My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:44 pm
Scott,here are a few more pictures.The exterior shots are of Tanker 82 at Fresno in 1980.I honestly don't remember which Box the interior shots are from,but most likely from Tanker 81,,82 or 87.
Last edited by Larry Kraus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:44 pm
Is this due to engine out climb issues? A friend of mine flew in C-119s in the USAF and was never comfortable in them for that reason.Larry Kraus wrote:The C-119 tankers did a good job,but several very good people died in Boxcar accidents over which they had no control.
Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:51 pm
At least one structural failure.
In Air Force duty they had problems with the 4 blade Aero Products prop going into reverse – that'll sure ruin your day.
I was surprised to see the -4360 in one ppicture– I thought all had been switched to -3350's in the AF. I always loved watching them fly, but they sure seemed like dogs on climbout, even with the jet pac going. I read somewhere one that you really didn't want to land gear up in one – and saw a picture of one in AF duty that had. The plane was crushed flat up to the booms. It was on a runway, and the plane was loaded with troops. Horrific.
In Air Force duty they had problems with the 4 blade Aero Products prop going into reverse – that'll sure ruin your day.
I was surprised to see the -4360 in one ppicture– I thought all had been switched to -3350's in the AF. I always loved watching them fly, but they sure seemed like dogs on climbout, even with the jet pac going. I read somewhere one that you really didn't want to land gear up in one – and saw a picture of one in AF duty that had. The plane was crushed flat up to the booms. It was on a runway, and the plane was loaded with troops. Horrific.
My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:55 pm
bdk,The Boxcars that I flew in had the J-34 Jetpack.That made life easier.Also,the tankers could get rid of over 18,000 lbs in a couple of seconds,if really necessary.That said,Aero Union started out with C-119's without the jet and they were pretty dodgy.The first flight that I went on as a passenger in a Box was out of Anchorage,fully loaded.We B-17 tanker types always used to claim that the only advantage to the jet on the Box was that it made an excellent fuel dump,which was the reason that they were able to climb better with it lit.On that flight out of Anchorage,it was a good thing that I was strapped in when the pilot throttled the jet back to idle because it was like hitting a brick wall without the extra thrust.And that was with the recips at METO power.
At least one of the C-119 tanker structural failures was caused by the failure of an aileron bellcrank due to a casting flaw during manufacture.When the bellcrank failed,the aileron began to flutter,which cause the loss of the aileron and structural failure of the wing.This resulted in the C-119 airtanker fleet being grounded until AD 81-18-06 could be complied with.This called for a detailed inspection of the aileron control mechanism.For some reason,the C-119's flying on the Fish Haul were not affected.
The Aeroproducts props did tend to leak somewhat and they had a reatively small reservoir of lightweight oil.If enough oil was lost,the pilot had no control over the prop.I don't know of any tankers being lost because of this.One of the Boxcars that I flew in as c/p in Alaska was a C119L that had three bladed Ham-Standard props in place of the four bladed Aeroproducts props.These still had a similar prop oil reservoir,but they included a system allowing the reservoir to be replenished with engine oil in flight in an emergency.I never could understand how those three bladed props could absorb the same amount of power as the four paddle blades on the Aeroproducts props.
At least one of the C-119 tanker structural failures was caused by the failure of an aileron bellcrank due to a casting flaw during manufacture.When the bellcrank failed,the aileron began to flutter,which cause the loss of the aileron and structural failure of the wing.This resulted in the C-119 airtanker fleet being grounded until AD 81-18-06 could be complied with.This called for a detailed inspection of the aileron control mechanism.For some reason,the C-119's flying on the Fish Haul were not affected.
The Aeroproducts props did tend to leak somewhat and they had a reatively small reservoir of lightweight oil.If enough oil was lost,the pilot had no control over the prop.I don't know of any tankers being lost because of this.One of the Boxcars that I flew in as c/p in Alaska was a C119L that had three bladed Ham-Standard props in place of the four bladed Aeroproducts props.These still had a similar prop oil reservoir,but they included a system allowing the reservoir to be replenished with engine oil in flight in an emergency.I never could understand how those three bladed props could absorb the same amount of power as the four paddle blades on the Aeroproducts props.
Last edited by Larry Kraus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:50 pm
Skybolt,concerning the tailwheel lock on the B-17,it allowed some left/right travel in the locked position.Rather than a rod dropping through a hole,as in the Beech 18,the B-17 locking pin is shaped something like an inverted pyramid.This allows some play,which isn't always helpful.Crosswind landings in B-17's can be a handful,but they get downright exciting when the tailwheel lock decides to unlock itself when you get the tailwheel on the ground.
The original B-17 tailwheel tire had a lot of give in the sidewall,somewhat like a radial tire.This flexibility helped to absorb the stresses from a gusty crosswind pushing against the vertical fin.Unfortunately,B-17 tailwheel tires were no longer available by 1980,or so.Aero Union came up with a kit to allow the use of a main wheel and tire from an F11F fighter.This fit on the axle,but it was very narrow and had no give whatsoever.So,on about the second or third good sideload during landing rollout,the tailwheel lock pin would pop out of it's slot.
For some reason,the tailwheel would then turn 90 degrees and would vibrate badly while leaving a trail of rubber that looked like a zipper on the runway.It didn't take more than a few seconds of this to completely destroy the tire.So,when it happened,I had to immediately shove the yoke forward to get the tail back in the air.The tailwheel wouldn't relock until the speed was down below 30 mph.That made for a real problem,especially at bases like Alamogordo,where there is one runway and lots of wind.If you look at World War II bomber bases,you'll notice that they always had several runways.All airplanes are designed to point into the wind.The B-17 just happens to excel in that department.
Everybody that had to operate with these narrow tailwheels always carried a couple of spares and a jack and tools.Chuck Ott and I even destroyed a tailwheel tire during taxi at Alamogordo one day.It took Chuck a couple of airplane lengths to get stopped.By that time,there was a 100 ft long black zipper mark on the taxiway and no tread on the tire.We had to change the tire on the taxiway before we could park at the tanker base.
The original B-17 tailwheel tire had a lot of give in the sidewall,somewhat like a radial tire.This flexibility helped to absorb the stresses from a gusty crosswind pushing against the vertical fin.Unfortunately,B-17 tailwheel tires were no longer available by 1980,or so.Aero Union came up with a kit to allow the use of a main wheel and tire from an F11F fighter.This fit on the axle,but it was very narrow and had no give whatsoever.So,on about the second or third good sideload during landing rollout,the tailwheel lock pin would pop out of it's slot.
For some reason,the tailwheel would then turn 90 degrees and would vibrate badly while leaving a trail of rubber that looked like a zipper on the runway.It didn't take more than a few seconds of this to completely destroy the tire.So,when it happened,I had to immediately shove the yoke forward to get the tail back in the air.The tailwheel wouldn't relock until the speed was down below 30 mph.That made for a real problem,especially at bases like Alamogordo,where there is one runway and lots of wind.If you look at World War II bomber bases,you'll notice that they always had several runways.All airplanes are designed to point into the wind.The B-17 just happens to excel in that department.
Everybody that had to operate with these narrow tailwheels always carried a couple of spares and a jack and tools.Chuck Ott and I even destroyed a tailwheel tire during taxi at Alamogordo one day.It took Chuck a couple of airplane lengths to get stopped.By that time,there was a 100 ft long black zipper mark on the taxiway and no tread on the tire.We had to change the tire on the taxiway before we could park at the tanker base.
Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:00 am
Tanker 82 is out at Fox.
Larry,
I'm having a great time looking at your photos especially the B-17s. They are my favorite plane. I was ran outside when they use to fly over our fires.
Larry,
I'm having a great time looking at your photos especially the B-17s. They are my favorite plane. I was ran outside when they use to fly over our fires.
Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:03 pm
Larry;
Great photos! My dad spent most of his HVFS days flying in #82 with Sonny Morrison the Chief Pilot for Hemet. I think he flew with Larry Hill part of one season in #81 as well.
BDK & Skybolt
Hemet was flying "C" model 119's they were the only ones left flying with the P&W 4360 and yes they were a dog on one engine out. Most of the guys that flew them at Hemet called the C-119 "Miss Piggy" the C model also had electric landing gear which proved to be a real pain in the a$$ on more than one occasion. I think #86 landed with one main gear stuck in the well 2 or 3 three times in one year! The H&P C-119's were all ex-RCAF birds, they had the 3350's and Aero Products props "L" models I think. They had one airplane in Reno one year (#136 I think) that had a IOC (independent Oil Control, if my memory serves me right) on one of the props and the copilot had to keep filling it when they fueled the airplane, this eventually caught up with them on a take off out of Battle Mountain, NV at least that is how the story is told. The airplane ended up written off and is still in Battle Mountain. As far as landing with the gear up, you had to have the nose gear down! If you did not you took a chance of the nose rolling under the fuselage on landing, there was a very handy large access door in the cargo hold to the aft part of the nose gear well so you drop the gear manually. I never heard of any H&P C-119's have gear issues as there airplanes had Hydraulic landing gear. Like I said before I always liked the C-119 and I would love to have one, but I do not have the $$$$$$ it would take. It would be a great airplane to take to an Airshow as you would have your flying hotel room with you. Keep the pictures and stories coming Larry!
Scott……..
Great photos! My dad spent most of his HVFS days flying in #82 with Sonny Morrison the Chief Pilot for Hemet. I think he flew with Larry Hill part of one season in #81 as well.
BDK & Skybolt
Hemet was flying "C" model 119's they were the only ones left flying with the P&W 4360 and yes they were a dog on one engine out. Most of the guys that flew them at Hemet called the C-119 "Miss Piggy" the C model also had electric landing gear which proved to be a real pain in the a$$ on more than one occasion. I think #86 landed with one main gear stuck in the well 2 or 3 three times in one year! The H&P C-119's were all ex-RCAF birds, they had the 3350's and Aero Products props "L" models I think. They had one airplane in Reno one year (#136 I think) that had a IOC (independent Oil Control, if my memory serves me right) on one of the props and the copilot had to keep filling it when they fueled the airplane, this eventually caught up with them on a take off out of Battle Mountain, NV at least that is how the story is told. The airplane ended up written off and is still in Battle Mountain. As far as landing with the gear up, you had to have the nose gear down! If you did not you took a chance of the nose rolling under the fuselage on landing, there was a very handy large access door in the cargo hold to the aft part of the nose gear well so you drop the gear manually. I never heard of any H&P C-119's have gear issues as there airplanes had Hydraulic landing gear. Like I said before I always liked the C-119 and I would love to have one, but I do not have the $$$$$$ it would take. It would be a great airplane to take to an Airshow as you would have your flying hotel room with you. Keep the pictures and stories coming Larry!
Scott……..
My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:48 pm
Bluethunder,there's a reason that Tanker 82 is at Fox.I happened to be at Fox the day that they made the last flight in that airplane.It was going to be a ferry flight back to Hemet for spar repairs.On the previous flight,something alerted the crew to the fact that the spar was cracked.I don't recall if it was by feel or if it made a strange noise.I think that it might have made an unusual sound.Anyway,after inspecting the airplane,a crack was found in the wingspar near the root.I don't remember which side.
After a lot of soul searching,the crew and a mechanic were going to fly the airplane to Hemet.They did something with a chain that was supposed to help hold everything together,but I was never quite clear on what was chained to what.They took off early in the day before the wind picked up and planned to keep the stresses on the airplane as low as possible.I watched the take-off and saw that they turned back toward the airport after a couple of minutes in about a 15 degree bank.They got back on the ground okay and parked.Evidentally,the mechanic was in the back watching the crack in the spar and started to see daylight through it.That was enough for everybody involved and the airplane hasn't flown since.Scott may know more details on this,but I watched the flight and spoke to the crew afterward.I don't remember exactly when this took place,but it must have been in the early 80's.
After a lot of soul searching,the crew and a mechanic were going to fly the airplane to Hemet.They did something with a chain that was supposed to help hold everything together,but I was never quite clear on what was chained to what.They took off early in the day before the wind picked up and planned to keep the stresses on the airplane as low as possible.I watched the take-off and saw that they turned back toward the airport after a couple of minutes in about a 15 degree bank.They got back on the ground okay and parked.Evidentally,the mechanic was in the back watching the crack in the spar and started to see daylight through it.That was enough for everybody involved and the airplane hasn't flown since.Scott may know more details on this,but I watched the flight and spoke to the crew afterward.I don't remember exactly when this took place,but it must have been in the early 80's.
My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:08 pm
Cadet77/Larry,I never ran across Tanker B30,but I see from the Warbird Registry that it was once owned by Bruce Kinney,so I know of it by reputation.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17regis ... 85828.html
When I first arrived at the West Yellowstone Tanker Base with Tanker 68 in 1980,the Smokejumpers kept talking about Bruce Kinney's Boeing Tri-Motor that used to work out of there.The only Boeing Tri-Motor that I could think of was the old Model 80A biplane transport.I was pretty sure that I'd have known if there was one of those still flying.Then again,Johnson Flying Service flew jumpers in Ford Tri-Motors into the 70's.
There were pictures of airplanes and pilots on the walls at the base and none showed a tri-motored airplane.I finally asked and found out that this was what the jumpers called Beruce Kinney's B-17 because it had continuous engine troubles and often came back to base with one prop feathered.
The jumpers were amazed that I made 3 point landings at "West" in Tanker 68.They said that everybody else always made wheel landings there.Our normal landing technique was to make a 3 pointer unless conditions were really unusual.At Yellowstone the field elevation is almost 6700 ft. and it's often 90+ degrees for a temperature in the summer.That makes the air pretty thin.3 point landings were possible,but you had to flare PDQ and not try to hold the airplane off for very long or it would land anyway.
I thought that I was really building up my arm muscles working out of West,because I could horse the airplane around using one hand on the controls.I found out when I got back to Porterville that it was just flying around in the relatively thin air that made the controls lighter.They were still a two handed and two shouldered business in the near sea level air at PTV.That was both diappointing and educational.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17regis ... 85828.html
When I first arrived at the West Yellowstone Tanker Base with Tanker 68 in 1980,the Smokejumpers kept talking about Bruce Kinney's Boeing Tri-Motor that used to work out of there.The only Boeing Tri-Motor that I could think of was the old Model 80A biplane transport.I was pretty sure that I'd have known if there was one of those still flying.Then again,Johnson Flying Service flew jumpers in Ford Tri-Motors into the 70's.
There were pictures of airplanes and pilots on the walls at the base and none showed a tri-motored airplane.I finally asked and found out that this was what the jumpers called Beruce Kinney's B-17 because it had continuous engine troubles and often came back to base with one prop feathered.
The jumpers were amazed that I made 3 point landings at "West" in Tanker 68.They said that everybody else always made wheel landings there.Our normal landing technique was to make a 3 pointer unless conditions were really unusual.At Yellowstone the field elevation is almost 6700 ft. and it's often 90+ degrees for a temperature in the summer.That makes the air pretty thin.3 point landings were possible,but you had to flare PDQ and not try to hold the airplane off for very long or it would land anyway.
I thought that I was really building up my arm muscles working out of West,because I could horse the airplane around using one hand on the controls.I found out when I got back to Porterville that it was just flying around in the relatively thin air that made the controls lighter.They were still a two handed and two shouldered business in the near sea level air at PTV.That was both diappointing and educational.
Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:52 pm
You really need to write a book Larry. This is fantastic stuff! Might not be much of a commercial success, but I know that I'd buy it!
Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:44 am
bipe215 wrote:
I think you mean 44-83785
Ooops, 8 and 3 are so far on my key board, my only neuron made a big confusion. Excuse me.
And now Larry is posting on Boxcar after Tigercat, B17...
For me January is the month of Christmas.
I have a couple of question about the Jet Pack. It used te same petrol as the piston engines?
By around how many percent the Jet Pack increased the power of the Box?
Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:45 pm
Sril;
Yes the Westinghouse J-34 jet pack on the box used the same fuel, you do not want to work on a J-34 hot section with out gloves, if have any cuts on your hands you took a chance of getting lead in your bloodstream. The J-34 is still in use on the P-2V Neptune air tankers today. As far as thrust goes I want to say it was somewhere in the 2000 to 2800 lbs of thrust range. I'm not positive though, I'm sure some one on this board would know. The pilots gave those jet engines a nickname, they called them "Westinghouse drain valves" My dad said with the jet running you could actually watch the fuel quantity drop on the gage.
Scott........
Yes the Westinghouse J-34 jet pack on the box used the same fuel, you do not want to work on a J-34 hot section with out gloves, if have any cuts on your hands you took a chance of getting lead in your bloodstream. The J-34 is still in use on the P-2V Neptune air tankers today. As far as thrust goes I want to say it was somewhere in the 2000 to 2800 lbs of thrust range. I'm not positive though, I'm sure some one on this board would know. The pilots gave those jet engines a nickname, they called them "Westinghouse drain valves" My dad said with the jet running you could actually watch the fuel quantity drop on the gage.
Scott........
Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:48 pm
bdk;
There is a book out written by one of the P-3 air tanker pilots, I'll have to do some searching for his name as I do not recall at the moment. I heard it is a very funny book. Larry might know who it is and what the title of the book is.
Scott.......
There is a book out written by one of the P-3 air tanker pilots, I'll have to do some searching for his name as I do not recall at the moment. I heard it is a very funny book. Larry might know who it is and what the title of the book is.
Scott.......
C-119 engine-out
Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:39 pm
...
Re: C-119 engine-out performance...
This is T-135 N48076 at Ontario, Calif (ONT) 28 July 1977.
...encountered problem on takeoff...jettisoned load into cornfield SW of airport...returned and landed with right prop feathered...
...
Re: C-119 engine-out performance...
This is T-135 N48076 at Ontario, Calif (ONT) 28 July 1977.
...encountered problem on takeoff...jettisoned load into cornfield SW of airport...returned and landed with right prop feathered...
...
My 1980 Single Engine B-17 Landing
Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:59 pm
Nice picture Sledge,but I'd do exactly the same thing with a B-17 or a DC-7.If an engine fails before you get up a head of steam and there's an empty field available,it's a pefect time to get rid of the load.With an engine out,the remaining engines have to run at higher than normal power settings and the warranties expired 40-50 years ago.I found out a long time ago that nobody appreciates it when you bring back a load of retardant in an emergency.It makes paperwork for the Feds,the retardant contractor doesn't get paid and you probably need to off-load the mud to do a post maintenance test flight.Sometimes on a checkride for a tanker card,the Fed check pilot will ask you where the emergency jettison area is located.The correct and only half joking answer is "Under the airplane".
Bob Forbes and I got B-17's permanently banned from Ontario one day in 1975 in Tanker 65.Ontario has a nice long east-west runway,but we were required to make a 90 degree turn to the south midfield at the intersection of the cross runway.This was because we were a Restricted Category airplane and they didn't want us flying over the congested area off the departure end of the main runway if we took off toward the west.
It was 100 degrees on the day in question and we'd just taken on fuel.We turned at the intersection and rolled wings level at about 50 ft with the gear coming up.Bob looked up and saw the Goodyear Blimp moored next to the cross runway right in front of us.He managed to pull up enough to miss it,but when I looked back,I could see the blimp making a couple of 360's while teathered to the mooring mast.The blimp caught us by surprise as we'd worked out of Ontario all day and even the mooring mast hadn't been there earlier.
We were advised that we should load at Hemet or Ramona in the future.That was fine with us as Ontario was always a major pain in the neck to work out of.This was partly due to the turn on take-off before we were really flying,but also because we had to work with a couple of extra radios with clearance delivery and approach control when we already had three tactical radios to listen to.We'd have to switch one of our tactical radios to approach and there was the chance that we might miss something important.Even with two people,it's tough to fly the airplane and listen to up to 5 radios and keep track of what's going on.
These days,we work out of San Bernardino,which is uncontrolled,although they do put in a temporary tower during fire busts.Once we get airborne from SBD,we'll usually work with SoCal Approach if there is a lot of traffic and we need to fly across the more congested parts of the valley.The DC-7 has additional and better radios than the B-17 and GPS helps a lot in the smoke,but it still gets very busy on short trips.There's also a blimp that works out of San Bernardino,but they don't park it near the runway.
Bob Forbes and I got B-17's permanently banned from Ontario one day in 1975 in Tanker 65.Ontario has a nice long east-west runway,but we were required to make a 90 degree turn to the south midfield at the intersection of the cross runway.This was because we were a Restricted Category airplane and they didn't want us flying over the congested area off the departure end of the main runway if we took off toward the west.
It was 100 degrees on the day in question and we'd just taken on fuel.We turned at the intersection and rolled wings level at about 50 ft with the gear coming up.Bob looked up and saw the Goodyear Blimp moored next to the cross runway right in front of us.He managed to pull up enough to miss it,but when I looked back,I could see the blimp making a couple of 360's while teathered to the mooring mast.The blimp caught us by surprise as we'd worked out of Ontario all day and even the mooring mast hadn't been there earlier.
We were advised that we should load at Hemet or Ramona in the future.That was fine with us as Ontario was always a major pain in the neck to work out of.This was partly due to the turn on take-off before we were really flying,but also because we had to work with a couple of extra radios with clearance delivery and approach control when we already had three tactical radios to listen to.We'd have to switch one of our tactical radios to approach and there was the chance that we might miss something important.Even with two people,it's tough to fly the airplane and listen to up to 5 radios and keep track of what's going on.
These days,we work out of San Bernardino,which is uncontrolled,although they do put in a temporary tower during fire busts.Once we get airborne from SBD,we'll usually work with SoCal Approach if there is a lot of traffic and we need to fly across the more congested parts of the valley.The DC-7 has additional and better radios than the B-17 and GPS helps a lot in the smoke,but it still gets very busy on short trips.There's also a blimp that works out of San Bernardino,but they don't park it near the runway.
Last edited by Larry Kraus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.