The Airplane Thread

[Llarry]

U.S. Navy rotary-wing drone (UAV) used on littoral combat ships for mine warfare; based on Bell 407 helicopter. The Navy bought 38 of these -- all based on the west coast -- but uses 10 for deployments and keeps 28 in reserve. I believe they are paired with manned MH-60S helicopters when the ships deploy.

[Boysie56]

Originally Posted by Llarry

And the lesson is: checklist, checklist, checklist

My favorite Snort photo,

That looks like it was going to hit the carrier!! I assume there was no accident?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Boysie56

That looks like it was going to hit the carrier!! I assume there was no accident?

Nope -- Snort made that knife-edge pass at very high speed and very close to the ship, but pulled it off successfully.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Nope -- Snort made that knife-edge pass at very high speed and very close to the ship, but pulled it off successfully.

The photo of Snort making that pass reminds me of another a knife-edge pass that did not end well. Bud Holland, a pilot who was know for playing by his own rules, went too far this time and crashed his B-52, killing himself and his crew.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

The photo of Snort making that pass reminds me of another a knife-edge pass that did not end well. Bud Holland, a pilot who was know for playing by his own rules, went too far this time and crashed his B-52, killing himself and his crew.

Yes, indeed. I've read that he was selected by the wing commander to do an airshow, for which the flight in question was a practice. Others in the wing were horrified that such an unsafe pilot would be doing the show and there was much jockeying for who would be in (or not in) the aircraft. If I remember correctly, one of the casualties was the wing flight surgeon. The video is horrible to watch.

[Llarry]

The De Havilland DH108 was an experimental tailless aircraft of the 1940s; this is a photo of the third and final prototype. Royal Navy test pilot Captain Eric Brown described the DH108 as a "killer" and it was that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH_108

[Llarry]

Grumman Aircraft got their start making floats for Navy floatplanes. From there, it was a transition to making the whole thing!

Here's a J2F-6 in pre-WW2 Marine colors. Note the tailhook; J2Fs were carrier-capable.

J = Utility
2 = 2nd model
F = Grumman
6 = 6th modification

[Llarry]

The Grumman J2F and its very similar immediate predecessor, the JF, were not the first Grumman airplanes.

The first Grumman airplane was the FF-1 carrier fighter. Unusually, it was a two-place design (much like UK carrier fighters of the era), but its real claim to fame was retractable landing gear, which decreased drag and increased speed. The pictured FF in its beautiful pre-WW2 colors is in the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida.

The U.S. Navy only bought one squadron's worth of aircraft: 18 for one VF and 9 spares. They later bought 33 variants as scouts, designated SF-1. The FF was soon superseded by single-seat Grumman fighters like the F2F and F3F.

Canadian Car & Foundry license-built 52 aircraft for the RCAF under license and Grumman built 34 for Spain during the civil war period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_FF

[Llarry]

Before Grumman took over the Navy fighter business, Boeing was dominant. Grumman got their foot in the door with their two-place FF-1 but soon started work on a single place fighter using the same retractable landing gear.

The result was the F2F-1, a more compact fighter with a squat appearance which gave the F2F and its successors the nickname 'Flying Barrels.' The armament of all of these Grumman fighters was twin .30 cal machine guns.

The F2F was powered by a twin-row 14-cylinder radial, the R-1535, of 700 hp. Only 54 were built; enough for two fighter squadrons.

Grumman then slightly enlarged the design for the F3F-1 and 54 were delivered to the Navy in 1936, again equipping two squadrons.

The F3F-2 was next and Grumman installed a larger 9-cylinder single-row R-1820 engine of 950 hp, changing the nose contour considerably. 81 of these were delivered in 1938, equipping three squadrons. By this time, Grumman was dominating the Navy/Marine fighter force.

Although it was obvious that monoplane fighters would be the future, Grumman managed to get a final contract for 27 F3F-3s (very similar to the F3F-2s) and delivered their last biplane fighters to the Navy in 1938-39.

Doing the math, Grumman had produced and delivered eight squadron's worth of 'Flying Barrel' fighters to the Navy and Marines in five years.

The F2Fs and F3Fs finished out their service as fighter trainers in Florida until 1942; none saw combat in World War II.

The replacements for these Grumman fighters came from two companies: Upstart Brewster with its F2A Buffalo, which got orders for almost 200 fighters for an expanding Navy and Marine Corps but had an undistinguished record in combat in 1942 and Grumman itself, which developed the F4F Wildcat of World War II fame.

Post-script: The F2A had a spotty record with the U.S.: weak landing gear for carrier landings and a poor combat record in a few early engagements. On the other hand, Finland took delivery of a number of F2As and the Buffalos achieved an excellent record against the Soviets in the Winter War of 1939-40.

[Llarry]

I predict that the newest member of NATO, Finland, will more than pull their weight in the alliance. As is true for the other Northern Euopean countries, they excel at cold weather operations -- they taught the 800-pound gorilla Stalin an expensive lesson in 1939-40 during the Winter War.

The Finnish Air Force is presently equipped with 60 or so F/A-18C/D fighters but has 64 F-35A JSF stealth fighters on order, with deliveries scheduled to start in a few years. The Air Force is otherwise pretty small, with a few transports (one of which has been modified for intelligence collection) and helicopters. They use the Hawk for advanced fast-jet training -- who doesn't?

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, indeed. I've read that he was selected by the wing commander to do an airshow, for which the flight in question was a practice. Others in the wing were horrified that such an unsafe pilot would be doing the show and there was much jockeying for who would be in (or not in) the aircraft. If I remember correctly, one of the casualties was the wing flight surgeon. The video is horrible to watch.

Not quite, but you're in the ballpark.

Here's an excellent case study that's been written about the accident with many factual details.

I was on Active Duty when it happened-- I remember the discussions of the various failures of Leadership at many levels that allowed this to happen.

Well worth the read: https://convergentperformance.com/wp...es_of_Blue.pdf

[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by Llarry

U.S. Navy rotary-wing drone (UAV) used on littoral combat ships for mine warfare; based on Bell 407 helicopter. The Navy bought 38 of these -- all based on the west coast -- but uses 10 for deployments and keeps 28 in reserve. I believe they are paired with manned MH-60S helicopters when the ships deploy.

LOL - looks like the recent color fad for BMWs (unpainted grey)

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, indeed. I've read that he was selected by the wing commander to do an airshow, for which the flight in question was a practice. Others in the wing were horrified that such an unsafe pilot would be doing the show and there was much jockeying for who would be in (or not in) the aircraft. If I remember correctly, one of the casualties was the wing flight surgeon. The video is horrible to watch.

Bud Holland thought his vast experience and skill defied the laws of aerodynamics. He was wrong. Physics>Ego.

You are right, the video is horrible to watch. I didn't share a link for that reason. The photo itself is bad enough. It still pisses me off almost 30 years later that he put himself and his crew and his aircraft in this situation. No sane pilot would have done that.

Sorry for derailing this thread. Let's get back to cool photos and stories about airplanes. We'd need a whole other thread for airplane crashes.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, indeed. I've read that he was selected by the wing commander to do an airshow, for which the flight in question was a practice. Others in the wing were horrified that such an unsafe pilot would be doing the show and there was much jockeying for who would be in (or not in) the aircraft. If I remember correctly, one of the casualties was the wing flight surgeon. The video is horrible to watch.

I watched a video and read about the incident. They said it was a possible suicide?

[Llarry]

The earliest U.S.-designed fighters were from Curtiss and Boeing. Let's look at the Boeings.

Design of the Boeing Model 15 started in 1923. The plan was for the 15 to be powered by a 300 hp liquid-cooled engine, but Curtiss (with Army funding) developed a new V-12 engine of 1,150 cubic inches, the Curtiss D-12 of 435 hp. While Curtiss was reluctant to allow the use of their engine in a competitor, the Army owned the rights and gave Boeing an engine for the prototype. An innovative feature of the Boeing design was a welded steel frame, rather than wood -- stronger and lighter.

The first flight of the Model 15 was in June of 1923. It took a while, but the Army ordered full production of the airplane in 1924 as the PW-9 (Pursuit, water-cooled, 9th design.)

PW-9s were delivered to various Army units, and improved versions followed, designated PW-9A, PW-9C and PW-9D.

In late 1924, the Navy took notice of the Boeing design and ordered a few as the FB-1. These were land-based fighters, mostly used by the Marine Corps. The Navy also ordered improved versions, including a few with provisions for aircraft carrier use. The FB-5 variant was the first to be ordered in squadron numbers -- 27 were ordered for use on the USS Langley, the Navy first aircraft carrier. The FB-5 also had a Packard engine of 525 hp.

The radial engine was also coming on strong, and several versions were fitted with radials. The FB-4 had a Wright radial and was then fitted with a 1,340 cubic inch radial from a new company -- Pratt & Whitney -- and redesignated FB-6.

The next development was a purpose-built carrier fighter designated F2B and fitted with the same P&W R-1340 engine. That was followed by an improved F3B.

Boeing decided to design improved fighters, built to outperform all others, for potential Army and Navy use: The Boeing Models 83 and 89. The frames of these planes were aluminum, further saving weight. The first flight came in 1928 and the planes were tested by the Navy, which liked what they saw; they ordered 27 as the F4B-1. The Army was not far behind; the first P-12 was completed in early '29. Army and Navy aircraft were very similar, but Army orders soon outpaced the Navy. Army units in the Philippines, Hawaii and Panama, in addition to those in the U.S. got new fighters.

Further improvements came quickly, including more powerful R-1340 engines and Townend rings around the engine cylinders, improving cooling and reducing drag. The P-12C, D and E were delivered to the Army and Navy and Marine squadrons got F4B-2s, -3s and -4s.

Army fighters were painted olive drab with yellow wing surfaces; in 1937, they were repainted silver. Navy and Marine fighters were much more colorful, with yellow upper wings only and a complicated system of tail, stripe and Townend ring colors denoting squadron, section, etc.

Both service's Boeing fighters served well into the 1930s before newer fighters replaced them. They ended their days as utility aircraft or fighter trainers but were gone by 1941.

The third photo is of a Navy aerobatic team, the Seahawks, who took off, performed aerobatics and landed while their aircraft were tied together. Try that, Blue Angels!

[Lady Jane]

Another obscure but interesting design of WWII. Rikugun Ki-93

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikugu...-5%20languages

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Esteban

They said it was a possible suicide?

Absolutely not.

Bud Holland just screwed up-- he thought he was better than he was.

Read the monograph I posted above-- that's the best analysis I've seen of the accident other than the actual Incident Report.

R.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Absolutely not.

Bud Holland just screwed up-- he thought he was better than he was.

Read the monograph I posted above-- that's the best analysis I've seen of the accident other than the actual Incident Report.

R.

No ejection seats in the BUFF?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

No ejection seats in the BUFF?

From the transcript:

" Approximately three-quarters of the way around the turn, at 14:16, the aircraft banked past 90°, descended rapidly, clipped power lines and hit the ground, exploding and killing the four crew members. McGeehan was seated in an ejection seat, but according to the medical statement, he had only "partially ejected at the time of impact"; it does not state whether or not he cleared the aircraft. Huston was also seated in an ejection seat and the medical statement indicated that he had not initiated the ejection sequence. Wolff's seat was not ejection-capable. No one on the ground was injured."

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

No ejection seats in the BUFF?

There are ejection seats, but they're the last operational "catapult" ejection seats of any AF aircraft. Which means that they have a very limited egress envelope.

Modern ejection seats (think Aces-II, Aces-V, etc.) have "Zero-Zero" capability; i.e. you can punch out literally sitting stopped on the ramp. The seat has a rocket that'll lift you high enough to separate from the seat, deploy the 'chute, and give you about one swing before you hit the ground. The seats will auto-level as well; i.e. they can punch you out and will aim "up" before kicking you out of the seat and deploying the 'chute. (If you were fully inverted, I think you need something like 140' from cockpit to ground).

The B-52 seats are antiques and are very complicated-- there are thrusters to stow tabletops and control panels during the ejection sequence, fire the overhead hatch, then throw you and the seat out of the jet. The four crew member on the top (pilot, copilot, gunner and EWO) eject upwards, but the two nav's (radar nav and bomb nav) fire DOWN-- iirc, they didn't even pull the pins (arm) their seats until something like 500' above the ground. Basically, if you had to eject immediately after takeoff, you were a dead man if you were sitting in the two lower seat positions-- you'd be fired right into the ground.

The upper system would blow the thrusters, pull your legs in and blow the canopy when you pulled the handgrips. Squeeze the triggers, and good luck evading the tail and then the Soviet horde, guys! The lower system would pull in your legs and blow the seat and hatch when you pulled a handle between your legs. It would be..... bad to get the two different seat operations mixed up.

Any other crewmembers (i.e. instructors, etc.) would basically have to jump out of the hole left by the ejecting crew. It was a different world when the BUFF was built-- there was a lot more of a "cowboy" mentality during the Cold War. (Aside: If you watch the movie "Fail Safe", it's reasonably accurate as to what the crew's mindsets were at the height of the Cold War.)

If you watch the Czar (Fairchild) video, you can see one of the upper hatches depart the aircraft as one of the crew had initiated the ejection sequence. Of the four crew onboard, three had ejection seats-- one didn't. Obviously, none of them survived, and only the one had started to eject. Fun fact-- each ejection seat on the B-52 is independent-- i.e. each person has to initiate themselves, there's no "Master" ejection sequence.

Here's an interesting site with some expanded explanations of the B-52 ejection sequence:

https://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm

R.

[vreihen16]

Oops!!!!!

https://news.yahoo.com/federal-agent...204425744.html

FBI agents busted into the wrong Boston hotel room during a training exercise, where they handcuffed and interrogated a Delta Airlines pilot for nearly an hour before realizing he was the wrong person, according to WBZ News.

Federal agents from the Boston FBI office and the Department of Defense were conducting a mock investigation at The Revere Hotel late Tuesday night, sources told WBZ's Cheryl Fiandaca.

The agents banged on the door of a hotel room at around 10 pm, and when a confused man opened the door, they handcuffed him, put him in the shower, and interrogated him for more than 45 minutes, WBZ reported.

When the agents discovered they had made a mistake, they apologized to the man, who turned out to be a Delta Airlines pilot who was just trying to get some sleep, according to WBZ.

[Llarry]

Having earlier covered Boeing's biplane fighters of the 1920s, let me now turn to Curtiss fighters.

Curtiss produced about 80 or so Army P-1s from 1925. These were powered by the Curtiss D-12 engine (that also powered some Boeing planes.) The Navy also bought the Curtiss fighters and designated them as F6C. Some were even used with floats instead of landing gear. Early F6C aircraft were strictly landplanes, but later variants were carrier capable.

Later Army variants included the P-6 Hawk, first flown in 1929. Some were fitted with superchargers and three-blade props for better performance at altitude. The P-6D model had a service ceiling of 32,000 feet!

There was plenty of experimentation going on and Curtiss, like Boeing, fitted some of their Hawks with radial engines, but most Army Curtiss fighters were water-cooled V-12s.