Question For Old Naval Aviators

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!

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!

....... 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

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!

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!

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!

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

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

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

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