Can F-15s making 9G turns with payload?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:38:43 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

ECM pods, on the other hand were light, small, low drag and generally
uncarted. And, if you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA
MiG-21 or -19, you might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

You have to rmember that for at least some of the Vietnam War, some
pilots didn't like ECM pods at *all*. Weren't manly enough, or
something. After they started noticing a somewhat higher survival rate
among pilots with pods, they got the message.

I don't think I ever heard that. When the QRC-160 arrived at Tahkli &
Korat in October '66, the first guys to carry it were sceptical
(naturally) when told that they would fly "rock steady" at mid to high
altitude and that the pod would make stuff miss. When they tried it
and it worked, they became instantaneous believers.

When I returned in '72, we had much better pods and didn't need the
"pod formation" stuff any more. Unfortunately, the noise from the pods
wouldn't let the Hunter/Killer SEAD flights do our job, so we didn't
use them most of the time, although we did try to remember to get them
active in a last ditch situation evading a missile.

But by the early 1980s, a lot of jet jockeys were back to the "pods are
for wimps" sort of attitude. I saw it every time we loaded the 119s
onto F-4s for exercises. And then we had a squadron go to Red Flag, and
suddenly all of the pilots were wanting one every damned day... getting
"shot down" a few times with no recourse tends to do that.

I would say by the '80s, the only crews with that kind of attitude
would be those with no combat experience or those who didn't pay
attention to intel briefings. Certainly by the '80s no one was still
carrying ALQ-119s. I'd bet that by that time it was ALQ-131.

Chad Irby posted:

You have to rmember that for at least some of the Vietnam War, some
pilots didn't like ECM pods at *all*. Weren't manly enough, or
something. After they started noticing a somewhat higher survival rate
among pilots with pods, they got the message.

Respectfully that contradicts the utility of the "Pod Formation"
doctrine...the lack of knowledge regarding EW aside, I never heard any
SEA guy pooh-pooh Pods because he had a huge ego. I've heard guys say
early pods were unreliable or acted as strobes.

But by the early 1980s, a lot of jet jockeys were back to the "pods are
for wimps" sort of attitude.

Pure BS...I never heard a single swinging dick utter anything close
too that. Hell even in RTU we were being taught Xmit 2 with
such-an-such pressed for crossing the FLOT/FEBA...some guys briefed
aborting certain mission for INOP pods (based upon the WSO's call).

Juvat

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:38:43 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

ECM pods, on the other hand were light, small, low drag and generally
uncarted. And, if you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA
MiG-21 or -19, you might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

You have to rmember that for at least some of the Vietnam War, some
pilots didn't like ECM pods at *all*.

That would be an understatement at Ubon in early 1967. It was usually
a major or above pilot that would start in about pods or rhaw in
maintenance debriefing.

Weren't manly enough, or
something.

As a matter of fact..

After they started noticing a somewhat higher survival rate
among pilots with pods, they got the message.

You might appreciate the little story from Ubon 1967 when the jammer
driver came into the storage building laughing. He had been
transporting a pod and heard someone yelling behind him. He looked
around and here was a crew member running down the ramp after him
yelling I want that pod!

But by the early 1980s, a lot of jet jockeys were back to the "pods are
for wimps" sort of attitude. I saw it every time we loaded the 119s
onto F-4s for exercises. And then we had a squadron go to Red Flag, and
suddenly all of the pilots were wanting one every damned day... getting
"shot down" a few times with no recourse tends to do that.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:59:36 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:39:45 GMT, Buzzer wrote:


"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam.

What you just wrote makes no sense. If the crew was "ham-fisted" then
they over-G'd or "pulled" the pod off. If they "blew" the pod, that
would mean jettisoned by cart-firing. Were they "ham-index-fingered"
in actuating the toggle switch?

Makes sense to me if you hadn't clipped what Mike wrote and I replied
to..

"On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:49:34 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!
In any event, Chad, you're absolutely correct that flightline troops
make mistakes. But the good folks in St. Louis at the McDonnell
Douglas plant have a few scruples to speak of and you can rest
assurred that they designed the F-4's ECM pod with hamfisted
pilots and/or hairy-assed line mechanics in mind.

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam."

Initial installation of the pods at Korat in late Oct. of '66 when
they were highly classified was uncarted, so "blowing" a pod wasn't an
option. And, considering the relatively minimal size and weight,
wouldn't have been worth the time necessary to find the toggle, break
the safety wire, flip the safety cover, establish the necessary
jettison parameters and then "blow."

THEY WERE CARTED AT UBON FOR BOLO and a short time afterwards..
I have no idea what went on in the cockpit. The crews were briefed to
not dump that station. Off it went.. You want to know what happened
ask Olds. I am sure he will remember exactly.

And a pod fell off a pylon on a plane taking off at Ubon shortly after
that. No cause was found. The "hairy-assed" line mechanics that loaded
the pod that day were never talked to or questioned about it.

If the pod "fell off" then an investigation occurred. The maintenance
supervisor that signed the AFTO-781 on the install was undoubtedly
questioned. Are you speaking of facts or stories you heard?

Maintenance supervisor? You're kidding right? How about a three
striper and a couple two stripers. Guess who had three stripes in 1967
Ed? Guess who loaded the pod Ed?

Pods were carried for years hanging from pylons and even the bottom
rack on MERs.

Pods were carried on the F-4 on inboard pylons and on the F-105 on
outboard pylons.

Pretty clear cut blanket statement covering the Vietnam war period.
Was that right or left inboard? Never on the right outer pylon in
place of the tank?

I never saw one carried on a TER or MER. Interposing
a secondary rack, particularly one without aircraft power available
(except for the RAT-driven QRC-160) would be useless.

You left SEA in Nov 1966 right? You returned in 1973?
You missed out on a lot of things.

F-4C Ubon early 1967
You probably never saw a QRC-160/ALQ-71 pod with external power
running out of the pylon, down around the pod, and connected to the
bottom access cover of the pod just behind the rat. We drilled the
covers, added a 3 phase plug, which ran to another plug that the
normal rat power connected to. One of those short term fixes for
frozen rats before we got in enough dummy nose cones. The cable was
held onto the pod with a couple cable clamps that were put on during
pod upload. Yep. Sure enough. Three phase power wires hanging out in
the wind held on with a couple clamps. Scary isn't it..

Did the same thing with the TER/MER. They were just another rack to me
and I have no idea which one it was. When the pod, ALQ-160/ALQ-71 was
loaded the antenna were just a few inches off the concrete. It was a
real pain to load since it was down so low. Most of the time we just
lifted them in place with two people. We finally made up another
adapter to hold the pod on the jammer forks so we could get it under
the rack. Same method for three phase power. Clamped the cables in a
couple places on the rack and pod.

In '72 and for all the years I carried ALQ-119s in Europe, we carried
ECM pods in a Sparrow well on the F-4.

I left SEA in Sep 70 from Korat and the F-4E. I don't remember the
pods being in the Sparrow wells at that time. Biggest pod I remember
at that time was the ALQ-101 and I have no idea what happened to them.
I remember seeing them in the storage room grounded because the
destruct packages were going off during maintenace, but they just are
gone from memory after that. Most of the in shop pod work was ALQ-87
and the ALQ-71 bench was basically gathering dust..

Ever see the two "little" hooks in the pylon that hold bombs and pods
to the pylons?

Yep, seen a lot of those little hooks. If they could hold an M-118
(3000 pound GP bomb) at 4 G, I've gotta think they could retain an ECM
pod at a lot more G.

When we changed over the hardbacks (the mounts that held the lugs that
the pylon hooks go around) on the pods from the F-105 to the F-4 for
BOLO I was amazed at how small the F-105 mounts and lugs were. It was
a stretch to think they were flying pods with those dinky little
lugs..

Take into consideration that bombs and center tanks were dropped to
clean an aircraft up so it could maneuver better. But that pod hung in
there way out from the centerline.

The C/L tank, particularly on AF F-4s was a poorly engineered piece of
dreck.

The APR-25 analyzer was up inside above the center tank on the F-4C.
They basically refused to lower a tank for us to get to the thing. Too
many problems trying to get it to seal and all that. At least that was
their story. Think it was door 22 that was lowered onto the tank and
then we had to reach way the heck up in there to get the cables and
bolts loose. Couldn't reach and see at the same time so it was all
done by feel.

Bombs were lots of weight and lots of drag. ECM pods, on the
other hand were light, small, low drag and generally uncarted. And, if
you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA MiG-21 or -19, you
might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

Korat and Ubon up to 1970 when I was there had no I band pods. All set
up for SAM and AAA..

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 03:13:14 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:59:36 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam.

What you just wrote makes no sense. If the crew was "ham-fisted" then
they over-G'd or "pulled" the pod off. If they "blew" the pod, that
would mean jettisoned by cart-firing. Were they "ham-index-fingered"
in actuating the toggle switch?

Makes sense to me if you hadn't clipped what Mike wrote and I replied
to..

"On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:49:34 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!
In any event, Chad, you're absolutely correct that flightline troops
make mistakes. But the good folks in St. Louis at the McDonnell
Douglas plant have a few scruples to speak of and you can rest
assurred that they designed the F-4's ECM pod with hamfisted
pilots and/or hairy-assed line mechanics in mind.

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam."

What Mike wrote is fine, but doesn't relate to the comment. The design
of the mount, bolts, links, suspension gear, whatever, is a good point
of discussion, but doesn't have a thing to do with the comment you
repeat. How does the crew (ham-fisted or not) blowing a pod, i.e.
intentionally jettisoning, relate to the discussion of someone
"pulling" the pod off by over-G? Certainly racks, tanks, panels and
more have been bent, mangled, strained, and disconnected from the
aircraft by over-G, but we are talking about a pod coming off by
over-G, a "ham-fisted" crew being the cause, and the difference
between "blowing" the pod--an intentional act and ripping it off
through exceeding the design limits. Kapish?

Initial installation of the pods at Korat in late Oct. of '66 when
they were highly classified was uncarted, so "blowing" a pod wasn't an
option. And, considering the relatively minimal size and weight,
wouldn't have been worth the time necessary to find the toggle, break
the safety wire, flip the safety cover, establish the necessary
jettison parameters and then "blow."

THEY WERE CARTED AT UBON FOR BOLO and a short time afterwards..
I have no idea what went on in the cockpit. The crews were briefed to
not dump that station. Off it went.. You want to know what happened
ask Olds. I am sure he will remember exactly.

I will make it a point to ask General Olds. I see him regularly and
we're on a first name basis---he calls me Raz and I call him Sir!

And a pod fell off a pylon on a plane taking off at Ubon shortly after
that. No cause was found. The "hairy-assed" line mechanics that loaded
the pod that day were never talked to or questioned about it.

If the pod "fell off" then an investigation occurred. The maintenance
supervisor that signed the AFTO-781 on the install was undoubtedly
questioned. Are you speaking of facts or stories you heard?

Maintenance supervisor? You're kidding right? How about a three
striper and a couple two stripers. Guess who had three stripes in 1967
Ed? Guess who loaded the pod Ed?

Depending upon the level of maintenance being signed off, it took
either a five or seven level to release a red-diagonal, and a seven
level to release a red-X. A new attachment to the airframe that
required carting, but was not yet carted, put the airplane on a red-X.
If you were signing off with three-stripers in '67 you were looking
for trouble.

Pods were carried for years hanging from pylons and even the bottom
rack on MERs.

Pods were carried on the F-4 on inboard pylons and on the F-105 on
outboard pylons.

Pretty clear cut blanket statement covering the Vietnam war period.
Was that right or left inboard? Never on the right outer pylon in
place of the tank?

No, it's not a statement covering the entire war. It's a statement
that says, in conjunction with the other statements regarding
carriage, that while I never carried a pod on a wing station in an F-4
(C, D or E model), that there were periods in which the pods were
carried by Phantoms on inboard stations. They also were carried by
105s on outboard (single weapon) pylons. The 105G mod involved
scabbing an ALQ-119 into blisters on each side of the fuselage and
free'd up a wing station.

I never saw one carried on a TER or MER. Interposing
a secondary rack, particularly one without aircraft power available
(except for the RAT-driven QRC-160) would be useless.

You left SEA in Nov 1966 right? You returned in 1973?
You missed out on a lot of things.

Of course. I never carried a pod in an F-105. Not once. I returned in
July of '72. I didn't miss out, I just wasn't there.

F-4C Ubon early 1967
---snip---

Did the same thing with the TER/MER. They were just another rack to me
and I have no idea which one it was.

You can spot the difference between a TER and MER from a long way
off--the MER is the great big rack that carries six weapons, the TER
is the short stubby one that has three stations. Hard to believe you
could have missed such a basic distinction.


When the pod, ALQ-160/ALQ-71 was
loaded the antenna were just a few inches off the concrete. It was a
real pain to load since it was down so low. Most of the time we just
lifted them in place with two people. We finally made up another
adapter to hold the pod on the jammer forks so we could get it under
the rack. Same method for three phase power. Clamped the cables in a
couple places on the rack and pod.

You might have noticed that C/L MERs (that's the big long one with six
weapons), have the bottom stations "just a few inches off the
concrete" regardless of what is hung there.

In '72 and for all the years I carried ALQ-119s in Europe, we carried
ECM pods in a Sparrow well on the F-4.

I left SEA in Sep 70 from Korat and the F-4E. I don't remember the
pods being in the Sparrow wells at that time. Biggest pod I remember
at that time was the ALQ-101 and I have no idea what happened to them.
I remember seeing them in the storage room grounded because the
destruct packages were going off during maintenace, but they just are
gone from memory after that. Most of the in shop pod work was ALQ-87
and the ALQ-71 bench was basically gathering dust..

You might have noticed a considerable reduction in missions flown to
areas needing a lot of ECM from October of '68 until May of '72. It
relates.

Ever see the two "little" hooks in the pylon that hold bombs and pods
to the pylons?

Yep, seen a lot of those little hooks. If they could hold an M-118
(3000 pound GP bomb) at 4 G, I've gotta think they could retain an ECM
pod at a lot more G.

When we changed over the hardbacks (the mounts that held the lugs that
the pylon hooks go around) on the pods from the F-105 to the F-4 for
BOLO I was amazed at how small the F-105 mounts and lugs were. It was
a stretch to think they were flying pods with those dinky little
lugs..

Suspension gear is "standard"--doesn't matter to the metal whether it
goes on an F-4 or a 105. The wiring changes, but the suspension is
either 16" or 30" lugs and it's all the same on 781 gear.

Take into consideration that bombs and center tanks were dropped to
clean an aircraft up so it could maneuver better. But that pod hung in
there way out from the centerline.

---snip---

Bombs were lots of weight and lots of drag. ECM pods, on the
other hand were light, small, low drag and generally uncarted. And, if
you were being attacked by a MiG with radar, AKA MiG-21 or -19, you
might like to be throwing some electrons his way.

Korat and Ubon up to 1970 when I was there had no I band pods. All set
up for SAM and AAA..

I reiterate, that in 1970, there wasn't a high probabiliy of MiG
encounters.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:
Scott Ferrin wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

I don't know how much an F-4 ECM pod weighs, but I do know that it
would require a hellacious amount of G's to cause the bolts that
fasten the pod to the airframe to fail.

How could you possibly know that?

Math.

...and a near-religious faith that new bolts are just as strong as old
bolts, while corrosion never happens and flightline troops never make
mistakes.

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!

It is because you are writting crap, Marron.

Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.




"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:
Scott Ferrin wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

I don't know how much an F-4 ECM pod weighs, but I do know that it
would require a hellacious amount of G's to cause the bolts that
fasten the pod to the airframe to fail.

How could you possibly know that?

Math.

...and a near-religious faith that new bolts are just as strong as old
bolts, while corrosion never happens and flightline troops never make
mistakes.

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!

It is because you are writting crap, Marron.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news
Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.

Marron is posting crap, those $million pods were attached just fine. What
planet are you from, where mechanics select bolts?

who cares about the bolts. It's not a federal case yet.





"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news
Do you have to **** on every thread? Stick to the pitot tube crap.

Marron is posting crap, those $million pods were attached just fine. What
planet are you from, where mechanics select bolts?

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

But once again, doubtful the "brainy" types in St. Louis designed the
ECM pod fasteners to take shear loads in the threaded area
anyway (it is a bad practice to do this with any bolt, AN or
otherwise).

You can "doubt" all you want, but that's not how the damned things were
put together.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.