A-6 crash after launch?

"John Carrier" wrote...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection system.
There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community that had
sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You could go
through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in transit (because
of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy jettison while the other
pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for at least one of them -- both if
the canopy got hung up on the first seat...

IIRC, command ejection was part of the A-6F proposal.

"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message ...
"John Carrier" wrote...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of
the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
seat...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

R / John

On 5/28/06 6:27 AM, in article ,
"John Carrier" wrote:


"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message ...
"John Carrier" wrote...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community
that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of
the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
seat...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

R / John



The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

All I saw was 1 prototype at China Lake before I left in '94. Didn't know they
actually got to the fleet...

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/06 6:27 AM, in article
,
"John Carrier" wrote:


"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message ...
"John Carrier" wrote...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection
system. There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the
community
that had sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life
of
the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You
could go through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in
transit (because of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy
jettison while the other pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for
at least one of them -- both if the canopy got hung up on the first
seat...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

R / John



The A-6 got command eject in about 1994. I flew several jets that had it,
and it was a simple mod. It was a shame that the jet got it only 3 years
prior to retirement. Too little, too late.

Scary when you can remember your boldface 10 years later. Well, there are
some OCF procedures that ring true after 30+, the indelible knowledge
required for flying non-DCS fighters.

Glad to hear the A-6 finally got command eject. My last flight in one was
fall 1986. Classic Grumman iron.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly part
of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

When you're fighting for $$ with the Hornet and Tomcat guys, nothing is
"simple"... ;-)

"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message . ..
"John Carrier" wrote...

I think a canopy interlock would have been simple to engineer. Certainly
part of the engineering to retrofit command ejection.

When you're fighting for $$ with the Hornet and Tomcat guys, nothing is
"simple"... ;-)

Trust me, the Turkey didn't see much either.

R / John

John W.

A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.

Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...
--
Mike Kanze

"It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker."

- Anonymous

"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in message ...
"John Carrier" wrote...
One of the peculiarities of the A-6 was its lack of a command ejection system.
There was some kind of reverse (perverse) logic in the community that had
sufficient following to keep it that way (IIRC) for the life of the aircraft.

Part of it had to do with the lack of automatic canopy sequencing. You could go
through the canopy or after the canopy, but not while it was in transit (because
of the forward bow). If one Crewmember hit the canopy jettison while the other
pulled the ejection handle, it was bad news for at least one of them -- both if
the canopy got hung up on the first seat...

IIRC, command ejection was part of the A-6F proposal.

"Mike Kanze" wrote...

A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the
canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.

Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...

Even when I flew it in the 80s through '93, there were MANY "old hands" who
wouldn't even think of blowing the canopy! Off the cat it was a no-brainer, but
even for the times when you had the time to think about it, there were few who
would risk a partial canopy jettison (regardless of whether it would take off
the vertical stab).

On 5/29/06 6:20 PM, in article ,
"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote:

"Mike Kanze" wrote...

A-6 tribal folklore during the early 1970s dictated that one NEVER blew the
canopy prior to ejection, for the very reasons you cite.

Better to get Plexiglas cuts than...

Even when I flew it in the 80s through '93, there were MANY "old hands" who
wouldn't even think of blowing the canopy! Off the cat it was a no-brainer,
but
even for the times when you had the time to think about it, there were few who
would risk a partial canopy jettison (regardless of whether it would take off
the vertical stab).


Legend had it that when you wanted the canopy to jettison it wouldn't.
Sometimes when you wanted to keep it though, it would jettison. I
personally never had any problems.

--Woody