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

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

I was also questioning his assertion that a critical component of the
ECM pod a$$embly was attached to the airplane by the bolt *threads*
alone. I don't think so!

Really?

How else would you characterize four bolts, pointed straight down?

Aside from one cable to the missile well adapter, that's all that holds
the pod missile well adapter to the plane.

The way we mounted it was to put the adapter on the shoulders of one guy
("man under," we called it), and he'd hold it a few inches below the
plane until someone hooked up the cable. Then he'd push it straight up
into the missile well, and the other techs would insert the four bolts.
After we got them medium-tight, the guy holding the MWA would move out
of the way and we'd torque the bolts.

Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I was also questioning his assertion that a critical component of the
ECM pod a$$embly was attached to the airplane by the bolt *threads*
alone. I don't think so!

Really?

How else would you characterize four bolts, pointed straight down?

Aside from one cable to the missile well adapter, that's all that holds
the pod missile well adapter to the plane.

The way we mounted it was to put the adapter on the shoulders of one guy
("man under," we called it), and he'd hold it a few inches below the
plane until someone hooked up the cable. Then he'd push it straight up
into the missile well, and the other techs would insert the four bolts.
After we got them medium-tight, the guy holding the MWA would move out
of the way and we'd torque the bolts.

Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane.

My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad
practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these
all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's
still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the
airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe.

-Mike Marron

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:09:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

If I cut out something a little too much I apologize..

Snip..

between "blowing" the pod--an intentional act and ripping it off
through exceeding the design limits. Kapish?

Does that mean I don't get an A on my final term paper? Darn.G
Point taken..

I will make it a point to ask General Olds. I see him regularly and
we're on a first name basis---he calls me Raz and I call him Sir!

While your're at if you would please ask him if he was in the front
seat when an ECM troop came out to the arming area and tried to
install the pod control box. The airman that had never been near a
running engine and all he could think about was having to climb up on
the intake of that giant vacuum cleaner sucking lots of air..

Depending upon the level of maintenance being signed off, it took
either a five or seven level to release a red-diagonal, and a seven
level to release a red-X. A new attachment to the airframe that
required carting, but was not yet carted, put the airplane on a red-X.
If you were signing off with three-stripers in '67 you were looking
for trouble.

Three stripers were five levels. They were carted or uncarted ahead of
time by MMS. The extra racks if there were usually loaded with bombs
by the time we got to them.

Snip...

You can spot the difference between a TER and MER from a long way
off--the MER is the great big rack that carries six weapons, the TER
is the short stubby one that has three stations. Hard to believe you
could have missed such a basic distinction.

Not hard to believe after all these years for me. I probably loaded
pods a thousand times in a short period. Just one of many things I
did. Pod goes on a clean pylon or goes between a couple bombs. Just
another load. I don't remember if there were bombs behind the pod or
not. My guess because of the length of the pod it was a TER.

You might have noticed that C/L MERs (that's the big long one with six
weapons), have the bottom stations "just a few inches off the
concrete" regardless of what is hung there.

I don't remember centerline loads at all. There could have been at
Ubon in 1967, but I don't remember any. Just not in the old memory
banks. First time I saw a picture of a load like that I thought wow
that is amazing. I didn't know they could do that.

You might have noticed a considerable reduction in missions flown to
areas needing a lot of ECM from October of '68 until May of '72. It
relates.

I stuck to the shop as much as I could at Korat from Nov 68-Sep 70. I
stayed away from debriefing and any crew involvement. I had no idea
where they were flying or what they were doing and that was fine by
me..

Suspension gear is "standard"--doesn't matter to the metal whether it
goes on an F-4 or a 105. The wiring changes, but the suspension is
either 16" or 30" lugs and it's all the same on 781 gear.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov1998/1198mig.asp
"It had required a massive Air Force*wide effort to bring Bolo into
being. The entire 8th TFW's energy was thrown into overcoming last
minute problems, with the support troops working all night long. (A
typical glitch involved the sway braces on the F-4C. They were located
differently than on the F-105, and the shell of the QRC-160 pod had to
be reinforced in order to fit well.)"

"support troops working all night long." I don't remember the number
of people with me that night in the nose dock, but maybe 2 or 3 and I
think a civilian tech rep. You know that "only a select few" for a
secret mission stuff.G And no air driven tools in those days for
some reason. Speed handles and torque wrenches..

I reiterate, that in 1970, there wasn't a high probabiliy of MiG
encounters.

Basically bring the F-4E over in Nov 1968 and shut the area down
where they would have been usefull? In 1968 the F-4E squadron from
Eglin was originally scheduled to go into Vietnam and for some reason
changed to Korat. That is the way my orders changed anyway from
Vietnam to Korat.

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

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

Oh, you can get all sorts of fun stories about loading pods on planes.

We got around a lot of it by running a "full service" pod loading crew.
The same guys put the MWA on, loaded the pod on it, put the control box
in the plane, and ran the tests.

We also had a big advantage for a few years because we were running ECM
from the Component Repair Squadron, so the same guys who fixed the boxes
installed them on the planes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:14:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Thanks Walt for explaining that. I knew they were cracked, but not the
exact why. I never got over seeing those massive plates on the outer
wing panels. Just seemed like more madness of the Vietnam war...


The corrective reinforcing plates, while a bit ugly weren't all that
massive--probably about 4x8 inches and maybe 1/4 inch thick.

I go for 12x8 and 3/8ths, but anyway they were massive to me. I never
saw anything that big on a B-52, and it seemed completely out of place
on a little F-4. (I was out of B-52s from 1966 to 1976 so the D model
and such might have grown patches like that while I was away.)

The went
in place abutting the hinges at the wing fold on both sides; main wing
and tip section. The real "ugliness" was that the paint had to be
scrapped away from the hinge and reinforcement to allow visual
inspection for cracks during preflight.

Not at all related to the "madness"--simply a fact of life that metal
can only be flexed so many times before it fatigues. We had the
reinforced wings at Torrejon while I was flogging F-4Cs from '73 to
'77. Hardly noticed them after a while.

A fact of life that the U.S. government can't supply the people that
defend it with something more than a patched up worn out airframe?

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

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).

You can "doubt" all you want, but that's not how the damned things were
put together.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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).

You can "doubt" all you want, but that's not how the damned things were
put together.

But according to you, that's how the damned things came apart. Yea or
nay?

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane.

My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad
practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these
all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's
still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the
airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe.

-Mike Marron

Marron, for Christ's sake, what are you talking about??...'shear'
loads are "ACROSS THE BOLT". These bolts are installed so that
they will fail (when they do) by stripping the threads or
breaking the bolt "by STRETCHING it till the shank or the threads
fail".

A 'shear failure' will happen when a bolt is SHEARED off at ~90
degrees to the shank.

Why do you suppose it's called shear strength? and why do you
suppose shear strength is so much higher than tensile
strength?...god...
--

-Gord.

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

Chad Irby wrote:
Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane.

My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad
practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these
all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's
still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the
airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe.

-Mike Marron

Marron, for Christ's sake, what are you talking about??...'shear'
loads are "ACROSS THE BOLT". These bolts are installed so that
they will fail (when they do) by stripping the threads or
breaking the bolt "by STRETCHING it till the shank or the threads
fail".

A 'shear failure' will happen when a bolt is SHEARED off at ~90
degrees to the shank.

Why do you suppose it's called shear strength? and why do you
suppose shear strength is so much higher than tensile
strength?...god...

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.

Mike Marron wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

You can "doubt" all you want, but that's not how the damned things were
put together.

But according to you, that's how the damned things came apart. Yea or
nay?

What I'm saying is that the Missile Well Adapter for electronic warfare
pods for the F-4 Phantom was held onto the plane by four bolts running
straight up into the airframe.

You claimed that was "doubtful."

You were (and are still) 100% wrong.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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