When were wings unfolded on carriers?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:45:55 -0500, Charlie Wolf
wrote:

S-2's or S-3's?? S-2's are now approaching 60 years old. S-3's would
be in the neighborhood of 35 yr old....

Stoofs. The last were retired in '75 time frame (from VS-73).

They are still flying with Brazil and Thailand (at a minimum) making
it one of the longest serving military aircraft of all time. :-)

Bill Kambic


Nice looking aircraft, I always thought - what were they like to fly?. Quick
question that's always bugged me about carrier ops: On final approach, do
you fly the same heading as the carrier but a bit to the right then change
to the angle of the angled deck, or start your approach further to teh right
and treat the ships movement liek a crosswind from the right?

TIA

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:30:42 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Nice looking aircraft, I always thought - what were they like to fly?.

Well, those that were unkind described it as "two T-28s flying
formation on dempster dumpster." :-)

It was a reasonably agile airplane for having as much wing as it did.
During low level ops (100' day, 300' night) it was stable and very
honest. Single engine performace was quite good at lower operating
weights. It did not get you anywhere fast. :-)

Quick
question that's always bugged me about carrier ops: On final approach, do
you fly the same heading as the carrier but a bit to the right then change
to the angle of the angled deck, or start your approach further to teh right
and treat the ships movement liek a crosswind from the right?

If the OOD is doing his job then the wind is down the angle. If not,
you do a little slip, not a "crab." It's a visual approach so actual
heading is not something in your scan; it's "meatball, line up, and
airspeed." Non-precision approaches (ADF and TACAN) were flown on BRC
(base recovery course) and you transitioned to visual and were back to
"meat ball, line up, and airspeed"); or missed approach.
Non-precision CCA or FCA (Fudd Controlled Approach) were like at the
field (fly the heading given and altitude suggested) until visual then
transion; or missed approach. Precision CCA was similar (and you
awaited "3/4 mile; call the ball") on all of them.

Night IMC approaches were always good for a thrill or two. Add in
some high seas and weather minimums and you might get to "splice the
mainbrace." :-)

Bill Kambic

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:30:42 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Nice looking aircraft, I always thought - what were they like to fly?.

Well, those that were unkind described it as "two T-28s flying
formation on dempster dumpster." :-)

LOL.. I think it looks sort of.. functional and...cute, possibly. Organic.

snip

Non-precision approaches (ADF and TACAN) were flown on BRC
(base recovery course) and you transitioned to visual and were back to
"meat ball, line up, and airspeed"); or missed approach.

Right.. was the BRC calculated so that you hopefully intercepted the
glideslope in time to transition to visual and land? i.e. a sort of gentle
lead pursuit?

Non-precision CCA or FCA (Fudd Controlled Approach) were like at the
field (fly the heading given and altitude suggested) until visual then
transion; or missed approach. Precision CCA was similar (and you
awaited "3/4 mile; call the ball") on all of them.

What was your approach speed relative to the carrier? I'm guessing 60 kts or
so.. so that's only 45 secs to sort it out.. not long if you're a bit off
and the wind's blowing!


Night IMC approaches were always good for a thrill or two.

I bet they were...

some high seas and weather minimums and you might get to "splice the
mainbrace." :-)

or the main spar!



Bill Kambic

Sorry Bill - I assumed your reference to the age of the aircraft would
have referred to the introduction of the aircraft - not the fact that
they are still flying (somewhere)...
Regards,

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:13 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:45:55 -0500, Charlie Wolf
wrote:

S-2's or S-3's?? S-2's are now approaching 60 years old. S-3's would
be in the neighborhood of 35 yr old....

Stoofs. The last were retired in '75 time frame (from VS-73).

They are still flying with Brazil and Thailand (at a minimum) making
it one of the longest serving military aircraft of all time. :-)

Bill Kambic

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:49:58 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Non-precision approaches (ADF and TACAN) were flown on BRC
(base recovery course) and you transitioned to visual and were back to
"meat ball, line up, and airspeed"); or missed approach.

Right.. was the BRC calculated so that you hopefully intercepted the
glideslope in time to transition to visual and land? i.e. a sort of gentle
lead pursuit?

I have some of the old INTREPID approach plates around in my "old
stuff box." I'll see if I can find them and answer your question more
accurately.

Non-precision CCA or FCA (Fudd Controlled Approach) were like at the
field (fly the heading given and altitude suggested) until visual then
transion; or missed approach. Precision CCA was similar (and you
awaited "3/4 mile; call the ball") on all of them.

What was your approach speed relative to the carrier? I'm guessing 60 kts or
so.. so that's only 45 secs to sort it out.. not long if you're a bit off
and the wind's blowing!

Normal instrument approach was flown at 105kts and 2/3 flaps, if my
aging memory is correct. Wind over the deck was usually in the 25-30
kt. range on most days and nights. I'd say the ship was doing 20 kts.
plus or minus about 90% of the time. The landing was made in the 2/3
flap configuration (vice the full flaps used in VMC conditions).

Bill Kambic

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:27:55 -0500, Charlie Wolf
wrote:

Sorry Bill - I assumed your reference to the age of the aircraft would
have referred to the introduction of the aircraft - not the fact that
they are still flying (somewhere)...

I guess I was one of the Last of the Giants! :-)

The design may go back as late is WWII. I once saw a photo of a twin
engine torpedo/glide bomber proposed by Grumman that was the spitting
image of the Stoof. It had larger engines (R-2800, maybe) and a
retracable gun turret where the radome would later be. I don't
remember a top or tail gun. It was also a bit sleeker, but not much.

I always thought that Grumman dusted off that old design, modified it
for ASW, and then pitched it to the Navy, who bought it. If so, the
design is even older than we give it credit for!!!

Many tens of thousands of student naval aviators "did time" in some
varient of the TS2. As a trainer is was a challenge, but not
insurmountable. It was honest and would not "bite" if you respected
it. Single engine performance was beyond spectacular. That last item
could "set you up" in some other aircraft, as few had the power to
weight ratio the TS2 did in a single engine configuration.

There are a bunch of S2s around as fire fighters. There are also a
fair number out there in private hands as "warbirds." Maybe if I win
the lottery someday...!!!

Bill Kambic

wrote

Many tens of thousands of student naval aviators "did time" in some
varient of the TS2.

I be one of them....NAS Kingsville 1959.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

How about the nights, in wx, that the only way to get aboard was to let down
until you could see the glow of the ships wake and then follow it to the
boat. Flying a slow a/c helped a lot on those nights.





On 7/9/05 3:03 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:30:42 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Nice looking aircraft, I always thought - what were they like to fly?.

Well, those that were unkind described it as "two T-28s flying
formation on dempster dumpster." :-)

It was a reasonably agile airplane for having as much wing as it did.
During low level ops (100' day, 300' night) it was stable and very
honest. Single engine performace was quite good at lower operating
weights. It did not get you anywhere fast. :-)

Quick
question that's always bugged me about carrier ops: On final approach, do
you fly the same heading as the carrier but a bit to the right then change
to the angle of the angled deck, or start your approach further to teh right
and treat the ships movement liek a crosswind from the right?

If the OOD is doing his job then the wind is down the angle. If not,
you do a little slip, not a "crab." It's a visual approach so actual
heading is not something in your scan; it's "meatball, line up, and
airspeed." Non-precision approaches (ADF and TACAN) were flown on BRC
(base recovery course) and you transitioned to visual and were back to
"meat ball, line up, and airspeed"); or missed approach.
Non-precision CCA or FCA (Fudd Controlled Approach) were like at the
field (fly the heading given and altitude suggested) until visual then
transion; or missed approach. Precision CCA was similar (and you
awaited "3/4 mile; call the ball") on all of them.

Night IMC approaches were always good for a thrill or two. Add in
some high seas and weather minimums and you might get to "splice the
mainbrace." :-)

Bill Kambic

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:06:53 -0500, "B.C. Mallam"
wrote:

How about the nights, in wx, that the only way to get aboard was to let down
until you could see the glow of the ships wake and then follow it to the
boat. Flying a slow a/c helped a lot on those nights.

On nights like that the stiff wingers got "Signal Bingo*". The
rotorheads had to descend until they could find the trail of sea water
activated flares that were being dumped off the fantail every 30".

Bill Kambic

* Bingo: procedeed the designated or pre-briefed land base.

Too many times "bingo" was the boat and the Stoof got us aboard with this
approach. This was early 60's VS-33


On 8/9/05 3:40 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:06:53 -0500, "B.C. Mallam"
wrote:

How about the nights, in wx, that the only way to get aboard was to let down
until you could see the glow of the ships wake and then follow it to the
boat. Flying a slow a/c helped a lot on those nights.

On nights like that the stiff wingers got "Signal Bingo*". The
rotorheads had to descend until they could find the trail of sea water
activated flares that were being dumped off the fantail every 30".

Bill Kambic

* Bingo: procedeed the designated or pre-briefed land base.