The Airplane Thread

[Llarry]

Since I've killed the thread with my wall of text I might as well add an addendum. Two photos: (1) Another view of a special CIA P-3A, t his time in American markings, and (2) the EP-3E that soldiers on worldwide today in the SIGINT role.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Since I've killed the thread with my wall of text

You haven't... Adding an historical background is very enlightening.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

You haven't... Adding an historical background is very enlightening.

Thank you. In that case, let me tell you about what the CIA did to the P-3s to make them special (that I know of):
-- Deleted the magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) boom on the tail
(as part of gutting the airplane of all the ASW equipment)
-- Added a "joe hole" in the floor of the airplane somewhere -- a hatch out of which the agents would drop to parachute into China
-- Made structural changes to the aircraft on the left side to make the entry door into a double-wide door. (This change remained when I flew in the aircraft but the double door wasn't used normally.)
-- Added a bunch of electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment
-- Added a dorsal observation bubble just forward of the vertical stabilizer
-- According to some sources (this sounds "off" to me but what do I know?), shortened the prop blades so they'd make less noise. (Any aviation experts want to chime in here with skepticism?)
-- Mounted rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the wings
(Some sources say the AIM-9s were mounted so they fired backwards; again, my aeronautical spidey sense tells me this is BS: launch a missile backwards in a 200-300 knot wind? I don't think so.)
-- (I think) added photo recon capability
-- (And of course) painted the aircraft overall glossy black. WW2 experience had demonstrated that glossy black is better than flat black when trying to avoid detection by searchlights.

[Lady Jane]

CC-117 Globemaster III.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

CC-117 Globemaster III.



Attachment 3040955

The C-17.

From an airlift perspective:

Last in the talent show, first in the swimsuit competition.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

The only Airbus that I've flown on is the A319, on a small budget airline. The first flight was uneventful, even though we took off in a surprise Tropical Storm. The return flight was smooth, but that particular A319 earned its Scarebus nickname as it creaked like a 1980's plastic car interior on the taxiways. When the takeoff roll started, the cabin sounded like an old pirate ship and I was seriously crossing my fingers hoping that the thing didn't fall apart before it left the ground! The whole thing felt like it was put together from spare parts, and even the cabin LED lighting had 2-3 different color temperatures mixed in like someone was scrounging in a remote bone yard for any part that fit. Anyway, I looked up the tail number after we had landed, and discovered that it was a seasonal lease from a South American airline.

And there's your clue. Often night and day between 3rd world carriers and domestic carriers. Our domestic carriers adhere to rigid FAA inspection and maintenance schedules on their aircraft. Of course, there is the human factor in any system and resulting slip-ups, but the track record is darned good.

[Nuckle]

I have really enjoyed this thread.

[Lady Jane]

Aircrew from the Royal Canadian Air Force and air forces around the world train on this turboprop aircraft.

Training on the CT-142(Dash 8) involves navigation, tactics and surveillance as well as search and rescue. It employs a suite of on-board training computers and a large radar system that is housed in its long nose, earning it the nickname “Gonzo.”

[Lady Jane]

A CF-100 Canuck overflying RCAF Station St. Margarets in the early 50s. This is where I was born just before its closure in 1988.

The little church in the upper right corner is where I was baptized. It's still there today. In the lower right corner, they were just starting to build the MQs. Early members lived in trailers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck



The station in 2021 via Google Earth. All that remains, are the MQs sold to a developer for low-income families.

[Llarry]

My earlier post on the Jolly Rogers prompted me to look a bit into another famous U.S. Navy fighter/strike fighter squadron: The Tophatters. The lineage is not direct as squadrons were disestablished and established (during World War II the U.S. Navy had something like 150 fighter squadrons at one time or another!)

The Tophatters of today have their origins in what was originally called the High Hat squadron: Fighter Squadron ONE (VF-1). The first photo is a Boeing F2B-1 of VF-1 in the 1920s. The squadron was disestablished before WW2. In 1943, a new VF-1 assumed the High Hat tradition and flew the Grumman F6F Hellcat in combat, scoring 101 victories in three combat tours. (My Dad was very briefly assigned to VF-1 in 1944 as a replacement pilot.) Note that the High Hat insignia below the windscreen is pretty small; that was all that was allowed during the War.

I won't bore you with all the postwar changes, but let me close with two more photos -- an F-14A of 1975 and a more recent F/A-18. Post-WW2 the name morphed into the Tophatters and that is how they are known today.

[Lady Jane]

Officer cadets selected for flight training will get their first taste of flight on this aircraft.

GROB G-120.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_120

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Officer cadets selected for flight training will get their first taste of flight on this aircraft.

GROB G-120.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_120

Attachment 3041435

As the cost per flight hour of flying military aircraft has risen, services all over the world have transitioned to starting flying training in relatively inexpensive (to procure and operate) trainers adapted from civil aircraft. This weeds out the obviously aeronautically-unsuitable candidates and reduces attrition during later, much more expensive training. Makes great sense. I think pretty much all air forces have adopted this approach.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

The C-17.

From an airlift perspective:

Last in the talent show, first in the swimsuit competition.

Curious as to why so from an airlift perspective. Obviously it doesn’t have the size of a C-5, but did it not live up to expectations otherwise?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by minn19

Curious as to why so from an airlift perspective. Obviously it doesn’t have the size of a C-5, but did it not live up to expectations otherwise?

+1 -- I don't understand what is wrong with the C-17. I suppose the four-engine configuration is not as fuel-efficient as a twin-engine one would be; it seems that four engines are going the way of the dodo.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Post-script: The two operational EP-3Bs were joined by ten more advanced EP-3Es in the 1970-80s. Over the years the aircraft were upgraded with advanced systems. One of them -- on a mission about where I flew decades before -- was struck by a harrassing Chinese fighter in 2001 and ended up making an emergency landing in China. Over the years, the original tired airframes were replaced with conversions of newer P-3C Orion patrol planes and are still flying today.

Does the Lockheed EC-130 fit in here anywhere?

I ask because I knew a pilot who flew that aircraft in support of a Special Operations group during the Gulf War and had previously flown what I think was the same aircraft type off North Korea during routine intelligence gathering missions in the 1980s.

Regarding the 2001 incident, he commented that the EP-3E pilot would have endured a living hell during his time with the Chinese. IIRC, the look on the EP-3E pilot's face immediately upon repatriation bore out that assessment.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by minn19

Curious as to why so from an airlift perspective. Obviously it doesn't have the size of a C-5, but did it not live up to expectations otherwise?

Originally Posted by Llarry

+1 -- I don't understand what is wrong with the C-17. I suppose the four-engine configuration is not as fuel-efficient as a twin-engine one would be; it seems that four engines are going the way of the dodo.

Oh, geez. Where to start?

To begin with, the jet's got the legs of a sparrow-- which is a BAD thing for an airlifter. In the airlift world, there are two types of transport: intertheater (operations between geographical combatant commands) and intratheater (operations exclusively within a geographical combatant command).

Basically, think of intertheater as flying from the US to Europe or Europe to the Middle East, and intratheater flying entirely within Europe or the Middle East. C-5's and C-17 are supposed to be mostly be intertheater birds and C-130's and the like are intratheater birds. Make sense?

In order to do this, the intertheater crowd is expected to self-support themselves when flying; tanker support will usually chop to a theater (i.e. refuel fighters and the like in the combat zone), so when the balloon goes up, the tankers aren't available to transport category aircraft. An intertheater airlifter is supposed to load up on cargo and gas and fly between continents all by themselves.

But the C-17 has VERY short legs. When I ran their stage operation in Germany years ago, in the winter with a headwind, they could NOT make it from Germany to the east coast without using a tanker or landing short for fuel-- they just didn't have the range. Eventually (around 2005+ iirc), the solution was to put an additional fuel bladder above the cargo box between the wings. That solved the range issue, but since you can either carry gas or cargo, the jet had the range to get there, but still couldn't carry much, if anything. Weight is weight.

The tanker crowd LOVES the jet as it provides a reason for their existence, even in peacetime. C-17 pilots get REALLY good at aerial refueling.

Additionally, it was originally designed to use a different cargo system than EVERY OTHER AIRLIFTER in the AF-- which meant they were going to have to transship cargo every time it changed jets. They eventually (sort of) fixed that, and it can now accept a standard 463L pallet.

Also? It's burn is pretty horrific for what it is-- probably similar to the C-5M now-- and a single C-5 can carry about 2.5 times what a C-17 can carry; i.e. for each two C-5 loads, you'd need to fly five loads in a C-17. The solution was to slow them way back to 0.74 Mach and install winglets to help with the fuel burn.

When it came out, it became the poster child for the Air Mobility Command-- pictures of it were EVERYWHERE-- we used to call it the "porn star of the AF".

Additionally, the C-17 program "cheated". Most of the captains and majors on the acquisition/test and development teams were colonels and generals by the time the C-17 was being purchased, and they used that to their advantage-- C-141 retirements were accelerated, and the C-5 was specifically made to look like it couldn't do any more than the C-17 could do. I was ordered (more than once) to do a fuel stop in the Azores when flying from Germany to the east coast-- because if the C-17 couldn't do it? Well, the C-5 must not (read: will not) be able to either. Additionally, when demonstrating the loading capability to a CODEL (Congressional Delegation), we were specifically directed NOT to drop the forward or aft ramps or open the nose, and were not allowed to kneel the jet to show how easy it was to load a C-5 (you can actually drive in one end and out the other). That way the "horseholders" leading the delegation could tell the congressmen/senators that the C-5 needed special loading equipment to get the cargo waaaaaaay up to the cargo box, whereas the C-17 could just drive on. COMPLETE lie.

Trivia: The official name is the Globemaster III. The unofficial name? Either Buddha (everyone sits around and worships it) or Barney-- Fred's short, fat friend. It helps to know that the C-5's nickname is Fred.

Also? It was designed by McDonnell Douglas, with all of the Bad that went with that. Douglas pretty much told the government that if they didn't buy the C-17, they'd go out of business. They did, and they did-- which is how it ended up being a Boeing product. Lockheed offered a C-5D with about 40% parts commonality, two-person crew, and a lighter footprint AND a -J model C-130 for each unit cost of the C-17. But, since they'd just gotten the F-22 contract, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, iirc, Lockheed was specifically directed to destroy all the C-5 tools and dies that were in storage so they couldn't make any more C-5's to compete against C-17 production.

R.

[Lady Jane]

The CC-144 Canadair Challenger 604 used for VIP and general duties It replaced the venerable CC-109 Cosmopolitan, a turboprop version of the older model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada...9_Cosmopolitan

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The CC-144 Canadair Challenger 604 used for VIP and general duties It replaced the venerable CC-109 Cosmopolitan, a turboprop version of the older model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada...9_Cosmopolitan

I have a Cosmopolitan story... or more properly a Convair T-29 story. The US bought the design as both a transport (C-131) and a navigational trainer (T-29) with piston engines. A number were converted for VIP transport duties. (A few were later re-engined with gas turbines.)

In December of 1965 I went home to the Philippines for Christmas with my family. I was a college student and not high on the priority list for military air transport. I got to Hawaii with not too many days until school resumed and was stuck. "Now serving number 45; you are number 325." I somehow managed to hitch a ride on a RNZAF C-130 from Hawaii to NAS Moffett Field south of SF, but needed to get to LA where my ride back to school was waiting. I checked with station air ops and they said a USAF T-29 was leaving for Los Angeles after a while and I could check with the pilot to see if I could get a ride. I approached the pilot and asked if I might hitch a ride and he replied "Sure, get your stuff and get on the plane now and we'll leave just as soon as the general arrives." General? Uh, okay. So I boarded the plane and it was plush -- comfy chairs and tables, etc. Gulp! I made my way back and there were a few regular airline type seats in the back so I had a seat. A few minutes later an Air Force general sauntered back to see what kind of riff-raff he was giving a ride to. (I should mentioned that I was in ROTC my freshman year so I was wearing an Army uniform.) So I took a ride to LAX courtesy of the USAF in a VT-29 VIP aircraft. Made it to school on time, too.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Oh, geez. Where to start?

To begin with, the jet's got the legs of a sparrow-- which is a BAD thing for an airlifter. In the airlift world, there are two types of transport: intertheater (operations between geographical combatant commands) and intratheater (operations exclusively within a geographical combatant command).

Basically, think of intertheater as flying from the US to Europe or Europe to the Middle East, and intratheater flying entirely within Europe or the Middle East. C-5's and C-17 are supposed to be mostly be intertheater birds and C-130's and the like are intratheater birds. Make sense?

In order to do this, the intertheater crowd is expected to self-support themselves when flying; tanker support will usually chop to a theater (i.e. refuel fighters and the like in the combat zone), so when the balloon goes up, the tankers aren't available to transport category aircraft. An intertheater airlifter is supposed to load up on cargo and gas and fly between continents all by themselves.

But the C-17 has VERY short legs. When I ran their stage operation in Germany years ago, in the winter with a headwind, they could NOT make it from Germany to the east coast without using a tanker or landing short for fuel-- they just didn't have the range. Eventually (around 2005+ iirc), the solution was to put an additional fuel bladder above the cargo box between the wings. That solved the range issue, but since you can either carry gas or cargo, the jet had the range to get there, but still couldn't carry much, if anything. Weight is weight.

The tanker crowd LOVES the jet as it provides a reason for their existence, even in peacetime. C-17 pilots get REALLY good at aerial refueling.

Additionally, it was originally designed to use a different cargo system than EVERY OTHER AIRLIFTER in the AF-- which meant they were going to have to transship cargo every time it changed jets. They eventually (sort of) fixed that, and it can now accept a standard 463L pallet.

Also? It's burn is pretty horrific for what it is-- probably similar to the C-5M now-- and a single C-5 can carry about 2.5 times what a C-17 can carry; i.e. for each two C-5 loads, you'd need to fly five loads in a C-17. The solution was to slow them way back to 0.74 Mach and install winglets to help with the fuel burn.

When it came out, it became the poster child for the Air Mobility Command-- pictures of it were EVERYWHERE-- we used to call it the "porn star of the AF".

Additionally, the C-17 program "cheated". Most of the captains and majors on the acquisition/test and development teams were colonels and generals by the time the C-17 was being purchased, and they used that to their advantage-- C-141 retirements were accelerated, and the C-5 was specifically made to look like it couldn't do any more than the C-17 could do. I was ordered (more than once) to do a fuel stop in the Azores when flying from Germany to the east coast-- because if the C-17 couldn't do it? Well, the C-5 must not (read: will not) be able to either. Additionally, when demonstrating the loading capability to a CODEL (Congressional Delegation), we were specifically directed NOT to drop the forward or aft ramps or open the nose, and were not allowed to kneel the jet to show how easy it was to load a C-5 (you can actually drive in one end and out the other). That way the "horseholders" leading the delegation could tell the congressmen/senators that the C-5 needed special loading equipment to get the cargo waaaaaaay up to the cargo box, whereas the C-17 could just drive on. COMPLETE lie.

Trivia: The official name is the Globemaster III. The unofficial name? Either Buddha (everyone sits around and worships it) or Barney-- Fred's short, fat friend. It helps to know that the C-5's nickname is Fred.

Also? It was designed by McDonnell Douglas, with all of the Bad that went with that. Douglas pretty much told the government that if they didn't buy the C-17, they'd go out of business. They did, and they did-- which is how it ended up being a Boeing product. Lockheed offered a C-5D with about 40% parts commonality, two-person crew, and a lighter footprint AND a -J model C-130 for each unit cost of the C-17. But, since they'd just gotten the F-22 contract, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, iirc, Lockheed was specifically directed to destroy all the C-5 tools and dies that were in storage so they couldn't make any more C-5's to compete against C-17 production.

R.

I love how corrupt the government and military can be, yet still try to wave the flag and talk about freedom.

Bunch of idiots.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

I love how corrupt the government and military can be, yet still try to wave the flag and talk about freedom.

Bunch of idiots.

It's called "industrial statemanship" and it does sort of make sense that you want to retain more than one 800-lb gorilla on the playing field. If Boeing, for instance, supplies all your aircraft, you risk Boeing jacking up the prices and the government will end up paying too much for everything. But you are right; it does smack of corruption. I don't know how you balance the whole thing out.

Thank you to @flybigjet for the excellent explanation.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

I love how corrupt the government and military can be, yet still try to wave the flag and talk about freedom.

Bunch of idiots.

For years the FAA has explained away deals by saying safety IS never compromised, not safety WAS never compromised. I've seen too many near mid-airs for the FAA's spoksemouth to say safety is never compromised!

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

I love how corrupt the government and military can be, yet still try to wave the flag and talk about freedom.

Bunch of idiots.

Don't forget free enterprise... like Boeing's 737 Max.