If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote: I was also questioning his assertion that a critical component of the ECM pod a$$embly was attached to the airplane by the bolt *threads* alone. I don't think so! Really? How else would you characterize four bolts, pointed straight down? Aside from one cable to the missile well adapter, that's all that holds the pod missile well adapter to the plane. The way we mounted it was to put the adapter on the shoulders of one guy ("man under," we called it), and he'd hold it a few inches below the plane until someone hooked up the cable. Then he'd push it straight up into the missile well, and the other techs would insert the four bolts. After we got them medium-tight, the guy holding the MWA would move out of the way and we'd torque the bolts. Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: I was also questioning his assertion that a critical component of the ECM pod a$$embly was attached to the airplane by the bolt *threads* alone. I don't think so! Really? How else would you characterize four bolts, pointed straight down? Aside from one cable to the missile well adapter, that's all that holds the pod missile well adapter to the plane. The way we mounted it was to put the adapter on the shoulders of one guy ("man under," we called it), and he'd hold it a few inches below the plane until someone hooked up the cable. Then he'd push it straight up into the missile well, and the other techs would insert the four bolts. After we got them medium-tight, the guy holding the MWA would move out of the way and we'd torque the bolts. Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane. My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe. -Mike Marron |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:09:37 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: If I cut out something a little too much I apologize.. Snip.. between "blowing" the pod--an intentional act and ripping it off through exceeding the design limits. Kapish? Does that mean I don't get an A on my final term paper? Darn.G Point taken.. 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! While your're at if you would please ask him if he was in the front seat when an ECM troop came out to the arming area and tried to install the pod control box. The airman that had never been near a running engine and all he could think about was having to climb up on the intake of that giant vacuum cleaner sucking lots of air.. 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. Three stripers were five levels. They were carted or uncarted ahead of time by MMS. The extra racks if there were usually loaded with bombs by the time we got to them. Snip... 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. Not hard to believe after all these years for me. I probably loaded pods a thousand times in a short period. Just one of many things I did. Pod goes on a clean pylon or goes between a couple bombs. Just another load. I don't remember if there were bombs behind the pod or not. My guess because of the length of the pod it was a TER. 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. I don't remember centerline loads at all. There could have been at Ubon in 1967, but I don't remember any. Just not in the old memory banks. First time I saw a picture of a load like that I thought wow that is amazing. I didn't know they could do that. 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. I stuck to the shop as much as I could at Korat from Nov 68-Sep 70. I stayed away from debriefing and any crew involvement. I had no idea where they were flying or what they were doing and that was fine by me.. 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. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov1998/1198mig.asp "It had required a massive Air Force*wide effort to bring Bolo into being. The entire 8th TFW's energy was thrown into overcoming last minute problems, with the support troops working all night long. (A typical glitch involved the sway braces on the F-4C. They were located differently than on the F-105, and the shell of the QRC-160 pod had to be reinforced in order to fit well.)" "support troops working all night long." I don't remember the number of people with me that night in the nose dock, but maybe 2 or 3 and I think a civilian tech rep. You know that "only a select few" for a secret mission stuff.G And no air driven tools in those days for some reason. Speed handles and torque wrenches.. I reiterate, that in 1970, there wasn't a high probabiliy of MiG encounters. Basically bring the F-4E over in Nov 1968 and shut the area down where they would have been usefull? In 1968 the F-4E squadron from Eglin was originally scheduled to go into Vietnam and for some reason changed to Korat. That is the way my orders changed anyway from Vietnam to Korat. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Buzzer wrote: Just don't ask about the time ECM didn't check to see if there was a control box in a plane when they loaded the pod.G Oh, you can get all sorts of fun stories about loading pods on planes. We got around a lot of it by running a "full service" pod loading crew. The same guys put the MWA on, loaded the pod on it, put the control box in the plane, and ran the tests. We also had a big advantage for a few years because we were running ECM from the Component Repair Squadron, so the same guys who fixed the boxes installed them on the planes. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:14:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: Thanks Walt for explaining that. I knew they were cracked, but not the exact why. I never got over seeing those massive plates on the outer wing panels. Just seemed like more madness of the Vietnam war... The corrective reinforcing plates, while a bit ugly weren't all that massive--probably about 4x8 inches and maybe 1/4 inch thick. I go for 12x8 and 3/8ths, but anyway they were massive to me. I never saw anything that big on a B-52, and it seemed completely out of place on a little F-4. (I was out of B-52s from 1966 to 1976 so the D model and such might have grown patches like that while I was away.) The went in place abutting the hinges at the wing fold on both sides; main wing and tip section. The real "ugliness" was that the paint had to be scrapped away from the hinge and reinforcement to allow visual inspection for cracks during preflight. Not at all related to the "madness"--simply a fact of life that metal can only be flexed so many times before it fatigues. We had the reinforced wings at Torrejon while I was flogging F-4Cs from '73 to '77. Hardly noticed them after a while. A fact of life that the U.S. government can't supply the people that defend it with something more than a patched up worn out airframe? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
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. But according to you, that's how the damned things came apart. Yea or nay? -Mike Marron |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
Chad Irby wrote: Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane. My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe. -Mike Marron Marron, for Christ's sake, what are you talking about??...'shear' loads are "ACROSS THE BOLT". These bolts are installed so that they will fail (when they do) by stripping the threads or breaking the bolt "by STRETCHING it till the shank or the threads fail". A 'shear failure' will happen when a bolt is SHEARED off at ~90 degrees to the shank. Why do you suppose it's called shear strength? and why do you suppose shear strength is so much higher than tensile strength?...god... -- -Gord. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message ... Mike Marron wrote: Chad Irby wrote: Which were, again, pointed straight up into the bottom of the plane. My point is simply that as any competent mechanic knows, it is a bad practice to put shear loads in the threaded area of a bolt. Were these all-thread bolts and what type of loads were they designed for? It's still difficult to believe that a pilot could put enough G on the airplane to cause the ECM pod to depart the airframe. -Mike Marron Marron, for Christ's sake, what are you talking about??...'shear' loads are "ACROSS THE BOLT". These bolts are installed so that they will fail (when they do) by stripping the threads or breaking the bolt "by STRETCHING it till the shank or the threads fail". A 'shear failure' will happen when a bolt is SHEARED off at ~90 degrees to the shank. Why do you suppose it's called shear strength? and why do you suppose shear strength is so much higher than tensile strength?...god... It is difficult to understand how FAA could continue to allow Marron to hold and A&P certificate, in light of his obvious incompetence; in his delegated area of expertise. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
Chad Irby wrote: You can "doubt" all you want, but that's not how the damned things were put together. But according to you, that's how the damned things came apart. Yea or nay? What I'm saying is that the Missile Well Adapter for electronic warfare pods for the F-4 Phantom was held onto the plane by four bolts running straight up into the airframe. You claimed that was "doubtful." You were (and are still) 100% wrong. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making your own canopy | c hinds | Home Built | 6 | November 22nd 04 09:10 AM |
Why is a standard hold right turns? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 51 | August 28th 04 06:09 PM |
need advice with composite for making glare shield | bubba | Home Built | 1 | July 7th 04 05:44 AM |
Making my landing gear | Lou Parker | Home Built | 8 | March 31st 04 10:34 PM |
Air Force launches rocket with secret military payload from Cape Canaveral | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:07 PM |