I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.

They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.

Any idea what happened there? I remember hearing about some aircraft launch
where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.

In another shot, a large prop plane, possibly an S-2F, took off the waist
catapult of a smaller Essex class carrier and immediately slammed into a
wave. Again, does anybody have any details?





D

I saw the video of the plane punching through the wave while I was in
API. I got the impression that the video made the wave look more
catastrophic than in actually was. Don't think it caused any damage to
the aircraft just some super stunned pilots.

If I am remembering right the A-6 got a cold cat and the pilot jettisoned
the centerline droptank trying to gain alt.

"spamno" > wrote in message
news:MPQdg.127$xO5.54@trnddc03...
>
> "DDAY" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>>
>> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
>> took
>> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>>
>> Any idea what happened there?
>
> Without seeing it I can only speculate; cold cat? Wrong aircraft weight
> dialed in? FODed a motor? Control problem?
>
> As far as the "something really big fell off the plane" was that the
> canopy?
> Drop tanks? Turtleback?
>
>
>
>
>> I remember hearing about some aircraft launch
>> where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
>> damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.
>
> That's why drop tanks are either completely full or completely empty. They
> *should be* full on take off and the aircrew *always* checks fuel quantity
> to be sure.
>
>
>

"DDAY" > wrote in message
. net...
>I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>
> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.

Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on the
cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve a
particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would malfunction
on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that allows full
pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just about fool
proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).

A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away capability.
The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot pushed the
emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

> Any idea what happened there? I remember hearing about some aircraft
> launch
> where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
> damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.
>
> In another shot, a large prop plane, possibly an S-2F, took off the waist
> catapult of a smaller Essex class carrier and immediately slammed into a
> wave. Again, does anybody have any details?

Pitching deck, poor cat shot timing, and heavy seas. The aircraft made it.
The aircrew needed fresh skivvies.

R / John

>> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
>> took
>> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
> Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
> the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve
> a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
> malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
> allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just
> about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
> A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
> capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot
> pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient cat
stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they weren't
going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck were
screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to transition
to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

"TV" > wrote in message
...
> >> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
> >> took
> >> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
> >> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started
to
> >> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
> > Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
> > the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to
achieve
> > a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
> > malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
> > allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are
just
> > about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
> > A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
> > capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores.
Pilot
> > pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.
>
> If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
> don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient
cat
> stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
> blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they
weren't
> going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck
were
> screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
> ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
> degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to
transition
> to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

If it was one of the A-6s last cruises that would put it in the mid nineties
time frame. Any idea what boat?

----------
In article >, "TV" >
wrote:

> If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
> don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient cat
> stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
> blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they weren't
> going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck were
> screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N

I'll have to rewatch it. I don't think it was in slow-motion, but the plane
goes off the deck slowly and then just seems to hang there. It's clear that
it's way below speed. Then, after an eternity, something long and thick
falls off the plane, which must have been a drop tank. The plane then
started a right bank and that's when they ejected, both hitting the water
before their chutes could fully deploy.

I got the sense from looking at it that the pilot waited too long, that he
was trying to keep the plane in the air despite a severe lack of speed. But
that's based upon my ignorant impression. I wasn't in the plane looking at
the gauges, and so maybe he thought that he could recover from the situation
and belatedly realized that he couldn't. It was scary to watch.




D

----------
In article >, "John Carrier"
> wrote:

> Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on the
> cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve a

> A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away capability.
> The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot pushed the
> emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

Yeah, I figured it was the stores, although I only saw one big thing falling
from one side of the plane.

The plane wasn't fully loaded, at least that much was evident. In fact, it
looked clean, which is why the big thing falling off was so odd.



D

There were several incidents such as this during the A-6's long career, but I cannot find any that meet the criteria of (a) pilot survived, B/N didn't, and (b) late during the A-6's service life.

Morgan & Morgan's excellent book, INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6, has an appendix of all operational A-6 losses. (There's a separate appendix for combat losses.) In that appendix there is only one instance of a carrier launch loss where the pilot survived and the B/N was lost:

BuNo 151825 / KA-6D, VA-75, 10/11/74, Mediterranean, off CV-60. Flaps/slats retracted on launch.

On the other hand there are several carrier launch losses where the fatality accrued to the left side of the cockpit. Within this group, only one occurred late in the Intruder's operational career:

BuNo 155708 / A-6E, VA-176, 01/19/91, Mediterranean, off CV-59. (No cause listed.)

With some more information, I can likely narrow things down or identify the actual event. With that, some other intrepid soul can fathom the depths of the Naval Safety Center records for the cause.

--
Mike Kanze

"The real accomplishment of 'The Da Vinci Code' is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits."

- Daniel Henninger, WALL STREET JOURNAL - 5/19/06

"spamno" > wrote in message news:6o_dg.177$xO5.28@trnddc03...

"TV" > wrote in message
...
> >> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
> >> took
> >> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
> >> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started
to
> >> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
> > Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
> > the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to
achieve
> > a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
> > malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
> > allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are
just
> > about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
> > A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
> > capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores.
Pilot
> > pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.
>
> If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
> don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient
cat
> stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
> blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they
weren't
> going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck
were
> screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
> ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
> degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to
transition
> to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

If it was one of the A-6s last cruises that would put it in the mid nineties
time frame. Any idea what boat?

One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the
aircraft.

R / John

"John Carrier" > wrote...
> One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection system.
> There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community that had
> sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You could go
through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in transit (because
of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy jettison while the other
pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for at least one of them -- both if
the canopy got hung up on the first seat...

IIRC, command ejection was part of the A-6F proposal.

> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.

The pilot was Rick "Twig" LaBranche, who is now a CDR and has the
distinction of being the CO of the last operational Tomcat squadron (VF-31
flying F-14Ds at least until September).

_____________
José Herculano

In article . com>,
wrote:

> I saw the video of the plane punching through the wave while I was in
> API. I got the impression that the video made the wave look more
> catastrophic than in actually was. Don't think it caused any damage to
> the aircraft just some super stunned pilots.

This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?

http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5

Pugs

"Allen Epps" > wrote in message
...
>
> This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
>
> Pugs

I assume that the S-1 did not have ejection seats?

JD

"Allen Epps" > wrote...
>
> This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?

I've seen an A-7 launch through a similar wave off Midway in the northern
Pacific. I think we were all surprised when he flew out the other side!

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message ...
> "Allen Epps" > wrote...
> >
> > This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>
> I've seen an A-7 launch through a similar wave off Midway in the northern
> Pacific. I think we were all surprised when he flew out the other side!

I was just thinking the S-1 was lucky they had recips. I thought for sure a
jet would flame out!

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message ...
> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>> One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
>> system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
>> that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of
>> the aircraft.
>
> Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
> could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
> transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
> jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
> at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
> seat...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

R / John

Allen Epps wrote
> This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5

What is (was) an S-1?

From the web:

The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.

Bob Moore
S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959

On 5/27/06 6:58 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "DDAY" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>>
>> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
>> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>
> Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on the
> cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve a
> particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would malfunction
> on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that allows full
> pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just about fool
> proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
>
> A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away capability.
> The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot pushed the
> emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.
>

You're right, John. It was a single engine failure on the stroke. Pilot
gets a full chute. B/N skips off the water. Both live.

Max thrust
Gear up
Stores jettison
Bleed Air Gang Bar - OFF
Establish 19 unit climb in balanced flight...

First five steps of the engine failure procedure from memory after a 10 year
hiatus.

If you didn't get those steps done IMMEDIATELY, you didn't stand much of a
chance of bringing the jet back. Later, an east coast squadron discovered
in Fallon in a tanker that even if you DID get those steps done, they jet
could be un-flyable single engine. The engines had de-tuned over time
making the single-engine performance charts incorrect. Pax re-vamped them
in about 1994-5.

--Woody

On 5/27/06 5:27 PM, in article ,
"José Herculano" > wrote:

>> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
>> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>
> The pilot was Rick "Twig" LaBranche, who is now a CDR and has the
> distinction of being the CO of the last operational Tomcat squadron (VF-31
> flying F-14Ds at least until September).
>
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

Twig's STILL CO? I would have thought that he was done by now.

--Woody

On 5/28/06 6:27 AM, in article ,
"John Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
> message ...
>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>> One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
>>> system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
>>> that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of
>>> the aircraft.
>>
>> Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
>> could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
>> transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
>> jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
>> at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
>> seat...
>
> I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
> part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.
>
> R / John
>
>

The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

--Woody

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly part
> of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

When you're fighting for $$ with the Hornet and Tomcat guys, nothing is
"simple"... ;-)

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
> and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
> prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

All I saw was 1 prototype at China Lake before I left in '94. Didn't know they
actually got to the fleet...

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message . ..
> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>
>> I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
>> part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.
>
> When you're fighting for $$ with the Hornet and Tomcat guys, nothing is
> "simple"... ;-)

Trust me, the Turkey didn't see much either.

R / John

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/28/06 6:27 AM, in article
> ,
> "John Carrier" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
>> message ...
>>> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>>>> One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
>>>> system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the
>>>> community
>>>> that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life
>>>> of
>>>> the aircraft.
>>>
>>> Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
>>> could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
>>> transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
>>> jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
>>> at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
>>> seat...
>>
>> I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
>> part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.
>>
>> R / John
>>
>>
>
> The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
> and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
> prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

Scary when you can remember your boldface 10 years later. Well, there are
some OCF procedures that ring true after 30+, the indelible knowledge
required for flying non-DCS fighters.

Glad to hear the A-6 finally got command eject. My last flight in one was
fall 1986. Classic Grumman iron.

R / John

In article >,
Bob Moore > wrote:

> Allen Epps wrote
> > This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
>
> What is (was) an S-1?
>
> From the web:
>
> The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
> was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
> P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
> to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
> convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
>
> Bob Moore
> S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959

Accck of course I meant C-1

Pugs

Allen wrote:
> In article >,
> Bob Moore > wrote:
>
>
>>Allen Epps wrote
>>
>>>This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
>>
>>What is (was) an S-1?
>>
>>From the web:
>>
>>The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
>>was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
>>P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
>>to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
>>convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
>>
>>Bob Moore
>>S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959
>
>
> Accck of course I meant C-1
>
> Pugs

The MAD boom in the tail makes that photo an S-2.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Yofuri wrote:
> Allen wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bob Moore > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Allen Epps wrote
> >>
> >>>This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
> >>>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
> >>
> >>What is (was) an S-1?
> >>
> >>From the web:
> >>
> >>The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
> >>was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
> >>P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
> >>to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
> >>convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
> >>
> >>Bob Moore
> >>S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959
> >
> >
> > Accck of course I meant C-1
> >
> > Pugs
>
> The MAD boom in the tail makes that photo an S-2.

As do the tail markings, if I saw them correctly; "NS" (CVSG-53 -
which didn't operate from Tico until the 1970s.). That's either VS-21,
-29, or -35.

MW

Essex class carriers had bow cats only.

Dick...

"DDAY" > wrote in message
. net...
>I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>
> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>
> Any idea what happened there? I remember hearing about some aircraft
> launch
> where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
> damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.
>
> In another shot, a large prop plane, possibly an S-2F, took off the waist
> catapult of a smaller Essex class carrier and immediately slammed into a
> wave. Again, does anybody have any details?
>
>
>
>
>
> D

Did anyone receive dolphins for this? <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker."

- Anonymous


"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in message ...
"Allen Epps" > wrote...
>
> This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?

I've seen an A-7 launch through a similar wave off Midway in the northern
Pacific. I think we were all surprised when he flew out the other side!

Woody,

If this occurred late in the A-6's service (i.e., after 1990) and both souls survived, it was likely the following, per Morgan & Morgan:

BuNo 154148/A-6E, VA-85, 09/18/91, Mediterranean, CV-66, Lost engine on cat shot.

******

>The engines had de-tuned over time making the single-engine performance charts incorrect. Pax re-vamped them in about 1994-5.

....just in time for that last flight to the boneyard, or to "NAS Barrier Reef." <g>

Any number of gremlins begin popping up in elderly aircraft after many years of otherwise uneventful service. Witness B/N Keith Gallagher's partial ejection, caused by aging components. In his case, the ejection seat components were ~28 years old:

http://www.gallagher.com/ejection_seat/technical_aspects.htm

--
Mike Kanze

"It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker."

- Anonymous


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message ...
On 5/27/06 6:58 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "DDAY" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>>
>> They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
>> off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>> immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>> roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>
> Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on the
> cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve a
> particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would malfunction
> on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that allows full
> pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just about fool
> proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
>
> A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away capability.
> The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot pushed the
> emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.
>

You're right, John. It was a single engine failure on the stroke. Pilot
gets a full chute. B/N skips off the water. Both live.

Max thrust
Gear up
Stores jettison
Bleed Air Gang Bar - OFF
Establish 19 unit climb in balanced flight...

First five steps of the engine failure procedure from memory after a 10 year
hiatus.

If you didn't get those steps done IMMEDIATELY, you didn't stand much of a
chance of bringing the jet back. Later, an east coast squadron discovered
in Fallon in a tanker that even if you DID get those steps done, they jet
could be un-flyable single engine. The engines had de-tuned over time
making the single-engine performance charts incorrect. Pax re-vamped them
in about 1994-5.

--Woody

John W.

A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.

Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...
--
Mike Kanze

"It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker."

- Anonymous

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in message ...
"John Carrier" > wrote...
> One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection system.
> There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community that had
> sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You could go
through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in transit (because
of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy jettison while the other
pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for at least one of them -- both if
the canopy got hung up on the first seat...

IIRC, command ejection was part of the A-6F proposal.

John C.,

My reverse (perverse) logic:

When each of you can see what the other is (or is not) doing as thoroughly as one could in the A-6 cockpit, there is less call for command ejection, IMHO.

I also believe that good crew coordination had much to do with this attitude. You either learned to work well as a crew, or your squadronmates began sniveling to the Ops Officer.

--
Mike Kanze

"It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker."

- Anonymous



"John Carrier" > wrote in message ...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the
aircraft.

R / John

"Mike Kanze" > wrote...

> A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the
> canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.

> Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...

Even when I flew it in the 80s through '93, there were MANY "old hands" who
wouldn't even think of blowing the canopy! Off the cat it was a no-brainer, but
even for the times when you had the time to think about it, there were few who
would risk a partial canopy jettison (regardless of whether it would take off
the vertical stab).

Yep, Owl, it was the Buckeyes. Correctly identified.

On 5/29/06 4:56 PM, in article ,
"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
> If this occurred late in the A-6's service (i.e., after 1990) and both souls
> survived, it was likely the following, per Morgan & Morgan:
>
> BuNo 154148/A-6E, VA-85, 09/18/91, Mediterranean, CV-66, Lost engine on cat
> shot.
>
> ******
>
>> >The engines had de-tuned over time making the single-engine performance
>> charts incorrect. Pax re-vamped them in about 1994-5.
> ...just in time for that last flight to the boneyard, or to "NAS Barrier
> Reef." <g>
>
> Any number of gremlins begin popping up in elderly aircraft after many years
> of otherwise uneventful service. Witness B/N Keith Gallagher's partial
> ejection, caused by aging components. In his case, the ejection seat
> components were ~28 years old:
>
> http://www.gallagher.com/ejection_seat/technical_aspects.htm

On 5/29/06 6:20 PM, in article ,
"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

> "Mike Kanze" > wrote...
>
>> A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the
>> canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.
>
>> Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...
>
> Even when I flew it in the 80s through '93, there were MANY "old hands" who
> wouldn't even think of blowing the canopy! Off the cat it was a no-brainer,
> but
> even for the times when you had the time to think about it, there were few who
> would risk a partial canopy jettison (regardless of whether it would take off
> the vertical stab).
>

Legend had it that when you wanted the canopy to jettison it wouldn't.
Sometimes when you wanted to keep it though, it would jettison. I
personally never had any problems.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> Legend had it that when you wanted the canopy to jettison it wouldn't.
> Sometimes when you wanted to keep it though, it would jettison. I
> personally never had any problems.

Ditto. Never tried to jettison one; never lost one. Had a few pop open in
flight, though...

On Sat, 27 May 2006 04:30:42 GMT, "DDAY" >
wrote:

>I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.
>
>They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
>off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
>immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
>roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
>
>Any idea what happened there? I remember hearing about some aircraft launch
>where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
>damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.
>
>In another shot, a large prop plane, possibly an S-2F, took off the waist
>catapult of a smaller Essex class carrier and immediately slammed into a
>wave. Again, does anybody have any details?
The video you are referring to ( I believe) was the USS Ticonderoga.
In the video, you should be able to clearly see the "14" on the pointy
end. The squadron was VS-38 out of North Island. And it was not a
cat shot. As others have mentioned, no angle deck cats on Essex
class. The S-2 in question was not shot off the cat - it was a deck
run from the aft part of flight deck. The aircraft was partially
filled with salt water but the R1820's just kept on chuggin'.
Aircraft was put in the hanger bay for maintainers to dry out, which
was only partially successful. Corrosion set in (duh!!!) and the A/C
never flew again. Oh yea - no back seaters in the A/C at the time -
just 2 O's in the front.

Hope this helps.
Regards,

>
>
>
>
>
>D

On 28 May 2006 21:50:35 -0700, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>
>Yofuri wrote:
>> Allen wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Bob Moore > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Allen Epps wrote
>> >>
>> >>>This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>> >>>
>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
>> >>
>> >>What is (was) an S-1?
>> >>
>> >>From the web:
>> >>
>> >>The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
>> >>was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
>> >>P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
>> >>to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
>> >>convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
>> >>
>> >>Bob Moore
>> >>S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959
>> >
>> >
>> > Accck of course I meant C-1
>> >
>> > Pugs
>>
>> The MAD boom in the tail makes that photo an S-2.
>
>As do the tail markings, if I saw them correctly; "NS" (CVSG-53 -
>which didn't operate from Tico until the 1970s.). That's either VS-21,
>-29, or -35.
Mike - see my other post below. I am almost certain that it was VS-38
which would have been CVSG-59 (I think) I was in the squadron at the
time, but this goes back many years and many flight hours ago for me
(and many brain cells destroyed) - I could be mistaken.

Regards,

>
>MW

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message ...
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>>
>> Legend had it that when you wanted the canopy to jettison it wouldn't.
>> Sometimes when you wanted to keep it though, it would jettison. I
>> personally never had any problems.
>
> Ditto. Never tried to jettison one; never lost one. Had a few pop open
> in flight, though...

Agreed. Somewhat disturbing at 40K'.

R / John

Charlie Wolf wrote:

> The aircraft was partially
> filled with salt water but the R1820's just kept on chuggin'.
> Aircraft was put in the hanger bay for maintainers to dry out, which
> was only partially successful. Corrosion set in (duh!!!) and the A/C
> never flew again.

Now I'm wondering why the cleaning work was not done properly. Shurely
rinsing out the a/c would have been cheaper than replacing it.

Joachim

Charlie Wolf wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 21:50:35 -0700, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Yofuri wrote:
> >> Allen wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Bob Moore > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Allen Epps wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>>This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
> >> >>
> >> >>What is (was) an S-1?
> >> >>
> >> >>From the web:
> >> >>
> >> >>The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
> >> >>was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
> >> >>P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
> >> >>to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
> >> >>convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
> >> >>
> >> >>Bob Moore
> >> >>S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Accck of course I meant C-1
> >> >
> >> > Pugs
> >>
> >> The MAD boom in the tail makes that photo an S-2.
> >
> >As do the tail markings, if I saw them correctly; "NS" (CVSG-53 -
> >which didn't operate from Tico until the 1970s.). That's either VS-21,
> >-29, or -35.
> Mike - see my other post below. I am almost certain that it was VS-38
> which would have been CVSG-59 (I think) I was in the squadron at the
> time, but this goes back many years and many flight hours ago for me
> (and many brain cells destroyed) - I could be mistaken.

Glad you posted Charlie; based on what you've stated and reviewing the
video snip again, that indeed could be "NT", and not "NS" on the S-2's
tail. I just wish we knew the date of the deck launch (or at least the
specific period.) Once Tico became the only ASW deck, then it got
really hairly attempting to determine assignments.

BTW, for anyone; why a deck launch in the first place? Was it part of
CQing since the S-2/C-1 "could" deck launch? You can't help but notice
that long straight white line painted down Tico's deck ...

MW

On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:31:56 +0200, Joachim Schmid >
wrote:

>Charlie Wolf wrote:
>
>> The aircraft was partially
>> filled with salt water but the R1820's just kept on chuggin'.
>> Aircraft was put in the hanger bay for maintainers to dry out, which
>> was only partially successful. Corrosion set in (duh!!!) and the A/C
>> never flew again.
>
>Now I'm wondering why the cleaning work was not done properly. Shurely
>rinsing out the a/c would have been cheaper than replacing it.
This occured back in the very early 1970's time frame. It would have
been the same thing as recovering an aircraft from a brief sinking in
slat water. The corrosion control problem on this A/C was just beyond
the "control" part....
Regards,

>
>Joachim

Joachim Schmid wrote:
> Charlie Wolf wrote:
>
> > The aircraft was partially
> > filled with salt water but the R1820's just kept on chuggin'.
> > Aircraft was put in the hanger bay for maintainers to dry out, which
> > was only partially successful. Corrosion set in (duh!!!) and the A/C
> > never flew again.
>
> Now I'm wondering why the cleaning work was not done properly. Shurely
> rinsing out the a/c would have been cheaper than replacing it.

Given the general period of this event, it might well have been to the
fact that the S-2 was in it's last year(s), to be replaced by the S-3.
It very well might not have even been replaced.

MW

On 30 May 2006 13:22:21 -0700, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>
>Charlie Wolf wrote:
>> On 28 May 2006 21:50:35 -0700, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Yofuri wrote:
>> >> Allen wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Bob Moore > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Allen Epps wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>This the S-1 video through the wave you were looking at?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>http://tinyurl.com/jjjo5
>> >> >>
>> >> >>What is (was) an S-1?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>From the web:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The skipping of the P-1 designation in the 1962 Joint designation scheme
>> >> >>was most likely due to the fact that it was convenient to redesignate the
>> >> >>P2V, P3V, P4Y, and P5M to P-2, P-3, P-4, and P-5, respectively. 28. Similar
>> >> >>to note 27, the S-1 designation was most likely skipped out of the
>> >> >>convenience of renaming the S2F to S-2 and continuing from there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Bob Moore
>> >> >>S-2F NAS Kingsville 1959
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Accck of course I meant C-1
>> >> >
>> >> > Pugs
>> >>
>> >> The MAD boom in the tail makes that photo an S-2.
>> >
>> >As do the tail markings, if I saw them correctly; "NS" (CVSG-53 -
>> >which didn't operate from Tico until the 1970s.). That's either VS-21,
>> >-29, or -35.
>> Mike - see my other post below. I am almost certain that it was VS-38
>> which would have been CVSG-59 (I think) I was in the squadron at the
>> time, but this goes back many years and many flight hours ago for me
>> (and many brain cells destroyed) - I could be mistaken.
>
>Glad you posted Charlie; based on what you've stated and reviewing the
>video snip again, that indeed could be "NT", and not "NS" on the S-2's
>tail. I just wish we knew the date of the deck launch (or at least the
>specific period.) Once Tico became the only ASW deck, then it got
>really hairly attempting to determine assignments.
>
>BTW, for anyone; why a deck launch in the first place? Was it part of
>CQing since the S-2/C-1 "could" deck launch? You can't help but notice
>that long straight white line painted down Tico's deck ...

Mike - Well, as I said before ... you guys are really taxing these old
salt water soaked brains cells ( with a little beer mixed in too).

I SEEM to recall that it was a CQ period and it was an expeditious way
to get A/C on and off the decks. If you watch the video closely, you
will see that that the bow seems to dip down "off-cycle" to the wave
patterns. The Yellow Shirt (Flight Deck Off.???) who was signaling
the aircraft to release breaks and take off was supposed to be trying
to time the release with the up and down moment of the ship.
Essentially, when the bow is heading down, release the A/C for roll
out. In this case, the ships bow only went up about half way, then
back down into the trough of a huge wave.

OK - I have to stop now ... I'm getting a headache trying to remember
all these details.....
Regards,

>
>MW

Charlie Wolf wrote:

> OK - I have to stop now ... I'm getting a headache trying to remember
> all these details.....

Roger that, Charlie.

Wow, sounds like a great book. If you get a chance, is there an item
there about an Intruder crash in South Dakota (I think in the 80s).
Trying to find a copy, but appreciate any info you have.

Lyndon



On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:06:25 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6

>INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6

An excellent book, probably the most complete compilation to date of Intruder history, lore, factoids, sea stories, etc.

>Intruder crash in South Dakota (I think in the 80s).

A VA-176 A-6E (Buno 154140) pranged at the farm of the B/N's brother near Flandreau, SD on May 10, 1985. Both crew died.

--
Mike Kanze

"The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace."

- H. L. Mencken

> wrote in message ...
Wow, sounds like a great book. If you get a chance, is there an item
there about an Intruder crash in South Dakota (I think in the 80s).
Trying to find a copy, but appreciate any info you have.

Lyndon



On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:06:25 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6

Thanks. I worked on the A-6 for several years (west coast) and was
born and raised in SD so the info is appreciated.

Lyndon

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:03:39 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>>INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6
>
>An excellent book, probably the most complete compilation to date of Intruder history, lore, factoids, sea stories, etc.
>
>>Intruder crash in South Dakota (I think in the 80s).
>
>A VA-176 A-6E (Buno 154140) pranged at the farm of the B/N's brother near Flandreau, SD on May 10, 1985. Both crew died.