In reply to wbt5845

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---

This was done in 1979 in just a few weeks of design, so the electronics were very primitive. Also, if memory serves me correct, the pilots really wanted to have control over when those rockets fired, cause you were LANDING when you flipped that switch.

---

Sometimes, pilots need to be told no. This sounds like one of those cases. Hooking up a WoW trigger should have taken a day or two tops.

Edit: I take that back. If they already had wired a switch in the cockpit, then what I'm talking about would have been even more trivial.

In reply to aTmAg

aTmAg said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---

This was done in 1979 in just a few weeks of design, so the electronics were very primitive. Also, if memory serves me correct, the pilots really wanted to have control over when those rockets fired, cause you were LANDING when you flipped that switch.

---

Sometimes, pilots need to be told no. This sounds like one of those cases. Hooking up a WoW trigger should have taken a day or two tops.

---

Well, you're not wrong. When I worked C-130J, this was already 20 years in the past. But a few of the old timers told some wild stories about it. They worked around the clock, sleeping on cots in the office.

It was very fast and the special forces pilots who were going to fly the mission had a lot of say in how the craft operated. The first test flight was only three weeks after the program began.

There were actually two sets of rockets, upper and lower, that had to be fired in a certain sequence. Seem to recall controlling pitch during firing was a *****.

In the same way it's easy to second guess a pilot 40 years later, it's easy to second guess the deign team.

In reply to wbt5845

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---

This was done in 1979 in just a few weeks of design, so the electronics were very primitive. Also, if memory serves me correct, the pilots really wanted to have control over when those rockets fired, cause you were LANDING when you flipped that switch.

---

Sometimes, pilots need to be told no. This sounds like one of those cases. Hooking up a WoW trigger should have taken a day or two tops.

---

Well, you're not wrong. When I worked C-130J, this was already 20 years in the past. But a few of the old timers told some wild stories about it. They worked around the clock, sleeping on cots in the office.

It was very fast and the special forces pilots who were going to fly the mission had a lot of say in how the craft operated. The first test flight was only three weeks after the program began.

There were actually two sets of rockets, upper and lower, that had to be fired in a certain sequence. Seem to recall controlling pitch during firing was a *****.

In the same way it's easy to second guess a pilot 40 years later, it's easy to second guess the deign team.

---

Assuming that the design team suggested it (it's damn obvious), I'm second guessing whoever made the call to listen to the pilots over the design team. We are talking about and-gates here so the pilot still can chose to not fire at all and do a touch and go. I can't imagine any scenario where you would ever want to fire those rockets when there wasn't weight on wheels.

In reply to aTmAg A touch and go in a soccer stadium?

In reply to GAC06

GAC06 said:

---

A touch and go in a soccer stadium?

---

Yeah I doubt they would ever want to try that either. But that makes more sense then ever wanting to fire those rockets when in the air.

In reply to falcon09

falcon09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---

This was done in 1979 in just a few weeks of design, so the electronics were very primitive. Also, if memory serves me correct, the pilots really wanted to have control over when those rockets fired, cause you were LANDING when you flipped that switch.

---

Sometimes, pilots need to be told no. This sounds like one of those cases. Hooking up a WoW trigger should have taken a day or two tops.

Edit: I take that back. If they already had wired a switch in the cockpit, then what I'm talking about would have been even more trivial.

---

Blasphemy!! Pilots are always right. Just ask one...

---

Well they might not think they are always right but any with military experience, especially fighter jocks have at least a little bit of this in him/her.

Since it is National Aviation Day, when it all began


Or maybe not, did the first powered flight occur outside of Luckenbach instead of Kitty Hawk. NC?

In reply to wbt5845

wbt5845 said:

---

Missed it yesterday - but in honor of National Aviation Day, every aircraft I was on the initial design or redesign (initial design unless otherwise noted). And there are several which cannot be shown.

...

787 Dreamliner

---

San Antonio, BFI (flight test), or Everett? If either we may have crossed paths at some point.

In reply to The Fife Everett - very early on - I left before we even started drawing release.

In reply to falcon09

falcon09 said:

---

Hey Nav said:

---

The C-17 is a wonderful aircraft. Is the incident at Elemendorf in 2010 the only fatal crash?

---

The Elmo crash is the only haul loss incident. It was a very similar incident to the B-52 crash at Fairchild in the early 90's. I don't think any of the other accidents have resulted in a fatality.

The 17 is extremely redundant and the engineers did a marvelous overall. It's an absolute dream to fly, especially when you remember it has a dry weight of almost 300k lbs and max T/O and landing weights of 585k lbs.

---

My current father in law (CMsgt) is a retired loadmaster for C-130s and C-5s out of San Antonio. Fascinating and complex job.

In reply to wbt5845 Looks like we missed each other by a couple of years. I still have a big 7E7 poster that came with a desk I inherited in the 88 building though.

In reply to The Fife

The Fife said:

---

Looks like we missed each other by a couple of years. I still have a big 7E7 poster that came with a desk I inherited in the 88 building though.

---

We actually still called the program Yellowstone 2 when I was working it.

In reply to falcon09

falcon09 said:

---

Hey Nav said:

---

The C-17 is a wonderful aircraft. Is the incident at Elemendorf in 2010 the only fatal crash?

---

The 17 is extremely redundant and the engineers did a marvelous overall. It's an absolute dream to fly, especially when you remember it has a dry weight of almost 300k lbs and max T/O and landing weights of 585k lbs.

---

You're welcome. Every time you engage the thrust and/or core reversers, think of me. I did the rails and the deflectors in the nacelles.

No 737 max ?

Planes

In reply to falcon09

falcon09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Min runway for the 130 is only 500 feet shorter than the 17.

Fully loaded 130 Js are still 100k or so less than an empty 17.

If you want a lot of **** put somewhere it probably shouldn't be able to go, a 17 is your answer.


Also wouldn't call an accident during testing of a brand new rocket landing system destroyed due to pilot error.

---

The min runway for the C-17 is also almost twice as wide though, so you need just over 2x the area even though it's only 17% longer.

The C-17 didn't exist in the early 80's, so it wasn't an option. They also had to land in a stadium, so min takeoff and landing was at an absolute premium. C-130 would have been the choice regardless because every inch mattered.


Pilot fired the rockets too early before the wheels were down. The plane essentially stopped midair and dropped. They'd had several successful tests previously. Definitely his error. Understandably so, but still his error.

---

The last set of rockets was owned by the FE who lit them off before they were wheels down during the mishap.

I guess I'll just fundamentally disagree with trying to point out and assign fault to someone risking their life to test a system 30+ years later.

---

Seems to me that they should have wired the rockets to the weight on wheels sensor. So the pilot/FE flips a switch when they are about to land, and then the rockets fire automatically when there is weight on both aft wheels.

---

This was done in 1979 in just a few weeks of design, so the electronics were very primitive. Also, if memory serves me correct, the pilots really wanted to have control over when those rockets fired, cause you were LANDING when you flipped that switch.

---

Sometimes, pilots need to be told no. This sounds like one of those cases. Hooking up a WoW trigger should have taken a day or two tops.

Edit: I take that back. If they already had wired a switch in the cockpit, then what I'm talking about would have been even more trivial.

---

Blasphemy!! Pilots are always right. Just ask one...

---

If you've got 2 pilots in a room, you're guaranteed to get at least 3 opinions...

In reply to wbt5845 Wait...

You were on the PAC-3 initial design?

At LTV Missiles & Electronics/Loral Vought Systems?

Did you also work on ERINT, or did you start after?

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

Wait...

You were on the PAC-3 initial design?

At LTV Missiles & Electronics/Loral Vought Systems?

Did you also work on ERINT, or did you start after?

---

Did not work ERINT - came on board right when PAC-3 was awarded, did the missile design and then left. Only was there about two years.

In reply to AggieBand2004 My uncle did one of the runways and some other project at DFW for Bechtel back in the 90s

Edit: he said it was the final stages of 13L/31R in 1986/87

I stumbled across this on youtube.

In reply to BaitShack That's nuts!

In reply to wbt5845

wbt5845 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Wait...

You were on the PAC-3 initial design?

At LTV Missiles & Electronics/Loral Vought Systems?

Did you also work on ERINT, or did you start after?

---

Did not work ERINT - came on board right when PAC-3 was awarded, did the missile design and then left. Only was there about two years.

---

Interesting. I left the program literally the day after ERINT was awarded the PAC-3 contract and went to LOSAT for the next few years.

I was in trajectory analysis but loaned out to the G&C group on ERINT.

Some RC Airplane action

https://instagr.am/p/CUbADvxgDiA

If you're in SAT, the GE Propulsion Test Platform 747 is parked outside the ST Engineering hanger you can see from the 410 to 281N ramp

Does anyone know why every parked T6 Texan 2 has the cowl / access panel propped open? I rarely see one that isn't. They'll be sitting on the ramp all day with those open.

In reply to BaitShack Hamsters need to get out and take a breather.

In reply to ABATTBQ11

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Hamsters need to get out and take a breather.

---

when did they upgrade from gerbils to hamsters?