Announcement

Collapse

Terms of Use Agreement

1. You agree, through your use of these public Forums, not to post any material which is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. You further agree not to use these public Forums for advertising or other commercial enterprise purposes. Any questions directed to, or concerning the administration of this website, will be sent to admin@popasmoke.com and not posted to the public Forums.

2. All postings express the views of the author, and neither the administrators nor POPASMOKE will be held responsible for the content of any postings submitted by the Members or anyone else. The administrators of these Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any postings for any reason. Members who make postings on the Forums which are not in accordance with the Terms of Use Agreement, risk having their posting privileges withdrawn.
See more
See less

MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tom Constantine
    started a topic MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

    MV-22 and "HOT LZ's"

    Does the Marine Corps plan on taking the MV-22 into hot LZ's to do medivacs, emergency ammo resupply etc like the 46's in RVN?

    I was an eyewitness to what the 46's went through. I'm having great difficulty attempting to visualize a MV-22 attempting a high speed approach and departure being accompanied by a fusillade of small arms fire, RPG's, and the off .50 Cal thrown into the mix.

    In my memory, I recollect that 53's were absolutely barred from going anywhere near a hot zone in RVN.

    I'll save judgement until I see a MV-22 go into a hot zone at 40 knots, touch down and depart in seconds.

    I don't suppose they have "hover aft" do they?

  • sonofavet
    replied
    Thread: MV-22 and "HOT LZ's" Reply to Thread

    Howdy and others...the link above somehow got cut off...to visit the blog interview visit here.

    http://egelnest.blogspot.com/2005/11...aywith-my.html

    Thanks,

    Son of a Vet (Bradley)

    Leave a comment:


  • Howdy
    replied
    Bob Quinter & Bo Honeycutt

    Joe

    I just had a nice email conversation a few weeks ago with Bob Quinter. He happened upon my stepsons blog. He had done an interview with me for Veterans Day '05 http://egelnest.blogspot.com/2005/11...aywith-my.html. I sent him a copy of an after action report letting him know I had his six o'clock covered.

    Bo Honeycutt does sound familar, but after all these years, you know how that is.

    Semper Fi

    Bruce "Howdy" Mayor HMM-161 '69-'70
    Last edited by Howdy; 11-24-2006, 10:36. Reason: removing parentheses so link works

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Reed
    replied
    Four 50's

    Howdy,
    The memories just keep on coming 'cause we set up a four 50's unit/gunbird, too! There were metal stands holding up the rearmost 50's with significant stop/limiters as you swung forward toward the stub wing. No stinger on this one. We had already been chastized by Dulligan for the ramp deal. LOL! Seems like Ashau Valley was the area targeted for gunbird use. Couldn't carry much cargo or medevacs in this configuration though. Greater need won out over greater fun and firepower. I have a picture some place....I'll try to find it and post it.
    Ever fly with Fred Breese (Covington, La.) or John Allison (Arkansas)? Some good HAC's in your outfit too. Bob Quinter, Bo Honeycutt? Any of these names familiar?

    Leave a comment:


  • jejacobs
    replied
    Phrog Slick

    I recall flying only once in our (HMM-262) Slick on a simple re-supply mission while my A/C was down for some reason. I remember very vividly that it was a weird feeing to fly with no aft ramp or hatch. My fellow Crew Chief had rigged a couple of cargo straps across the back but it still felt very strange to be in the air with the whole back end of the the A/C hanging out in the open.

    Walt: Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that ET-35 was originally the Skipper's bird with Sgt. Bob Brooks as the Crew Chief, until his was sent Stateside. Then, Jim White "JAW" took it over. The last time I saw "The JAW", a couple of years ago, he had a picture of her hanging on his wall. I didn't know she had become the squadron Slick. Thanks for the trivia update.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howdy
    replied
    Gun Ship

    Tom & Joe

    I remember running with four .50 cals, two out each side and the M60 on the ramp.

    Semper Fi

    Bruce "Howdy" Mayor HMM-161 '69-'70

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Reed
    replied
    "Stinger"

    You betcha, Tom! Didn't fly long but it was there. I think HMM-262 had one as well. This was before we had .50 cals and I recall it was an M-60, like our side guns of the day. Maybe late 1967 or early 1968.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Thompson
    replied
    CH-46 Slicks-Gunships

    Joe,

    I remember hearing about a "Stinger" configuration where a .50 was mounted on the ramp and used in flight. I know that it was used on the 53's but also heard about it being done on the 46.

    S/F

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Thompson; 11-20-2006, 19:19. Reason: Grammar

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Reed
    replied
    CH-46 "Slicks"!

    Walt,
    I knew, as did Tim, that you'd have some info for us on this subject!
    I remember Dulligan reaming us out in HMM-165 for even considering the ramp removal deal as it was a prime factor in weakening the rear structure, and according to John, was a strong factor in aft pylon incidents! We needed no more encouragement to forget the idea, even though it was pretty well reinforced with cargo webing to prevent "flex" etc. Sure was a weight saver too! Still, we are alive, and went home as a testament to John's dedication and knowledge of our beloved Phrogs!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Thompson
    replied
    Ramps

    Walt,

    I've never heard about the ramps being taken off -

    Did any of the operational squadrons fly the AC without the ramp for missions other that recovery frags? Anybody got a pic?

    Semper Fi

    Tom

    Leave a comment:


  • walt99
    replied
    I returned from leave on 31 Aug 1967 and on that day 262 lost ET 35 as the aft pylon separated from the AC. All the 46's in country where grounded except for emergency flights. At the end of Sept 1967 we headed for Okinawa with about 65 AC. The first 10 AC ran through the mod where HMM 262 birds ,they embarked aboard the Tripoli and headed back to the war. We received manpower help from the other squadrons and we received really good men from them not the s***birds.
    I was told the main problem was that the CH46A was all most the same as a New York Airways bird. No one thought about the hard landings, rough terrine or using hover aft as a speed brake. Another thing was when 262 arrived in country the wing had us remove the ramp and some of the amour to make what we called a slick which was used to pick up downed 34's and Huies. ET 35 was one of those. We finished the mod and sailed back to the war on Dec 30th and arrived at Dang Nang on Jan 3 1968 , the detachment from the ship met us there,from there we went to Quang Tri the next day to our new home. SF

    Leave a comment:


  • timothy
    replied
    I was with HMM-262 for the aft pylon mod too, but let's see if we can get Walt to comment on it.
    S/F
    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Thompson
    replied
    Hover Aft

    Joe,

    Here's a excerpt from your friend John Dullighan's "Cinderella Bird" on Hover Aft

    A maneuver was strictly forbidden, but the pilots would do it in an emergency until Boeing put in an interlock to stop them. There is a trim feature called 'Hover Aft', which automatically tilts the whole rotor plane aft, depending on airspeed, to keep the fuselage as close to level as possible. Without it aircraft would get very nose high in a quick stop. When first installed, 'Hover Aft' could be engaged manually but was not supposed to be engaged above seventy knots. But some joker found that if it was engaged at the cruise speed of 120 knots, it acted like a speed brake slowing the aircraft down very quickly. Combined with a buttonhook, the result was an extremely rapid approach.

    It also overstressed the airframe, although it didnít break it. The attitude of the pilots was they would use it if they needed it. The aircraft might disintegrate one day but they would probably be long gone by then whereas they were risking being shot down now. There was much wailing when the latest models arrived with much more power and no pilot ever has enough of that, but no manual 'Hover Aft'.

    In the summer of 1969, I got an emergency bulletin from Boeing instructing me to brief the pilots not to engage 'Hover Aft' above seventy knots. I briefed an all pilots meeting, with full details of what it did to the airframe. First question was: "Will the tail come off if I do it?".. .."We..ell, no I don't think so, but it overstresses the airframe and it may fail later", was the reply. I already knew what was going to happen. Later in the club I was told "You're a nice guy John, and we know you have to follow the company line, but if I need it, I'll use it. F**k the airframe, it'll probably fail next year and by then I'll be a civilian."

    When I got back to the factory and I was debriefed by the Engineering group, I was greeted with incredulity when I told them what the pilots said. "You mean to say they'll still do it, even after we've told them not to? Even when we put it in the pilot's manual? Don't they know what that does to the airframe?" They clearly did not understand combat pilots, that when you are being shot at, one's time horizon shortens immensely. The near future is the next twenty seconds and the far distant future is five minutes away. If they didn't want something to happen, then make it impossible. Thatís why the interlock was installed. And thatís why the Navy likes the Marines to fly the same airplanes.

    After every war, new pilots do not learn the more dangerous techniques that the operational pilots know. There would be too many accidents if they did. To be fair, in peacetime, pilots donít get the chance to fly as much or in the same conditions as pilots do flying combat missions. In Vietnam helicopters routinely flew below fifty feet, an altitude that will have the MPs waiting for you if you do it in peacetime. But Second World War fighter-bomber pilots would have considered 50 feet to be in the stratosphere.

    Common knowledge disappears fast. Within ten years, the last junior pilots with 'The Knowledge' are now field grade and moving out of flight operations and the new pilots donít know. After 20 years, they donít even know that they donít know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Reed
    replied
    Station 410 failures

    Tom,
    I heard several root fauilure causes for the aft pylon failures (station 410) including "hover aft" high speed approaches. Walt Jones was in charge of the mod crews on Okinawa for HMM-262 and did some of the very first mods. He could shed more light on this, I'm sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Thompson
    replied
    Hover Aft

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the folks at Boeing/Vertol suggest that the station 410 failures were in some way attributed to the high speed hover aft approaches - I hope the MV pilots have easy access to the pitot tube.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X