• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Monster COD thread (homage to the C-2A Greyhound)

So are you saying that the tire is the same for both aircraft? Proper nomenclature for referencing the tire/wheel in the C-2 is to use "mainmount."
 
Looks like a "mainmount" in this case is the entire wheel and oleo strut assembly. 13. t. addresses the tire itself.

From the E-2C Natops pre-flight inspection guide:




13. Mainmount. See Figure 7-4.
a. Main gear actuating cylinder — NO LEAKS.
b. Overcenter cable — SLIGHT SLACK.




​
CAUTION
If the overcenter cable is tight, removing the ground lock prior to starting engines may result in releasing the overcenter lock.
c. Torque link — TWIST, NO PLAY.
d. Drag brace — NO CRACKS.
e. Uplock release roller — FREE ROLLING.
f. Uplock roller — FREE ROLLING.
g. Twist link — TWIST, NO PLAY.
h. Oleo — CLEAN.
i. Jack stand — SECURE.
j. Tow point — CLEAN, NO CORROSION.
k. Brake disc pads — LESS THAN 1/2 INCH
SEPARATION (BETWEEN GAUGE PLATE
AND ASSEMBLY).
l. Brake lines (upper-normal, loweremergency)
— NO LEAKS.
m. Tiedown — SECURE.
n. Brake shuttle valve — NO LEAKS.
o. Scissors — SECURE.
p. Air-ground microswitch — SECURE.
q. Brake torsion swivel linkage — NO LEAKS.
r. Main strut — NO CRACKS.
s. Door brace attachment — SECURE.
t. Tires — NO GOUGES, PROPER
INFLATION.




​
Presentation1.jpg
 
Ah, but what does NATOPS have to know about maintenance? ;) I'm curious to see what the GAI says. If I was home, I'd check, but I'm at NAS Fort Worth on "vacation." Then again, it's a 4 day weekend for the squadron so I wouldn't actually be at work.
 
kmac said:
Ah, but what does NATOPS have to know about maintenance? ;) I'm curious to see what the GAI says. If I was home, I'd check, but I'm at NAS Fort Worth on "vacation." Then again, it's a 4 day weekend for the squadron so I wouldn't actually be at work.
Click to expand...

Notta effin thing. :) In the "real world" a mount is referred to as the tire and wheel assy, all the rest of the shit is part of the strut or just "main or nose LG". Trunnions, drag links, NW steering ect so forth is all associated hardware and components with the LG or strut assy. Having done the line, airframes and maint control the official unofficial lingo is what I said.
Anyway back to the original point, the wheels and tires WERE interchangeable. One didn't ask for a tire, they asked for a mount which was an assembly.
 
Oh yeah .... talked to a CMCPO yesterday .... the Grummies all took an early secure, i.e., @ 1200 ..... the MCPO confirmed my "suspicions" that a tire was a tire, a wheel was a wheel, and a "mount" included a whole bunch of things leading up to a complete "gear" ... he said any term "mount" which would include a tire and a wheel assembly sounded like something a 'Lant squadron would cook up. :D

If anyone cares ... 'cause I don't.

But thank God for the Pacific Fleet ... :)
 
"Beware of props and jet blast." That is one busy picture.

And one old-school cockpit.

Speaking of folding and "articulation"....

c35-1681-143.jpg
 
Those are impressive hats in the picture. I just hope they were fastened down. Could be a combat fod walkdown for the buffalo hat before it gets ingested into other jet engines. Laughter quickly turns to tears.
 
A4sForever said:
Oh yeah .... talked to a CMCPO yesterday .... the Grummies all took an early secure, i.e., @ 1200 ..... the MCPO confirmed my "suspicions" that a tire was a tire, a wheel was a wheel, and a "mount" included a whole bunch of things leading up to a complete "gear" ... he said any term "mount" which would include a tire and a wheel assembly sounded like something a 'Lant squadron would cook up. :D

If anyone cares ... 'cause I don't.

But thank God for the Pacific Fleet ... :)
Click to expand...


10 to 1 gets you a bet that he's a tweet! :p
 
A4sForever said:
Oh yeah .... talked to a CMCPO yesterday .... the Grummies all took an early secure, i.e., @ 1200 ..... the MCPO confirmed my "suspicions" that a tire was a tire, a wheel was a wheel, and a "mount" included a whole bunch of things leading up to a complete "gear" ... he said any term "mount" which would include a tire and a wheel assembly sounded like something a 'Lant squadron would cook up. :D

If anyone cares ... 'cause I don't.

But thank God for the Pacific Fleet ... :)
Click to expand...

Kind of funny how WheelsUp and I both understood each other eh? Especially since we worked on different platforms... ;)
 
FMRAM said:
Kind of funny how WheelsUp and I both understood each other eh? Especially since we worked on different platforms... ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah ... but it doesn't strike me as "funny" at all --- and "different platforms" doesn't matter either, as I've flown a whole bunch of airplanes maintained by a whole bunch of mechanics from all over the world. Most were good - but some should have been selling ladies shoes at Penney's.

But it really would be a better place if we could just get rid of those damn pilots , yes??? What a bunch of know-it-all-primadonnas, right???

Ahhhhhh .... what a wonderful world that would be.

I've seen and heard the story 1,000,000+ times from maintenance, so save it for the youngsters who will still buy into the "maintenance knows best B.S.". I've been there/done that (hate that phrase) enough to know what I'm talkin' about, military and civilian. And I've seen far too many maintenance " wink, wink, ;);) -- we understood each other -- official/unofficial" procedures and/or missing yellow sheets that should have led to courts martial had the information not been buried and hidden within maintenance.

Tell you what: since you seem to think pilots are clueless when it comes to the hardware -- you guys just keep maintainin' 'em -- I'll keep checkin' your work -- and rejecting it when it's not up to standard -- and I'll keep flyin' 'em.

Probably works better that way for everyone .... don't you think??


 
*addendum* ... PM's exchanged BTW FMRAM & myself -- and to set the record straight -- he's not the butt of my "rant" -- he's was a sharp Airman or he wouldn't be where he is today --- his was just the nearest, dearest quote I used to address a "larger" problem that frequently stems from MX attitudes towards Aviators.

Don't think it's not out there and don't tell me it doesn't exist in "today's Navy". "It's" there and "it's" there in the airlines, as well ...

Sooooooooooooo ............temporary end of rant against slipshod "we-know-better than you " maintenance attitudes/procedures. But they're still out there -- they will never go away -- so be careful, all you underworked, overpaid, know-it-all prima donnas ....
 
Whenever I thought somethign was shady, I offered to go flying, if the Maintenance Control Chief would come for the ride.

Amazing how they decline.
 
FMRAM said:
Kind of funny how WheelsUp and I both understood each other eh? Especially since we worked on different platforms... ;)
Click to expand...
Kind of funny how A4s and I both understand each other eh? Especially since we flew on different platforms... ;)
 
A4sForever said:


Tell you what: since you seem to think pilots are clueless when it comes to the hardware -- you guys just keep maintainin' 'em -- I'll keep checkin' your work -- and rejecting it when it's not up to standard -- and I'll keep flyin' 'em.

Probably works better that way for everyone .... don't you think??

Click to expand...

My, what a pissy mood we're in today! Check away, if you wrote it, I'd fix it and if it's a short between the headset I have no doubt I've blown smoke up the best ass and it worked out just fine. ;) A, 799 seems to ring a bell somewhere, assuming malfunction, action taken and WUC codes are still used. Could it be why some birds had engineers for the mechanical expertise? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top