You have done the job really. Great Pics from where did you got them ?
.
Here is a comparison for both systems. And also this could be helpful
Compatibility issues
The probe-and drogue system is not compatible with flying boom equipment, creating a problem for military planners where mixed forces are involved. For this reason (as well as other advantages of probe/drogue systems), the USAF has considered converting boom systems to probe-and-drogue.
Advantages of probe and drogue
Simpler/cheaper tanker design.
The probe-and-drogue method allows aircraft not originally designed as tankers to be converted by attaching a refueling pod.
Tankers can be equipped with multipoint hose-and-drogue systems allowing two (or more) aircraft to refuel simultaneously from the same tanker, reducing time spent by as much as 75% for a four aircraft strike package.[10] Multiple refueling points also offers redundancy over the single boom system.
Can be used to refuel properly-equipped helicopters, such as the MH-53E Sea Dragon.
No boom operator is needed for the refueling as the drogue can be operated by the pilot of the tanker.
Disadvantages of probe and drogue
The lower flow rates (1,500–2,000lbs/min)[11] available from the lower pressure and limited diameter of the hose used in the probe-and-drogue system result in longer refueling times compared to the flying boom for larger aircraft.
Drogue subject to turbulence and aerodynamic forces (bow wave) of approaching aircraft.
Drogue subject to damage by poor receiver technique, making further refueling difficult or impossible.
Precise placement of the probe into the drogue by the receiver aircraft pilot precludes large receiver aircraft installation.
Drogue only equipped tankers cannot be easily fitted with boom systems.
The probe is generally located in the front of the refueling plane, presenting several problems: sensitive avionics equipment (pitot static and angle of attack probes, etc.), can easily be damaged by the drogue, and FOD, including fuel or probe/droge parts can be ingested into the plane's engines.
Advantages of boom and receptacle
Higher fuel flow rates (up to 1000 US gallons/6,000 lbs per minute for the KC-135 tanker) can be achieved with the large diameter of the pipe in the flying boom, resulting in much less time required to refuel compared to the smaller diameter required of a flexible hose system. Unlike bombers and other large aircraft, however, fighter aircraft can only ‘’accept’’ fuel at 1000-3000 lbs per minute and cannot use the boom’s maximum flow rate. The flying boom, therefore, loses its primary advantage over the hose-and-drogue system when refueling fighter aircraft[6] and requires a reduction in refueling pressure when servicing these aircraft.[7]
The boom method eliminates the requirement for the (often very large and less maneuverable) receiver aircraft pilot to precisely fly a probe into a drogue, something that is easily performed by fighter-sized aircraft, but would be extremely challenging even for the best pilot in a larger aircraft.
A tanker with a flying boom can be converted in the field to accommodate probe-equipped aircraft, if necessary.
Disadvantages of boom and receptacle
The cost to train and employ the "boomer"—1990s estimates place the cost to train a boom operator at nearly $1,000,000.[citation needed]
Incompatibility with probe and drogue systems, which are prevalent on US Navy, and most non-US aircraft.
Complexity of tanker design.
Only one receiver aircraft can refuel at a time.
Cannot be used to refuel most helicopters.
Cannot be installed on carrier based aircraft.
FAQ
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:52 am 
