T-2C Buckeye nav light configuration.

"Phormer Phighter Phlyer" wrote in message
news:1110810045.afc3a678a85e1ce9804eb0ea4e81e850@t eranews...
John wrote:
John

The T-2 was/is a pig?? Really? Did you hate that much? Please share
why. It is sometime difficult to read anything about an aircraft's
handling characteristics that doesn't seem to be written by the
manufacturer's marketing staff.

Thanks and blue skies.

JP


Well, flying around in the trunk with a bunch of cones can take the fun
outta flying the 'Combay Buckeye' but at VF-126 we had 4 of these, did
the F-14 stalls and falls flight and I quite enjoyed it. BUT just a flight
over the hill, some really cool ups, downs, and flop arounds and fly back,
with the IP in the front and ONLY day, VFR. VERY honest jet, very easy to
fly as soon as ya got it out of the line. Really 'complicated' electrical
system.

All true. Certainly intermediate strike training wasn't particularly
rewarding cockpit time. It was an excellent aircraft for its mission ... an
introduction to jet aircraft characteristics. Very forgiving. A lot of
power (relatively speaking) and exceptional response (both in spool up and
in airframe reaction) to it. Controls were sloppy feeling. Range wasn't
great. It wasn't as rewarding to fly as many other aircraft I've
experience.

As to the tip tank question, the tanks were designed to be interchangeable.
The core components could be flopped around (putting the filler caps topside
and vents, bleed air etc where they needed to be) and the light connected as
appropriate for the wing ... I wonder if there were any cases of wiring the
lights incorrectly (a classic opportunity for Murphy to spin a wrench)?

As an interesting aside, there was one other airframe component that was
swappable from left to right. The horizontal stabs were symmetrical and
could be swapped. Of course the elevator had to installed properly.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in
:

[redacted]

As to the tip tank question, the tanks were designed to be
interchangeable. The core components could be flopped around (putting
the filler caps topside and vents, bleed air etc where they needed to
be) and the light connected as appropriate for the wing ... I wonder
if there were any cases of wiring the lights incorrectly (a classic
opportunity for Murphy to spin a wrench)?

[further redacted]

Based on other encounters with components usable in multiple locations,
but with slight functional or wiring differences, my SWAG (and this is
*only* a well informed guess) is that the connector on the tank involved
three wires from the lights - red, green and common - and the connector
on each wingtip had only two wires connected - red and common on the left
side, and green and common on the right side - so that correct connection
was usually assured. If the engineers design it right in the first place,
it's pretty hard for the maintenance guys to screw it up. YMMV.

Dave in San Diego

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. ..
"John Carrier" wrote in
:

[redacted]

As to the tip tank question, the tanks were designed to be
interchangeable. The core components could be flopped around (putting
the filler caps topside and vents, bleed air etc where they needed to
be) and the light connected as appropriate for the wing ... I wonder
if there were any cases of wiring the lights incorrectly (a classic
opportunity for Murphy to spin a wrench)?

[further redacted]

Based on other encounters with components usable in multiple locations,
but with slight functional or wiring differences, my SWAG (and this is
*only* a well informed guess) is that the connector on the tank involved
three wires from the lights - red, green and common - and the connector
on each wingtip had only two wires connected - red and common on the left
side, and green and common on the right side - so that correct connection
was usually assured. If the engineers design it right in the first place,
it's pretty hard for the maintenance guys to screw it up. YMMV.

Most attempts to idiot-proof a system result in the development of a better
idiot.

R / John

Dave,

IMHE, It was usually the line maintenance crews bailing out poor
engineering design. Wire once check thrice.

Jim

"Mac" wrote in news:1110904200.827941.51340
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Dave,

IMHE, It was usually the line maintenance crews bailing out poor
engineering design. Wire once check thrice.

Sometimes; sometimes not. I saw it both ways. I agree on the checking
policy, though.

Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:46:09 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:

was usually assured. If the engineers design it right in the first place,
it's pretty hard for the maintenance guys to screw it up. YMMV.

I shall have to disagree with that little statement. This being a Sky
Guppy thread, I need to digress slightly off topic for this little
tale.

While an IP with VT-24 (TA-4J), circa 1975, I was assigned to be part
of a 4-ship photo exersise for Douglass Company photog Harry Gann. In
the back seat was our new PXO and after the photo session we were to
fly one of his IUT instrument fam flights. Simple enough. Then the fun
begins.

As we set up for our first GCA, the PXO called for gear and flaps.
Shortly thereafter we both noticed that the nose gear was barberpoled.
Book says cycle back up, so we did. Now we have three barberpoles. Not
good. Handle down again, and three good gear - not going to move the
handle again. This will be a full stop!

Oh, but the show is not over. Now we notice that the flaps never came
down. Handle is, but indicator shows little/no movement of flaps. We
call one of the other birds to look us over and they confirm that the
flaps are only out a few inches. Really not good. Thinking we have
some mysterious hydraulic problem, now we set up for a short-field
arrest.

After landing the flaps come all the way down. Gear stayed down. After
they pin the gear and we taxi into the line we find the plane captain
can hold the flaps up when selected down. Cool stuff - he feels like
Superman!

A few days later I ran into our Douglass rep (Reese Jones) on the
hangar deck and asked him if they found anything on that bird. The
gear was, as suspected, a bad indicator, but the flaps was another
story. The flap blowback valve (to allow the flaps to blow up if
oversped) had been installed backwards. I told Reese that in systems
school they had told us it could not be installed backwards due to
different fittings at each end.

To which Reese replied: "Adapter fittings are amazing things!" Seems
some sailor could not imagine that he was trying to put it in
backwards and just got some adapter fittings to make it work the way
he wanted to put it in!

Proper engineering can always be overcome by the creative and
resourceful American Sailor!


J W Alger USNR(ret) 1310/1325
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B

John Alger wrote in
:

[good stuff redacted]

Proper engineering can always be overcome by the creative and
resourceful American Sailor!


J W Alger USNR(ret) 1310/1325
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B

You got me there. I have seen many instances of that over the years. But
your guy prolly had to do that hard work I referred to in order to get
the component installed incorrectly.

Dave in San Diego