Can F-15s making 9G turns with payload?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:05:09 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam.

And a pod fell off a pylon on a plane taking off at Ubon shortly after
that. No cause was found. The "hairy-assed" line mechanics that loaded
the pod that day were never talked to or questioned about it.

If you didn't do it just right, the missile well adapter for ECM pods
wouldn't lock. Once it was pinned in, the thing wasn't going to come
out without some sort of serious failure.

Pods were carried for years hanging from pylons and even the bottom
rack on MERs.
Ever see the two "little" hooks in the pylon that hold bombs and pods
to the pylons?
Take into consideration that bombs and center tanks were dropped to
clean an aircraft up so it could maneuver better. But that pod hung in
there way out from the centerline.

After a couple of problems in Vietnam, they made it impossible for
pilots to jettison ECM pods.

One of the pods that was dumped over the north was one of the
problems. They took the catridges out of the pylons and the latches
were safty wired shortly after that happened.

An apocryphal story they used to tell us was that some fighter jock was
trying to kill a boat on a river. He dropped bombs. Missed. He used
up all of his 20mm. Missed. So he went in on a run and jettisoned the
pod. Hit. one $5,000 boat for a million dollar pod...

I suspect if that happened the pilot bought himself a pod.
Our loss was during Bolo or one of the followups. Crew just got a
little excited and cleaned everything off. Of course if anyone talks
to then Col. Olds they might ask what really happened. I'm sure he
remembers. Just don't ask about the time ECM didn't check to see if
there was a control box in a plane when they loaded the pod.G

Mike Marron wrote:


For example, a standard AN6 bolt (3/8-inch diameter shank) has
a shear strength of approx. 8700 lbs. IIRC. And there is probably
more than just one of these or similiar types of bolts securing the
ECM gear to the belly of an F-4.

-Mike (A&P mech) Marron


But that's 'shear strength' isn't it?...sounds to me as if these
pods are held on so as not to use the shear strength, right?
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
Mike Marron wrote:


For example, a standard AN6 bolt (3/8-inch diameter shank) has
a shear strength of approx. 8700 lbs. IIRC. And there is probably
more than just one of these or similiar types of bolts securing the
ECM gear to the belly of an F-4.

But that's 'shear strength' isn't it?...sounds to me as if these
pods are held on so as not to use the shear strength, right?

Marron is just making **** up, ignore him.

Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.




"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:
Scott Ferrin wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

I don't know how much an F-4 ECM pod weighs, but I do know that it
would require a hellacious amount of G's to cause the bolts that
fasten the pod to the airframe to fail.

How could you possibly know that?

Math.

...and a near-religious faith that new bolts are just as strong as old
bolts, while corrosion never happens and flightline troops never make
mistakes.

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!

It is because you are writting crap, Marron.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news
Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.

Marron is posting crap, those $million pods were attached just fine. What
planet are you from, where mechanics select bolts?

who cares about the bolts. It's not a federal case yet.





"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news
Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.

Marron is posting crap, those $million pods were attached just fine. What
planet are you from, where mechanics select bolts?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:39:45 GMT, Buzzer wrote:


"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam.

What you just wrote makes no sense. If the crew was "ham-fisted" then
they over-G'd or "pulled" the pod off. If they "blew" the pod, that
would mean jettisoned by cart-firing. Were they "ham-index-fingered"
in actuating the toggle switch?

Initial installation of the pods at Korat in late Oct. of '66 when
they were highly classified was uncarted, so "blowing" a pod wasn't an
option. And, considering the relatively minimal size and weight,
wouldn't have been worth the time necessary to find the toggle, break
the safety wire, flip the safety cover, establish the necessary
jettison parameters and then "blow."

And a pod fell off a pylon on a plane taking off at Ubon shortly after
that. No cause was found. The "hairy-assed" line mechanics that loaded
the pod that day were never talked to or questioned about it.

If the pod "fell off" then an investigation occurred. The maintenance
supervisor that signed the AFTO-781 on the install was undoubtedly
questioned. Are you speaking of facts or stories you heard?


Pods were carried for years hanging from pylons and even the bottom
rack on MERs.

Pods were carried on the F-4 on inboard pylons and on the F-105 on
outboard pylons. I never saw one carried on a TER or MER. Interposing
a secondary rack, particularly one without aircraft power available
(except for the RAT-driven QRC-160) would be useless.

In '72 and for all the years I carried ALQ-119s in Europe, we carried
ECM pods in a Sparrow well on the F-4.

Ever see the two "little" hooks in the pylon that hold bombs and pods
to the pylons?

Yep, seen a lot of those little hooks. If they could hold an M-118
(3000 pound GP bomb) at 4 G, I've gotta think they could retain an ECM
pod at a lot more G.

Take into consideration that bombs and center tanks were dropped to
clean an aircraft up so it could maneuver better. But that pod hung in
there way out from the centerline.

The C/L tank, particularly on AF F-4s was a poorly engineered piece of
dreck. Bombs were lots of weight and lots of drag. ECM pods, on the
other hand were light, small, low drag and generally uncarted. And, if
you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA MiG-21 or -19, you
might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

You've not made the case.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
who cares about the bolts. It's not a federal case yet.

Bolts are certainly a Federal case. (ie Fasteners Act)

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news
Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.

Marron is posting crap, those $million pods were attached just fine.
What
planet are you from, where mechanics select bolts?

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

ECM pods, on the other hand were light, small, low drag and generally
uncarted. And, if you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA
MiG-21 or -19, you might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

You have to rmember that for at least some of the Vietnam War, some
pilots didn't like ECM pods at *all*. Weren't manly enough, or
something. After they started noticing a somewhat higher survival rate
among pilots with pods, they got the message.

But by the early 1980s, a lot of jet jockeys were back to the "pods are
for wimps" sort of attitude. I saw it every time we loaded the 119s
onto F-4s for exercises. And then we had a squadron go to Red Flag, and
suddenly all of the pilots were wanting one every damned day... getting
"shot down" a few times with no recourse tends to do that.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:38:43 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

ECM pods, on the other hand were light, small, low drag and generally
uncarted. And, if you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA
MiG-21 or -19, you might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

You have to rmember that for at least some of the Vietnam War, some
pilots didn't like ECM pods at *all*. Weren't manly enough, or
something. After they started noticing a somewhat higher survival rate
among pilots with pods, they got the message.

I don't think I ever heard that. When the QRC-160 arrived at Tahkli &
Korat in October '66, the first guys to carry it were sceptical
(naturally) when told that they would fly "rock steady" at mid to high
altitude and that the pod would make stuff miss. When they tried it
and it worked, they became instantaneous believers.

When I returned in '72, we had much better pods and didn't need the
"pod formation" stuff any more. Unfortunately, the noise from the pods
wouldn't let the Hunter/Killer SEAD flights do our job, so we didn't
use them most of the time, although we did try to remember to get them
active in a last ditch situation evading a missile.

But by the early 1980s, a lot of jet jockeys were back to the "pods are
for wimps" sort of attitude. I saw it every time we loaded the 119s
onto F-4s for exercises. And then we had a squadron go to Red Flag, and
suddenly all of the pilots were wanting one every damned day... getting
"shot down" a few times with no recourse tends to do that.

I would say by the '80s, the only crews with that kind of attitude
would be those with no combat experience or those who didn't pay
attention to intel briefings. Certainly by the '80s no one was still
carrying ALQ-119s. I'd bet that by that time it was ALQ-131.