Question For Old Naval Aviators

[W. D. Allen]

Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
book, especially for old naval aviators.

But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
same.

Looking forward to some answers from those who know.

WDA

end



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1534 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Mike Kanze]

If it was a SNB (the old "Secret Navy Bomber") / C-45, it was likely "deck landed," i.e., recovered without arrestment. The SNB stall speed was low enough that any birdfarm could generate sufficient wind over the deck for a safe, non-arrested recovery.

I can't recall the SNB's structural particulars, but I seriously doubt that it was stressed sufficiently to allow for a tailhook. The SNB was designed and developed in the late 1930s as a landplane, and not as a carrier aircraft.

My very first logbook entry was for a 1969 hop in a VT-10 UC-45J. Above the passenger entrance door was stenciled, "NFO Trainer - Built 1943."

--
Mike Kanze (not an old Naval aviator)

"...I've told my Democratic friends, if nothing else, just keep your mouths shut and just let [we Republicans] self-destruct. But they won't even let us do that."

- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

"W. D. Allen" > wrote in message ...
Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
book, especially for old naval aviators.

But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
same.

Looking forward to some answers from those who know.

WDA

end



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1534 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[vincent p. norris]

>....... doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
>same.

I picked up a few dozen hours in SNBs and JRBs(same airplane,
essentially) while a forward air controller with a Marine infantry
battalion, ca. 1953-4. I suspect that catching the wire would pull
the tail off the airplane.

vince norris

[Charlie Wolf]

I recall a landing we completed on USS Enterprise in Tonkin Gulf. (I
was C-1A aircrew). The ship didn't have the 4-wire strung, and there
was terrific wind over the deck. The LSO wasn't real practiced on the
cut lights for aircraft that actually cut the throttles, and he gave
pilot the cut lights just a little too early. We settled to the deck
and coasted to a halt. The pilot actually elected to utilize brakes
instead of waiting to catch the wire. The tail hook barely engaged
the 3 wire. Yellow shirt told me we barely lifted it off of the deck.

Regards,

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:16:39 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> wrote:

>Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
>Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
>book, especially for old naval aviators.
>
>But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
>Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
>returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
>I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
>used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
>reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
>Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
>same.
>
>Looking forward to some answers from those who know.
>
>WDA
>
>end
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
>It has removed 1534 spam emails to date.
>Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>

[W. D. Allen]

Taxied up to the One Wire, right?

WDA

end



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1542 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Flashnews]

If the airwing was sent ashore and the deck left reasonably empty the C-1
COD's often deck landed and deck departed while the carriers were in port so
the arresting crews did not have to be mobilized from liberty. Leaving one
or two wires working just made things smoother but a shift had to work. In
all this enabled the ships crew to cycle, the mail to be delivered, the ship
to be on a liberty schedule, and the staff pukes to get their flight time.








"Charlie Wolf" > wrote in message
...
>I recall a landing we completed on USS Enterprise in Tonkin Gulf. (I
> was C-1A aircrew). The ship didn't have the 4-wire strung, and there
> was terrific wind over the deck. The LSO wasn't real practiced on the
> cut lights for aircraft that actually cut the throttles, and he gave
> pilot the cut lights just a little too early. We settled to the deck
> and coasted to a halt. The pilot actually elected to utilize brakes
> instead of waiting to catch the wire. The tail hook barely engaged
> the 3 wire. Yellow shirt told me we barely lifted it off of the deck.
>
> Regards,
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:16:39 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> > wrote:
>
>>Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
>>Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets.
>>Interesting
>>book, especially for old naval aviators.
>>
>>But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
>>Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
>>returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
>>I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
>>used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
>>reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a
>>Kitty
>>Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
>>same.
>>
>>Looking forward to some answers from those who know.
>>
>>WDA
>>
>>end
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
>>It has removed 1534 spam emails to date.
>>Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>>Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>>
>

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:10:05 GMT, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

>If the airwing was sent ashore and the deck left reasonably empty the C-1
>COD's often deck landed and deck departed while the carriers were in port so
>the arresting crews did not have to be mobilized from liberty. Leaving one
>or two wires working just made things smoother but a shift had to work. In
>all this enabled the ships crew to cycle, the mail to be delivered, the ship
>to be on a liberty schedule, and the staff pukes to get their flight time.

What kind of weight did a C-1 fly at?

I just looked at my S-2D/E/G NATOPS. At 23,000 lb., standard day,
zero headwind, takeoff roll was just under 1000', so a deck run at
anchor might be possible (but would be interesting). The same
aircraft on a 99 kt. approach (full flaps), 90 kt. touchdown would
have a landing roll of almost 2500 ft. That would seem to preclude
non-arrested landings at anchor.

Of course if the COD were substantially lighter the take off run would
be less. And a lighter weight would mean a lower landing speed.
Making a fast "interpolation" taking the weight to 19,000 lbs. cuts
the distance to about 2100 ft. To get under 1000' requires between
35-40 kts. of headwind.

To get 1000 feet or follout you'd have to land a wheels length ahead
of the rounddown. I don't think, even then, a 27C had the deck length
to do it; maybe a FORESTAL did.

While the S-2 is probably "dirtier" than a C-1 I wonder if it would
make that much difference at low speeds.

And even under the best of circumstance God forbid you have a problem.

Bill Kambic, former Stoof IP

Veteran: VT-28, VS-27, VS-30, VS-73
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Mike Weeks]

On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
> Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
> book, especially for old naval aviators.
>
> But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
> Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
> returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
> I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
> used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
> reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
> Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
> same.
>
> Looking forward to some answers from those who know.

As written the passage brings up even more questions:

CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". Early in '51 she
operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11
for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951.

If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the
question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward,
even behind the barrier. Even if a good number planes were off-loaded
as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the
loading of others to be returned to the states. Going to put a non-
hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point?

And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam?
According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The
Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to
Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5
1/2 hours.

I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a
copy over. In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS
1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week.

MW

[W. D. Allen]

In the late 1950s even when we were moored at the quay in Yokosuka the SIOP
had us being catapulted with full fuel load and shape. Never tried it for
real of course but if the gong had ever been struck we would have learned
quickly that it was definitely possible to catapult aircraft from a moored
carrier. Our concern as pilots was if we could do it and fly away!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1548 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Leanne]

In the mid 50's, an AD, A1 for the new kids, made a free deck launch off the
Midway while at anchor in the bay off Sangley Point. An other maneuver that
was used as operation pinwheel when going into the dry dock in Yokosuka in
the same era.

Leanne

"W. D. Allen" > wrote in message
...
> In the late 1950s even when we were moored at the quay in Yokosuka the
> SIOP had us being catapulted with full fuel load and shape. Never tried it
> for real of course but if the gong had ever been struck we would have
> learned quickly that it was definitely possible to catapult aircraft from
> a moored carrier. Our concern as pilots was if we could do it and fly
> away!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Flashnews]

Check these numbers - the deck was the Forrestal and there was minimal wind
over the deck, actually at anchor in Piraeus, but nose into the wind. The
deck launch was never a problem, the landing at full flaps and simply a
touch down short of the wires with a cut pass to a brake stop before the end
of the island. No other aircraft short of an offset E-2 on deck. Fuel load
minimal and just two people at the controls. Trapping was always an option
but it would cause a residual work effort. Mission was to just fly around
and pick up the mail and return. I may be crazy but you had enough deck to
cut pass, taxi a bit, fire it up and take off again


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:10:05 GMT, "Flashnews" >
> wrote:
>
>>If the airwing was sent ashore and the deck left reasonably empty the C-1
>>COD's often deck landed and deck departed while the carriers were in port
>>so
>>the arresting crews did not have to be mobilized from liberty. Leaving
>>one
>>or two wires working just made things smoother but a shift had to work. In
>>all this enabled the ships crew to cycle, the mail to be delivered, the
>>ship
>>to be on a liberty schedule, and the staff pukes to get their flight time.
>
> What kind of weight did a C-1 fly at?
>
> I just looked at my S-2D/E/G NATOPS. At 23,000 lb., standard day,
> zero headwind, takeoff roll was just under 1000', so a deck run at
> anchor might be possible (but would be interesting). The same
> aircraft on a 99 kt. approach (full flaps), 90 kt. touchdown would
> have a landing roll of almost 2500 ft. That would seem to preclude
> non-arrested landings at anchor.
>
> Of course if the COD were substantially lighter the take off run would
> be less. And a lighter weight would mean a lower landing speed.
> Making a fast "interpolation" taking the weight to 19,000 lbs. cuts
> the distance to about 2100 ft. To get under 1000' requires between
> 35-40 kts. of headwind.
>
> To get 1000 feet or follout you'd have to land a wheels length ahead
> of the rounddown. I don't think, even then, a 27C had the deck length
> to do it; maybe a FORESTAL did.
>
> While the S-2 is probably "dirtier" than a C-1 I wonder if it would
> make that much difference at low speeds.
>
> And even under the best of circumstance God forbid you have a problem.
>
> Bill Kambic, former Stoof IP
>
> Veteran: VT-28, VS-27, VS-30, VS-73
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:16:25 GMT, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

>
>Check these numbers - the deck was the Forrestal and there was minimal wind
>over the deck, actually at anchor in Piraeus, but nose into the wind.

I just did. They come out the same way.

The
>deck launch was never a problem, the landing at full flaps and simply a
>touch down short of the wires with a cut pass to a brake stop before the end
>of the island. No other aircraft short of an offset E-2 on deck. Fuel load
>minimal and just two people at the controls.

That would make it pretty light, but stopping in under 1000'? The
"Book" says "no way." Then the Book data is estimated.

Trapping was always an option
>but it would cause a residual work effort. Mission was to just fly around
>and pick up the mail and return. I may be crazy but you had enough deck to
>cut pass, taxi a bit, fire it up and take off again

Again, the Book says take off can be done, but the landing is "no
way."

Anybody got a C-1A NATOPS?

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[fudog50]

Not to be picky but,,,,

The Herc did all the big deck tests on the Forestall (not Kitty Kawk
Class).

I was a C-130 plane captain back in the early 80's and a flight
engineer gave me a book, "Herk: Hero of the Skies". The book talks
about all the testing on the Forestall.

It was a success.....but....well read the book.

Thanks.




On 23 Feb 2007 16:27:59 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>> Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
>> Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
>> book, especially for old naval aviators.
>>
>> But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
>> Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
>> returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load...."
>> I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
>> used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
>> reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
>> Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
>> same.
>>
>> Looking forward to some answers from those who know.
>
>As written the passage brings up even more questions:
>
>CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". Early in '51 she
>operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11
>for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951.
>
>If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the
>question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward,
>even behind the barrier. Even if a good number planes were off-loaded
>as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the
>loading of others to be returned to the states. Going to put a non-
>hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point?
>
>And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam?
>According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The
>Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to
>Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5
>1/2 hours.
>
>I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a
>copy over. In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS
>1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week.
>
>MW

[Charlie Wolf[_2_]]

Bill -

I was just an enlisted back seater but...

"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.

Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)

I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
boat.

Regards,

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:14:06 -0500, wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:10:05 GMT, "Flashnews" >
>wrote:
>
>>If the airwing was sent ashore and the deck left reasonably empty the C-1
>>COD's often deck landed and deck departed while the carriers were in port so
>>the arresting crews did not have to be mobilized from liberty. Leaving one
>>or two wires working just made things smoother but a shift had to work. In
>>all this enabled the ships crew to cycle, the mail to be delivered, the ship
>>to be on a liberty schedule, and the staff pukes to get their flight time.
>
>What kind of weight did a C-1 fly at?
>
>I just looked at my S-2D/E/G NATOPS. At 23,000 lb., standard day,
>zero headwind, takeoff roll was just under 1000', so a deck run at
>anchor might be possible (but would be interesting). The same
>aircraft on a 99 kt. approach (full flaps), 90 kt. touchdown would
>have a landing roll of almost 2500 ft. That would seem to preclude
>non-arrested landings at anchor.
>
>Of course if the COD were substantially lighter the take off run would
>be less. And a lighter weight would mean a lower landing speed.
>Making a fast "interpolation" taking the weight to 19,000 lbs. cuts
>the distance to about 2100 ft. To get under 1000' requires between
>35-40 kts. of headwind.
>
>To get 1000 feet or follout you'd have to land a wheels length ahead
>of the rounddown. I don't think, even then, a 27C had the deck length
>to do it; maybe a FORESTAL did.
>
>While the S-2 is probably "dirtier" than a C-1 I wonder if it would
>make that much difference at low speeds.
>
>And even under the best of circumstance God forbid you have a problem.
>
>Bill Kambic, former Stoof IP
>
>Veteran: VT-28, VS-27, VS-30, VS-73
>Bill Kambic
>Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
>Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> wrote:

>Bill -
>
>I was just an enlisted back seater but...
>
>"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
>said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.

The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible
on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though.

>Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
>over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
>off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)

We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE.
No big deal.

>I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
>runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
>boat.

I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-)

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Mike Kanze]

>An other maneuver that was used as operation pinwheel when going into the dry dock in Yokosuka in
the same era.

Nicely illustrated in an early scene in the movie The Bridges At Toko-Ri.

--
Mike Kanze

"...I've told my Democratic friends, if nothing else, just keep your mouths shut and just let [we Republicans] self-destruct. But they won't even let us do that."

- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

"Leanne" > wrote in message ...
In the mid 50's, an AD, A1 for the new kids, made a free deck launch off the
Midway while at anchor in the bay off Sangley Point. An other maneuver that
was used as operation pinwheel when going into the dry dock in Yokosuka in
the same era.

Leanne

"W. D. Allen" > wrote in message
...
> In the late 1950s even when we were moored at the quay in Yokosuka the
> SIOP had us being catapulted with full fuel load and shape. Never tried it
> for real of course but if the gong had ever been struck we would have
> learned quickly that it was definitely possible to catapult aircraft from
> a moored carrier. Our concern as pilots was if we could do it and fly
> away!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Flashnews]

I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers
being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember
coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right


> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> > wrote:
>
>>Bill -
>>
>>I was just an enlisted back seater but...
>>
>>"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
>>said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.
>
> The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible
> on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though.
>
>>Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
>>over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
>>off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)
>
> We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE.
> No big deal.
>
>>I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
>>runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
>>boat.
>
> I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-)
>
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:22:32 -0500, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

>I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers
>being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
>over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
>Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
>over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
>clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
>very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
>almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
>something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember
>coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right

IF you've that much wind then you might pull it off. But you'd best
make you peace with God of All Brakes before you try it!!!!! :-)

The "Book" says 90 kts. at the ramp so that would do it.

"Innovative" and "not leaving much margin for error" are poor
synonyms! ;-)

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Flashnews]

remember this was an "inport" thing not regular ops and the mission was a
bag of mail and flight time for the AirBoss and prifly crew

we also did many crazy things like no-flap takeoffs with the clean Phantoms
(Ed must have done these more then I but we had true hard wings with the
B/N/J's) just because it enabled a better and tighter section takeoff and at
El Toro or Miramar you could launch two sections on the duals and be
airborne & joined with four in nothing flat - but loaded for a real war,
that would not happen; now the F-8 guys who would launch with their wings
folded - that took balls (no just kidding)



> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:22:32 -0500, "Flashnews" >
> wrote:
>
>>I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still
>>remembers
>>being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
>>over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
>>Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
>>over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
>>clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
>>very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
>>almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
>>something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also
>>remember
>>coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right
>
> IF you've that much wind then you might pull it off. But you'd best
> make you peace with God of All Brakes before you try it!!!!! :-)
>
> The "Book" says 90 kts. at the ramp so that would do it.
>
> "Innovative" and "not leaving much margin for error" are poor
> synonyms! ;-)
>
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Flashnews]

and I think a U-2 made that journey also





"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> Not to be picky but,,,,
>
> The Herc did all the big deck tests on the Forestall (not Kitty Kawk
> Class).
>
> I was a C-130 plane captain back in the early 80's and a flight
> engineer gave me a book, "Herk: Hero of the Skies". The book talks
> about all the testing on the Forestall.
>
> It was a success.....but....well read the book.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Feb 2007 16:27:59 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
>
>>On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>>> Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
>>> Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets.
>>> Interesting
>>> book, especially for old naval aviators.
>>>
>>> But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page
>>> 282
>>> Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
>>> returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD
>>> load...."
>>> I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were
>>> ever
>>> used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
>>> reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a
>>> Kitty
>>> Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do
>>> the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to some answers from those who know.
>>
>>As written the passage brings up even more questions:
>>
>>CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". Early in '51 she
>>operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11
>>for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951.
>>
>>If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the
>>question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward,
>>even behind the barrier. Even if a good number planes were off-loaded
>>as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the
>>loading of others to be returned to the states. Going to put a non-
>>hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point?
>>
>>And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam?
>>According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The
>>Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to
>>Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5
>>1/2 hours.
>>
>>I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a
>>copy over. In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS
>>1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week.
>>
>>MW
>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:33:46 GMT, "Flashnews" >
wrote:

>remember this was an "inport" thing not regular ops and the mission was a
>bag of mail and flight time for the AirBoss and prifly crew

The "smoking hole" (or big "SPLASH") is no respecter of status! :-)

>we also did many crazy things like no-flap takeoffs with the clean Phantoms
>(Ed must have done these more then I but we had true hard wings with the
>B/N/J's) just because it enabled a better and tighter section takeoff and at
>El Toro or Miramar you could launch two sections on the duals and be
>airborne & joined with four in nothing flat - but loaded for a real war,
>that would not happen; now the F-8 guys who would launch with their wings
>folded - that took balls (no just kidding)

Taking off with wings folded IS considered bad form (even for F-8
guys)! ;-)

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Feb 25, 5:22 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still remembers
> being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
> over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
> Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
> over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
> clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
> very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
> almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
> something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also remember
> coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right

I was on the Indy just before that period and there was NO WAY an F-4
could 'flanchor', not enough wind to shoot the thing while anchored,
and with a max engaging speed of(geeez, don't remember) but the wind
would have to be screaming to land an F-4 at anchor. . Only A/C I ever
saw fly at anchorwere S-3s.

BTW-80% Topgun grads? I don't think so. With each squadron getting
maybe 2 pilot slots per year....besides, Topgun doesn't necessarily
make you good around the boat.
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Bill -
>
> >>I was just an enlisted back seater but...
>
> >>"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
> >>said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.
>
> > The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible
> > on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though.
>
> >>Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
> >>over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
> >>off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)
>
> > We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE.
> > No big deal.
>
> >>I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
> >>runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
> >>boat.
>
> > I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-)
>
> > Bill Kambic
> > Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> > Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[R Leonard]

I can think of at least one F2H from VF-171 going off without benefit
of a catapult. Gent's not around anymore to ask about particulars,
but as I recall the story, for some reason they were unable to
catapult the Banshee. So in order to get the thing ashore, the brain
trust worked the math and decided it could be done, though a trifle
unusual. So the CO climbed in, ran it up, and away he went. This was
circa 1949 (I'll have to try to find it in the log book) and obviously
it worked as he lived to be 89 and passed on in 2005.

Rich

[theref]

"qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 25, 5:22 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
> I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still
> remembers
> being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
> over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
> Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
> over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
> clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
> very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
> almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
> something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also
> remember
> coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right

I was on the Indy just before that period and there was NO WAY an F-4
could 'flanchor', not enough wind to shoot the thing while anchored,
and with a max engaging speed of(geeez, don't remember) but the wind
would have to be screaming to land an F-4 at anchor. . Only A/C I ever
saw fly at anchorwere S-3s.

BTW-80% Topgun grads? I don't think so. With each squadron getting
maybe 2 pilot slots per year....besides, Topgun doesn't necessarily
make you good around the boat.
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Bill -
>
> >>I was just an enlisted back seater but...
>
> >>"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
> >>said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.
>
> > The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible
> > on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though.
>
> >>Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
> >>over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
> >>off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)
>
> > We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE.
> > No big deal.
>
> >>I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
> >>runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
> >>boat.
>
> > I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-)
>
> > Bill Kambic
> > Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> > Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


Au contraire, mon ami. The Saratoga launched many (10 for the first launch
sequence) aircraft while at anchor off Piraeus in August 1971. Carrier was
bow on to the Acropolis up on the hill. I was there in VF103. See ADM Paul
Gilchrist's book "Feet Wet" for a complete description. He was CAG at the
time. The ship took on a lot of water in the #3 Main Machinery Room and was
listing badly. After pumping out a lot of water they needed to launch
aircraft to lighten the load and redistribute the load.

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Feb 28, 9:02 pm, "theref" > wrote:
> "qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 5:22 pm, "Flashnews" > wrote:
>
> > I am thinking about this really hard - and my failing memory still
> > remembers
> > being so amazed at a full stop landing without a hook and there was wind
> > over the deck - perhaps that was the deciding factor for hook / no-hook.
> > Now we also anchored at Kithira where the wind was always 30 to 40 knots
> > over the deck and we could cycle fighters all day without steaming and fly
> > clean for ACM missions over the ship. Again the CAG (CVW-17 1982-83) was
> > very innovative and we did a lot of fun things with squadrons that were
> > almost 80% TOPGUN graduates (VMFA-531 and VF-11). The COD rides were just
> > something to try as with the helicopters, A-5's, and A-6's. I also
> > remember
> > coming over the ramp at around 90 knots - does that sound right
>
> I was on the Indy just before that period and there was NO WAY an F-4
> could 'flanchor', not enough wind to shoot the thing while anchored,
> and with a max engaging speed of(geeez, don't remember) but the wind
> would have to be screaming to land an F-4 at anchor. . Only A/C I ever
> saw fly at anchorwere S-3s.
>
> BTW-80% Topgun grads? I don't think so. With each squadron getting
> maybe 2 pilot slots per year....besides, Topgun doesn't necessarily
> make you good around the boat.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:02:45 -0600, Charlie Wolf
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>Bill -
>
> > >>I was just an enlisted back seater but...
>
> > >>"deck landings" without arresting wires were non-existent, but as I
> > >>said, they were possible with enough wind over the deck.
>
> > > The "Book" agrees. If you have 35-40 kts. of head wind it's possible
> > > on a CVA. Sounds like a "high pucker factor" operation, though.
>
> > >>Deck runs (takeoffs) were extremely common place. with moderate wind
> > >>over the deck on a deck like Enterprise or Ranger, C-1's could take
> > >>off on the angle fully loaded - with no cat. (And no problem)
>
> > > We deck ran in TS-2A/B/C during CARQUALS at VT-28 aboard INDEPENDANCE.
> > > No big deal.
>
> > >>I don't recall max takeoff weight. One thing to consider also -- our
> > >>runs to Da Nang were relatively short. we rarely took on fuel on the
> > >>boat.
>
> > > I was hoping somebody had a C-1 NATOPS. So far "no joy." :-)
>
> > > Bill Kambic
> > > Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> > > Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão
>
> Au contraire, mon ami. The Saratoga launched many (10 for the first launch
> sequence) aircraft while at anchor off Piraeus in August 1971. Carrier was
> bow on to the Acropolis up on the hill. I was there in VF103. See ADM Paul
> Gilchrist's book "Feet Wet" for a complete description. He was CAG at the
> time. The ship took on a lot of water in the #3 Main Machinery Room and was
> listing badly. After pumping out a lot of water they needed to launch
> aircraft to lighten the load and redistribute the load.

Well, shuck my corn..heard of the Sara 'sinkex', but never heard they
shot Phantoms at anchor. They must have been very light and it must've
been quite a shot.

[Mike Weeks]

On Feb 23, 4:27�pm, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:16?am, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>
> > Just finished Jim Armstrong's book, "From POW to Blue Angel", about
> > Commander Dusty Rhodes, who introduced the Blue Angels to jets. Interesting
> > book, especially for old naval aviators.
>
> > But, here's a question for tail hookers of half a century ago. On page 282
> > Armstrong writes, "...a Twin Beech landed [on the USS Philippine Sea
> > returning to CONUS from Korea in early 1951] with a welcome COD load....."
> > I'm guessing he is referring to an SNB. Does anyone know if SNBs were ever
> > used for COD deliveries on carriers in the early 1950s? If so, were they
> > reinforced for tailhook landings? I know a C-130 has been landed on a Kitty
> > Hawk class carrier, but doubt an SNB could be make sturdy enough to do the
> > same.
>
> > Looking forward to some answers from those who know.
>
> As written the passage brings up even more questions:
>
> CV-47 PS didn't return to the US "in early 1951". *Early in '51 she
> operating off Korea, first w/ CVG-11, then in late March swapped -11
> for CVG-2, and she doesn't get back to the WC until June 1951.
>
> If the time period should simply be, say, mid-'51 there's still the
> question of a straight deck and those air group birds sitting forward,
> even behind the barrier. *Even if a good number planes were off-loaded
> as Atsugi for use by an incoming CVG, there still would have been the
> loading of others to be returned to the states. *Going to put a non-
> hook bird down on a deck w/ no exit point?
>
> And where would the event have taken place -- off Hawaii, off Guam?
> According the Bob Cressman article in the Fall '88 issue of _The
> Hook_, in a history of the P.S., she made a bee-line straight to
> Alameda, beating the transit record of Boxer (CV-21) from 1950 by 5
> 1/2 hours.
>
> I haven't seen the book yet, but looking forward to at least looking a
> copy over. *In addition I'm going to check if there's a copy of a PS
> 1950-51 cruise book in the THA library next week.

Indeed, the THA has a copy of the 1950-51 PS cruise book. Nothing
mentioned about what was described in the book about Dusty Rhodes.
That doesn't mean much by itself, but there is a good aerial photo of
her entering SF Bay on 9 June 1951 and she's got about a 1/2 deck-full
load of birds, and there's no plane with a twin tail among them.

In addition, the book is reviewed (favorably) in the current issue
(Jan-Feb) of NavAir News by Pete Mersky and it's mentioned there are
"only a few errors in terminology" The author is a professor of
English.

MW

[[email protected]]

Accch! m'poor bairns... I'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more.

Mikey,

How close d'ya think I am to getting my multiple IRS CID pizza
delivery rewards, laddie?

Stay tuned, laddie

I'll have that e-mail account fashioned for you real soon which will
direct you to a private yahoo!group.

The Ambassador for the Government of Israel(by you proxying the
message on my behalf), the Chief of Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio
FBI, his top agent in Squad 3, Mike Vahue, Gregory A White, the US
Attorney for the Judicial District of Northern Ohio and two others
from law enforcement will be the only members of the yahoo!group.

Mikey...Once again, Mr. Spock is doon on the planet's surfce w'Captain
Kirk...

One more try at the Gaelic Mind Meld, laddie????

No??


TO THE AMBASSADOR OF ISRAEL.

Your excellency.

Just like Bruno Tataglia's son had to excuse himself in front of
Hollywood Actor, Sterling Hayden , for needing to talk "italian to
michael correleone"-- I need to excuse myself to talk "faux gaelic to
Mikey".

Accchhh! y'daft beastie...are y'deef as well as dumb?...do y'no ken
what I'm talking to you aboot,laddie?

Nooohh, Mikey... Of course, I believe your a traitor to the US Flag...
but the danger to the possible collection of m'multiple IRS CID Pizza
Delivery rewards is if those above you attempt to marginalize your
presence/participation once you forward the message.

Who knows more aboot these 34 murders than you, correct m'wee bairn?

While some of your superiors who know less may "pooh pooh" the
suggestions and say,"Oh...whoopy! Scotty couldna' even get "manual
override" t'work in even ONE episode of Star Trek... how is he ever
going to be able t'compel us to surrender before the Chief of Squad 3
of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI?"

That's why they need YOU, Mikey... Uncle Sam doesna' need YOU, Mikey
nearly as much as your evil Israeli overlords do!

Noohhh ..there isna' any BEST OPTION...

...there can only be a "least worst option" for the GOI....


...and that will be to hope US Attorney White accepts my plan; details
of which will be enumerated in that Yahoo!Group--- I told y'that I
wouldna' ask anybody t'buy a "pig in a poke", did I no?