I believe the idea was standardisation for cross NATO servicing, emergency procedures etc.
I’m trying to send the doc by email using Skydrive, let me know if it’s successful!

It’s a well known pic, and there are others including a nice side view (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.woolleyfamily.co.uk/Vixen_F105_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.woolleyfamily.co.uk/Victorious2.htm&usg=__tUz1HFhymAUGhI9bYamXxD37dio=&h=716&w=950&sz=64&hl=en&start=16&zoom=1&tbnid=IbSd2G69WB-LzM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=148&ei=GExUUIOoK8Kw0AXvsYCoDA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Df-105%2Brefuelling%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1G1ACAW_ENUK473%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1).
Appears in most books on the Vixen, the most comprehensive (Tony Buttler/Air Britain) caption to the side view picture says,

“On the 5th of October 1963 Sea Vixens from No.893 Squadron, operating near Singapore, flight refuelled two USAF F-105D Thunderchiefs from the 18th Fighter Wing, which were taking part in exercise ‘Joss Stick’. Rendezvous was made using Bukit Gombak radar and this operation allowed the F-105s to fly direct to Clark AFB in the Philippines without having to refuel over Saigon in difficult weather conditions. one F-105D, 62-4217, is seen here about to take fuel from ‘461’ XN652 in a photograph taken by Lt Mark Thomson using the port side PR camera pod on Sea Vixen FAW.Mk.1 XN654.”

Further text states the Thunderchiefs were part of 64th Tactical Wing en route from Singapore to Okinawa (and Vietnam), only one of the F-105s managed to ‘plug in’.

It must have been times like that, that TAC were glad that they specified both probe/drogue, and boom/recepticle type refuelling points, the F-105 more usually receiving fuel from KC-135s via its upper nose point.

So, do we take it that the USAF put in an appearance, then?

I must admit a private P-47 or P-51 display would seem as, or more, appropriate – maybe the cost factor played a part.:confused:
In which case I would be grateful for the Spitfire single pass.

Excellent result with a great project, thanks to you guys for taking on something that may not be an attractive job for most museums etc.

As a matter of interest the Pembroke is listed as being equipped with Dunlop tyres,wheels and brakes, this may explain why the Prince has a different tyre/wheel size as it’s fitted with Palmer wheels & brakes?

Pembroke mainwheels and brakes are definitely Palmer (27A/2907), it’s a twin wheel unit so completely different to the Prince.
Sea Prince mains (again twin unit) are Dunlop AH9379 or 2753, 27A/2753, the nose wheels being Dunlop AH9408, 27A/2754, nose wheel tyre part no. 27A/2757.

Out of interest Jon, did you get around the tyre problem?

Idiots & a right royal pain in the ar5e to boot, nothing screams complete & utter tool more than these buffoons wandering around an air display looking like they’re about to paint the ceiling.

I can wholly endorse this book Dr, and by a fine author, http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/U-K-Airports-and-Airfields-A-Spotters-Guide-by-Tim-Laming-Paperback-2000-/261094781430?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item3cca7631f6

At about this time my uncle was flying Meteors out of Leuchars, briefly at Newton, Festival of Britain, getting married and the Staff College at Bracknell. So could be anywhere.

Leuchars is a good shout, correct type Austerity C hangar (same type at Newton & Kinloss) aligns well with the 4 bay trailer/tanker shed, and what looks like main stores beyond.
I’ve never seen a white SMR Lancaster looking so clean (apart from Coronation examples), so wondering if visiting a BoB day or fresh from an MU or paint somewhere.

I spoke with Brian Rivas recently, and his dedication to the memory of Derry and the respect to his family is remarkable.
In fact I must credit him for helping with some of the info in my piece above.
The book is a must read, even my partner who is distinctly non aviation minded, enjoyed reading it.

It’s was an era that I wish I was around for.