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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: 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. 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... Everything else you wrote is just noise. Not nearly as noisy as the smoke blowing out your ass such as: "I know there were a couple of cases in Vietnam where F-4s made hard enough turns to rip the ECM pods off..." "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..." "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." "Speaking of Vietnam: one afternoon, we were working on a plane, and one of the sheet-metal guys came over to us. He'd just replaced a patch on the tail of one plane, and he had the old patch in his hands. It was a flattened can of Vietnamese beer from ten years back..." -Mike ( Riiiiiiiight ) Marron |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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. So, what happened with over g's, since it all went to nuts and bolts? Mr Cooper, I have read from the interview that one pilot of MiG-25 went to arond 11g... he skewed a plane a bit, but landed OK. Any info on Russian planes over g' ing (especially MiG-23MLD, that can pull 8.5g versus ML that can go to 8g)? Nele NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA Mike Marron wrote in message ... "Gord Beaman" ) wrote: 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? As opposed to what, tensile strength? Could be (I've never hung an ECM pod on an F-4) but the bottom line is that it's highly unlikely an ECM pod could be "ripped" from the belly of an F-4 while maneuvering. If you're interested, this is a highly recommended book: Carroll Smith's Nuts, Bolts and Fasteners and Plumbing Handbook. MJM |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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? Sheesh. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:06:35 GMT, Buzzer wrote:
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... --snip-- 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? I checked out in the F-4C at Luke in April/May of '72, then went to E-models at Korat. The C at Luke was more than adequate to do the job although I would have liked consistent switchology with the airplane I was going to fly combat in. Still, I managed to cope without too much trouble. After leaving Korat, I flew C's at Torrejon for four years, from '73 through '77. The C was certainly not "worn out" by a long shot and because of the relative simplicity of the weapons system (no WRCS, TISEO, TREE, LES, etc.) it had a higher in-commission rate than D's in England or E's in Germany at that time. We had responsibility in USAFE for the NATO Southern Region, and were more than 1/3rd deployed continually. We did nuke alert in Aviano and Incirlik, air defense in Spain and on other deployments, ground attack wherever necessary and led the force in development of anti-ship tactics. The C with it's wing fold hinge patches was a long way from "worn out" and the patches weren't atypical regarding fixes for a lot of various types and models of aircraft. When tactical aircraft cost multiple millions apiece and when the taxpayers deserve to get the maximum bang for their bucks and when the Congress is reluctant to approve lots of new spending, it isn't really a bad decision. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"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." 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." 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. 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! 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. 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. -Mike Marron CFII, A&P, UFI (fixed wing, weightshift, land & sea) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:33:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: Chad Irby wrote: In article , "José Herculano" wrote: Maximum I read regarding the Phantom was a guy in Vietnam pulling 14 G to get an ass-SAM divergence. The bird held and landed. 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. YMMV. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 Does "inadvertent separation" cover those "dang, wrong button" moments? Al Minyard |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:47:10 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:33:40 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: 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. YMMV. Ed Rasimus Does "inadvertent separation" cover those "dang, wrong button" moments? Al Minyard No. Inadvertent means coming off without action (intended or accidental) on the part of the aircrew. I've done some of those "dang (or more scatological, crude or blasphemous words), wrong button" moves. I mention one in When Thunder Rolled, where I conducted a well choreographed sequence of finger manipulations to clean the airplane of tanks, suspension gear and weapons--not necessarily in that order. I fessed up. I also dumped a C/L MER full of 750's one stress-filled afternoon by choosing the wrong toggle switch when I intended to blow the inboard 450 tanks. I fessed up there as well and took an unbelievable amount of harrassment from my squadron buds. (To this day I contend it was a result of poor design ergonomics. The three selective jettison toggle switches were on the right lower console panel. Republic had them reading from left to right: inboard, centerline, outboard. I contend the logical sequence should have been starting from the inside of the row on the right side of the airplane: centerline, inboard, outboard. Using my logic, when I wanted to toggle the inboard stations, I incorrectly chose the centerline jettison switch. Worst of all, I had to continue to the target area, support my flight, not hurt the enemy cause I didn't have any bombs to drop and, the final indignity was I got hit by 37mm while doing it.) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
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. We couldn't even get most of them to learn how to use the stuff that was installed in the planes every single day. Expecting them to know all about the problems that can happen with nut plates inside the plane with a system they didn't fly with all of the time is just, well, silly. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
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 10:10 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 |