Bill,

I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two successful P-3
ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian Gulf).

ISTR - in the course of the discussion re the EP-3 forced landing in China -
some comment to the effect that there has never been a P-3 airframe ditching
that did not involve at least some loss of life. Does a "successful" P-3
airframe ditching mean that at least one soul survived?

Another comment I encountered was that the EP-3 community did not carry
parachutes for some years, reason being that all them antennae protruding
from the fuselage would pretty much shred the first soul out the hatch. I
think this changed some time before the VQ-1 crew painted that Chinese F-8
silhouette on their replacement bird.

Others with better-quality info please comment.

---
Mike Kanze

"All men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for
example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is a vegetable. We have no idea
what mauve is."

- Rules From Guys


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
"Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
"Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
even reasonable to consider.

I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.

In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
means I don't know about them).

Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
"wide."

The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
shade.

As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
the crew together).

I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
105 kts. night/IMC.

From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.

Bill Kambic