Stupid questions about Naval Aviation (Pt 2)

[A4sForever]

....@A4s: There's still an earplug in the pouch, which is why it confuses people. The cord is setup to utilize your helmet's speakers, but everyone sees the earplug and fuses start to blow....

I would be willing to bet it's the result of a Benny Suggs from one of our AirWing PR's or another of the PR shops that was "on the line" during a similar period in time ... as we figured it out early and often that you might want to be "quiet" when using the PRICK-90 or anything else when you might be down in Indian Country and cold, wet, scared, and tired ... w/ Joe Gomer in the vicinity.

 

[HokiePilot]

My personal decision was that I would ride it down if I could put it in a field. Otherwise (trees, water, ...), I would bailout. This was particularity important in Corpus because course rules took you over the center of the bay at 1000 ft (with enough speed to get to bailout altitude). Ditching the T-34 into the water didn't sound like a good idea.

Regarding NORDO, if flying solo, I felt no need to break out the PRC-90. It was just something to get in the way and I wasn't used to it. At the most, I would have broken it out, announced that I was lost comm and executing local lost comm procedure, and then put it away. We had set procedures and so everyone knew what I was going to do anyway.

Obviously, both of these decisions were mute when flying with an instructor.

 

[fc2spyguy]

Also, personally, I would much rather ditch a T-34 from 1200 feet than bailout from any altitude, but that was just my technique.

Not me, but I have a lot of faith in a parachute, as I've used them many times before. In fact, that's always been one of my quandaries. If I am in a 34 w/ an actual engine failure and we get to the bailout section, that's my option. However, if the IP in the back says, nah we can make this farmers field, what do I do. I think at that point I say screw the wings, I'm going with what I feel gives me the better chance of survival. I'll calmly climb out, close the canopy back up, and jump. But hey, that's just me.

 

[BACONATOR]

Not me, but I have a lot of faith in a parachute, as I've used them many times before. In fact, that's always been one of my quandaries. If I am in a 34 w/ an actual engine failure and we get to the bailout section, that's my option. However, if the IP in the back says, nah we can make this farmers field, what do I do. I think at that point I say screw the wings, I'm going with what I feel gives me the better chance of survival. I'll calmly climb out, close the canopy back up, and jump. But hey, that's just me.

And when you're in khakis standing before the "man", be sure to explain why you bailed out of a T-34 which was headed for a big, wide open field, risking life and limb, and destroying a million-dollar aircraft in the process.

 

[Flash]

......very close to your trailers you think you're going to walk to but the site couldn't be reached for quite some time....... in LA and it can be a long walk to the nearest farm house.

Now that brings up another question, do you really want to go to a random farm house or trailer in UCLA?

Also, personally, I would much rather ditch a T-34 from 1200 feet than bailout from any altitude, but that was just my technique.

Has there ever been a successful ditching of a T-34C? I always thought they would be prone to flipping.

 

[A4sForever]

....I have a lot of faith in a parachute, ... If I am in a 34 w/ an actual engine failure and we get to the bailout section, ...if the IP in the back says, nah we can make this farmers field, what do I do...

You do what the Instructor sez ... otherwise, you should "get out" now.

But seriously ... dead-stick it into 4-Silo Farm (I KNOW it's still there) and get a date w/ one of the local girls for next month's Cotillion @ the Pensacola O' Club.

 

[nittany03]

I can agree about the flask. I guess if your plane is a smoking hole in the ground, it's assumed that you have at least 12 hours before planning your next flight. Time for a drink!

Have fun explaining that toxicology report to the AMB . . .

 

[Flash]

I can agree about the flask. I guess if your plane is a smoking hole in the ground, it's assumed that you have at least 12 hours before planning your next flight. Time for a drink!

Have fun explaining that toxicology report to the AMB . . .

There was a story going around Whidbey about a Prowler that crashed off takeoff/landing a long time ago, the crew punched out and landed on the golf course. A golfer offered them beers and one of them took him up on it. Showed up on the blood tests.

I know people that insisted that it was true and those who insisted it was not. Funny story either way.

 

[insanebikerboy]

My personal decision was that I would ride it down if I could put it in a field. Otherwise (trees, water, ...), I would bailout. This was particularity important in Corpus because course rules took you over the center of the bay at 1000 ft (with enough speed to get to bailout altitude). Ditching the T-34 into the water didn't sound like a good idea.

My decision, and encouraged by my on-wing, was to bail out. I'm with fc2, I trust the parachute, and also considering I had to shoe-horn myself into the cockpit anyways, if I ditched it I probably would've lost my legs from the knees down.

Regarding NORDO, if flying solo, I felt no need to break out the PRC-90. It was just something to get in the way and I wasn't used to it. At the most, I would have broken it out, announced that I was lost comm and executing local lost comm procedure, and then put it away. We had set procedures and so everyone knew what I was going to do anyway.

I actually went NORDO on my first solo in the -34, my helmet mike decided to go out, and since I was on course rules just did the Whiting thingy and heard the break call over Guard. I never even considered the PRC-90 since by the time I would've gotten it hooked up I would've been at the break anyways.

 

[HeloBubba]

Also, personally, I would much rather ditch a T-34 from 1200 feet than bailout from any altitude, but that was just my technique.

That's just your helo pilot experience talking. I remember when the "folks back home" would ask about bailing out of helicopters. I always told them that there is no bailing out in the helo world...we ride 'em in.

 

[A4sForever]

....I actually went NORDO on my first solo in the -34... I never even considered the PRC-90 ...

Amazing ... VT-1 (equivalent) STUDs w/ Prick-90's ... we briefed 'em, but I never even saw one until I got to SE Asia ...

 

[Gatordev]

Not me, but I have a lot of faith in a parachute, as I've used them many times before. In fact, that's always been one of my quandaries. If I am in a 34 w/ an actual engine failure and we get to the bailout section, that's my option. However, if the IP in the back says, nah we can make this farmers field, what do I do. I think at that point I say screw the wings, I'm going with what I feel gives me the better chance of survival. I'll calmly climb out, close the canopy back up, and jump. But hey, that's just me.

My concern isn't the parachute, it's the multi-step process of getting out of the seat before the parachute comes into play. Also, those harnesses aren't all the same, and even when you know how to adjust them, they don't always stay adjusted. But again, that's my mindset. If, on a safe-for-solo check a stud says "BAILOUT-....um, I'm going to bail out now, sir..." That's a check in the box. He followed Natops and made the call.

Has there ever been a successful ditching of a T-34C? I always thought they would be prone to flipping.

I'm using the ditch term universally. I was never able to find info on T-34s going into the water in a non-lawndart capacity, but here's my theory... GenAv planes go in the water all the time and don't always flip. W/ a smooth touchdown, no gear, and a Fx prop, my theory is that you can hydroplane for a bit on the water. I've heard similar thoughts from the old timers in the sim building.

As for on the ground, plenty of T-34s have ditched into trees and rough fields. Not everyone survived, but the vast majority did, and as long as I have airspeed, I'm convinced I could make the touchdown fairly smooth.

 

[MIDNJAC]

For the sake of "research" you could probably consider Bonanza ditchings and their success rate if there have been any amount of them, since it is roughly the same airplane (though possibly a little lighter up front w/ the turbine)

 

[BACONATOR]

For the sake of "research" you could probably consider Bonanza ditchings and their success rate if there have been any amount of them, since it is roughly the same airplane (though possibly a little lighter up front w/ the turbine)

Actually, not quite. While they are basically the same aircraft, slightly modified, the BIGGEST factor in flipping is part of the difference between the two. I'll give you a clue: check the nose.

The bonanza is a nice smooth nose cowling (Internal combustion engine). The T-34 has BIG intakes on the front (think scoops) on the front, which will immediately scoop water, dig in, and flip the plane if you go into the drink.

Look:

 

[Flash]

I'm using the ditch term universally. I was never able to find info on T-34s going into the water in a non-lawndart capacity, but here's my theory... GenAv planes go in the water all the time and don't always flip. W/ a smooth touchdown, no gear, and a Fx prop, my theory is that you can hydroplane for a bit on the water. I've heard similar thoughts from the old timers in the sim building.

(though possibly a little lighter up front w/ the turbine)

I'll give you a clue: check the nose.

The bonanza is a nice smooth nose cowling (Internal combustion engine). The T-34 has BIG intakes on the front (think scoops) on the front, which will immediately scoop water, dig in, and flip the plane if you go into the drink.

The reason that was given to me several times was not the intakes but the weight of the engine, supposedly a lot more than a regular aircraft. I would imgaine the CG of the aircraft a lot further forward than the Bonanza.