Jump to content
Aero Precision provides OEM part support for military aircraft operators across more than 20 aircraft

Fred

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

13 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hmmm...I know Wikapedia isn't necessarily the gospel in every case; but... Design and development At first, the United States Air Force intended the conversion to be an easy matter of removing the carrier-specific features, so no prototypes were ordered, just five pre-production RB-66A models (the reconnaissance mission being considered a high priority). The list of modifications grew, and before long, the supposedly easy conversion became what was substantially a new aircraft. Many of the changes were due to the USAF's requirement for low-level operations, while the Navy version had originally been designed and employed as a high-altitude nuclear strike bomber. Two major differences between the A-3 and the B-66 consisted in the types of jet engines used, and the emergency crew escape systems. The A-3 had two J57 turbojet engines, whereas the B-66 had two Allison J71s. The B-66 was equipped with ejection seats whereas the A-3 was not. The first RB-66A pre-production aircraft flew in 1954, whereas the first production RB-66B aircraft flew in the beginning of 1955. The basic B-66 design proved to be a versatile one, and was produced or modified into a variety of other versions, including the EB-66, RB-66, and the WB-66. Likewise, many variants of the A-3 Skywarrior were produced. Operational history RB-66B of 19 Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron based at RAF Sculthorpe England in 1957 Deliveries to the Air Force began in 1956, with 145 of this model produced. RB-66s were used as the primary night photo-reconnaissance aircraft of the USAF during this time, many examples serving with tactical reconnaissance squadrons based in the United Kingdom and in West Germany. A total of 72 of the B-66B bomber version were built, 69 fewer than originally planned. A total of 13 B-66B aircraft later were modified into EB-66B electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft for the cold war with Russia, and were stationed at RAF Chelveston with the 42nd Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron who did the conversion in the early 1960s. They would rotate out of an alert pad in Spain during the time that the 42nd had them. These and the RB-66Cs that the 42nd had would eventually be sent to Vietnam. Unlike the U.S. Navy's A-3 Skywarrior, which performed some bombing missions, the Destroyer was not used as a bomber in Vietnam. Specifications (B-66) General characteristics Crew: 3 (Pilot, Navigator and EWO) Length: 75 ft 2 in (22.9 m) Wingspan: 72 ft 6 in (22.1 m) Height: 23 ft 7 in (7.2 m) Wing area: 780 ft² (72.5 m²) Empty weight: 42,540 lb (19,300 kg) Loaded weight: 57,800 lb (26,200 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 83,000 lb (38,000 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Allison J71-A-11 or -13 turbojets, 10,200 lbf (45 kN) each One of the guys in my first ops duty in Thailand had been in B-66 bomb-droppers in France earlier in his career. He wasn't an EWO. Makes me wonder if the crew make-up was pilot, nav-bomb, and EWO in the bombers. For sure there wouild have been an EWO in the EB's. I suspect that this post is bs of somekind. No FE in B-47 or B-52. "Unlike...the Destroyer was not used as a bomber in Vietnam..." according to Wikapedia.
  2. Any updates to the circumstances of this tragic mishap? Was the airplane equipped with a FDR and CVR? Recovered? I would expect that progress reports have been issued by the safety investigation board? "Used-to-be"...each wing operating herks would be on the distribution list. From what I can see of the videos...the takeoff and climb appeared to be an unusual combination of attitude and bank right away after takeoff. Nose high and a lot of right bank it looks like. Hard to tell from the distance and angle. I too can imagine a static #1 propeller in a few frames of one of the videos. I also can see what looks like a big yaw angle to the left developing and progressing to stalling that wing. I was initially thinking big-time prop malfunction, but I would have expected some kind of grounding of HamStandard props-equipped planes to have occurred already, if that were the case.
  3. Minneapolis. One full-time, one part-time. Lockheed, C-130 ATS http://search.lockheedmartinjobs.com/ListJobs/ByState/MN/Country-US/ Check it out. I know that the recent experience requirement has been waived in the past...
  4. Long time ago and some years after I left the "Harsh, Unique, Arctic Environment". I recall reading the final message copy of the report, if I remember correctly. At least it was a very comprehensive version of the safety report. Pope crew during Jack Frost exercise with --I believe-- a medevac involvement. Somebody's E-model. Seems the winds were out-of-limits per the 616MAG local directive. I don't believe that wind limits were specified in the 22AF Summary; just the "strip check" part. Icy runway? Have to see some pictures and the report. If it was significant ice on runway, you'd have to be nuts to go in there with strong and/or gusty wind period. I think what got 'em was combination of x-wind, light weight, slippery to some extent, and pulling 'em to max reverse right away with 100% flap extended. I believe I remember the safety report brought in some aspect of a crewmember's previous personal life; which I thought was just chicken dirt, having nothing to do with flying an airplane. Like I said, long time ago.
  5. Yes. Procedure published for three-engines, maximum effort, and flaps-up takeoffs. So, performance data is published in the T.O. 1C-130-1-1 and I would expect also the SMP 777.
  6. Are you considering as an accident Class A mishap only?
  7. Helmet? Yes. No sweep-on masks on the airplanes. Most guys had to carry the helmet every flight to have some way to don oxygen and have comm. Some former "big MAC" guys had a quick donning arrangement for oxygen mask, so they could have oxygen with a regular headset. As far as survival gear...I don't remember. I don't even know if the 54th maintained combat survival gear available. I was still a "new guy" in Herks, and weather recon was kind of an off-beat corner of the USAF Herk world.
  8. Don't know about trash haulers, but 54th WRS (MAC) launched us toward the (secret) dispersal? location. Made it as far as Makapu Beach. My first visit to the lovely Hawaiian Isles courtesy of Uncle Sam. Then they turned us around. October, as i recall, 1973.
  9. Nope. That version was inaugurated during the time frame after August 1973 when I arrived at the 54th. The earlier version was a buzzard sitting on some clouds on a world globe background. You can search on 54WRS images. I just did. That image was the first one on the page. The unit call sign was "Swan xx". I guess someone thought that an australian black swan would be "cooler" (that's what it's supposed to be). When it's embroidered on a mediocre quality patch...looks more like a coot to me. The preceding words: one old man's recollection and $0.02 worth.
  10. I was assigned to the 54 WRS at the time of the accident. The runway was 6R I believe. It was night. The Andersen runways at the time had a pronounced concave contour with the approach end and departure end elevations being higher than the midpoint of the runway length. In other words: downhill the first part of takeoff ground run, and uphill the later part; you would have to climb a bit just to clear the end of the runway. As I remember it, the C-130 touched down off the right side of the runway and before the end of the runway, and the debris field extended to the cliff and over the side down towards the reef at water's edge. I don't remember the weather at the time, but VMC or IMC same difference, because there was zero visual cues from the surface once you lost sight of the airfield and runway lights. Night takeoffs like that can cause visual and sensory illusions, and early or rapid flap retraction could add the risk of spatial disorientation. Flaps come up; nose pitches up; but climb doesn't increase...relax a little back pressure...could happen very easily. A copy of the publicly releasable portion of the accident report should be obtainable. No voice or data recorders in those days, so investigation and reporting relied in a large measure on "educated guesses".
  11. Fred

    Blade angle

    Can anyone tell me the actual blades angles of a propeller set "on the cuff" in preparation for a windmill taxi start the USAF airlift C-130E/H method? Thanks
  12. This situation is covered pretty well in the emergency procedures section. "If an RPM of at least 96% cannot be maintained when slowing to 150 KTAS without exceeding engine limitations," "slowing" One hundred fifty knots true airspeed is the magic number. If the propeller doesn't feather when you cut the fuel off, the engine is going to experience negative torque. Of course it takes a lot of horsepower to spin that compressor and turbine and all the other parasites, specially if acceleration bleed valves are closed. the fixed-pitch prop out there will try to spin all that rotating mass, and in doing so will cause a whole lot of drag. Best to ensure that the propeller decouples when you cut the fuel, if it does not feather. Evidently Lockheed determined that 150 kt. TRUE airspeed is sufficiently fast to decouple the prop at any pitchlocked blade angle that is low enough to present excessively difficult handling problems, should it not decouple. Shutting off fuel at a higher airspeed would be overkill as far as causing decouple if it doesn't feather, and would cause higher-than-necessary noise and vibration if and when it did decouple, plus higher drag if you're real unlucky that day and it doesn't feather or decouple. I recall the instructor at my very first refresher simulator more than 40 years ago saying " a pitchlocked prop is a good prop". He was right, it will allow you to keep the engine running and provide some thrust until you get to somewhere you can land...a good place you hope. Lots of things to think about with a pitchlocked prop. Best to read all of it a couple of times; better yet...think about what could/would happen in various scenarios and how you would respond while you're hangar flying with your buddies in the bar. As far as an uncontrolled overspeed goes, I recall a message I saw back in the 70's and I think it came out of Okinawa stating that the overspeeding prop caused such noise and vibration that rational thought was almost impossible. Must have turned out OK, though.
  13. Looks like @ Clark...? I think I see a "grey ghost" '73 model, and a palm tree, and an F-4 in the background...
  14. Well...ummm....ahhh...never mind...
  15. Hmmm...rolling down the runway on a touch-and-go...IAS 125...flaps 50%...torque zero...pull on the yoke and it will lift off....
×
×
  • Create New...