Oshkosh Airshow

[KHornet]

I helped develop the GPES (Ground Proximity Extraction System) and LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) during Nam. That is the plane (130's) for LAPES,
a few feet off the ground with loads in the tons, being extracted by a med size parachute.The pilot gives a green light, the load master hits the squib, and a mili second later the
load is gone, and the bird being appreciably lighter jumps 8-10 feet, and your gut churns for a second or two. It is a real kick and positive rapid unload.

Was and is very effective, and LAPES will be around for a long time, in support of ground forces. Worked also on slingshot drops form C119's with the clam shell off the back, and overgrown bungy cords slinging containers weighing up to 1000 or so lb's out. Used for support of Special Forces among other things. Pilots got good enough with practice to drop the containers in an area maybe half the size of a football field.

Jato assist take off is another real kick in the tail , and pulls more G's than you really want to experience
strapped into the side of the bird in a web seat when the jets go off. Good memories.

Paul

 

[Pistolero]

Well, that is really interesting! I remember that the designer of my Long EZ and a number of other aircraft
and space craft, Burt Rutan was a flt engr on board a cargo plane, I think a C-130, during a cargo extraction test where
the huge box stuck part way out, shifting the CG massively aft, and causing the aircraft to pitch up very
abruptly. If it had stayed, it would have been a crash, way out of aft CG limit, impossible to control. But
the steep deck angle apparently freed the cargo box and it fell out, and the aircraft was recovered.

Very critical to make this sort of system work rapidly, smoothly and reliably. Good job!

Bill

 

[KHornet]

Interesting Bill! The dual rail system (rollers) and locked in platforms, prevented canting.
Saw and flew a number of LAPES drops, and never saw what you describe. Can viualize
with a 119 and sling shot drops. Among other things dropped in testing was live animals
(cows/pigs/chickens in crates etc). Spent a couple of years doing this type of thing prior
to going to Nam. Was very interesting.

Paul

 

[oscarflytyer]

Oscar, think you would find that there are a number of C-47's still flying in
a whole lot of different countries. Think there will still be a few in the air
when they hit the century mark.

Paul

Paul - you are absolutely correct. The one I found first on google claimed they were the only one (false advertising?). And then a buddy checked back in with me, and it was not the one his group flies. he further informed me that there is def more than one in original Mil guise flying. As well, he mentioned the world wide fleet. Also said they are refitting a lot of the C-47/DC3s with turbo props for areas where they fly that gasoline is scarce.

 

[Pistolero]

This was a very early test flight, and clearly they didn't have it sorted out entirely. Sounds like this
taught that canting was a huge no-no. Let's hope that was the only time it did that! This is why
they have test pilots and flight test engineers, and not all of them get to come home at the end
of testing. It does sound like interesting work, but careful to get it all right. Also, keep your
fingers and toes clear!

Look up Basler Aviation, located on the field at Oshkosh. The do the turboprop
conversions. It turns out that the old round engines are getting hard to support
from a parts standpoint. You can overhaul a crank and crankcase just so many times
before it is just worn out too bad to fix, probably cracks, I would guess.

 

[RBHarter]

If memory serves me right .........
A 650HP PT6 turbo prop only burns about 16-18 gallons per hr vs a 1340 Pratt at 25 or more ....... Almost makes it worthwhile for the similar overhaul life . Last time I was really looking the Pratt was $28-30k for a major with new parts and the PT 6 was $125k .

 

[Pistolero]

650 isn't enough, it needs the bigger versions of the PT6.

DC-3 used the P&W1820 at 1200 hp, replacement is PT6-67 series at ~1200 hp. Typical gasoline
engine BSFC is 0.5 lb/hp-hr, some can do 0.42. Typical newer small turbine BSFC will be more like
0.55 to 0.6 lb/hp-hr. So, expect the 75% cruise fuel burn to be about 56/gph per side on gas, maybe lean cruise
75% is 47 gph. The -67 turbine should be about 72 gph to maybe 79 gph on turbine fuel. Turbine fuel,
I think, should be less expensive than avgas. Overhaul life should be far better on the turbine, and
so should in-flight shutdown rate, a big deal operating heavy in Alaska and other places in the middle
of nowhere. Also, avgas is not readily available in a lot of 3rd world countries where kerosene for turbines
is.

Bill

 

[KHornet]

IMO, there will be gooneys and herky birds flying long after planes on the
assembly lines today are long since forgotten. Probably true for dollar
19's, and 123's, but I don't have a particular fondness for them like I do
for the first two. Am thinking of the versatility of the 130! No bomber in
our inventory has the capability of dropping a MOAB, but a 130 do!

Paul

 

[oscarflytyer]

I don't know anyone that wants the A10 to go away either, except damned politicians. And 130s are just plain awesome. They broke the mold on that one.

 

[KHornet]

Agree, the Warthog is one very fine air machine!

Paul
































1

 

[KeithB]

I think shifting the task the A10 was designed for to a fast mover is a decision made by the same knuckleheads that got rid of guns and went to missiles only in the '50s.

 

[Pistolero]

A member of my EAA chapter won the Top Gun trophy for the AF one year in an A-10. The F-16 and
F-15 cool jet jockeys were so pissed that they disinvited the A-10s after that. They lost a lot of
respect from me for that move. They had way more tech than the A-10s, a big advantage and they
couldn't stand being beaten by an "inferior" machine.

In the ground bombing contests, one of the targets was an old hulk tank with a 6" steel pipe about
6 ft long welded to the top center of the turret as a scoring pin. A long distance observer at 3 o'clock and
another one at 6 o'clock relative to the tank was watching with a long lens telescope, video system to
score the bomb impact distance away from the pin in each axis. They were using small practice bombs, like
25 or 50 lbs puff of smoke when they hit.

He knocked the pin off with his bomb. They had to stop everything, get a repair crew out
to the target to weld it back on. Hard to argue with that as a "perfect hit".
They used to have a squadron of A-10s here in KC, Richards-Gebaur AFB, now closed and a train depot.
I know a Navy test pilot who got to fly an A-10 and fire the big gun on a firing range. He had enough ammo
for about 3 gun passes. He called it " an effin death ray". Flat trajectory, easy hits, even for a good pilot
with zero previous experience in type, or with the gun.

Remember the Highway of Death heading back to Iraq from Kuwait? over 1400 vehicles wiped out by
air power, including Warthogs. A-6's cut the road in front of and behind the column and the party
was on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Don't mess with The Hawgs.

Bill

 

[oscarflytyer]

Ground pounders LOVE the Hawg!