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

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
...
Nothing to contribute, except for glorification of self?

I have a right to resond to the flamer troll.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote

It is difficult to understand how FAA could continue to allow Marron to
hold
and A&P certificate, in light of his obvious incompetence; in his
delegated
area of expertise.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Which brings me back to the topic of the ALLEGED catastrophic failure
of F-4 ECM pods in combat over Vietnam. Had such incidents actually
occurred, rest assurred that the facts as to precisely WHY the pods
ripped away from the airplane would be widely known by the thousands
of dedicated professionals in the F-4 community whom were intimately
involved with flying and fixing the multi-million dollar jet.

Actually, in the field, the pilots wouldn't have any reason to know
this. The people who would be expected to deal with it are the
flightline troops.

Just wondering, since you were such a rip snortin' air force mechanic
and seem to have such great interest and knowledge in aviation, do
you have an A&P or any other FAA certificates?

We couldn't even get most of them to learn how to use the stuff that was
installed in the planes every single day.

Laughable!

Got any more school boy fibs?

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I've asked you several times if those "four bolts" that you kept
referring to all-thread bolts and what type of loads were
they designed for. Now that we've finally established that little
bit of info...

"Finally?"

You mean, after the first four or five times?

Scroll back through all the B.S. you've posted in this thread
and show me just one time (prior to your last post you sent
late last night) that you specifically said the bolts in question
were NOT installed in such a way as to take a shear load.

Just *one* time, please and thank you.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:15:00 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Which brings me back to the topic of the ALLEGED catastrophic failure
of F-4 ECM pods in combat over Vietnam. Had such incidents actually
occurred, rest assurred that the facts as to precisely WHY the pods
ripped away from the airplane would be widely known by the thousands
of dedicated professionals in the F-4 community whom were intimately
involved with flying and fixing the multi-million dollar jet.

Actually, in the field, the pilots wouldn't have any reason to know
this. The people who would be expected to deal with it are the
flightline troops.

Whoa! Time to throw a flag. If stuff were ripping off of airplanes,
whether through fatigue, corrosion, maintenance oversight or exceeding
design G limits, you can bet your butt, the pilots would know it. They
would NEED to know it, since separations for whatever reason can
endanger the whole airplane.

We couldn't even get most of them to learn how to use the stuff that was
installed in the planes every single day.

Don't know where you were in the food chain of aircrew training, but
if it was installed in the planes every single day, you can bet we
knew how to use it. If it were mission essential or mission critical
we got trained in it, refreshed in it, tested in it, and briefed on
every single mission with regard to employment of it.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

I remain unconvinced that the ECM pod ripped off as the result
of over-G's like Chad said

...except I never claimed just that.

It is problematic that the Marron lune just makes things up.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Marron wrote:

This sums up Mike's entire fixation:

Allow me to explain one more time that I doubt that the fasteners
were designed to take shear loads in the threaded area NOT that there
were "four bolts running straight into the bottom of the plane."

That's because, again, the bolts were NOT installed in such a way as to
take a SHEAR load.

It was a TENSION load, running vertically through the plane. The
threads of the bolts and the nutplates were the ONLY things holding the
entire assembly to the aircraft.

Since you can't after several reiterations, manage to keep that in mind,
it's pretty damned obvious that you're never *going* to get it.

Everything else you wrote is just noise.

Is Mike Marron the pupeteer for John Mazor?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Don't know where you were in the food chain of aircrew training, but
if it was installed in the planes every single day, you can bet we
knew how to use it. If it were mission essential or mission critical
we got trained in it, refreshed in it, tested in it, and briefed on
every single mission with regard to employment of it.

Well... OK...

One thing that fighter/bomber crews never seemed to understand was
Mode-4 IFF, and wide-band secure voice. In Iceland the mission was
to intercept and escort any unidentified aircraft through the defense zone.
What that meant in real life was that if the IFF gave you problems, you
shut it off. If you couldn't talk to AWACS, or the Shack on secure, then
you switched to clear. Billions in hardware in the off position.

Finally in 1986 the Air Force started getting serious, and they made the
bean count on those two items as painful as possible.

What we found, was that the crews just didn't understand the poorly
designed fault indicators, and since there was no incentive to operate the
equipment, they just shut it off. 1) The Soviets know we're there, 2) The
Soviets understand how NATO intercepts are conducted, and 3) By
doing the intercepts in the clear, the Soviets weren't surprised when
fighters and tankers, and P-3's, etc, all pounced on them for escort.

All of which HQ decided was too damned non-mil to continue.

The Army finally came along in the early 90's after the highly trained
USAF pilots and AWACS controllers splashed their non-participants
in Iraq.

Today, I think the radio is a completely different tool than it was before
1986. The use of wide and narrow secure when it's even necessary, is
the favored position (especially satcom). I listened to some of the
Air/Air recordings from a strike near Hanoi by a flight of 105's when I
went to a technical seminar, and it pretty much defined the word Clint
Eastwood had about Clusters...

I can see where crews might have training/operational problems with
gadgets even more complex than the IFF and Wide-Band panels.

A bit of a pingpong

Mike Marron wrote in message ...
"Nele_VII" wrote:

Gentlemen,

To paraphrase on of Sir Murphy's Laws,
"If it should break, it will break. If it shouldn't break, it will break".

I am just an armchair aviator, but I've seen a car (same manufacturer, but
from 1993) with broken bottom ball bearing on right wheel. (my car is
1974'
vintage, BTW 8-). The driver said 'it's that bl**dy hole in the middle of
the road, and I was doing 50Kmph". Since he was already aside, I turned my
wreck, pardon, my car, ))) and performed run over the hole... at 60KmPh.
Just a "bump", nothing happened. He just told me with a sore smile "don't
tell this to my insurance".

BTW, cars had the identical suspension/wheel mounting (Russian Lada, my
model 2101, his 2107). Both had original parts, bar mine that had steereng
rods (not bearings) changed in 1982...

S*it happens, that's it.

With such a lackadaisical attitude towards safety as that, little
wonder "**** happens" so much more frequently in Russia than it
does elsewhere in the industrialized world. The goal is to try and
reduce the amount of "**** happening."

It didn't happen in the Russia, but in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Based on what you just wrote, it appears that your homeland is
Russia -- where manufactured products are produced under
less stringent QC (quality control) programs compared to the
QC programs found in the US, UK, France, etc. which ensure that
EVERY unit conforms with the approved design. The keyword
here is "consistency."

Firstly, I am not from Russia, nor from B&H. I was born and live in Croatia.

"Consistency" was with my car. I had original ball-bearings and bought
RUSSIAN steering-rods. The guy had bought ITALIAN-MADE ball-bearings when he
replaced his suspension (i.e. steering rods). Also, I have seen other Lada
with a broken steering rod. It was also MADE IN ITALY, guy bougt it since it
was cheap. My cousin almost died in his old Fiat (actually, "Zastava" from
Jragujevac, Yugoslavia)when he bought CROATIAN-made steering-end suspensor
rod. I had to get one-via many channels- from YUGOSLAVIA, Kragujevac from
the assembly line for police-cars (they are strenghened, jut a coincidence


You are mixing simple fact that PARTS FIT, but are not MADE for the car
(case of Lada's) or simply had a flaw (Fiat). I have 250,000Km without
overhaul on my "2101". My cousin has 300,000+ on Yu-Fiat. Only secret is use
of ORIGINAL PARTS, but it does not guarantee that original rod os bearing
will not crack in one of 100,000 Russian cars.

So drop Your thesis abot poor quality of Russian vehicles/parts, better
check Italy.


Aircraft especially must *consistently* conform to a higher standard
because obviously you can't merely just pull off to the side of the
road and call for help should something break in the air.

Of course.


To use if your "pothole" analogy, if you happen to hit a pothole in
the sky (e.g: severe turbulence) and your wing fails catastrophically
in midair, you better have jam in your pockets because your ass is
toast.

The following recent tragedy indicates just how poor and INconsistent
the Russians are with regards to quality control. Aeros, a Russian
company that manufactures flexwings primarily for recreational use,
were buying anodized tubing from Antonov Design Bureau stock.

One year ago an experienced American flexwing pilot named Bert
Breitung was flying an Aeros wing when the left leading edge tube
failed during an approach to landing and rolled the craft inverted
causing Bert to auger straight in killing him instantly.

An American metallurgist subsequently inspected the damaged
tube from the fatal crash and found a crack in the wing leading edge
tube. The wing had been manufactured in September 1999
and had only 30 hrs. on it.

Even worse, after word of this fatal accident got out it was later
determined that he tubing that they were getting from Antonov had too
many scratches and flaws for it to look good anodized only so the
Ruskies were simply covering up the defects by also painting the
tubes!

If it was made un USSR, somebody would go to gulag for that.

Sleazy, unethical and potentially deadly practices such as the example
above are virtually unheard of here in the U.S. and rarely, if ever,
does a critical component such as a wing leading edge tube fail.

Really? I come back to the cars, what happened with that SUV vehicle (Ford?)
in which they discovered deadly built-in flaw after 6 YEARS? Our famous
actress, Ena Begovich is suspected that she died 'cause of it! My friend in
Canada says that he has a, qute from mechanic, "minor seepage from steering
servo, engine and transmission". Unbeleivable! It is the Ford Service
Garage, U know!

What about deadly stall/spin characteristic of the F-104 and F-4 (flat
spin)? Ever heard any MiG going into a flat spin? What about wing cracks in
early F/A-18A/B? What about Osprey? What about false spare-parts detected in
the wreckages of AMERICAN helicopters destroyed in unsucessful attempt to
save hostages from Iran during Carter?

You wrote a sad story about the lame sub-contractor from Russia that costed
a man's life and assume that:

a) it can only happen in Russia

b) applies to all aspects of russian industry.

You are -SO- wrong. It happens all around the globe, and, with respect,
United States of America are still on this planet.

Which brings me back to the topic of the ALLEGED catastrophic failure
of F-4 ECM pods in combat over Vietnam. Had such incidents actually
occurred, rest assurred that the facts as to precisely WHY the pods
ripped away from the airplane would be widely known by the thousands
of dedicated professionals in the F-4 community whom were intimately
involved with flying and fixing the multi-million dollar jet.

Is it -widely- known that one F-4 "jockey" ripped off one stabilator fin due
to harsh maneuvering? It happened only once!


-Mike Marron
CFII, A&P, UFI (fixed wing, weightshift, land & sea)

Nenad Karanovic-Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

To avoid being told I am making things up...

BTW, cars had the identical suspension/wheel mounting (Russian Lada, my
model 2101, his 2107). Both had original parts, bar mine that had
steereng
rods (not bearings) changed in 1982...

"Consistency" was with my car. I had original ball-bearings and bought
RUSSIAN steering-rods. The guy had bought ITALIAN-MADE ball-bearings when
he
replaced his suspension (i.e. steering rods). Also, I have seen other Lada
with a broken steering rod. It was also MADE IN ITALY, guy bougt it since
it
was cheap. My cousin almost died in his old Fiat (actually, "Zastava" from
Jragujevac, Yugoslavia)when he bought CROATIAN-made steering-end suspensor
rod. I had to get one-via many channels- from YUGOSLAVIA, Kragujevac from
the assembly line for police-cars (they are strenghened, jut a coincidence


Suspicious, right? ))))

It should say:

"Consistency" was with my car. I had original ball-bearings and bought
RUSSIAN steering-rods. The OTHER guy had bought ITALIAN-MADE
ball-bearings...

I've seen three cases: one with original/Russian, two with Italian parts...

Sorry, fast typing on a small laptop!

Nele

NULLA ROSSA SINE SPINA

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:38:44 GMT, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Don't know where you were in the food chain of aircrew training, but
if it was installed in the planes every single day, you can bet we
knew how to use it. If it were mission essential or mission critical
we got trained in it, refreshed in it, tested in it, and briefed on
every single mission with regard to employment of it.

Well... OK...

One thing that fighter/bomber crews never seemed to understand was
Mode-4 IFF, and wide-band secure voice. In Iceland the mission was
to intercept and escort any unidentified aircraft through the defense zone.
What that meant in real life was that if the IFF gave you problems, you
shut it off. If you couldn't talk to AWACS, or the Shack on secure, then
you switched to clear. Billions in hardware in the off position.

Foggy memory trying to recall things. Best I recollect (although I
might be wrong) was that the IFF/SIF had cockpit control of modes 1,
2, 3 and C. Don't recall that Mode-4 was cockpit controllable. In the
F-4 the coding was done in the nosegear well on the ground with a
plunger-like device. If you're talking peace-time air defense
intercept, and you've got 1,2,3 and C so that AWACS/GCI can control
you, then I'd have to agree with the decision to go. In combat,
interdiction, across the fence, then I'd say the prudent choice would
be no-go.

As for secure, again, if you are an interceptor and (as you stated the
situation), you can't talk to AWACS, etc. secure, you still go and
acknowledge that you're degraded. The option is to not go and be
penetrated.

As for your final statement, "billions in hardware in the off
position"--I'd say maybe millions if all the force wasn't using those
two sub-systems, and I'd say that you didn't indicate that all the
force wasn't using the systems--you simply provided a couple of
examples of "if the IFF gave you problems" and "if you couldn't talk
secure". Seems like you're describing a choice of mission
accomplishment or not, in limited situations.


Today, I think the radio is a completely different tool than it was before
1986. The use of wide and narrow secure when it's even necessary, is
the favored position (especially satcom). I listened to some of the
Air/Air recordings from a strike near Hanoi by a flight of 105's when I
went to a technical seminar, and it pretty much defined the word Clint
Eastwood had about Clusters...

Well, it depends on when during the conflict the radio recording you
heard was made. There was no Have Quick or later version of secure
voice. Depending upon the training of the crews (see my comments in
this forum in the past or in WTR for re-qual of various types in
fighters), the mission de jour, the weather, the defenses, etc. etc.
it could indeed be an example of remarkable incompetence.

But, that certainly can't be an example to support your argument
regarding what the crews "understand". Understanding the purpose,
operation, etc of equipment is a whole lot different depending upon
the mission circumstances, and quite obviously, the equipment
availability or existence.