"Quirks" of Past Aircraft

[Wingnut172N]

In the past, something I always enjoyed hearing about at the "O-Club" were the certain traits or characteristics that were unique to each of the varied types that the Navy used to operate. Unfortunately, in today's all Hornet airwing, there are fewer unique types.

Just figured I'd drop the question here asking if any of the aircraft that the folks here have flown have unique quirks that made them particularly interesting or challenging to fly?

For example, why does the Prowler have a rep as being difficult to get aboard? The merits of DLC in carrier aircraft, etc...

 

[BusyBee604]

Just figured I'd drop the question here asking if any of the aircraft that the folks here have flown have unique quirks that made them particularly interesting or challenging to fly?

The 'quirk' that comes immediately to my mind, involved the FJ-4 Fury. I was a nugget in my first Squadron VF-94 w/ FJ-4s at NAS Alameda, circa '58. The Fury had a rather unique design for sequencing of the MLG doors when raising/lowering the gear in flight. The large outer doors were attached to each wheel strut. the smaller inner doors operated independent of the strut by a separate hydraulic cylinder.

After takeoff, upon putting the gear handle in the up position, the inner doors would drop down to clear the wells and the main gear would come up to the stowed position, then the inner doors would come back up to fair the MLG wells. Conversely, upon dropping the handle for landing, the small inner doors came down to clear the wells for the MLG to come down and lock. Once down/locked the inner doors retracted to reduce drag in the dirty configuration.

One night, an FJ-4 from another Alameda Airwing came in to land, after breaking and dirtying up downwind approaching the 180, he had let the airspeed get down to very close to stall (no AoA indicator/indexer then). Suddenly, realizing his predicament, attempting a go-around, he jammed power to 100%, and put the gear handle up to reduce drag. Unfortunately, before his J-65 could spool up... those pesky inner doors opened up; and that small bit of momentary added drag, was the camel backbreaker. The aircraft spun out at 800', and crashed on base, plunging through the metal roof of a huge [unoccupied] supply warehouse, exploding inside and killing the Pilot.

Now I don't know if that qualifies as a quirk or not, but I always after that considered it one, and always after that, kept it in mind for as long as I flew the Fury. I'll never forget that huge charred hole in the warehouse roof after first seeing it from the air the next day!

BzB

 

[picklesuit]

While not as dramatic as BzB's story; the P-3 was originally a Lockheed Electra from which they removed a chunk of fuselage forward of the CL/CG. A result of this design is that the P-3 is a bit longitudinally unstable, and has a tendency to naturally porpoise, especially at huger cruise speed.
This porpoise isn't a huge deal, until you add a crappy autopilot that tends to lag the aircraft and add inputs that aggravate the situation.
Really fun to level of at FL260, engage altitude hold, and watch the plane start a slow vertical oscillation as it accelerated, sometimes resulting in the autopilot saying "fuck it" and randomly disengaging, leading to a very noticeable pitch up, often followed by bitching from the self loading baggage.

That and we couldn't use the shitter...
Pickle

 

[nittany03]

For example, why does the Prowler have a rep as being difficult to get aboard? The merits of DLC in carrier aircraft, etc...

Short answer: it flies weird.

Long answer: they added a plug into the A-6 fuselage forward of the wing line, and the Prowler is borderline neutrally longitudinally stable in the landing configuration. For any given trim setting, it's happy anywhere in about a 15-20 knot speed band. So when you adjust power, the nose will not necessarily seek on-speed AOA like a Goosehawk. Also, when you adjust power, the engines' thrust axis is below the CG/CP. So perversely, power on drives AOA slightly slower and power off slightly faster. So couple with the above, you have to lead power changes with slight pitch inputs.

The Prowler does not have ailerons. It has what we call "flaperons," which are technically spoilerons. They kill lift on one wing without adding it on the other; you're not actually rotating around the longitudinal axis in roll. So lineup corrections not led with power will drive you low. Also, in order to put the hook point in the right spot, on-speed AOA is just on the backside of the power curve. Woe betide the guy who gets slow!

The old analog AFCS was not the best at yaw damping, so there were some sketchy dutch roll issues with lineup as well. I never piloted a DFCS jet, so RLSO or someone will have to comment on that.

Finally, the instrument panel sucks. It's too high. As a single anchor type, I had to run my seat all the way up to see the ball. As ECMO 1, who is slightly lower and further back in the cockpit, it's like being in a damned cave. I had to physically lift myself out of the seat to backup my pilot.

Oh, and the obvious answer: "502, Prowler Ball, 6.9, no HUD!"

Edit upon drinking morning coffee: You mentioned DLC. While the Prowler doesn't have DLC per se, the old AFCS would let you cheat by quickly wiggling the stick back and forth in close to at the ramp. This would not appreciably roll the jet, but would act like DLC. Do this with DFCS, and all it will let you do is waggle the wings and annoy everyone else in the jet with you.

Also, the steam gauge cockpit is a different scan. I was a HUD-crippled C guy who couldn't make the adjustment, and part of it is that it's a significantly different scan technique going from two MFDs to an old-style cockpit.

 

[Wingnut172N]

One night, an FJ-4 from another Alameda Airwing came in to land, after breaking and dirtying up downwind approaching the 180, he had let the airspeed get down to very close to stall (no AoA indicator/indexer then).

No AOA indexer in a carrier jet?! I guess I took for granted the fact that the Navy has been flying AOA approaches as long as we had jets, and had written the "cut to land" off as a prop thing...I guess now though it's a straight-deck CV thing, and jets flew from straight deck boats.

I guess the following question would be; when did the AOA approach (and related equipment in the jet) become standard practice for Navy CV Aviation?

 

[Wingnut172N]

While not as dramatic as BzB's story; the P-3 was originally a Lockheed Electra from which they removed a chunk of fuselage forward of the CL/CG. A result of this design is that the P-3 is a bit longitudinally unstable, and has a tendency to naturally porpoise, especially at huger cruise speed.
This porpoise isn't a huge deal, until you add a crappy autopilot that tends to lag the aircraft and add inputs that aggravate the situation.
Really fun to level of at FL260, engage altitude hold, and watch the plane start a slow vertical oscillation as it accelerated, sometimes resulting in the autopilot saying "fuck it" and randomly disengaging, leading to a very noticeable pitch up, often followed by bitching from the self loading baggage.

That and we couldn't use the shitter...
Pickle

I bet that's fun to deal with at 200 feet...

 

[Wingnut172N]

Short answer: it flies weird.

Long answer: they added a plug into the A-6 fuselage forward of the wing line, and the Prowler is borderline neutrally longitudinally stable in the landing configuration. For any given trim setting, it's happy anywhere in about a 15-20 knot speed band. So when you adjust power, the nose will not necessarily seek on-speed AOA like a Goosehawk. Also, when you adjust power, the engines' thrust axis is below the CG/CP. So perversely, power on drives AOA slightly slower and power off slightly faster. So couple with the above, you have to lead power changes with slight pitch inputs.

The Prowler does not have ailerons. It has what we call "flaperons," which are technically spoilerons. They kill lift on one wing without adding it on the other; you're not actually rotating around the longitudinal axis in roll. So lineup corrections not led with power will drive you low. Also, in order to put the hook point in the right spot, on-speed AOA is just on the backside of the power curve. Woe betide the guy who gets slow!

The old analog AFCS was not the best at yaw damping, so there were some sketchy dutch roll issues with lineup as well. I never piloted a DFCS jet, so RLSO or someone will have to comment on that.

Finally, the instrument panel sucks. It's too high. As a single anchor type, I had to run my seat all the way up to see the ball. As ECMO 1, who is slightly lower and further back in the cockpit, it's like being in a damned cave. I had to physically lift myself out of the seat to backup my pilot.

Oh, and the obvious answer: "502, Prowler Ball, 6.9, no HUD!"

Edit upon drinking morning coffee: You mentioned DLC. While the Prowler doesn't have DLC per se, the old AFCS would let you cheat by quickly wiggling the stick back and forth in close to at the ramp. This would not appreciably roll the jet, but would act like DLC. Do this with DFCS, and all it will let you do is waggle the wings and annoy everyone else in the jet with you.

Also, the steam gauge cockpit is a different scan. I was a HUD-crippled C guy who couldn't make the adjustment, and part of it is that it's a significantly different scan technique going from two MFDs to an old-style cockpit.

Nittany, I assume DFCS is Digital Flight Control System? Is the modern Prowler a fly-by-wire airplane, or does it simply have "control aug" ala T-45? That does sound like a bitch to fly...was it a good handling jet in the other realms of flight, or can you tell it's simply a bastardized A-6? A-6 pilots I've talked to have had nothing bad to say about their jet, so I suppose it's a product of the Prowler specific modifications?

 

[MIDNJAC]

Two things.....any lineup correction without power is a settle at the ramp, regardless of T/M/S. Secondly, you can waggle any jet's wings and get "DLC". Some call it "hornet DLC".....some call it "little rough wings all the way". Same difference, you still stop in the wires

 

[nittany03]

Nittany, I assume DFCS is Digital Flight Control System? Is the modern Prowler a fly-by-wire airplane, or does it simply have "control aug" ala T-45? That does sound like a bitch to fly...was it a good handling jet in the other realms of flight, or can you tell it's simply a bastardized A-6? A-6 pilots I've talked to have had nothing bad to say about their jet, so I suppose it's a product of the Prowler specific modifications?

In my limited experience, it was a beast down low, horribly awkward in the landing pattern, and didn't like being yanked around up high. There are others around more qualified to comment on the stick-and-rudder stuff.

 

[BusyBee604]

No AOA indexer in a carrier jet?! I guess I took for granted the fact that the Navy has been flying AOA approaches as long as we had jets, and had written the "cut to land" off as a prop thing...I guess now though it's a straight-deck CV thing, and jets flew from straight deck boats.

I guess the following question would be; when did the AOA approach (and related equipment in the jet) become standard practice for Navy CV Aviation?

I would guess when the jets coming into the fleet in the mid-late '50s, (Crusader/Demon/Skyhawk/Skywarrior/Skyray) were equipped with the AOA indicator only. Don't know about the others, but my Skyhawk A4D-1 was intro'd into the fleet in '56, & A4D-2 in '59, with the AOA indicator only. The A4D-2N hit the fleet in '61 and by that time, had added the indexer. Also at that time frame, all the earlier fleet A-4 models were field retrofitted with indexers prior to deployment.

*The only cut to land on the CVs, were the props like A-1s, S-2 varients, etc. until they were retired.

In my view, the indicator was a slight help aiding CV landings, but the indexer was the major improvement for both Pilot & LSO, in making safer CV landings, especially at NIGHT!
BzB

 

[mad dog]

From what I remember in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the SH-60B torp launch button was pretty much identical in configuration and appearance to the sonobuoy launch button...and they were a mere inch or two from each other. Both buttons were un-guarded but each had a raised perimeter barrier. Anyway, it seemed pretty easy to accidentally launch a torp when you intended to launch a sonobuoy...and sure enough our squadron experienced an accidental torp launch due to what I described above. No, it wasn't me but it could have been. Following the incident, I would place a band-aid from the aircraft's first aid kit over the torp launch button during torpex sorties...basically a make-shift guard. Some DH or something found out what I was doing and accused me of not being a professional aviator/tactician. Whatever.

 

[RobLyman]

From what I remember in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the SH-60B torp launch button was pretty much identical in configuration and appearance to the sonobuoy launch button...and they were a mere inch or two from each other. Both buttons were un-guarded but each had a raised perimeter barrier. Anyway, it seemed pretty easy to accidentally launch a torp when you intended to launch a sonobuoy...and sure enough our squadron experienced an accidental torp launch due to what I described above. No, it wasn't me but it could have been. Following the incident, I would place a band-aid from the aircraft's first aid kit over the torp launch button during torpex sorties...basically a make-shift guard. Some DH or something found out what I was doing and accused me of not being a professional aviator/tactician. Whatever.

As I recall, it also had a "double-tap" to jettison the torp.

AND...there are a bunch of quirks with the Seahawk that you don't notice until you fly other 60 models. Each model has their own little issues.

 

[Gatordev]

One of the COs of the squadron I was at as a DH did that. They even calculated his yardage from optimum drop point. You know, just to be sure for him.

My favorite is the HF Secure switch(es). When in the "ON" position, your ICS hotmikes to the rest of the world. Always good to do a clearing turn on both switches before you start bitching about somebody over ICS.

 

[Hozer]

Don't try to crap out of the hellhole on a 60B. No matter how bad the pork adobo was....

Maybe more physics than an a "quirk".

 

[mad dog]

One of the COs of the squadron I was at as a DH did that. They even calculated his yardage from optimum drop point. You know, just to be sure for him.

My favorite is the HF Secure switch(es). When in the "ON" position, your ICS hotmikes to the rest of the world. Always good to do a clearing turn on both switches before you start bitching about somebody over ICS.

I can certainly see how that happened to your former CO...easy thing to do. Also, wasn't part of that inadvertent torp launch deal the fact that while launching a buoy, the ATO would be looking out the left window (while hopefully mashing the buoy button and not the torp button) to confirm that the buoy had cleared the launcher? It's all coming back now...sheesh!

Yeah, man...watch those HF Secure switches! Don't be a potty mouth! LOL!