Twenty Four Hour Spad Missions

Just curious.

In 1958 a friend of mine in Airgroup Nineteen said that some of his VA-195
AD squadron mates had SIOP missions as long as twenty four hours during our
WestPac deployment. He claimed to have flown a fifteen hour SIOP training
mission. He also said they carried four different types of pills to keep
them awake and alert, especially during carrier landing on return.

Fortunately I was in VA-192 flying the FJ-4B which had SIOP missions of
three hours max.

Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?


Bill Allen


end

Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?

Hope I don't put my foot in my mouth, but IIRC Spad's could be up 6-7 hours
max conserve. Remeber that they did not have air-refuel capability (well,
not exactly, they gave using D-704s, but couldn't get), and more than that
they used so much engine oil that I believe the engine would seize before
they pushed 10!
_____________
José Herculano

I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance of
carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry about
oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after. Got
to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness was
1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?

Hope I don't put my foot in my mouth, but IIRC Spad's could be up 6-7
hours
max conserve.

I recall my father talking about 8-10 hour flights in which go-pills were
mandatory, at least for the pilot and lead nav.

My father related a training video of a Spad driver coming back after a long
mission without his go-pills and the approach to the boat was not pretty,
although the pilot was thought it was a nice approach in an interview after
the flight. In his squadron, there was a theat of discipline if you didn't
take your pills.

This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm

I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
flight deck...


Bob wrote:
I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance
of
carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry
about
oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after.
Got
to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness
was
1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

On 1 Feb 2005 05:45:27 -0800, wrote:



This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm

I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
flight deck...
Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs...

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That might be to
low fuel warning lights though....

BTW, That's without re-fueling. The S-3 that brought the terrorist
back form the east Med in the 80's flew over 11.0, I think.

Regards,



Bob wrote:
I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance
of
carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry
about
oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after.
Got
to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness
was
1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

Charlie Wolf wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 05:45:27 -0800, wrote:

This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm

I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
flight deck...

Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs...

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That might be to
low fuel warning lights though....

BTW, That's without re-fueling. The S-3 that brought the terrorist
back form the east Med in the 80's flew over 11.0, I think.

I've got one hop over 10 hours in the H-60. That includes three or
four hot fuel stops (which is far more than necessary- between 3 and
3.5 hour flight is normal, I even got a 4.3 out of one tank in that
particular aircraft a week prior to the long flight- but it's better
to have too much than too little fuel) and admittedly one getting out
for a pitstop (no relief tubes in the model I flew). Actual strapped
in the seat time was over 12 hours, luckily no dry suit. Having a
flight crew for conversation helps make the time go by too.

Why such a long flight? My ship was on a hot range most of the
day... nothing special, no war or anything like that going on. Oh,
and to be clear, it was an experience I never care to repeat

Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs..
True, but they are all on the their way to some quiet retirement spots
in the desert.

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That m=ADight be
to
low fuel warning lights though....

Its arguable that an aircraft in the vein of a Spad would have been a
much more suitable platform to have orbiting over Fallujah than what is
now available. While youir point about the Hoovers' long legs is a good
one, how many War Hoovers were waiting overhead to drop when the
Marines called? How dependent is carrier air on land based assets such
as tanker and ELINT today? Answer is: pretty much completely.
That's a particularly awkward issue in these tight budget times
considering that the traditional big selling point of carriers has
always been their ability to function *without* (the now absolutely
essential) land based support.
In 1961 the typical airgroup could boast an effective *unrefueled*
radius of 2000nm carrying a 12000 lb weapon(and that internally to
boot). Can a 2005 vintage CVG even match half of that 1961 era
unrefueled combat radius and deliver ordinace the size of a ~5000 lb.
GBU-37?

On 2 Feb 2005 14:20:26 -0800, wrote:

Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs..
True, but they are all on the their way to some quiet retirement spots
in the desert.

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That m*ight be
to
low fuel warning lights though....

Its arguable that an aircraft in the vein of a Spad would have been a
much more suitable platform to have orbiting over Fallujah than what is
now available. While youir point about the Hoovers' long legs is a good
one, how many War Hoovers were waiting overhead to drop when the
Marines called?
Point conceded. I was only commenting on the original point
regarding ability to stay aloft - not necessarily on the ability to
drop bombs --- which, BTW, the S-3 is capable of doing, but I don't
believe anyone in their right mind would task them to do so....
Regards,



How dependent is carrier air on land based assets such
as tanker and ELINT today? Answer is: pretty much completely.
That's a particularly awkward issue in these tight budget times
considering that the traditional big selling point of carriers has
always been their ability to function *without* (the now absolutely
essential) land based support.
In 1961 the typical airgroup could boast an effective *unrefueled*
radius of 2000nm carrying a 12000 lb weapon(and that internally to
boot). Can a 2005 vintage CVG even match half of that 1961 era
unrefueled combat radius and deliver ordinace the size of a ~5000 lb.
GBU-37?

Very interesting post, sidis, think we must first decide on just what
the primary mission of our CVG's is or are. The 1961 whale could
indeed go out 2000 miles, drop an internally carried payload of 12000
lbs and have enough fuel to return. This hop would have to be
unescorted by fighters or ECM birds. Maybe an okay mission for SIOP
but not so good for over the beach stuff like, Vietnam, or IRAQ. I
think the major change is that our CVG isn't tasked to seek out and
destroy the Soviet fleet. Now the most likely scenarios include
missions over land defended by AAA and SAMs. Whales would not survive
there just as the Spads couldn't survive the North Vietnam defenses. I
think we have a brand new ball game to equip for. It wouldn't bother
me a bit to tank from a land based asset since we can get these tankers
to wherever. The CVG still needs an integral tanking capability and I
believe it has one, not like the old days but adequate to cover night
OPs, etc. If I need ECM jammers, I don't care where they come from,
overhead assets, EA-6's, or the girl scouts as long as they get it done
when I need it.

I completely agree that Marines could use some Spads overhead for some
realistic CAS but as long as we have a ROE which prohibits airplanes
from descending below 20 grand, well the Spad will have to remain a
relic of older days. I also agree we probably would be hard pressed to
make a 1000 mile, unrefueled strike with anything we have today. I'm
just not sure we need to anymore.