Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ejection seats in an E2C Hawkeye

627 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeff

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 5:39:36 PM12/9/04
to
Does anyone know if the crew can eject from a Hawkeye.

It seems as though if they ejected upwards they would run into the
spinning disk.

If they ejected downwards what happens if they have a bad Cat shot?

Does anyone know how they egress in an emergencey, (like being hit with
a missle, or from a bad cat shot)
Anybody have any answers.

Thanks in advance for any responses

Moose

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 5:58:57 PM12/9/04
to
Hi

The answer is no. At least in all the Hawkeyes I've been. It's no place
for anyone who is claustrophobic either.

Cheers...Chris


Larry

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 6:24:09 PM12/9/04
to
"Jeff" had some questions:

> Does anyone know if the crew can eject from a Hawkeye.

They cannot eject as there are no ejection seats.

> It seems as though if they ejected upwards they would run into the
> spinning disk.

The radome rotates, but does not 'spin'. The "eggbeaters" (props) are a MUCH
greater danger. And then here comes the tails.

> If they ejected downwards what happens if they have a bad Cat shot?

There is no ejection seats and no bottom door. Your "bottom exit"
description reminds me of the A-3D Whale where the door is on the underside-
not the case in the E-2 Hawkeye. The door does angle down and the preferred
airborne egress takes the aircrew down, away from the spinning port prop.

> Does anyone know how they egress in an emergency, (like being hit with
> a missile, or from a bad cat shot).
The crew (of five) does practice 'coordinated emergency egress'. This means
they don't want to end up in a pile at the door while they all try to exit
at once.

I'm sorry to speculate (grimly) but if they take a missile hit, they will
not have to worry about trying to get out. :-(
A bad cat shot is survivable, but they would have to survive the 'water
landing' and egress out the upper hatches. I say this because the airframe
of the Hawkeye is really pretty flimsy and will likely break up in those two
situations (especially the missile hit).

> Thanks in advance for any responses

You're welcome.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN 'Retired'
Former VAW-116 Sunking
Alias "Baja Hummers"

Krztalizer

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 7:21:37 PM12/9/04
to
When I was on the Midway in 85, we had an E-2 FU a night landing (or was it a
soft cat? too many years in between to recall) and it went into the water.
Three made it, two didn't. The a/c did not break up - it floated until sunk by
gunfire. Four of the crew survived the crash and mustered on the "roof" of the
mostly-submerged a/c. The Mission Commander realized one of the operators
hadn't made it out of the tube and jumped over the side to attempt to free the
trapped man. Neither made it, and when divers went in to check the wreckage
prior to sinking it, there was no trace of either missing man.

That is the only Hawkeye loss I know about personally.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

Jeff

unread,
Dec 17, 2004, 12:49:28 PM12/17/04
to
Thanks to everyone who replied.

Sounds like the Hawkeye can be a pretty dangerous place especially if
the enemy wanted to take out the eyes and ears of the fleet, so how
come the fighter guys get all the glory and everbody seems to forget
about the recon people

Larry

unread,
Dec 17, 2004, 1:19:18 PM12/17/04
to

"Jeff" <je...@softstar.com> wrote in message
news:1103305768.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Thanks to everyone who replied.
>
> Sounds like the Hawkeye can be a pretty dangerous place especially if
> the enemy wanted to take out the eyes and ears of the fleet, so how
> come the fighter guys get all the glory and everbody seems to forget
> about the recon people

Sometimes folks get wrapped up in their own mission and forget about the
'team concept'. EVERY A/C in a carrier battle group is VERY important and
each contributes to a 'well oiled machine'.

The 'fighter guys' are selected as such very early in the training pipeline
based on their superior flying skills. So it gets 'ingrained' that they are
'the best' and naturally (after a time) they begin to believe it.

When I was in the TACAMO community I saw the very same 'primadonna'
attitudes there; they report directly to the JCS and act like 'a bunch of
fighter jocks' too. Kinda funny when a 'fighter jock' actually flies a
Boeing 707. Even with those HUGE cfm-56 motors, it still flies like a truck.

Vee-One

unread,
Dec 18, 2004, 12:51:18 AM12/18/04
to

"Larry" <lar...@NOSPAMisomedia.com> wrote in message
news:10s68pa...@corp.supernews.com...

Larry, if you were TACAMO, were you at Tinker? And if so, where you there
when they tried to taxi over the firebottle?

Vee-One


Larry

unread,
Dec 18, 2004, 12:58:31 AM12/18/04
to

"Vee-One" <j...@blow.com> wrote in message
news:10s7had...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "Larry" <lar...@NOSPAMisomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:10s68pa...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Jeff" <je...@softstar.com> wrote in message
> > news:1103305768.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Thanks to everyone who replied.
> >>
> >> Sounds like the Hawkeye can be a pretty dangerous place especially if
> >> the enemy wanted to take out the eyes and ears of the fleet, so how
> >> come the fighter guys get all the glory and everybody seems to forget

> >> about the recon people
> >
> > Sometimes folks get wrapped up in their own mission and forget about the
> > 'team concept'. EVERY A/C in a carrier battle group is VERY important
and
> > each contributes to a 'well oiled machine'.
> >
> > The 'fighter guys' are selected as such very early in the training
> > pipeline
> > based on their superior flying skills. So it gets 'ingrained' that they
> > are
> > 'the best' and naturally (after a time) they begin to believe it.
> >
> > When I was in the TACAMO community I saw the very same 'primadonna'
> > attitudes there; they report directly to the JCS and act like 'a bunch
of
> > fighter jocks' too. Kinda funny when a 'fighter jock' actually flies a
> > Boeing 707. Even with those HUGE cfm-56 motors, it still flies like a
> > truck.
> >
> > Larry
> > AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
> > USN 'Retired'
> >
>
> Larry, if you were TACAMO, were you at Tinker? And if so, where you there
> when they tried to taxi over the firebottle?
>
> Vee-One

I was part of the transition to the "Gecko" and the move to Tinker. I don't
recall the firebottle incident. That sounds like the Plane Captain was not
paying attention.

I got the chance to grab a few hours in the E-6A simulator over at NTSU
(they had to run a certain amount of time after software upgrades and
maintenance). That's WAY cool. Like driving a big truck.

Larry

>
>


Message has been deleted

rdkc...@erols.com

unread,
Dec 19, 2004, 12:51:06 AM12/19/04
to
"In most other cases, there just wasn't time like the VAW-125 loss in
the mid-70's off Willoughby Spit shortly after launch "

That one might not have been so bad except by sheer bad luck, on top of
everything else, they plowed into the outer Ocean View sandbar as they
went in. It was high tide so the water was probably about 8 - 10 feet
deep on the bar, certainly didn't help. My grandparents lived in a
beachfront house about 350 yards away and I was visiting them at the
time. I remember saying to my grandfather something to the effect of,
"that doesn't sound right . . . " as they went over.

Vee-One

unread,
Dec 19, 2004, 5:18:36 AM12/19/04
to

"wdossel" <wdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:06v9s05mgamm46aig...@4ax.com...
> Best of my knowledge, there has been only one "successful" bailout for
> an entire crew, that being the VAW-122 E-2 that had a wing fire
> shortly after launch (fire was behind the firewall and IVO wingroot).
> They climbed to altitude and executed a textbook bailout (shuffle to
> the hatch, tuck and roll...) A/c had to be shot down as it was headed
> towards Syria.
>
> Only other E-2 attempted bailout I know of was the VAW-78 E-2B that
> went in up in PA after flaming out -- CP made it out, pilot didn't.
> That was one incredible series of FUBARs that ended up putting that
> plane down.
>
> Re. the Midway bird, my understanding was the front section broke off
> almost immediately on impact and the CP was unable to egress. The ACO
> was the one who didn't make it from the back.

>
> In most other cases, there just wasn't time like the VAW-125 loss in
> the mid-70's off Willoughby Spit shortly after launch and the USCG
> loss at Roosey Roads (the additional tragedy here is that one of the
> folks lost in that crash was on the VAW-122 bailout...) or may have

I was TDY at RRNAS when that happened (AF working AWACS). We heard the call
for emergency inbound, and most of us were standing outside and watched it
go in, short of the runway. We hoped that it would never happen to us, then
came Yukla 27...................

> been prevented. Directly across from the Main Entrance Hatch is what
> we call the Christmas Tree -- a nest of high pressure hydraulic lines
> and a ton of electrical wiring supporting the high draw vapor cycle
> and radar systems. In the late 80's/early 90's we were having a devil
> of a time with electrical fires (cracked insulation) and strongly
> suspect that some of our losses then were an arc across a high
> pressure hyd line -- nice blowtorch effect that if in front of the
> MEH, well, you just weren't going anywhere. Suspect that was the
> reason for the VAW-126 loss.
>
> Most of us who spent a lot of time in the a/c (I've got 3500 hrs)
> didn't concentrate on it and dutifully did our ditch/bailout drills
> while ensuring we had EP's down cold to keep from getting into an
> extremis position :) I've had a couple of close ones, but those were
> on PMCF's (hey, what can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment, but then
> again, I've also got night traps in a Whale too).
>
> Re. the bad guys coming out to shoot you down, that was addressed
> elsewhere, except I will add that in my role as a stunt mole, I
> participated in a (highly informal and somewhat frowned upon by the
> higher ups) DACT eval with a couple of F-16's out of Key West to test
> our Hail Mary defensive tactics. I was the lone guy in the back and
> collected a few bruises for the effort (had to remain partially
> unstrapped to help w/the lookout -- viz sucks for the Hummer). That
> was also before they started fretting about wing cracks and crews
> putting excessive g-loads on the aircraft, leading to some pretty
> wimpy breaks (sigh).
>
> Will Dossel
> Last of the Steeljaws (VAW-122)
>


DropCloth

unread,
Dec 17, 2004, 2:53:06 PM12/17/04
to
"Jeff" <je...@softstar.com> wrote in message
news:1103305768.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

All of the aircraft are dangerous. Remember the old saying, 10,000 moving
parts all built by the lowest bidder and of course, sitting on an armed
explosive on top of a full load of burning fuel.
Fighter jocks are the way they are because they're stuck in the WWI
mentality of "knights of the sky" and all that, but what the heck, let them
think what they want, the rest of us know the truth. :-)


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

0 new messages