larry myers

There is a new Chevy truck TV advert. that includes IAF's spotless C-130A. Very cool. That aircraft is fast becoming an advertising star.

Last week on a Corvette trip I had occasion to have lunch with an American Airlines B757 Captain. Boy, did I get an ear full. He had not one positive thing to say regarding his work or the company. He was especially concerned with how the impending merger would be affecting his seniority. After listening to his almost hour long rant I was so depressed with his take on the state of the business I just wanted to talk to someone, anyone, with positive news about anything. As you eluded to above, I guess the days of, "I can't believe they pay me to do this job," are over.

Good luck tiny. Big change for you and your family. Sure hope everything works as planned. I spent the first five years of my career at Mt. Home and loved every minute. Unspoiled country. Lots of hiking, fishing, hunting, skiing. Keep in touch and when your settled let us know how it's going. And what ever you do don't forget your buds on the site.

Holy Cow. that Daley fellow is getting to be an old geezer...like many of us. On a more serious note, Happy Birthday, Bob. Hope to see you in TN next year.

Me to. I was under the impression there wasn't a Herk in the world the Bob didn't know it's whereabouts. lol

Mark, I know how you felt as I felt the same way at the time. And I also derived a great deal of satisfaction when my acft. blocked on time knowing that we were doing something very important. I was convinced (and still am) that being a crew chief was the best job in the AF. Although, at times, it could get a little rocky. And the hours weren't all that great.

Ah, yes Grant, another tidbit I had forgotten. Recall our training/parts hauler bird, 54-1367 had those upper portholes. The transparencies had been replaced by a sheet metal plug. As you stated, at some point later in production those upper portholes were deleted. Our mission acft., which were all 56 model year birds did not have them. I'm guessing they were deleted with production of the first 55 year acft. At some point during my tour in the 7406th we had 58-711 for some months. What a sweet airplane compared the our A IIs. It lacked the hard compartment bulkheads. Instead the cargo compartment, while open, was filled with equipment. Prototype stuff undergoing field test is my guess. What I remember most about the acft. was the cargo compartment lighting. There was not a shadow anywhere. If led lighting existed that far back 711 had it. There is a long distance poor quality photo in the gallery supposedly of 711, however, the tail number is unreadable. At one point, after I had rotated, the 06th had a classified C-7 assigned. This happened as a result of the US Army being required the transfer all C-7s to the USAF. This acft. was flown and maintained by Army folks. The enlisted troops lived in the 06th barracks. They fit in well and were accepted both off and on duty. The officers not so much. Unless one was involved, one had no idea how much classified flying was going on around the world. On the highly secure ramp at Incerlik, at any one time there would be three or four C-130s, two of three RB/ERB-47s and several Navy A-3Ds.

Grant, I learned something from you today. Did not know that As had four portholes forward of the prop warning line and Bs and on had but three. This proves you're never to old to learn C-130A II acft. began arriving in USAFE about mid year 1958. The C-130B II acft. began delivering to the 556 RS in 1961. As fighting intensified in RVN the 556 tasking became very heavy. As a result, starting in about mid 1966 the 7406th repeatedly sent an acft. TDY to PACAF. The 556th, for the most part, flew the longer missions into SEA while the A II flew the closer in missions. In addition, the 7406th repeatedly flew from McDill AFB. Without tanks the acft. would be non-mission capable. That's because the tanks contained almost all of the sensors. The operators in back would be receiving nothing. When the B IIs were withdrawn from Europe their mission was assumed by the 55th SRW with RC-135 Rivet Joint acft. The three Es, 62-1819, 1822 and 1829 took over the 7405th SS C-97G mission. While these acft., from the exterior, looked standard, they in fact where highly modified with the latest sensors. This was a photo recce. mission flown daily in the Berlin corridor. Thus the Berlin for Lunch Bunch moniker.

David, In the four years I was in the 7406th we never had a requirement to drop the "tank". They attached to the wing similar to the real tank and were removable if necessary. They were made of fiberglass. The air force went to great lengths to conceal what they really were. There was a fuel filler cap, boost pump access panels and operational fuel sump drains provided with a small reservoir for fuel such that if the drain were actuated fuel would actually drain. All nicely stenciled. When cross country would be questioned, "is that really a fuel tank?". Our response was, push the fuel drain. Surprise. Now, anyone with any knowledge of aircraft would know the wing would not support a 1500 gal. fuel tank at that wing station. We would tell them the acft. had a beefed up wing. No explanation for 483. It would have been non-mission capable without the tanks. Perhaps their training [standard] bird. However, that doesn't explain the bogus tail number. BTW, as Bob stated earlier, it was not unusual for USAF C-130 units with classified missions to use bogus tail numbers. We did it, E flight at CCK did it, Heavy Chain did it, and evidently so did the 6091st. The purpose was to confuse the enemy and make them think there were more aircraft than there actually were. Yes David, these acft were heavily modified. The cargo compartment consisted of hard bulkheads secured to the acft. Each operator had a dedicated position. The fuselage walls were covered with a light gray pebbled aluminum sheeting. In addition, there was added insulation and soundproofing throughout. Cushioned multi colored green vinyl type floor covering. As I remember, somewhat plush for a Herk. The cargo compartment air conditioning system was highly modified. One could sit at FS 757 in a T shirt and converse in a normal tone while at cruise altitude, between 28 and 32,000 ft. The paratroop doors were operational, the ramp and door was not. No one, but no one, bought recording tape for their Akia. Your right, no ECM but a lot of listening. Our aircraft were treated with a lot of tlc. While we most all the time took off at max gross weight there were no assault landings, max effort takeoffs, max. effort landings or any of that tactical stuff. We flew most every month in excess of a hundred hours. Mission duration was eight hours forty minutes. Mission airspeed 150 kias with ten percent flaps. This, not surprisingly, beat up the flaps. At phase inspection our tin benders accomplished depot level maintenance with the flap still on the aircraft. I think we had, at the time, the best SSgt sheet metal guy in the air force. Each engine had a 40 kva ac generator and an oversize oil tank. I think 12 gals. At cruise altitude total fuel flow was 2,000 pph. The downside to all of this was the security. Very heavy handed. My wife became friends with a back end maintenance guys wife. And through them I became friends with him. One day my boss came to my aircraft to tell me the sqd. security officer wanted to see me. So I go to his office and he tells me in no uncertain terms I cannot be friends with my friend. As I'm leaving I said to myself, this is America, no one can tell my who my friends can be. So I paid him no heed. Shortly thereafter I had an audience with the commander. He was an easy going fatherly (rare qualities for a sqd. commander) Lt Col who told me why I couldn't have my friend. End of story. As Bob D stated, when the mission ended, all Rivet Victor As' and Bs' were converted back to the tactical airlift mission and assigned to the Reserve Forces. I spoke to Bob about this conversion and he allowed his outfit had been assigned several of the Bs' and they had been almost completely configured to the tactical mission. In fact, I'm guessing he may have flown the acft. pictured in your website. He could confirm/deny that if we only knew what their real tail numbers were. lol The Navy had a classified A-3D squadron posted to NAS Rota Spain. They flew missions from CDI Incerlik Turkey as we did and parked on the secure ramp with us. Their back end crew consisted of US Army operators. There's more but my wife is calling me to bring in the groceries BTY David, your website is one of the best aviation websites on the planet. Just "smashing".

The B IIs' and A IIs' were equipped with an airline type toilet that included a urinal. That urinal could, at times, be problematic. The drain tube, about six feet long, was wrapped with an electrical tape so as to preclude freeze up. When the tape failed the urinal would cease draining and overflow. A big problem with an almost 20 person crew. And guess who's job it was to fix it? lol

Agree with Spectre. I believe this aircraft to be a 6091st C-130B II displaying a bogus C-130A tail number. There were eight C-130A II aircraft. 55-0041 was not one of them. I served in the C-130A II squadron from 62 to 66. It was not unusual to fly missions showing a bogus tail number. Seems this practice was also commonplace in the 6091st. BTW, the two squadrons missions were identical, but was not ecm.

By far my favorite website. Your doing a great job Casey.

Whenever this crew makeup discussion surfaces I think of the Dover C-5M accident where the crew consisting of the squadron commander, a stan. eval. pilot and two hi time snco flight engineers flew the acft. into the ground.

Agreed. My favorite, however, was the old broom stick...always one available.

Bob, I'm not at all surprised that ANG/AFRC herc units have outstanding safety records. When I was assigned at Hqs. TAC, part of my job was assistance visits to guard/reserve units converting to C-130Es. Prior to this time I'd had little exposure to these units and like many active duty guys, had little regard for Reserve Component units. That quickly changed as I traveled to the different units. I was repeatedly impressed with the condition of their airplanes and the professionalism of the troops assigned. In one unit I met a crew chief that had been on the same aircraft for ten years. In another I saw two pilots with white hair and weathered faces. It appeared they had been flying since Mitchell and probably had a zillion hours. Further, for the most part, unit facilities were top notch. Better, in many cases, than active duty units. It's been a long time, and most units were very good, but the California Guard unit then at Van Nuys stands out in my memory as outstanding. I think they were just greatly relieved to get rid of their C-97s.

During my career I encountered similar situations where the sqd. was doing something simply because they had always done it that way. My approach was always, show me in the TO where it says this is required procedure. Most always the TO said nothing. My gut feel is your in the same position with this issue.

Is not using defueled fuel USAF policy? In my day defueled JP was subjected to the same standard as it was the first time it came from the hydrant and routinely uploaded in the next acft.

The 130 shop at Hqs. TAC looked at the tail number listing being sent to the VNAF. In this group there were three 54 models with APS 42 radar. Because of this TAC advised AFRES to substitute 55 or later aircraft with APN 59 radar. As Bob stated above these three aircraft were later returned because of problems maintaining the obsolete radar including lack of test equipment, spares and qualified techs. The plan called for one sqd. to be maintained by contractor (LSI) and the other by blue suiters. TAC was tasked to provide the blue suiters. The DP provided us with a roster of all personnel with A model experience. After ensuring selected personnel were available the DP sent them notification of a 180 day TDY to RVN. Needless to say this caused much consternation within the ranks.

Makes me sad. Gone way to soon. Giz is right, the reunions will be a little less fun without Bob. When I talked to him he always made my day brighter. He was always good for a laugh. I'll bet he was a hoot to fly with. So long Bob, RIP.

Ah, George, thats easy. That would be the guy driving the little yellow pickup. The same loadie that can turn a crappy trip into a fun one.

Using our training bird we hauled a Msgt's household goods from Rhein Main to Incerlik and made a second trip to haul his car. I wondered, at the time, if this was legal.

I couldn't agree more Lkuest. The manner in which maintenance handled this situation is at best incompetent, at worst criminal. One has to ask why the production super. allowed this to transpire as it did. Absolutley no excuse for the manner in which the descripancy was cleared. Incompetence such as this sure damages maintenances' credibility. Would hope supervision provided, "advice and guidance," of the brown shoe persuasion.

Standby George, our awards and decs. NCO is on it. Demand it high so it's backordered. Can present it at commanders call. :D

Many years ago in my AGS an aircrew member declined an otherwise airworthy acft. After discussing the issue with his sqd. commander, whom I knew, in due time this crew dawg returned to the acft. and without utteriing a word we launched him with no difficulty. The crew chief was kind of freaked out. I told him it was because his commander ripped out his tongue.

[bTW, Larry do you remember Lt. Fuzz, the butterbar maintenance officer, who looked like the character in Beetle bailey, and rode around with a big ol' St. Bernard in his truck???