Re: Weather vs. Combat

[Gordon]

>How accurate is that statement and
>did weather also account for more losses than combat
>in previous wars (e.g: WW2, Korea, etc?)

My specialty is WWII nightfighting and I can say that, particularly in the
first half of the war, as many a/c were lost or abandoned due to weather (or
collisions in poor visibility) than to enemy action. One night off the top of
my head, a small RAF bomber force had to all abandon their aircraft due to viz
over their bases - something like 5 Wimpys, I think. On more than one occasion,
a Mosquito raid that lost no aircraft due to enemy action had to abandon their
aircraft upon return because there was no clear landing field. Such events were
not rare on either side and veteran nightfighter pilots uniformly considered
the weather every bit as much of an enemy as the other team.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Mike Marron]

(Gordon) wrote:

>My specialty is WWII nightfighting and I can say that, particularly in the
>first half of the war, as many a/c were lost or abandoned due to weather (or
>collisions in poor visibility) than to enemy action. One night off the top of
>my head, a small RAF bomber force had to all abandon their aircraft due to viz
>over their bases - something like 5 Wimpys, I think. On more than one occasion,
>a Mosquito raid that lost no aircraft due to enemy action had to abandon their
>aircraft upon return because there was no clear landing field. Such events were
>not rare on either side and veteran nightfighter pilots uniformly considered
>the weather every bit as much of an enemy as the other team.

I can think of a time or two that I would've loved to "abandon the
A/C" in Can't-See-**** conditions had I been wearing a chute.
One of my former bosses flew Huns in 'Nam and used to poo-poo
us lowly charter jockies when we'd complain about launching from
a short runway way over gross at night and in bad weather (of course,
he hadn't flown in ages and it was our asses on the line and not
his!) Granted, we weren't getting shot at but the risk was probably
just as great because we weren't launching from a nice 10,000 ft. long
runway with barriers and emergency equipment/personnel at the end
in a jet equipped with an ejection seat and the best maintenance
that money could buy. In any event, other than NDB's, what type of
instrument approaches were generally available back in WW2?

-Mike Marron

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mike Marron wrote:
> In any event, other than NDB's, what type of
> instrument approaches were generally available back in WW2?


Radio ranges. Pilots flew along a beam listening to dots and dashes. The tone
changed if you drifted off the beam. Some of the old timers here can explain
this a lot better than me since I didn't start flying until the late 1970's.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Gordon) wrote:
>
> >My specialty is WWII nightfighting and I can say that, particularly in
the
> >first half of the war, as many a/c were lost or abandoned due to weather
(or
> >collisions in poor visibility) than to enemy action. One night off the
top of
> >my head, a small RAF bomber force had to all abandon their aircraft due
to viz
> >over their bases - something like 5 Wimpys, I think. On more than one
occasion,
> >a Mosquito raid that lost no aircraft due to enemy action had to abandon
their
> >aircraft upon return because there was no clear landing field. Such
events were
> >not rare on either side and veteran nightfighter pilots uniformly
considered
> >the weather every bit as much of an enemy as the other team.
>
> I can think of a time or two that I would've loved to "abandon the
> A/C" in Can't-See-**** conditions had I been wearing a chute.
> One of my former bosses flew Huns in 'Nam and used to poo-poo
> us lowly charter jockies when we'd complain about launching from
> a short runway way over gross at night and in bad weather (of course,
> he hadn't flown in ages and it was our asses on the line and not
> his!) Granted, we weren't getting shot at but the risk was probably
> just as great because we weren't launching from a nice 10,000 ft. long
> runway with barriers and emergency equipment/personnel at the end
> in a jet equipped with an ejection seat and the best maintenance
> that money could buy. In any event, other than NDB's, what type of
> instrument approaches were generally available back in WW2?
>
> -Mike Marron
>

Ground controlled approach using precision radar was pioneered by the RAF in
WW2. Arthur C Clarke wrote an excellent book
called 'Glide Path' about the project (on which he worked)

The Germans had the Lorenz blind landing system and both the
Americans and British had similar systems in use pre war

In 1930 the American Bureau of standards introduced the first directional
guidance system using a transmission on 330 kHz with two tones
that were transmitted of 65 and 85.7 Hz.
In the aircraft receiver, these were received, applied to filters, detected
and used to energise a centre zero meter. The edge of the airfield was
defined
by the cone of silence over a simple beacon modulated at 40 Hz

F. Dunmore improved on the system by adding a VHF signal on 93 MHz that
was transmitted from a location at the upwind end of the runway, if the
aerial
was mounted at a suitable height, then a line of equal field strength would
approximate to the require vertical guidance pattern.

The first blind landing using this system took place in 1931

Keith

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Radio ranges. Pilots flew along a beam listening to dots and dashes.
> The tone changed if you drifted off the beam. Some of the old timers
> here can explain this a lot better than me since I didn't start
> flying until the late 1970's.


As I think about it, the Morse that was transmitted was a series of A's and N's.
I can't remember any more than that about it.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Mike Marron]

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>Ground controlled approach using precision radar was pioneered by
>the RAF in WW2. Arthur C Clarke wrote an excellent book
>called 'Glide Path' about the project (on which he worked)

>The Germans had the Lorenz blind landing system and both the
>Americans and British had similar systems in use pre war

>In 1930 the American Bureau of standards introduced the first directional
>guidance system using a transmission on 330 kHz with two tones
>that were transmitted of 65 and 85.7 Hz.
> In the aircraft receiver, these were received, applied to filters, detected
>and used to energise a centre zero meter. The edge of the airfield was
>defined by the cone of silence over a simple beacon modulated at 40 Hz
>F. Dunmore improved on the system by adding a VHF signal on 93 MHz that
>was transmitted from a location at the upwind end of the runway, if the
>aerial was mounted at a suitable height, then a line of equal field strength
>would approximate to the require vertical guidance pattern.

>The first blind landing using this system took place in 1931

So, in a nutshell GCA was the primary precision approach
and NDB was the primary non-precision approach used in WW2?

-Mike Marron

[Chris Mark]

>From: Mike Marron mjma

>did weather also account for more losses than combat
>in previous wars (e.g: WW2, Korea, etc?)
I would bet that, depending on how you define a "weather" loss, it did. (I
would classify a weather loss as including weather related navigation errors
that lead to collision with terrain or fuel exhaustion.)
I had a friend who flew P-51 escort missions to Japan. He never completed
one successfully and only twice reached Japan (going into the drink each of
these two times). Weather aborts were common. He described his missions to me
some years ago. Weather figures heavily.
for example, a mission escorting B-29s to bomb Kanoya, Kyushu. Briefing
advises might encounter "weather" as they approach Kyushu. P-51s and B-29s to
rendevous 100 miles from coast. At rendevous is where encounter weather front,
multiple dense cloud layers from 1,000 feet to over 24,000 feet. Below 1,000
feet fog and rain with only occasional glimpses of sea or land. B-29s were
stacked from 8,000 to 14,000 feet. Attempting to find them and maintain station
on them led to a series of near misses as a bomber suddenly emerged from the
opaque white void. He lost contact with all other P-51s and finally climbed to
24,000 feet in an attempt to keep clear of B-29s. A that altitude his oxygen
system failed--fortunately he noticed the problem before falling
unconscious--and he dove back into the murk and as luck would have it nearly
collided with four P-51s in a tight formation being led by the squadron CO. He
attached himself to them as they descended to below 1,000 feet and made a run
for Iwo Jima. His total flight time on this aborted mission was 7.5 hours.
Four planes and pilots from his squadron never returned, presumed lost due to
inclement weather.
Another mission to escort B-29s bombing Tachikawa, encounter similar front
looming over Honshu. Rendevous point with bombers is beyond front. Attempt to
penetrate, squadron flying tight formation on lead so no one will become lost.
Very rough air makes it impossible to maintain formation without risk of
collision. realize no possibility of effectively escorting bombers and the
mission is aborted. On return to Iwo, the island is blanketed in thick fog.
Orbit until clears enough to land. Total time six hours.
Next mission almost a repeat, on instruments from take-off through 16,000 feet,
then into clear air only to see a wall of clouds extending above 30,000 feet
looming ahead. Mission is aborted, flgith time at return four hours.
No official mission credit for any of these aborted missions, on each of which
some pilots failed to return.
As to how they navigated, they had "navigator" B-29s to follow, which worked in
good weather. And they kept a ded reckoning plot. There were a series of
volcanic islands on the way to the Tokyo area that helped them check their ded
reckoning. Later they had Uncle Dog VHF.
He noted that the heavily loaded P-51s could only climb very gradually and
would scarcely climb at all above 20,000 feet until they burned off a fair
amount of fuel. on strafing missions they carried rockets, which made the
airplane almost unmanageable for about the first hour of flight, due to the
extra weight and drag. In order to have sufficient fuel to carry out the
mission, they needed to burn 40gph on the run to and from Japan. To do that
they cruised at, iirc, 205mph at 29 inches and 2350 rpm, auto lean.
Of the two mission he actually made it to Japan he ran out of fuel on the
return from the first one, ditching near a picket boat, and was shot down by an
enemy fighter on the second one, parachuting into Tokyo Bay, where he was
rescued by a submarine.
He returned home without ever completing another mission and as a result didn't
even earn an Air Medal, althopugh he had plenty of terrifying tales to tell of
aborted missions, once you got him talking, which usually was on the second or
third evening of a packhorse trip and required a good ration of fresh-caught,
pan-fried trout, campfire biscuits, a pipe filled with his favorite Three Nuns
tobacco and copious libations of Jack Daniels. A good sunset afterglow in crisp
air, crackling campfire, nickering horses, dog lolling by your knee, good
friends, good food, good drink and good stories. What more could you want?


Chris Mark

[Joey Bishop]

"Chris Mark" > wrote
>
....

> third evening of a packhorse trip and required a good ration of fresh-caught,
> pan-fried trout, campfire biscuits, a pipe filled with his favorite Three Nuns
> tobacco and copious libations of Jack Daniels. A good sunset afterglow in crisp
> air, crackling campfire, nickering horses, dog lolling by your knee, good
> friends, good food, good drink and good stories. What more could you want?

An Internet connection! :-)

[Ed Rasimus]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>The link below shows just how dangerous flying
>into a thunderboomer can be. I understand that more
>aircraft were lost in Vietnam due to weather than
>enemy fire. How accurate is that statement and
>did weather also account for more losses than combat
>in previous wars (e.g: WW2, Korea, etc?)

Certainly there were losses in Vietnam due to weather factors, but I
would say definitely not more than enemy fire. In the "in-country" war
in South Vietnam, the defenses were low threat--predominantly small
arms and automatic weapons with the very occasional SA-7 thrown in
during the later years. More folks lost airplanes due to heavy-weight
ops, pilot errors, maintenance malfunction, etc.

In the North, with SAMs, MiGs and an integrated air defense system of
guns from 12.7/14.5mm up to 120 mm both visual and radar directed, the
defenses claimed the airplanes, not the weather.

In two tours, always going to NVN, I can recall only one weather
related loss--an F-4E in '73 that ran off the runway in a rain storm
at night at Korat. Hydroplaning. Crew ejected safely.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Ed Rasimus]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>> Radio ranges. Pilots flew along a beam listening to dots and dashes.
>> The tone changed if you drifted off the beam. Some of the old timers
>> here can explain this a lot better than me since I didn't start
>> flying until the late 1970's.
>
>
>As I think about it, the Morse that was transmitted was a series of A's and N's.
>I can't remember any more than that about it.

Four wide angle beams. Two quadrants broadcast A and two broadcast
N--one is dot/dash, the other is dash/dot (don't remember which is A
and which is N.)

When the beams overlapped, defining the published course you got a
steady tone. Veer to one side you began to discriminate A, veer off
course the other way and you got N. One course---hummmmmmmmmm.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Chris Mark]

>From: Ed Rasimus

>Four wide angle beams. Two quadrants broadcast A and two broadcast
>N--one is dot/dash, the other is dash/dot (don't remember which is A
>and which is N.)

When introduced in WW2 the system was called Uncle Dog and used a D (dash dot
dot) and a U (dot dot dash).


Chris Mark

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>In any event, other than NDB's, what type of
>instrument approaches were generally available back in WW2?

NDBs (if available) would most likely be switched off over the UK to
prevent them being of use to the LW. The Germans had quite a good radio
system (Lorenz?) for giving the pilot a centreline.

--
John

[Joey Bishop]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
> Four wide angle beams. Two quadrants broadcast A and two broadcast
> N--one is dot/dash, the other is dash/dot (don't remember which is A
> and which is N.)
>
> When the beams overlapped, defining the published course you got a
> steady tone. Veer to one side you began to discriminate A, veer off
> course the other way and you got N. One course---hummmmmmmmmm.

Trivial Pursuit: N = dah dit A = dit dah

[s.p.i.]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
> The link below shows just how dangerous flying
> into a thunderboomer can be. I understand that more
> aircraft were lost in Vietnam due to weather than
> enemy fire. How accurate is that statement and
> did weather also account for more losses than combat
> in previous wars (e.g: WW2, Korea, etc?)
>
> http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/f.braaksma/
>
> -Mike Marron

Weather has been the direct cause and indirect contributor to several
helo and UAV losses in OEF and OIF. Its hard to find direct info on
this but wx could well be the leading causal factor in aircraft losses
in those two conflicts

[Mike Marron]

> (s.p.i.) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>The link below shows just how dangerous flying
>> into a thunderboomer can be. I understand that more
>> aircraft were lost in Vietnam due to weather than
>> enemy fire. How accurate is that statement and
>> did weather also account for more losses than combat
>> in previous wars (e.g: WW2, Korea, etc?)

>> http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/f.braaksma/

>> -Mike Marron

>Weather has been the direct cause and indirect contributor to several
>helo and UAV losses in OEF and OIF. Its hard to find direct info on
>this but wx could well be the leading causal factor in aircraft losses
>in those two conflicts

Thanks. Weather continues to be the #1 killer in GA and commercial
aviation.

As an aside, here's a personal story of an F-18 Hornet's
recent recovery by barricade. . at night .. on an aircraft carrier in
the Pacific:

***

[ Note : a barricade is a huge net . . 20 ft high and stretches across
the carrier's deck to 'catch' airplanes during extreme emergencies.]

Oyster, here. This note is to share with you the exciting night I had
the other month. It has nothing to do with me wanting to talk about
me. But it has everything to do with sharing what will no doubt
become a better story as the years go by. So....

There I was .. ' manned up' a hot seat for the 2030 night launch about
500 miles north of Hawaii. I was taxied off toward the carrier's
island where I did a 180 degree turn to get spotted to be the first
one off Catapult # 1. They lowered my launch bar and started the
launch cycle. All systems were ' go' on the runup. And after waiting
the requisite 5 seconds to make sure my flight controls are good to
go, I turned on my lights. As is my habit I shifted my eyes to the
catwalk and watched the deck edge dude and as he started his
routine of looking left, then right. I put my head back against the
head rest.

The Hornet cat shot is pretty impressive. As the cat fires, I stage
the afterburners and am along for the ride. Just prior to the end of
the stroke .. there's a huge flash . . and a simultaneous . .
B-O-O-M ! And my night world is in turmoil.

My little pink body is doing 145 knots or so and is 100 feet above the
black Pacific. And there it stays -- except for the airspeed, which
decreases to 140 knots. Some where in here I raised my gear. And
the throttles aren't going any farther forward despite my
Schwarzze-negerian efforts to make them do so.

From out of the ether I hear a voice say one word: "JETTISON ! "
Rogered that ! And a nano second later my two drops and single
MER, about 4,500 pounds in all, are Black Pacific bound. The airplane
leapt up a bit but not enough. I'm now about a mile in front of the
boat at 160 feet and fluctuating from 135 to 140 knots. The next
comment that comes out of the ether is another one-worder: " EJECT ! "
I'm still flying . . so I respond . . " Not yet . . I've still got
it."

Finally, at 4 miles ahead of the boat, I take a peek at my engine
instruments and notice my left engine . . doesn't match the right. (
Funny, how quick glimpses at instruments get burned into your brain.)
The left rpm is at 48% even though I'm still doing the Ah-Nold thing.
I bring it back out of afterburner to military power. About now I get
another " EJECT ! " call. "Nope . . it's still flying."

At 5 1/2 miles I asked tower to please get the helo headed my way as I
truly thought I was going to be ' shelling out '. At some point, I
thought it would probably be a good idea to start dumping some gas.
But as my hand reached down for the dump switch, I actually
remembered that we had a NATOPS operation prohibition against
dumping fuel while in afterburner. But after a second or two
[contemplating the threat of the unnecessarily burden] I turned the
fuel dump switches on. Immediately [ I was told later ] . . SIXTY FOOT
ROMAN CANDLE . . BEGAN TRAILING BEHIND. At 7 miles I started
a ( very slight ) climb to get a little breathing room. CATCC control
chimes in giving me a downwind [ landing pattern] heading . . and I'm
like: "Ooh . . what a good idea" . . and I throw down my tail hook.

Eventually I get headed downwind to the carrier at 900 feet and ask
for a Tech Rep [Manufacturer's Technical Representative]. While
waiting, I shut down the left engine. But In short order, I hear Scott
"Fuzz" McClure's voice. I tell him the following : " OK Fuzz, my
gear's up . . my left motor's off . . and I'm only able to stay level
by using minimum afterburner. And every time I pull it back to
military power, I start down at about a hundred feet per minute."

I just continue trucking downwind . . trying to stay level . . and
keep dumping fuel. I think I must have been in afterburner for about
fifteen minutes. At ten miles or so I'm down to 5000 pounds of gas
and start a turn back toward the ship. I don't intend to land but I
don't want to get too far away. Of course, as soon I as I stuck in
that angle of bank . . I start dropping like a stone. So I end up
doing a [shallow bank] 5 mile [radius] circle around the ship.

Fuzz is reading me the single engine rate of climb numbers from
the ' book' based on temperature, etc. And it doesn't take us long
to figure out that things aren't adding up. One of the things I'd
learned about the Hornet is that it is a perfectly good single engine
aircraft . . flies great on one motor. So why do I now need blower
[afterburner ] to stay level ?

By this time, I'm talking to the Deputy CAG ( turning [duty] on the
flight deck) and CAG who's on the bridge with the Captain. And we
decide that the thing to do is climb to three thousand feet and '
dirty up' [gear and flaps down] to see if I'm going to have the excess
power needed to be able to shoot a night approach for a landing.

I get headed downwind . . go full burner on my remaining motor . . and
eventually make it to 2000 feet before leveling out below a scattered
layer of puffy clouds. And the 'puffies' are silhouetted against a
half a moon which was really, really cool. I start a turn back toward
the ship . . and when I get pointed in the right direction . . I throw
the gear down and pull the throttle out of after-burner.

Remember that flash/boom! . . that started this little tale ?

[ Repeat it here ] . . Boom ! I jam it back into afterburner, and
after three or four huge compressor stalls [and accompanying
deceleration] the right motor ' comes back'. I'm thinking my blood
pressure was probably ' up there' about now . . and for the first
time, I notice that my mouth has dried up.

This next part is great. You know those stories about guys who
deadstick crippled airplanes away from the orphanages and
puppy stores and stuff and get all this great media attention?
Well, at this point I'm looking at the picket ship in front of me, at
about two miles, and I transmit to no one in particular,
"You need to have the picket ship hang a left right now. I think I'm
gonna be outta here in a second." I said it very calmly but with
meaning. The picket immediately pitched out of the fight. Ha!
I scored major points with the heavies afterwards for this. Anyway,
it's funny how your mind works in these situations.

OK, so I'm dirty and I get it back level and pass a couple miles up
the starboard side of the ship. I'm still in minimum blower and my
fuel state is now about 2500 pounds. Hmmm. I hadn't really thought
about running out of gas. I muster up the gonads to pull it out of
blower again and sure enough...flash, BOOM! I'm thinking that I'm
gonna end up punching out and tell Fuzz at this point " Dude, I really
don't want to try that again." Don't think everyone else got
it . . but he chuckled.

Eventually I discover that even the tiniest throttle movements cause
the ' flash/boom thing ' to happen so I'm trying to be as smooth as I
can. I'm downwind a couple miles when CAG comes up and says,
" Oyster, we're going to rig the barricade."

Remember, CAG's up on the bridge watching me fly around doing
blower donuts in the sky and he's also thinking I'm gonna run outta
JP-5 fuel. By now I've told everyone who's listening that there a
better than average chance that I'm going to be ejecting. (The
helicopter bubbas . . God bless 'em . . have been
following me around this entire time.)

I continue downwind and again, sounding more calm than I probably
was, call the LSO. " Paddles, you up [listening] ?" "Go ahead" replies
" Max" Stout, one of our LSO's. "Max, I probably know most of it ,but
do you want to shoot me the barricade briefing?" So, in about a minute
... he went from expecting me to ' punch out ' .. to have me asking for
the barricade brief [so he was hyperventilating.] But he was awesome
to hear on the radio though . . just the kind of voice you'd want to
hear in this situation.

He gives me the barricade brief. And at nine miles I say, "If I turn
now will ' it ' be up when I get there? Because I don't want to have
to go around again." "It's going up right now, Oyster. Go ahead and
turn." "Turning in, say the final bearing." "Zero six three," replies
the voice in CATCC. " " OK, I'm on a four degree glide slope and I'm
at 800 feet. I will intercept glide slope at about a mile and three
quarters then reduce power. "

When I reduced power : Flash/boom ! [ Add power out of fear.] Going
high ! Pull power. Flash/boom ! [ Add power out of fear.] Going
higher !

[Flashback to LSO school...." All right class, today's lecture will be
on the single engine barricade approach. Remember, the one place
you really, really don't want to be is high. O.K.? You can go play
golf now."] I start to set up a higher than desired sink rate the LSO
hits the " Eat At Joe's" wave-off night lights." Very timely too. I
stroke the AB and cross the flight deck with my right hand on the
stick and my left thinking about the little yellow and black ejection
handle between my legs.

No worries. I cleared that sucker by at least ten feet. By the way my
fuel state at the ball call was [now low] at 1.1. As I slowly climb
out I punched the radio button saying . . again to no one in
particular : " I can do this." I'm in blower still and CAG says, "Turn
downwind." After I get turned around he says, "Oyster, this is gonna
be your last look [at the boat in the dark below] so you can turn in
again as soon as you're comfortable."

I flew the DAY pattern and I lost about 200 feet in the turn and like
a total dumbs_ I look out of the cockpit as I get on centerline and
that " night thing about feeling that I'm too high " grabbed me . .
and [ in error] I pushed down further to 400 feet.

I got kinda irked at myself then as I realized I would now be
intercepting the four degree glide slope in the middle .. with a
flash/boom every several seconds all the way down. Last look at
my gas was 600-and-some pounds [100 gallons] at a mile and a half.
"Where am I on the glide slope, Max ?" I ask. And I and hear a calm
"Roger Ball." I know I'm low because the ILS is waaay up there.


I can't remember what the response was but by now the ball's
shooting up from the depths. I start flying it but before I get a
chance to spot the deck I hear : " Cut, cut, CUT !" I'm really glad I
was a paddles for so long because my mind said to me " Do what
he says Oyster ! " and I pulled it back to idle. (My hook hit 11 paces
from the ramp. The rest is pretty tame. I hit the deck . . skipped the
one, the two and snagged the three wire and rolled into the
barricade about a foot right of centerline.

Once stopped, my vocal cords involuntarily shouted, " VICTORY ! "
The deck lights came on bright . . and off to my right there must have
been a . . ga-zillion cranials and eyes watching.

You could hear a huge cheer across the flight deck. After I open the
canopy and the first guy I see is our huge Flight Deck Chief named
Richards. And he gives me the coolest personal look . . and then two
thumbs up. I will remember all of that forever.

P.S. You're probably wondering what gave motors problems. When
they taxied that last Hornet over the catapult .. they forgot to
remove a section or two of the rubber cat seal. When the catapult
shuttle came back [to hook me up], it removed the cat rubber seal
which was then inhaled by both motors during my catapult stroke. Left
engine basically quit even though the motor is in pretty good shape.
But it was producing no thrust and during the wave-off one of the
LSO's saw "about thirty feet" of black rubber hanging off the left
side of the airplane.

The right motor .. the one that kept running .. had 340 major hits to
all engine stages. The compressor section is trashed . . and best of
all . . it had two pieces of the cat seal [one 2 feet and the other
about 4 feet long] sticking out of the first stage and into the air
intake. God Bless General Electric ! By the way, maintenance data
showed that I was fat on fuel -- I had 380 pounds ( 61 gallons) of gas
when I shut down.

Again, remember this particular number as in ten years [ of story
telling] when it will surely be . . " FUMES MAN . . FUMES . . I TELL
YOU ! "

Oyster, out.

[abridged]

[Gooneybird]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>In any event, other than NDB's, what type of
> >>instrument approaches were generally available back in WW2?
>
> >Radio ranges. Pilots flew along a beam listening to dots and dashes. The
tone
> >changed if you drifted off the beam. Some of the old timers here can explain
> >this a lot better than me since I didn't start flying until the late 1970's.

Since I qualify as one of the old timers, this is how it worked as best as this
over the hill WWII airplane driver can remember it:

Try to visualize two intersecting lines creating the form of a cross, which is
the radio range with
its station at the intersection. Each of the opposing quadrants broadcasts
either an "a" or an "n"
in Morse code, i.e.- ".-" or "-." Where the adjacent quadrants come together,
the signals merge
and become a solid tone, which becomes one of the legs of the range. The merger
was never abrupt as
I recall, so if you were flying at right angles to a leg, you heard a clear "n"
as you approached a
leg, and then slowly started to hear a solid tone in the background. The closer
you got to the leg,
the less you were able to hear the "n" until it completely disappeared as you
flew over the leg.
When you started to pick up the "a" over the solid tone of the leg, you were
outbound from the leg.

Let down procedures were published, just as they are now. So, whatever your
heading happened to be,
the first thing you did was to ID the station, which broadcast its unique
identifier in Morse every
minute or so (I don't recall how often). Then, you'd identify the quadrant you
were in, as well as
which leg of the range you were approaching (by the solid tone becoming louder
or lower), each of
which had its own published let down headings and altitudes. Work this out on a
piece of scratch
paper, and I think it'll make more sense to you than just trying to visualize it
from words.

Reverse turns were almost always initially done by flying outbound on a leg,
then a 45 degree turn
(all turns single needle width) either left or right and fly for a minute on
that heading, then a
180 in either direction until the leg was again intercepted, followed by a 45
degree turn to the
inbound heading.

Somewhere along the line, somebody discovered that if you did a 90 degree turn
to the left of the
outbound leg heading and then a 270 to the right as soon as you hit the 90
heading, you'd end up at
the same place inbound on the leg and didn't have to time your outbound leg
after the 45 turn, which
was useful when your clock was inop or at night when your cockpit lighting
wasn't what it should
have been.

When RDBs became available, they simplified the process because you had a visual
pointer to help you
identify the station location, instead of having to rely on the clarity of audio
radio reception
which, when you were far enough from the station and in bad wx or over poor
radio reception terrain,
could be a challenge.

At any rate, after a while, stations were lined up so that their legs were in
what were the
forerunners of airways, so that you could navigate over distances simply by
flying from the legs of
one station on to those of another ahead of you. I once ferried a gooneybird
from the east coast to
someplace near Riverside, Cal. for a major overhaul by flying radio ranges all
the way.

I hope that helped explain how the system worked. I hope I didn't have too much
screwed up, but
it's the best I can do with the memory available to me of details I used 60
years ago or so.

Please feel free with the questions if I've left something muddy or otherwise
unclear. I may or may
not be able to clarify it, but I will try.

George Z.

[PosterBoy]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an anecdote from Capt Frank Dailey that gives a little bit of the
> flavor of weather on flight operations in the ww2 era:
>
> "Dick Korn was a PPC in squadron VP-H/L-7 who became the beneficiary of a
good
> APS-15 radar operator in his crew. The circumstance began as a simple
transit
> flight from NAS Kodiak to NAS Adak, with some off-airways patrolling along
the
> way. Aleutian weather reared its head and as its first challenge provided
> headwinds much higher than those forecast.
>
> By the time the Korn-piloted PB4Y-2 got to the vicinity of Adak, it had
> exceeded its planned fuel consumption. Adak had closed in. I happened to
be at
> Adak as a fill-in copilot for our Operations Officer, Lcdr. Wagoner. It
was now
> snowing heavily at NAS Adak .The airfield was now below even GCA minimums.
Dick
> Korn elected to try a GCA approach at Adak as he began to doubt that he
had
> fuel enough to reach his alternate at Shemya. Wagoner went down to Adak's
> Operations room, right next to the tower. I stayed in our assigned Quonset
hut
> on top of a hill just south of the runway. My next experience was to hear
a
> plane with its engines in full roar making a pullup to the south and
passing so
> close overhead that the Quonset huts all rattled. Then I went down to
> Operations and found Wagoner in communication with Dick Korn. Wagoner
asked
> Korn to get a fuel report from his plane captain. It took longer than it
should
> have and when Wagoner finally got it, he made some quick calculations and
> barked out instructions to Dick Korn. "Set your course direct for Shemya,
using
> your radar operator to track you out there. Do not fly via the standard
airways
> route. You do not have enough fuel. Do not try to land here. This field is
> almost zero-zero." Korn's crew grasped these instructions quickly and
their
> plane gradually disappeared from the NAS Adak radarscope. Wagoner got into
> voice communication with Shemya Control and told them the story. He asked
that
> Korn be given a straight-in approach and that the Bartow lights on the
runway
> be set at Strength Five. It was raining slightly at Shemya but they had
two
> miles visibility under a low overcast. The PB4Y-2 radar worked to
perfection.
> Dick Korn and crew made a straight in approach and landed at Shemya.
Number one
> engine quit on final approach and the # 2, 3, and 4 engine tanks when
dipped,
> had twenty, twenty and thirty gallons left, respectively. (The wing tanks
held
> about 2400 gallons when topped off.) The radar and the radar operator had
> scored again. Wagoner set another high mark for intelligent and timely
decision
> making. And Dick Korn was smart enough to follow instructions."
> Chris Mark

Chris...and others interested in the above anecdote...
You would be interested in "The Thousand-Mile War" (World War Two in
Alaska and the Aleutians") by Brian Garfield.
There are a number of these 'weather' stories. In fact, the weather in the
area impacted on most of the true tales in this remarkable book. IMHBUAO.

Cheers.

[PosterBoy]

"Peter Bjoern" > wrote in message
...

> I have an original AAF Technical Order 30-100 "Instrument Flying
> Basic and Advanced" published on 15 January 1944.
> Btw. it looks like a kind of predecessor to the later AFM 51-37.
>
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ LOTSA GOODSTUF SNIPPED \/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> The third part (T.O. 30-100F-1) covers the Army Air Forces Instrument
> Approach System. Dated 10 November 1943.
>
> This is nothing less than an ILS system, complete with localizer,
> glide path and marker beacons. The frequencies used are even the same
> as used today, though there were only six frequencies available for
> the localizer, named channels U,V,W,X,Y and Z in the area 108.3 to
> 110.3 MHz or megacycles as they used then. The glide path was using
> frequencies around 335 mc and the marker beacons 75 mc just as today.
> The airborne equipment is a receiver control box to tune the desired
> channel and the well known crossed-needle instrument with the blue/yellow
> zones.
>
> I don't know how widely available this system was, but at least it
> was known and developed as early as November 1943 and considered
> important enough to place in the instrument flying manual.

Not very widely available, but others have commented as you did about the
longevity of the system developed way back then. One of them is Roger Mola
of Aviation International News who, incidentally, won the Northrop Grumman
Award for the Best Breaking News Submission ( for 'Shutdown of National
Airspace system was 'organized mayhem' ).
And he comments on dates and such of the ILS family development, at the
US Centennial of Flight Commision website:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/index.cfm (my notes in brackets below):

(SIX LOCATIONS IN 1941)
The instrument landing system (ILS) incorporated the best features of both
approach lighting and radio beacons with higher frequency transmissions. The
ILS painted an electronic picture of the glideslope onto a pilot's cockpit
instruments. Tests of the system began in 1929, and the Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA) authorized installation of the system in 1941 at six
locations. The first landing of a scheduled U.S. passenger airliner using
ILS was on January 26, 1938, as a Pennsylvania-Central Airlines Boeing 247-D
flew from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh and landed in a snowstorm using
only the ILS system.

(ILS REMAINS UNCHANGED)
More than one type of ILS system was tried. The system eventually adopted
consisted of a course indicator (called a localizer) that showed whether the
plane was to the left or right of the runway centerline, a glide path or
landing beam to show if the plane was above or below the glide slope, and
two marker beacons for showing the progress of approach to the landing
field. Equipment in the airplane allowed the pilot to receive the
information that was sent so he could keep the craft on a perfect flight
path to visual contact with the runway. Approach lighting and other
visibility equipment are part of the ILS and also aid the pilot in landing.
In 2001, the ILS remains basically unchanged.

(NINE LOCATIONS BY 1945, TEN UNDERWAY)
By 1945, nine CAA systems were operating and 10 additional locations were
under construction.

(ARMY INSTALLING 50)
Another 50 were being installed for the army. On January 15, 1945, the U.S.
Army introduced an ILS with a higher frequency transmitter to reduce static
and create straighter courses, called the Army Air Forces Instrument
Approach System Signal Set 51. In 1949, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) adopted this army standard for all member countries. In
the 1960s, the first ILS equipment for fully blind landings became possible.

Cheers.

[Gooneybird]

You're quite welcome. I'll have to tell the missus, whatzername, that somebody
complimented me on my memory. (^-^)))

Thanks for the nice words.

George Z.

PosterBoy wrote:
> "Gooneybird" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since I qualify as one of the old timers, this is how it worked as best as
>> this over the hill WWII airplane driver can remember it:
>>
>> Try to visualize two intersecting lines creating the form of a cross, which
>> is the radio range with
>> its station at the intersection. Each of the opposing quadrants broadcasts
>> either an "a" or an "n"
>> in Morse code, i.e.- ".-" or "-." Where the adjacent quadrants come
>> together, the signals merge
>> and become a solid tone, which becomes one of the legs of the range. The
>> merger was never abrupt as
>> I recall, so if you were flying at right angles to a leg, you heard a clear
>> "n" as you approached a
>> leg, and then slowly started to hear a solid tone in the background. The
>> closer you got to the leg,
>> the less you were able to hear the "n" until it completely disappeared as you
>> flew over the leg.
>> When you started to pick up the "a" over the solid tone of the leg, you were
>> outbound from the leg.
>>
>> Let down procedures were published, just as they are now. So, whatever your
>> heading happened to be,
>> the first thing you did was to ID the station, which broadcast its unique
>> identifier in Morse every
>> minute or so (I don't recall how often). Then, you'd identify the quadrant
>> you were in, as well as
>> which leg of the range you were approaching (by the solid tone becoming
>> louder or lower), each of
>> which had its own published let down headings and altitudes. Work this out
>> on a piece of scratch
>> paper, and I think it'll make more sense to you than just trying to
>> visualize it from words.
>>
>> Reverse turns were almost always initially done by flying outbound on a leg,
>> then a 45 degree turn
>> (all turns single needle width) either left or right and fly for a minute on
>> that heading, then a
>> 180 in either direction until the leg was again intercepted, followed by a 45
>> degree turn to the
>> inbound heading.
>>
>> Somewhere along the line, somebody discovered that if you did a 90 degree
>> turn to the left of the
>> outbound leg heading and then a 270 to the right as soon as you hit the 90
>> heading, you'd end up at
>> the same place inbound on the leg and didn't have to time your outbound leg
>> after the 45 turn, which
>> was useful when your clock was inop or at night when your cockpit lighting
>> wasn't what it should
>> have been.
>>
>> When RDBs became available, they simplified the process because you had a
>> visual pointer to help you
>> identify the station location, instead of having to rely on the clarity of
>> audio radio reception
>> which, when you were far enough from the station and in bad wx or over poor
>> radio reception terrain,
>> could be a challenge.
>>
>> At any rate, after a while, stations were lined up so that their legs were in
>> what were the
>> forerunners of airways, so that you could navigate over distances simply by
>> flying from the legs of
>> one station on to those of another ahead of you. I once ferried a gooneybird
>> from the east coast to
>> someplace near Riverside, Cal. for a major overhaul by flying radio ranges
>> all the way.
>>
>> I hope that helped explain how the system worked. I hope I didn't have too
>> much screwed up, but
>> it's the best I can do with the memory available to me of details I used 60
>> years ago or so.
>>
>> Please feel free with the questions if I've left something muddy or otherwise
>> unclear. I may or may
>> not be able to clarify it, but I will try.
>> George Z.
>
> Well, George....
> With a nitpick here or there, I'd say your memory works pretty well !!!
> You may be interested to know that as late as the mid-50s, despite USAF's
> use of both VOR and ILS, we still had"ADF" and "GCA" stamped on the back of
> our Instrument Flight cards (together with VOR 'n ILS) because we gave (and
> had to pass, ourselves) the quadrant approach orientation as part of the
> annual IFR flight check. It was interesting, espy when you hit the null
> cone and wondered if it was station passage or problem with the radio!!.
> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> Cheers.

[PosterBoy]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Weather vs. Combat
> >From: "PosterBoy"
> >Date: 8/29/03 6:04 PM Pacific
>
> >(ILS REMAINS UNCHANGED)
> >More than one type of ILS system was tried. The system eventually adopted
> >consisted of a course indicator (called a localizer) that showed whether
the
> >plane was to the left or right of the runway centerline, a glide path or
> >landing beam to show if the plane was above or below the glide slope, and
> >two marker beacons for showing the progress of approach to the landing
> >field. Equipment in the airplane allowed the pilot to receive the
> >information that was sent so he could keep the craft on a perfect flight
> >path to visual contact with the runway. Approach lighting and other
> >visibility equipment are part of the ILS and also aid the pilot in
landing.
> >In 2001, the ILS remains basically unchanged.
> >
> >(NINE LOCATIONS BY 1945, TEN UNDERWAY)
> >By 1945, nine CAA systems were operating and 10 additional locations were
> >under construction.
> >
> >(ARMY INSTALLING 50)
> >Another 50 were being installed for the army. On January 15, 1945, the
U.S.
> >Army introduced an ILS with a higher frequency transmitter to reduce
static
> >and create straighter courses, called the Army Air Forces Instrument
> >Approach System Signal Set 51. In 1949, the International Civil Aviation
> >Organization (ICAO) adopted this army standard for all member countries.
In
> >the 1960s, the first ILS equipment for fully blind landings became
possible.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
>
>
> Here's the way we did it when flying out of Stansted England before D-Day.
..
> You would taxi out to the head of the runway. If you could see the end of
the
> runway you went. If you couldn't see the end of the runway you went
anyway.

Believe it, Art!!
Same-same K-2 in Korea, 'cept it was mainly haze from the breakfast kimchi
pots in the nearby village of Taegu!
And, I'm sure that the air conditioning system...which could and did blow
frost all around the '86 cockpit...made waiting for the haze to clear a bit
more pleasant than in the Maurader.

Cheers.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Weather vs. Combat
>From: "PosterBoy"
>Date: 8/29/03 7:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Weather vs. Combat
>> >From: "PosterBoy"
>> >Date: 8/29/03 6:04 PM Pacific
>>
>> >(ILS REMAINS UNCHANGED)
>> >More than one type of ILS system was tried. The system eventually adopted
>> >consisted of a course indicator (called a localizer) that showed whether
>the
>> >plane was to the left or right of the runway centerline, a glide path or
>> >landing beam to show if the plane was above or below the glide slope, and
>> >two marker beacons for showing the progress of approach to the landing
>> >field. Equipment in the airplane allowed the pilot to receive the
>> >information that was sent so he could keep the craft on a perfect flight
>> >path to visual contact with the runway. Approach lighting and other
>> >visibility equipment are part of the ILS and also aid the pilot in
>landing.
>> >In 2001, the ILS remains basically unchanged.
>> >
>> >(NINE LOCATIONS BY 1945, TEN UNDERWAY)
>> >By 1945, nine CAA systems were operating and 10 additional locations were
>> >under construction.
>> >
>> >(ARMY INSTALLING 50)
>> >Another 50 were being installed for the army. On January 15, 1945, the
>U.S.
>> >Army introduced an ILS with a higher frequency transmitter to reduce
>static
>> >and create straighter courses, called the Army Air Forces Instrument
>> >Approach System Signal Set 51. In 1949, the International Civil Aviation
>> >Organization (ICAO) adopted this army standard for all member countries.
>In
>> >the 1960s, the first ILS equipment for fully blind landings became
>possible.
>> >
>> > Cheers.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Here's the way we did it when flying out of Stansted England before D-Day.
>.
>> You would taxi out to the head of the runway. If you could see the end of
>the
>> runway you went. If you couldn't see the end of the runway you went
>anyway.
>
> Believe it, Art!!
> Same-same K-2 in Korea, 'cept it was mainly haze from the breakfast kimchi
>pots in the nearby village of Taegu!
> And, I'm sure that the air conditioning system...which could and did blow
>frost all around the '86 cockpit...made waiting for the haze to clear a bit
>more pleasant than in the Maurader.
>
>Cheers.
>
>

Our weather officer, Paul Forant (Boston) couldn't sleep nights and had a
recurring nightmare. He would dream he had the entire 344th in the air coming
back from a mission, low on fuel with wounded aboard with no place to bring us
down.

[Walt BJ]

Radio range - bad thing was it took about 20 minutes to shoot the
approach, and jet fighters, including T33, had to start early to make
one. Also it was very susceptible to atmospheric electrics,. The
static was really a problem during storms. Of course it was always a
non-precision approach with the station located several miles minimum
from the field. Most precise approach possible was when a range leg
centered the runway. Otherwise you let down to minimum altitude and
flew time and distance to the missed approach point, hoping a lot. At
Big Spring Texas (Webb AFB) you went 'missed approach' promptly on
time because the final approach heading neatly bisected 'Bust Your
Ass' Hill. It was also a circling approach there because (ISTR) the
inbound heading was about 45 degrees from runway 17.
I never even saw an ILS approach until I came back from Okinawa about
3 years after graduation from Big Springs. First real WX ILS was at
LAX; I'd made two (2) under the hood prior to that. But ILS is very
very good. Saved my butt from an icy night on the ice cap up at Thule
- saw the runway about 25 feet up through a dense snow shower. Nearest
alternate was Alert, 400 miles away - and of course we never had
enough fuel left in our F102s to get there.
Walt BJ

[Mike Marron]

> (Walt BJ) wrote:

>Radio range - bad thing was it took about 20 minutes to shoot the
>approach, and jet fighters, including T33, had to start early to make
>one. Also it was very susceptible to atmospheric electrics,. The
>static was really a problem during storms. Of course it was always a
>non-precision approach with the station located several miles minimum
>from the field. Most precise approach possible was when a range leg
>centered the runway. Otherwise you let down to minimum altitude and
>flew time and distance to the missed approach point, hoping a lot. At
>Big Spring Texas (Webb AFB) you went 'missed approach' promptly on
>time because the final approach heading neatly bisected 'Bust Your
>Ass' Hill. It was also a circling approach there because (ISTR) the
>inbound heading was about 45 degrees from runway 17.

Speaking of that, the following entry in Dad's log:

8 Feb 59 -- Pilot involved in Minor Aircraft Accident. Due to
windshield icing the Pilot, 1/Lt. Royce K. Kortbain, AO 3038717
landed T-33A Type Aircraft 35 feet to the right of the Runway.
1/Lt. Robert A. Marron, AO 3065592 was flying as Co-Pilot.

>I never even saw an ILS approach until I came back from Okinawa about
>3 years after graduation from Big Springs. First real WX ILS was at
>LAX; I'd made two (2) under the hood prior to that. But ILS is very
>very good. Saved my butt from an icy night on the ice cap up at Thule
>- saw the runway about 25 feet up through a dense snow shower. Nearest
>alternate was Alert, 400 miles away - and of course we never had
>enough fuel left in our F102s to get there.
>Walt BJ

Anyone ever flown an NDB approach via an old fashioned
loop antenna? (For the readers unfamiliar with the terminology,
NDB means "Non Directional Beacon" which is usually a
low-freq signal emanating from a commercial AM radio station
or transmitter on the ground.)

On newer aircraft, the pilot tunes in an NDB station simply by
turning a dial in the cockpit, but many older (WW2-era) aircraft
required the pilot to crank a lever that physically rotated a loop
antenna mounted on top of, or beneath the fuselage so as to
pick up the NDB or radio station on the ground.

The Japanese planes that attacked Pearl Harbor homed in on
their targets via loop antennas tuned a commercial radio station
(imagine listening to peaceful Hawaiian music while plummeting
straight down at the USS Arizona with a 1,760-pound armor-piercing
bomb!)

-Mike Marron

[Walt BJ]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
>SNIP>
> Anyone ever flown an NDB approach via an old fashioned
> loop antenna? (For the readers unfamiliar with the terminology,
> NDB means "Non Directional Beacon" which is usually a
> low-freq signal emanating from a commercial AM radio station
> or transmitter on the ground.)
>
> On newer aircraft, the pilot tunes in an NDB station simply by
> turning a dial in the cockpit, but many older (WW2-era) aircraft
> required the pilot to crank a lever that physically rotated a loop
> antenna mounted on top of, or beneath the fuselage so as to
> pick up the NDB or radio station on the ground.
> SNIP:

In primary flight training in 1953 we had to do all those old things
in the T6G.
Radio range was done at Tallahassee; I forget where we did
non-directinal beacon NDB work. 'Manual loop' - RDF - was worse than
chewing gum and walking at the same time. The real answer was to do
the loop bit when straight and level, figure out which way to turn,
concentrate on the turn, level out, fool with the loop again. The
'dirty tricks' department put the ADF panel and loop crank handle down
between your ankles in the T33! FWIW RDF - manual control of the loop
- works better than ADF in bad static conditions. Also FWIW our 25
watt NDB homer at Naha AB on Okinawa was but a few Khz away from a
monster station at Shanghai. RDF worked better when out a hundred
miles or so. The simplest loop I ever heard of was a couple turns of
wire around the aft fuselage of a Piper Cub; gentle turns right and
left sufficed to find the bearing to the station. It took time, but
Cub pilots have a lot of that at 1.5 miles per minute.
Walt BJ
;

[Ed Rasimus]

(Walt BJ) wrote:

>In primary flight training in 1953 we had to do all those old things
>in the T6G.
>Radio range was done at Tallahassee; I forget where we did
>non-directinal beacon NDB work. 'Manual loop' - RDF - was worse than
>chewing gum and walking at the same time. The real answer was to do
>the loop bit when straight and level, figure out which way to turn,
>concentrate on the turn, level out, fool with the loop again. The
>'dirty tricks' department put the ADF panel and loop crank handle down
>between your ankles in the T33! FWIW RDF - manual control of the loop
>- works better than ADF in bad static conditions. Also FWIW our 25
>watt NDB homer at Naha AB on Okinawa was but a few Khz away from a
>monster station at Shanghai. RDF worked better when out a hundred
>miles or so. The simplest loop I ever heard of was a couple turns of
>wire around the aft fuselage of a Piper Cub; gentle turns right and
>left sufficed to find the bearing to the station. It took time, but
>Cub pilots have a lot of that at 1.5 miles per minute.
>Walt BJ
>;

C'mon, Cubs go faster than that! I do recall, however, getting my
initial Cub flying around Chicago that with wind conditions right, you
could land and turn off at the approach end taxiway on many days and
with a 100 foot wide runway you could almost always land "into the
wind" by simply flying cross-runway.

As long as we're reminiscing about procedures from the dark ages, let
me throw in the infamous "time and distance" check we used to demand
of students in the T-37. Flown on a VOR, you turned to put the bearing
pointer on a wingtip, then timed how long it took to get a 10 degree
bearing change. Knowing your ground speed (which you usually didn't)
you could then calculate the distance from the station to fly that arc
in that length of time.

I guess it must have been accurate to within about ten miles. It never
made sense in a tiny jet which short legs to waste that much time
determining something you should have had a pretty good idea about
anyway.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Joey Bishop]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> I guess it must have been accurate to within about ten miles. It never
> made sense in a tiny jet which short legs to waste that much time
> determining something you should have had a pretty good idea about
> anyway.

Probably just a mental exercise, where non other seemed to suffice.
Anything to keep the students from just enjoying the view...

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(Walt BJ) wrote:

>>In primary flight training in 1953 we had to do all those old things
>>in the T6G.
>>Radio range was done at Tallahassee; I forget where we did
>>non-directinal beacon NDB work. 'Manual loop' - RDF - was worse than
>>chewing gum and walking at the same time. The real answer was to do
>>the loop bit when straight and level, figure out which way to turn,
>>concentrate on the turn, level out, fool with the loop again. The
>>'dirty tricks' department put the ADF panel and loop crank handle down
>>between your ankles in the T33! FWIW RDF - manual control of the loop
>>- works better than ADF in bad static conditions. Also FWIW our 25
>>watt NDB homer at Naha AB on Okinawa was but a few Khz away from a
>>monster station at Shanghai. RDF worked better when out a hundred
>>miles or so. The simplest loop I ever heard of was a couple turns of
>>wire around the aft fuselage of a Piper Cub; gentle turns right and
>>left sufficed to find the bearing to the station. It took time, but
>>Cub pilots have a lot of that at 1.5 miles per minute.
>>Walt BJ

>C'mon, Cubs go faster than that! I do recall, however, getting my
>initial Cub flying around Chicago that with wind conditions right, you
>could land and turn off at the approach end taxiway on many days and
>with a 100 foot wide runway you could almost always land "into the
>wind" by simply flying cross-runway.

Why not? Whereas I generally won't land perpindicular to the runway,
I routinely land aslant the runway (usually no more than a 45-deg.
angle to the runway centerline) in my trike so as to reduce the x-wind
component. And a Cub going faster than 90 miles per (groundspeed?)
I dunno, but I can comfortably fly in formation with Cubs and Champs
in my trike and it only cruises about 60-70 mph over the ground (in
calm air). When it comes to rate of climb, I spank 65-hp Cubs and
Champs with my 80-hp trike.

>As long as we're reminiscing about procedures from the dark ages, let
>me throw in the infamous "time and distance" check we used to demand
>of students in the T-37. Flown on a VOR, you turned to put the bearing
>pointer on a wingtip, then timed how long it took to get a 10 degree
>bearing change. Knowing your ground speed (which you usually didn't)
>you could then calculate the distance from the station to fly that arc
>in that length of time.

The way we used to turn VOR's into DME's:

1) Turn perpindicular to the radial.
2) Note the time and number of degrees of change.
3) Divide time (in seconds) by the number of degrees of change
to obtain minutes away from the station.

For example, (it's been a while since I've done this, but it does
work), say you crossed 5-degrees in 2 minutes, 43 seconds (163
seconds). 163 divided by 5 = 32.6 minutes away from the station.

>I guess it must have been accurate to within about ten miles. It never
>made sense in a tiny jet which short legs to waste that much time
>determining something you should have had a pretty good idea about
>anyway.

Yeah, it was pretty much a WAG, but it kinda' works (accurate only
flying in "no-wind" conditions).

-Mike Marron

[Gooneybird]

Mike Marron wrote:
>> (Walt BJ) wrote:

(Snip)

> Anyone ever flown an NDB approach via an old fashioned
> loop antenna? (For the readers unfamiliar with the terminology,
> NDB means "Non Directional Beacon" which is usually a
> low-freq signal emanating from a commercial AM radio station
> or transmitter on the ground.)

I don't remember that we ever hand-cranked the loop, but I do remember turning
the loop back and forth from the cockpit looking for the null, which represented
the NDB. Isn't it funny what age does to the memory.....I remember doing it but
can't recall why or how it was supposed to work. BTW, I'm referring to a Troop
Carrier gooneybird, by way of type aircraft, and my time frame was from '43 to
the end of the war.

>
> On newer aircraft, the pilot tunes in an NDB station simply by
> turning a dial in the cockpit, but many older (WW2-era) aircraft
> required the pilot to crank a lever that physically rotated a loop
> antenna mounted on top of, or beneath the fuselage so as to
> pick up the NDB or radio station on the ground.
>
> The Japanese planes that attacked Pearl Harbor homed in on
> their targets via loop antennas tuned a commercial radio station
> (imagine listening to peaceful Hawaiian music while plummeting
> straight down at the USS Arizona with a 1,760-pound armor-piercing
> bomb!)

Hey, I just remembered how some of it worked. When you lined upthe plane of
your loop with the broadcasting station, signal reception disappeared (hence,
flying the null). You got your best signal reception when the opening in the
loop was perpendicular to the station it was tuned to. Flying the null in
itself didn't tell you if you were inbound or outbound, just that it was either
right ahead of you or right behind you. Seems to me that there was some sort of
turning maneuver that was used to watch the null movement that told us if we
were approaching the station or had just passed it. I can't recall the
explanation for how that worked.....it's been too many years, I guess.

George Z.

[Gooneybird]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> (Walt BJ) wrote:

(Snip)

> C'mon, Cubs go faster than that! I do recall, however, getting my
> initial Cub flying around Chicago that with wind conditions right, you
> could land and turn off at the approach end taxiway on many days and
> with a 100 foot wide runway you could almost always land "into the
> wind" by simply flying cross-runway.

I flew a J-3 up at Buffalo, NY in early '43, and recall looking out the side
while doing a little pilotage and observing cars passing me on the ground while
I was indicating about 65 mph. I'll fess up to a 20 mph headwind, so it wasn't
all that outrageous! (^-^)))

>
> As long as we're reminiscing about procedures from the dark ages....

(Snip)

You call talking about T-37s the dark ages? Jeez, you really know how to hurt a
guy! (^-^)))

George Z.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gooneybird wrote:
> I flew a J-3 up at Buffalo, NY in early '43, and recall looking out
> the side while doing a little pilotage and observing cars passing me
> on the ground while I was indicating about 65 mph. I'll fess up to a
> 20 mph headwind, so it wasn't all that outrageous! (^-^)))


It's not too hard to be passed by cars when in slow flight. What was insulting
to me was flying some photographers around the old Charlotte Motor Speedway (now
Lowes) in a C-182 and being passed by the race cars... and I was running at 75%
power!


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

John?]
wrote:
> Zoomies always were a bunch of sissies.


Not a whole lot of zoom in a Gooneybird....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Billy Beck]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>It's not too hard to be passed by cars when in slow flight. What was insulting
>to me was flying some photographers around the old Charlotte Motor Speedway (now
>Lowes) in a C-182 and being passed by the race cars... and I was running at 75%
>power!

<hah> One day, I got very fascinated watching someone turning
practice laps at Road Atlanta. I don't know what he was driving -- I
was watching from 3500 AGL -- but he was going nearly twice as fast as
I was in the Citabria (7KCAB), and that was a remarkable thing to
consider.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[Mike Marron]

>Billy Beck <> wrote:
>>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>>It's not too hard to be passed by cars when in slow flight. What was insulting
>>to me was flying some photographers around the old Charlotte Motor Speedway (now
>>Lowes) in a C-182 and being passed by the race cars... and I was running at 75%
>>power!

><hah> One day, I got very fascinated watching someone turning
>practice laps at Road Atlanta. I don't know what he was driving -- I
>was watching from 3500 AGL -- but he was going nearly twice as fast as
>I was in the Citabria (7KCAB), and that was a remarkable thing to
>consider.

The way I look at it, as long as I'm in a 3-dimensional environment
it doesn't matter how fast they go down there.

-Mike (gravity sucks) Marron

[Mike Marron]

Per the recent discussion re: crosswind landings...

[Chris Mark]

>From: "PosterBoy" brauck@bigfoo

> You would be interested in "The Thousand-Mile War" (World War Two in
>Alaska and the Aleutians") by Brian Garfield.
>There are a number of these 'weather' stories. In fact, the weather in the
>area impacted on most of the true tales in this remarkable book.

The library had it. Read it at one sitting. *Great* read! Thanks for the
recommendation, and I will add my "second" to it.


Chris Mark

[Mike Marron]

> (Chris Mark) wrote:
>>From: "PosterBoy" brauck@bigfoo

>> You would be interested in "The Thousand-Mile War" (World War Two in
>>Alaska and the Aleutians") by Brian Garfield.
>>There are a number of these 'weather' stories. In fact, the weather in the
>>area impacted on most of the true tales in this remarkable book.

>The library had it. Read it at one sitting. *Great* read! Thanks for the
>recommendation, and I will add my "second" to it.

An excerpt from one of my faves: "Stranger to the Ground" by Richard
Bach:

***

The storm is a wild horse of the desert that has suddenly discovered
a monster on its back. It is in a frenzy to rid itself of me, and it
strikes with shocks so fast they cannot be seen. I learn a new fact.
The ejection seat is not always an escape. Bailout into the storm will
be just as fatal as the meeting of earth and airplane, for in the
churning air my parachute would be a tangled nylon rag. My airplane
and I have been together for a long time, we will stay together now.
The decision bolts the ejection seat to the cockpit floor, the
Thunderstreak and I smash down through the jagged sky as a single
dying soul. My arm is heavy on the stick, and tired. It will be good
to rest. There is roaring in my ears, and I feel the hard ground
widening about me, falling up to me...

***

-Mike Marron

[David Lesher]

"PosterBoy" > writes:


>"Chris Mark" > wrote in message

> Chris...and others interested in the above anecdote...
> You would be interested in "The Thousand-Mile War" (World War Two in
>Alaska and the Aleutians") by Brian Garfield.
>There are a number of these 'weather' stories. In fact, the weather in the
>area impacted on most of the true tales in this remarkable book. IMHBUAO.

If that is the book I recall reading a few decades ago, there was
a C-47 that took off backwards.

They were at the upwind end of the runway, but that was OK as they
had a 100Kt headwind. They pointed it into the wind, went to TO
power, and when the tail came up, released the brakes....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Chris Mark]

>From: David Lesher

>> You would be interested in "The Thousand-Mile War" (World War Two in
>>Alaska and the Aleutians") by Brian Garfield.

>If that is the book I recall reading a few decades ago, there was
>a C-47 that took off backwards.

there are more "I'll be damned!" aviation stories in this book than you can
shake the proverbial stick at. Everybody interested in aviation should do
themselves a favor and read this book.


Chris Mark

[Walt BJ]

Correction - the hand crank on the old tube ADFs (ARN6 or ARN7) was
the tuning control. The manual loop control was a right-left switch.
Manual (RDF) did work better in bad static than ADF but it was tough
on the ears.
Radio Range - the north quadrant (and thus the south quadrant) was an
N quadrant, logically.
Those antiquated time/distance checks were left over from long-lasting
flights (10-20 hours) in multi-engine prop planes like the Clipper
flying boats crossing the Atlantic. They had some value then (are we
going to have enough gas?) but for every day flying - bah. Still, if
you pick a VOR off at right angles to your track it has some value -
not much, but some. Might help you decide to divert if the winds are
double what the weather guesser told you.
Walt BJ