Jump to content

Bob Daley


Muff Millen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey, Bob, I just looked at the photos of 0-33131 what's the story about that plane? I notice the Roman nose (erly A model) but how come no external tanks, also looks like the forward cargo door is/was operational. Who owned/flew this piece of history? Brings back memories of my time in the 60's at Naha. If I remember correctly we had one or two there with the roman nose.

Muff

It spent it's entire time as a test aircraft Mostly as Edwards, went to Sheppard as a maintenance trainer and finally put into the Aeromed training area over by the civilian terminal at Sheppard . I don't know what they are going to do with it since the Aeromed training is going to Camp Bullis.

Bob

Edited by bobdaley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the front L/G doors open to the side?

I was told some of the early ones didn't have the plumbing for the external tanks, or the hangers for them.

It's been a long time ago, I may be wrong.

Yes they opened to the side, the first aircraft thru 54-1628 had side opening nose gear doors, some of those were remoded to aft opening.

Bob

Edited by bobdaley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latches on the Fwd cargo door were blocked so as not to let the door come open in flight in 64 or early 65 after Gary Back was sucked out in flight.

I was working on one of the A,s when one of the shopes came out and put a piece of metal behind the latch to keep it from moving.

I don't remember if the hand Hyd. pump was disconnected at that time or not.

On the A,s the only way to open the door was with the hand pump.

Never flew A's but on the B's we kept the forward pump because we used it to pump down the nose gear as needed. The only time I flew 1961 E's was at Sewart and I think They were the same. Starting with the first 62 E's the doors were not installed.

Bob

Edited by bobdaley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering what the "hardware" sticking out the back is???

Mike Thompson

Looks to be a rig for checking acft for icing.

Fly to high altatude, have acft to be checked fly behind you and dump out a lot of water (fine mist) to be frozen quickly.

To check handling and deice equip.

Just a guess on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks like the third production model. Some of the 53 models didn't have external tanks. The roman nose without external tanks were faster than the later models.

rayj

Yes it was the third production model 53-3131.

Bob

Edited by bobdaley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I transferred to Edwards in early 1963, 53-3131 had been @ Edwards for several years. Also we had Early A's 53-3134 & 3135; 54-1624 & 1626. 3131 was a test bed for the Satellite retrieval equipment the entire time I was there. The Fwd. Cargo door was operational on all of them; All had the "Roman" nose; On most of them,if not all, the aft NLG door moved out, instead of aft; & none of them had wing tanks installed. I don't know if they were even set up for externals or not. In 1964 or early 65, we transferred 53-3134 to Okinawa, but when I left Edwards in late 65 all the others were still there. I believe 54-626 was converted to the first AC130, sometime later. Kinda lost track after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Bob, I just looked at the photos of 0-33131 what's the story about that plane? I notice the Roman nose (erly A model) but how come no external tanks, also looks like the forward cargo door is/was operational. Who owned/flew this piece of history? Brings back memories of my time in the 60's at Naha. If I remember correctly we had one or two there with the roman nose.

Muff

The A-models weren't delivered with external tanks. I've heard two different versions of when they were installed. One was when the 61st deployed to New Zealand and the other was when the 463rd deployed to Ashyia. My guess is Ashyia is the one that prompted the installations. We've had some discussions on this in the past. The original pylon tanks were drop tanks and were designed to be dropped before the airplane went into into a hostile fire area. Later on the drop mechanism was disabled but some airplanes still had the switches on the overhead panels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I transferred to Edwards in early 1963, 53-3131 had been @ Edwards for several years. Also we had Early A's 53-3134 & 3135; 54-1624 & 1626. 3131 was a test bed for the Satellite retrieval equipment the entire time I was there. The Fwd. Cargo door was operational on all of them; All had the "Roman" nose; On most of them,if not all, the aft NLG door moved out, instead of aft; & none of them had wing tanks installed. I don't know if they were even set up for externals or not. In 1964 or early 65, we transferred 53-3134 to Okinawa, but when I left Edwards in late 65 all the others were still there. I believe 54-626 was converted to the first AC130, sometime later. Kinda lost track after that.

Are you sure about 3135? That airplane went to Naha with the 345th/35th in 1963, at least I've been told it did. It was assigned to the 35th when I got there in early '66 but was never used for anything but locals because of the radar. It might have come over later to replace one of the airplanes that were lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did they get it there. When we went to Clark in 64, I think we left from Edwards with a full fuel load on an "A" with external tanks.32,000 pounds of fuel.

Without external tanks was 28,000 pounds.

When we got to Hickham we had declared a fuel emergency and given permission for a straight in approach and landing.

We ran into 50 knot headwinds after the PONR.

One engine had a flameout when we landed.

Also how much did fuel weigh back in the mid 60,s? I am thinking that 8 pounds per gallon was what the loadmaster figured it at.

Also 150 pounds for each person. was my understanding.

I wasn't a loadmaster just in crew maint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did they get it there. When we went to Clark in 64, I think we left from Edwards with a full fuel load on an "A" with external tanks.32,000 pounds of fuel.

Without external tanks was 28,000 pounds.

When we got to Hickham we had declared a fuel emergency and given permission for a straight in approach and landing.

We ran into 50 knot headwinds after the PONR.

One engine had a flameout when we landed.

Also how much did fuel weigh back in the mid 60,s? I am thinking that 8 pounds per gallon was what the loadmaster figured it at.

Also 150 pounds for each person. was my understanding.

I wasn't a loadmaster just in crew maint.

It depends on the winds. The distance from the West Coast to Hawaii is roughly 2,500 miles. Jet fuel weighed then and weighs now 6.5 lbs per gallon, depending on temperature. Deployments were not always through the mid-Pac route. C-123s, C-47s, etc. deployed to Asia via Alaska and the Aleutians. We took an A-model back to Naha by going to Elmendorf, Adak, Midway and Guam in 1967 because winds over the mid-PAC route were too strong. One of the 61st pilots told me they didn't have them on the 61st airplanes when they went to New Zealand and McMurdo in 1960. The Ashiya deployment was in early 1958.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, 3135 was at Naha in 1964. I got to Naha in Nov 63 and I worked on her right after I got there. The snubbies had the AN/APS 42 for a search radar and we had to take the components to Kadena's com/nav shop to work on them. Ralph

There's a picture of the Sewart ramp that was taken in 1962 that is around. It shows a couple of snub-nosed airplanes on the ramp then. In fact, I put it on my new C-130 page (still in progress at www.sammcgowan.com/c130.html). Lars O. shows 3135 as going from Systems Command to 315th, and does not show 3134 going to TAC/PACAF at all. I had always heard that 3135 was at Sewart and went over with the squadron when it transferred in mid-1963. We never took 3135 to Southeast Asia because of thunderstorms. It may have gone to Korea and Japan. The only time I remember flying it was on locals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did they get it there. When we went to Clark in 64, I think we left from Edwards with a full fuel load on an "A" with external tanks.32,000 pounds of fuel.

Without external tanks was 28,000 pounds.

When we got to Hickham we had declared a fuel emergency and given permission for a straight in approach and landing.

We ran into 50 knot headwinds after the PONR.

One engine had a flameout when we landed.

Also how much did fuel weigh back in the mid 60,s? I am thinking that 8 pounds per gallon was what the loadmaster figured it at.

Also 150 pounds for each person. was my understanding.

I wasn't a loadmaster just in crew maint.

I didn't think about it before, but they probably installed Benson (Bentson?) tanks in the cargo compartment to make the trip. They installed them in other airplanes for long over-water flights. The MULE TRAIN C-123s went Mid-Pac by way of Hickam, Wake and Guam and on to Clark. Carl Wyrick was AC on the lead airplane and Bobby Gassiott was his nav. They were talking about it in San Antonio two years ago. I'll be spending several days on a cruise with Carl next month and should see Bobby at the TCTAA convention. C-47s went to Australia and New Guinea in 1942-43 by way of Hawaii using Benson tanks. They talked about using them on Herks when I was at Pope, but we never needed them. Even with them some airplanes had a hard time making it to Hawaii in the winter and went the North-Pac route instead. One time when I was in C-141s we were on the way back to Elmendorf from Kadena and were diverted to intercept and escort an AC-47 into Shema. They were down to fumes when they got on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about 3135? That airplane went to Naha with the 345th/35th in 1963, at least I've been told it did. It was assigned to the 35th when I got there in early '66 but was never used for anything but locals because of the radar. It might have come over later to replace one of the airplanes that were lost.

Sam, You & Ralph are right. It was 33135 we sent to Naha; not 134. 33134 had a red tail while 135 was it's original aluminum. I recall working on the 134 after I returned from 7-level school in Dec. 64. My apologies--things get cloudy after 46 or so years.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jet fuel weighed then and weighs now 6.5 lbs per gallon, depending on temperature.

Close, and yes temperature dependent.

JP-4 weighs 6.3

For those old timers that don't know. This crap was dumped back in the 90's for JP-8

Also similar to the civilian JET-B, though JET-B the difference mainly being the JP had icing and corrosion inhibitors.

JP-5 weighs 6.8

used by Navy and some USMC bases.

JP-8 weighs 6.7

The "new" Air Force gogo juice. Also found on some USMC bases.

This is also same as JET-A1, though as with the JP-4, 8 also has the icing and corrosion inhibitors the JET-A1 doesn't.

Yes, I know all numbers are relativity close to 6.5, but when figuring weight n balance by using "6.5 works for all fuel" didn't float, we(P-3 world, maybe Herc world is different) back in the JP-4 days we used the the different numbers. Now with JP-4 gone we just used the JP-5 number as its only about .1 off from JP-8 and using the higher number gives a little fudge factor.(we used 8 a lot more than 5, being P-3's on a USMC base with JP-8 and on USAF bases abroad.

Bagging out a Herc(E/H) with externals using JP-4 verses JP-8 would around a 5,000lbs difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (we) always taught to never max out the tanks with JP-8. It would put more weight into the tanks and wings than was spelled out in the -1. Not sure if structurely it would make a difference but shy of any guidance from above, it's better to be safe than sorry. I seem to recall that it was addressed in the -1 somewhere. But not sure after all these years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (we) always taught to never max out the tanks with JP-8. It would put more weight into the tanks and wings than was spelled out in the -1. Not sure if structurely it would make a difference but shy of any guidance from above, it's better to be safe than sorry. I seem to recall that it was addressed in the -1 somewhere. But not sure after all these years.

I seem to recall something about "wing loading " with high OAT and a full fuel load, useing JP 4. I got a Qual 2 by MAC Stan Eval, more because I didn't know about it or where it was in the -1, we where still within limits or it would have been a Qual 3.

Mike Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...