Fly Boy ?????

"Autocollimator" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

Just for the record, I flew Troop Carrier gooney birds in Italy during WWII,
Bad guys shot at us, and we didn't have anything but our .45s to shoot back
with, or bombs to drop on them, but I still think it was considered combat.

Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in recognition of
the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise my
question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I asked what
the manufacturer had to say on the subject.

In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who knew
how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots. Before
they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance testing, they
sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the operator
needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one piece.
Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere, its crew
should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in that
manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.

After all of the back and forth about how smart the surviving pilots of
successful ditchings must have been, it boggles my mind that it hasn't occurred
to anyone that the reason for their survival may have been more a matter of what
they got out of their flight manuals than the luck of the draw and their
superior flying skills (superior to the manufacturer's test pilots, of course).

And since we were talking about Grumman's TBM, I don't recall that anyone
commented on what the manufacturer's flight manual said about ditching it. Now,
I really didn't need to hear about how smart the surviving pilots of ditched
TBMs were; I can easily assume that there were plenty of equally smart but far
unluckier pilots who didn't survive the experience. That there would be a
number of variables in every ditching situation is a given, including pilot
health, piloting skill levels, aircraft condition, weather conditions, ocean
surface conditions, etc. The only constant is the question of what was designed
into the aircraft, which would be the same regardless of the variables. For
that, you have to go to the manufacturer and his flight manual.

Shall we try again? Or am I all wet (no pun intended)?

George Z.

(Autocollimator) wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

terback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
position as they are free to reject mine.

Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.

As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

Spoken like a true chickenous coward who flames people while
hiding behind some asinine AOL screen name like "autocollimator."
BTW, congrats. Ya nailed both me and Kramer in a single shot while
managing to remain anonymous your own self. Don't golfers call it a
"hole-in-one" or something like that?

Coward.

In article ,
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: nt (Gordon)
just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.

Good post Gordon. I think that only those of us that flew as aircrew can
really fully understand the situation. All others are out of the loop.

Repectfully submit that those who did air-sea rescue were pretty
well aware of it, too. My father did ASR in the channel through '43
and '44 - including picking up those who survived from ditching
fortresses and the like - and got a close view of the many ways in
which an aircraft could fail to ditch in a manner conducive to anyone
getting out alive and of the many ways you could still lose people
afterwards - failing to get out of the aircraft or not reached or
lifted from the water in time (112' Fairmiles weren't big boats,
but they were plenty high enough out of the water to make getting
someone inboard difficult if the weather was dirty).

There's some of his comments up on the WW2 experiences centre
web-pages, at:
http://www.war-experience.org/collec...en/pagetwo.htm
which some here might find interesting.
Actually, I'd strongly recommend the whole site:
http://www.war-experience.org/index.html

They're actively looking for more contributions, and I'm sure that
they would welcome being contacted by some of the survivors of WW2
who post here (Art, for one). They're good people to deal with, too.

No connection with them other than doing patching and proof-reading
of stuff to take the load off my father.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
nt (Gordon) wrote:

(Snip)

One of our crews had that possibility 'up close and personal'.

They had been planting a field of sonobuoys (about mid Atlantic)
when one stuck in it's chute halfway out. It went just far enough
to uncover the vanes which, being dragged along at ~170 Knots
spun at a great rate till the bolt holding the hub on wore off
and the vanes spun up into the a/c belly, slashed through the
skin and cut off a torque tube used to control the elevators.

This caused no end of concern to the cockpit crew who all had
suggestions ranging from "Putter in the water" to "head West"
(home) to "head for Lajes" (closest land) and several other
wildassed suggestions.

Anyway, it was decided to head (gently) for Lajes (good l o n g
runway, plus good wx etc). The crew experimented with flaps and
power to replace the function of the elevators (cautiously).

Anyway they had a nearly uneventful landing at the Azores.
(albeit with quite tired sphincters)

It was one of my squadron's aircraft and crews so luckily I
wasn't aboard.

Interesting story. If it happened anywhere between 1960-63, that would have
been my outfit (57th ARSq) that got the mayday and gone out to pick them up and
escort them in to Lajes. We had a pretty big SAR area of responsibility,
roughly 1,000 miles in all directions, so we often found ourselves up near
Iceland looking for guys heading our way who were in trouble.

We had one instance where a guy ferrying a single engine plane (I don't remember
what make it was) to the Middle East for its new owner, a sheik of some sort,
developed engine problems and sent out a mayday. We made radio contact with him
and simultaneously scrambled an HC54, although it was quite late in the day. He
reported that he had passed over a freighter about 30 minutes previously and
said that he didn't think he'd be able to stay aloft until our plane got there,
so we advised him to make a 180 and see if he could locate that vessel while it
was still light and then ditch alongside it, which is exactly what he did.

The freighter picked him up and deposited him in Galveston Texas a couple of
weeks later instead of the middle East. After we determined that the pilot had
been rescued, we recalled our aircraft. We sent out another flight at daybreak
the following day and, amazingly, we found his abandoned aircraft still afloat
in the Atlantic.

George Z.

From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 10/23/03 10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.

The Beaufighter, too, was said by those who knew to be bad in ditching
- heavy for its time and with the way out underneath. I've often
heard my father (who did ASR in the channel) comment that he never saw
anyone get out from a ditched Beau.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha

Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
ditching, either.

No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom. Those
of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching tanks.

Arthur Kramer

Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
proven.

Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
hit the water among lots of other things.

I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
--

-Gord.

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: Mike Marron
Date: 10/24/03 7:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(Autocollimator) wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

terback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
position as they are free to reject mine.

Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.

As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat
in
WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

Spoken like a true chickenous coward who flames people while
hiding behind some asinine AOL screen name like "autocollimator."
BTW, congrats. Ya nailed both me and Kramer in a single shot while
managing to remain anonymous your own self. Don't golfers call it a
"hole-in-one" or something like that?

Coward.




Still wallowing down in the mud huh.

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 10/24/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha

Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
ditching, either.

No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom.
Those
of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching
tanks.

Arthur Kramer

Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
proven.

Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
hit the water among lots of other things.

I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
--

-Gord.


I think Art may be talking about "one a day in Tampa Bay" not hanger drills.

"Bill Silvey" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

Mike, Art's rabid partisanship won't let him see past this. If Bush had
been a supply-side democrat, Art would be on the other side of this
argument, no doubt.

Agreed. And "newsgroup politics" is the reason why Art is afraid to
respond directly to Major Rasimus, who just tore him a new one.

Politics...ya' just gotta' love it!

The next best thing to an F-16 and the most fun you can have with
your clothes on!

How many hours do you have on an F-16?

Cheers...Chris