If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making your own canopy | c hinds | Home Built | 6 | November 22nd 04 09:10 AM |
Why is a standard hold right turns? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 51 | August 28th 04 06:09 PM |
need advice with composite for making glare shield | bubba | Home Built | 1 | July 7th 04 05:44 AM |
Making my landing gear | Lou Parker | Home Built | 8 | March 31st 04 10:34 PM |
Air Force launches rocket with secret military payload from Cape Canaveral | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:07 PM |