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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:28:05 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:03:03 +0100, "José Herculano"
wrote:


An Argentinian 707 shadowing the British fleet pulled 7 G to
avoid a couple of Sea Dart missiles. She too landed.

The second claim is incorrect. No Sea Dart missiles were ever launched
at the shadowing aircraft. by a British vessel, although at one point
they nearly did, before identifying the aircraft as (IIRC) a Brazilian
charter flight.

No, it's correct. It is true that the British never fired on the 707s that
shadowed the main Task Force on its trip south, and those flights ended for
several weeks after a pointed warning.

However, the Argentines did eventually resume the flights, conducting
reconnaissance against British reinforcements headed south from Ascension.
On 22 May, HMS Bristol and HMS Cardiff each fired a pair of Sea Darts at a
707 belonging to Grupo 1, which took evasive action as desribed above.

Odd, I thought that incident was against a Lear Jet. Bloody
memory......

Peter Kemp

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!
In any event, Chad, you're absolutely correct that flightline troops
make mistakes. But the good folks in St. Louis at the McDonnell
Douglas plant have a few scruples to speak of and you can rest
assurred that they designed the F-4's ECM pod with hamfisted
pilots and/or hairy-assed line mechanics in mind.

With regards to your comments about threaded areas and/or
corrosion possibly weakening the ECM attachment points, as
you know AN hardware comes in a wide variety of different flavors
and anything prone to corrosion is generally cadmium plated.
And AN bolts have "rolled" threads (as opposed to "cut" threads)
which results in a strengthening of the bolt in the thread area.

But once again, doubtful the "brainy" types in St. Louis designed the
ECM pod fasteners to take shear loads in the threaded area
anyway (it is a bad practice to do this with any bolt, AN or
otherwise). From a practical standpoint even if you took took an
AN bolt and clamped it in a vice then punished it with a sledgehammer,
you'd find that you could exceed the yield strength without actually
breaking the bolt as it would stretch or bend quite a bit before
snapping.

The bottom line is that, yeah, I actually DO have a "near-religious
faith" in AN hardware since it's my own butt hanging from one single
solitary AN6-44 bolt when flying my own personal homebuilt aircraft
that's rated to +6, -3 G's. I don't simply wrench on A/C and sign 'em
over to some guinea pig to test fly, I actually fly A/C that I worked
on, modified, or constructed myself. I'm not claiming to have flown
an F-4, but that's how I know that it would require a hellacious
amount of G's to cause the bolts that fasten the ECM pod to the
F-4's airframe to fail.

Film at 11.

Cool. I assume it's a film showing an F-4 ECM pod departing the
airframe in Vietnam as you said?


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

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:49:34 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!
In any event, Chad, you're absolutely correct that flightline troops
make mistakes. But the good folks in St. Louis at the McDonnell
Douglas plant have a few scruples to speak of and you can rest
assurred that they designed the F-4's ECM pod with hamfisted
pilots and/or hairy-assed line mechanics in mind.

"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.

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.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:45:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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

I know there were a couple of cases in Vietnam where F-4s made hard
enough turns to rip the ECM pods off...

Gotta wonder about that, since ECM pods were routinely carried in the
Sparrow missile wells. Can't imagine a situation in which the pods
suspension gear would fail. Don't say it couldn't, simply that I doubt
it.

In 250 combat missions, 150 over NVN where high threat evasions were
most likely, I never, not even once, heard of a structural failure nor
of an inadvertent separation of any piece of equipment off an
aircraft. I'm not saying it couldn't have, simply that I doubt it.

I doubt it too!

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.

Marron has no such math skills.

"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.

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.

Interesting. I'm somewhat surprised that Ed Rasimus never heard of
these incidents during his 250 combat missions in SEA in Thuds and
Phantoms. In any event, I simply "doubted" that it could happen, not
that it unequivocally did not happen.

-Mike Marron

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:28:05 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:
On 22 May, HMS Bristol and HMS Cardiff each
fired a pair of Sea Darts at a 707 belonging to Grupo 1, which took
evasive action as desribed above.

Odd, I thought that incident was against a Lear Jet. Bloody
memory......

Oh, your memory isn't that bad. On 7 June, HMS Exeter actually destroyed a
Learjet 35 on a photo-recce mission -- shot it out of a clear sky at 40,000
ft with Sea Dart (near the outside edge of the Sea Dart envelope it seems,
as a first missile fell short).

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

The F4 wingtips cracked from vibration, not G. However, G set up the
vibration. Flying close when when lead was doing acro one could see
the wing tip vibrating as the tip vortices did their 'Karmann trail"
thing. The 110v 'thin filament' tip lights used to fail in a jiffy
until they rewired then for 28vDC 'heavy filament' bulbs.
We had an F4 at low altitude peg the G meter both ways when the tip of
the 600gal centerline came off as the pilot (Stormy FAC) dodged a SAM
coming right in from 12:00. Later a second F4 had the tip shot off his
centerline tank and the Gs piled on the same way. Turns out the blunt
nosed tank sets up severely disturbed airflow over the horizontal
stabilizers.
Both aircraft checked out okay except lots of 'bubble gum' was needed
to reseal the bottom of the internal wing tanks.
Walt BJ

"Walt BJ" wrote in message
m...
The F4 wingtips cracked from vibration, not G. However, G set up the
vibration. Flying close when when lead was doing acro one could see
the wing tip vibrating as the tip vortices did their 'Karmann trail"
thing.

More apropriatly called gain in s-plane analysis, but true.

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.

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...

--


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