need for an additional aircraft that has to take off carrying loads of fuel.

Surely the future is better engines, solar power etc etc.

[AER]

chuntington101 said:

What about the safety factor? It's nice to know the aircraft your in has enough fuel to make the trip.

They already take off with not enough fuel to complete their whole journey for some routes, I think. Melbourne-Perth is one route, I think, where they're cleared as far as Adelaide (or maybe further) and have to arrive at some mid-way point with a certain fuel load aboard for them to be cleared for the remainder of the journey. I thought it was something to do with the uncertainty in the headwinds.

(I may have this confused with an ETOPS requirement though - not an ATPL, only heard it in passing)

[Simpo Two]

AER said:

They already take off with not enough fuel to complete their whole journey for some routes, I think. Melbourne-Perth is one route, I think, where they're cleared as far as Adelaide (or maybe further) and have to arrive at some mid-way point with a certain fuel load aboard for them to be cleared for the remainder of the journey.

And if they don't have enough...? Turning back would be rather silly... and all the passengers who paid to go to Perth would want their money back.

[Condi]

AER said:

They already take off with not enough fuel to complete their whole journey for some routes, I think. Melbourne-Perth is one route, I think, where they're cleared as far as Adelaide (or maybe further) and have to arrive at some mid-way point with a certain fuel load aboard for them to be cleared for the remainder of the journey. I thought it was something to do with the uncertainty in the headwinds.

(I may have this confused with an ETOPS requirement though - not an ATPL, only heard it in passing)

Never haerd that before. Melbs-Perth isnt that far, and there isnt a lot in the middle to touch down at.

And ive never heard of a Melbs-Perth flight not getting there, which would presumably be a regular occurrence.