A-6 crash after launch?

"DDAY" wrote in message
. net...
I was watching a documentary called "Top Gun" on the Military Channel.

They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6 took
off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.

Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on the
cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve a
particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would malfunction
on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that allows full
pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just about fool
proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).

A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away capability.
The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot pushed the
emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

Any idea what happened there? I remember hearing about some aircraft
launch
where the fuel in an external tank acted like a ram and caused some heavy
damage, but I'm not sure if these are the same events.

In another shot, a large prop plane, possibly an S-2F, took off the waist
catapult of a smaller Essex class carrier and immediately slammed into a
wave. Again, does anybody have any details?

Pitching deck, poor cat shot timing, and heavy seas. The aircraft made it.
The aircrew needed fresh skivvies.

R / John

They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
took
off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started to
roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to achieve
a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are just
about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores. Pilot
pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient cat
stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they weren't
going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck were
screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to transition
to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

"TV" wrote in message
...
They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
took
off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started
to
roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to
achieve
a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are
just
about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores.
Pilot
pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient
cat
stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they
weren't
going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck
were
screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to
transition
to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

If it was one of the A-6s last cruises that would put it in the mid nineties
time frame. Any idea what boat?

There were several incidents such as this during the A-6's long career, but I cannot find any that meet the criteria of (a) pilot survived, B/N didn't, and (b) late during the A-6's service life.

Morgan & Morgan's excellent book, INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6, has an appendix of all operational A-6 losses. (There's a separate appendix for combat losses.) In that appendix there is only one instance of a carrier launch loss where the pilot survived and the B/N was lost:

BuNo 151825 / KA-6D, VA-75, 10/11/74, Mediterranean, off CV-60. Flaps/slats retracted on launch.

On the other hand there are several carrier launch losses where the fatality accrued to the left side of the cockpit. Within this group, only one occurred late in the Intruder's operational career:

BuNo 155708 / A-6E, VA-176, 01/19/91, Mediterranean, off CV-59. (No cause listed.)

With some more information, I can likely narrow things down or identify the actual event. With that, some other intrepid soul can fathom the depths of the Naval Safety Center records for the cause.

--
Mike Kanze

"The real accomplishment of 'The Da Vinci Code' is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits."

- Daniel Henninger, WALL STREET JOURNAL - 5/19/06

"spamno" wrote in message news:6o_dg.177$xO5.28@trnddc03...

"TV" wrote in message
...
They had some footage of some cat launches gone wrong. In one an A-6
took
off the waist catapult of a carrier and started losing altitude almost
immediately. Then something really big fell off the plane, it started
to
roll, and the pilots ejected at very low altitude.
Probably engine failure on the stroke. Possibly wrong weight setting on
the cat. The older catapults would use a given steam pressure to
achieve
a particular end-speed for a particular gross weight. These would
malfunction on rare occasions. The newer cats use a rotary valve that
allows full pressure (600psi IIRC) for a particular duration and are
just
about fool proof (unless its set for the wrong weight).
A fully-loaded A-6 didn't have very good single-engine fly away
capability. The "something" was probably all the underwing stores.
Pilot
pushed the emergency jettison and the pylons were cleaned off.

If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient
cat
stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they
weren't
going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck
were
screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N
ejected, then the pilot ejected. The pilot hit the water at almost a 90
degree angle but made it. The B/N didn't. The pilot went on to
transition
to the F-14 after that cruise (one of the A-6s last).

If it was one of the A-6s last cruises that would put it in the mid nineties
time frame. Any idea what boat?

Wow, sounds like a great book. If you get a chance, is there an item
there about an Intruder crash in South Dakota (I think in the 80s).
Trying to find a copy, but appreciate any info you have.

Lyndon



On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:06:25 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

INTRUDER: THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF GRUMMAN'S A-6

----------
In article , "TV"
wrote:

If it's the event I'm thinking of, I heard an interview from the pilot. I
don't remember the cause of the problem, but it was either insufficient cat
stroke, or more likely, an engine problem (because I don't remember him
blaming the cat/crew). After the shot, the pilot noticed that they weren't
going anywhere (not a good thing), and tried to hack it. Folks on deck were
screaming to eject. The drop tanks were punched off late, then the B/N

I'll have to rewatch it. I don't think it was in slow-motion, but the plane
goes off the deck slowly and then just seems to hang there. It's clear that
it's way below speed. Then, after an eternity, something long and thick
falls off the plane, which must have been a drop tank. The plane then
started a right bank and that's when they ejected, both hitting the water
before their chutes could fully deploy.

I got the sense from looking at it that the pilot waited too long, that he
was trying to keep the plane in the air despite a severe lack of speed. But
that's based upon my ignorant impression. I wasn't in the plane looking at
the gauges, and so maybe he thought that he could recover from the situation
and belatedly realized that he couldn't. It was scary to watch.




D

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.

R / John

"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

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.