On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:30:42 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Nice looking aircraft, I always thought - what were they like to fly?.

Well, those that were unkind described it as "two T-28s flying
formation on dempster dumpster." :-)

It was a reasonably agile airplane for having as much wing as it did.
During low level ops (100' day, 300' night) it was stable and very
honest. Single engine performace was quite good at lower operating
weights. It did not get you anywhere fast. :-)

Quick
question that's always bugged me about carrier ops: On final approach, do
you fly the same heading as the carrier but a bit to the right then change
to the angle of the angled deck, or start your approach further to teh right
and treat the ships movement liek a crosswind from the right?

If the OOD is doing his job then the wind is down the angle. If not,
you do a little slip, not a "crab." It's a visual approach so actual
heading is not something in your scan; it's "meatball, line up, and
airspeed." Non-precision approaches (ADF and TACAN) were flown on BRC
(base recovery course) and you transitioned to visual and were back to
"meat ball, line up, and airspeed"); or missed approach.
Non-precision CCA or FCA (Fudd Controlled Approach) were like at the
field (fly the heading given and altitude suggested) until visual then
transion; or missed approach. Precision CCA was similar (and you
awaited "3/4 mile; call the ball") on all of them.

Night IMC approaches were always good for a thrill or two. Add in
some high seas and weather minimums and you might get to "splice the
mainbrace." :-)

Bill Kambic