309th Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Group

[Another Ahab]

some alternatives that you might wish to pursue.[/COLOR] If your interest is in terms of salvageable metals from aircraft, you may wish to visit DRMO's auction websites. These sites list both aircraft and aircraft parts that are available for bid in the auction process.

I was actually thinking that something like a pair of these, out by the mailbox, would be kind of cool:

 

[cannonfoddertfc]

Sad she'll be shot down by friendly fire.

Friendly fire....isn't.

 

[jasonjc]

I'd like to have my old OH-58D back!

 

[pat038536]

The last Coast Guard Guardian in storage departed yesterday for a local aviation contractor's yard. The aircraft, Serial No. 2139, will be disassembled and prepared for shipment to Dodson Parts International.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

The last Coast Guard Guardian in storage departed yesterday for a local aviation contractor's yard. The aircraft, Serial No. 2139, will be disassembled and prepared for shipment to Dodson Parts International.

View attachment 531481View attachment 531482View attachment 531483

I envied those who got to ride next to those BIG Floor-To-Ceiling PICTURE WINDOWS in the forward cabin of those CG birds. Something tells me that I'd instinctively cinch up the ol' seat belt just a bit tighter to compensate for the "fear of flying" out of the plane.

 

[pat038536]

A second C-27J was delivered to the U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday, Dec 18, 2014. Number 09027016 is now USCG 2707. The aircraft was placed in storage in August 2013 by the Air Force. - Dec 19 2014


The first production F-15E Strike Eagle, Serial No. 86-0183, first flown more than 28 years ago (1986) arrived at AMARG yesterday for storage. - Dec.18 2014

 

[steelypip]

I wonder how long it will be before we do something that requires un-mothballing the Strike Eagles. There's not really anything else in the inventory that does what they do, and there never were a lot of them. Pretty much the fast-moving all-weather sibling to the warthog, just as useful, and almost as unsexy to the fighter jock community.

 

[Another Ahab]

View attachment 533095
The first production F-15E Strike Eagle, Serial No. 86-0183, first flown more than 28 years ago (1986) arrived at AMARG yesterday for storage. - Dec.18 2014

I wonder how long it will be before we do something that requires un-mothballing the Strike Eagles. There's not really anything else in the inventory that does what they do, and there never were a lot of them. Pretty much the fast-moving all-weather sibling to the warthog, just as useful, and almost as unsexy to the fighter jock community.

Don't know the aircraft much:

- But like to know more

- Single pilot?

- Is that ordnance, or a fuel tank under the wing?

 

[cannonfoddertfc]

As I recall, the F-15's were single pilot (called themselves Eagle drivers in the movies haha). As for the thing under the wing, its a jettisonable fuel tank.

 

[steelypip]

The F-15E Strike Eagle was specifically designed for all weather ground attack. As flying in bad weather is a full-time job, they included a second seat so somebody besides the pilot could keep track of commo, bad guys, targets, ordinance, navigation - you know, all that stuff that you don't have time to do when you're busy not crashing in a snowstorm at night.

Basically, it was the US answer to the Panavia Tornado with the added bonus of being very able to defend itself against aerial interceptors as well. As wars have the unpleasant feature of occuring in all weathers and lighting conditions, it always seemed a very smart idea to me.

As the E models were the last F-15s built, they're very late, modern airplanes. All the interim changes have been applied, the airframe is twice as strong as on the A model, and they shipped with impressive LANTIRN capabilities that I'm sure have only improved since. They were big stars in the sandbox.

There's nothing about the F-35, if it ever actually flies an attack mission, that suggests it will have anything like the capability of a Strike Eagle.

 

[Another Ahab]

There's nothing about the F-35, if it ever actually flies an attack mission, that suggests it will have anything like the capability of a Strike Eagle.

So maybe the F-35 program is all really just a huge sucker-punch (again) to the U.S. taxpayer:

- In that the F-15 is kind of like the A-10

- And nothing was anywhere near broken, and nothing really needed fixing

- But, in a way, it's all just about boys wanting new toys

- In a nutshell, the way you see it; is that kind of it in a way?

 

[bikeman]

- Is that ordnance, or a fuel tank under the wing?

View attachment 533758

external fuel tank converted to a cargo pod probably. one of the pilots talks about it in a video on this site somewhere.

 

[steelypip]

The theory behind the F-35 goes all the way back to Kennedy's Whiz Kids of the early 1960s. See also Sec Def McNamara and the F-111. The idea is that you take all of the different roles for an airframe that are somewhat alike and then build a compromise airplane that can do all of these somewhat alike jobs. The devil is in the details: how different can two missions be before one airframe can't do both well?

Now I'm not going to say that it never works. In fact, it has worked as long as there have been airplanes - military aircraft are constantly being modified and repurposed to do a different mission than the one they were designed for (probably the most famous example is the B-17, which was designed as a coastal patrol ASW platform like a P-3, but ended up being USAAF's first strategic heavy bomber). And, on topic, the retention and repurposing of airframes of them is what AMARG is all about. But at some point, you just can't make a clydesdale into a thoroughbred or a quarter horse, which is what went wrong with the F-111.

In the case of the F-35, you have a variant that is designed to replace the AV-8B Harrier for VTOL/STOL in-theatre based support of ground troops, a variant that is designed to replace the carrier borne attack role (most successfully done by airplanes like the A-6, and more recently done by the F/A-18, and a variant designed to replace the F-16 and F-15 (all variants in two different roles) in the USAF's tactical strike and interdiction fleet. If you connect the dots, you'll see that there are two roles that are sort of alike, one that is notably different, and one that is very, very different.

The last time they tried this, it was an attempt to get the navy to buy F-16s for carrier attack aircraft, which were a much better fit. the Senior Service got to say no because the electric jet had only one engine and they insisted that carrier borne aircraft needed two for survivability, which resulted in the F-18. Carter should have pushed harder for that instead of cancelling the B-1A.

Guess how many engines the F-35 has...

I won't say it's doomed to failure because, as the F-111 showed, if you put enough political horsepower (built by GD in Texas) behind any airplane for enough years, sooner or later somebody will find a job it's actually good at. In the case of the aardvark, it was a fair dinkum low level penetrator after a mere decade of desperate upgrades to engines (the originals were disposable), avionics, and airframe.

But the F35 (built by NG in California) has the distinct aroma of a lot of bad compromises about it, and I think it's going to be inferior to its predecessors in at least two roles it is supposedly designed for because it's missing some important secret sauce that is critical to those roles.

 

[Another Ahab]

I won't say it's doomed to failure because, as the F-111 showed, if you put enough political horsepower (built by GD in Texas) behind any airplane for enough years, sooner or later somebody will find a job it's actually good at. In the case of the aardvark, it was a fair dinkum low level penetrator after a mere decade of desperate upgrades to engines (the originals were disposable), avionics, and airframe.

But the F35 (built by NG in California) has the distinct aroma of a lot of bad compromises about it, and I think it's going to be inferior to its predecessors in at least two roles it is supposedly designed for because it's missing some important secret sauce that is critical to those roles.

You know, I get it that you want to keep all these people at NG and GD gainfully employed year-after-year:

- But there has to be a better way

- Creating what seems essentially a "busy-work" (and perhaps unnecessary) project like the F-35 might not make sense.

- And it's just burning up tax monies that instead might be doing some real good somewhere (other than covering the NG/ GD/ etc payrolls).

I know I'm drifting into the forbidden "political" zone here; but you know; there just has to be a better way. You think?

 

[Another Ahab]

external fuel tank converted to a cargo pod probably. one of the pilots talks about it in a video on this site somewhere.

Knew an ANG pilot who flew F-4 Phantoms as a reservist somewhere in KS: told me that every year around New Year's they'd log some flying hours by flying to ME; it was an annual ritual:

- Said they'd take the radar/ avionics/ electronics out of the nose, to empty it up

- Then they'd load crated lobsters into the empty space and bring them all back for New Year's Celebrations back home.

Don't know that it's realistic to do that, but don't have any reason to believe he would have made that all up.

 

[pat038536]

Air museum works to restore history

Dakota Territory Air Museum volunteers repaint and reassemble planes for display

January 2, 2015

ELOISE OGDEN - Regional Editor (eogden@minotdailynews.com) , Minot Daily News

Work is under way by volunteers at the Dakota Territory Air Museum in Minot to reassemble an F-106 Delta Dart, a plane like the ones the former 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Minot Air Force Base flew.

This past October two trucks specializing in transporting warbirds brought the plane to Minot from from the "boneyard," the storage site for excess military and government aircraft run by the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at David-Monthan AFB near Tucson, Ariz.

One truck carried the wings, fuel drop tanks, afterburner and other parts of the F-106. The other truck transported the fuselage.




An F-106 like the planes flown by the former 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Minot Air Force Base is being reassembled at the Dakota Territory Air Museum in Minot, shown Dec. 30.The F-106 will be part of a display of 5th Fighter planes at the air museum.

"We've been working on it fairly consistently," said Darrel Kerzmann, an air museum board member who is retired from the Air Force, and cooordinator of the volunteers reassembling the F-106 for display at the air museum.

This is the second year Kerzmann and other volunteers have worked on a plane for an exhibit of 5th Fighter planes. Last year they repainted and completed other work on an F-15 Eagle. The plane had been at Minot AFB for a time before it was moved to the air museum in fall 2013.

Fifth Fighter personnel flew the F-106 prior to the F-15.

Although the volunteers have been taking a break from the F-106 work during the Christmas and New Year's holidays, Kerzmann said they normally work on it a couple nights a week.

He said they've run into different restoration challenges with the F-106. "More on the 106 needs to be assembled," he said.

He said it is very helpful to their work that one of the volunteers, Arv Pomeroy of Minot, used to work on 5th Fighters' T-33s and 106s. Pomeroy heard about the work the volunteers were going to do on the plane for the air museum and offered to help, Kerzmann said.

Other volunteers for the F-106 work besides Kerzmann and Pomeroy include Dave Smith, Mike Hill, Terry Todd and Steve Brown. Smith was a weapons technician with 5th Fighter.

"The main pieces are on," Kerzmann said. "One night we had like 15 people there. We had a 'maintenance blitzkrieg' and we got a lot of pieces put back on." He said Minot Aero Center personnel helped with a lot of the heavy external tanks that needed to go on the plane and other work.

Kerzmann said now they have a lot of the "nitty-gritty" work left to do on the F-106 like sanding and painting.

He said the next three or four months will be busy for them but they expect to have the plane ready by spring.

He said they are also recruiting help for the T-33, another 5th Fighter plane. The T-33, an original plane with 5th Fighter, has been displayed on the grounds of the air museum for a number of years and needs repainting.

Three pads have been marked out south of the air museum's main building where the F-106, F-15 and T-33 will be placed.

The three planes are on loan to the Minot air museum from the National Museum of the Air Force near Dayton, Ohio.

The Minot air museum is closed for the season but visits during the off-season can be made by appointment. For more information visit the museum's website at (dakotaterritoryairmuseum.com).

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Air museum works to restore history

Dakota Territory Air Museum volunteers repaint and reassemble planes for display

January 2, 2015 ELOISE OGDEN - Regional Editor (eogden@minotdailynews.com) , Minot Daily News

Work is under way by volunteers at the Dakota Territory Air Museum in Minot to reassemble an F-106 Delta Dart, a plane like the ones the former 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Minot Air Force Base flew.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/...museum-works-to-restore-history.html?nav=5010

It seems you MUST be a SUBSCRIBER for the link above to work

 

[pat038536]

It seems you MUST be a SUBSCRIBER for the link above to work

Dang it, I'm sorry guys. It was working when I posted it. [fixed it]

 

[pat038536]

The 309th Support Squadron's Facilities Division briefly introduced two aircraft to AMARG's new maintenance hangar today in order to mark the floor for future aircraft placement. Maintenance activities in the new hangar may begin in late Spring - Jan 9, 2015

 

[steelypip]

I think the P-3 Orion might make the Lockheed L-188 Electra the most successful of all of the big turboprop airliners. Certainly by years of production (1957-1990), and probably by cumulative flight hours (padded by lots of slow motion 12 hour patrol missions) and numbers produced (757 P-3 variants plus 170 commercial Electras), it would seem to be well ahead of any other commercial-origin turboprop airframe by these metrics.

Given that the Electra was kind of the big airliner ugly duckling historically between the iconic Lockheed Constellation on one side and the equally iconic Boeing 707 on the other, it seems to have done rather well over the long run in its specialized niche so different from the original design's focus.

The P-3s from Brunswick NAS were regular visitors to Loring AFB when I was there in the 80s. They were a welcome and distinctive diversion from the usual assortment of tankers, bombers, and F-106s in the pattern.