A-3? on a carrier?
TScho1
pg...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
> I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!! I
> haven't been able to find this on any list of current front line naval
> aircraft I've looked at. Am I overlooking something? Or is this
something I
> shouldn't know and don't need to know? Thanks for any intelligent
responses.
A-3 Skywarrior. Originally the A-3 was an attack bomber designed
primarily to deliver nuclear weapons back when nukes were very large.
Thus the A-3 was a very large aircraft for carrier ops. The last version
to deploy to carriers wa sthe electronic surveillence aircraft EA-3. It
may not be on a really current active list because they have been phased
out within the past year or two. The EA-3 has been replaced by the ES-3,
a version of the S-3 Viking.
Thomas Schoene
Tscho1.aol.com {It's not my fault, really it isn't}
"I must have left my .sig in my other account"
COSMO12365
several years, if I remember correctly. Also, I think they were finally
all retired a couple of years ago.
It was developed as a long range, carrier based nuclear strike aircraft.
They were later used as recon, electronic jammers, and tankers. You might
see them called the A3D, for All 3 Dead - it had a bit of a reputation
I've been told.
pg...@lehigh.edu
of it they were interviewing the Air Boss in his "office". (I forget what you
call the part overlooking the deck that he works in.) They explained that on
the window in front of him was where he kept track of the aircraft in the air.
He uses grease pencil and writes on the glass. While they were interviewing
him I noticed that on the glass they had a perminent chart painted. He used
this chart to keep track of the specific types of aircraft. the chart looked
like:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| F - 14 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| F - 18 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| A - 7 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| F - 8 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| C - 2 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| E - 2 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| S - 3 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| A - 6 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| EA - 6 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
| A - 3 | |
|__________|________________________________________________________|
... you get the idea.
On the actual chart A-3 was somewhere in the middle and the orders were a
little different. The Air Boss stated that this chart had a section for each
type of aircraft onboard the carrier. ( I also saw some rows labelled with
helo designations, i.e., UH-60.) My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!! I
haven't been able to find this on any list of current front line naval
aircraft I've looked at. Am I overlooking something? Or is this something I
shouldn't know and don't need to know? Thanks for any intelligent responses.
-PA
David Tanner
>I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel a number of weeks ago.
> My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
> I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!!
used on the carrier. It had two J-57 engines in pods under the wings and
a crew of 3. The Air Force used a (almost completely different) version
as the B-66.
Originally designed for nuclear strike, later used
as KA-3 tanker and EA-3 electronic missions. They are all gone now; the
last ones I saw were at NAS Alameda with the reserves. I think that a few
are in Arizona with a civilian outfit.
Ben Marselis
next to an F18, doesn't it? The A5 Vigilante was also once designated
A3(J) but that is even more unlikely.
Any offers?
Ken Koller
>I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel a number of weeks ago. In part
>of it they were interviewing the Air Boss in his "office". (I forget what you
>call the part overlooking the deck that he works in.) They explained that on
>the window in front of him was where he kept track of the aircraft in the air.
>
version of the Air Force's B-66. It never turned out to be much a
bomber and was modified into a variety of uses such as the ERA-3 which
was an electro-survalience platform, KA-3 tanker, EA-3 electronic
agressor aircraft, and a couple of unique combinations that test
squadrons such as PMTC and China Lake flew. VAQ-34, which used to be
based at NAS Point Mugu and has since moved to I believe Fallon, might
still be flying them in the agressor role, where they go out and try
to jam and countermeasure the hell out of everybody. There are also a
half dozen or so out at Van Nuys airport that a company is using for
test purposes. I don't have any specs. on the plane, but somebody out
there should. Hope that helped.
-------------------------------------------
Ken Koller
Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
California State University, Fresno
"Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
Andrew Muir
(big snip)
: On the actual chart A-3 was somewhere in the middle and the orders were a
: little different. The Air Boss stated that this chart had a section for each
: type of aircraft onboard the carrier. ( I also saw some rows labelled with
: helo designations, i.e., UH-60.) My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
: I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!! I
: haven't been able to find this on any list of current front line naval
: aircraft I've looked at. Am I overlooking something? Or is this something I
: shouldn't know and don't need to know? Thanks for any intelligent responses.
Douglas A3D (A-3) Skywarrior. Twin engined jet similar in configuration
to an S-3 Viking with high wing and underslung podded engines. original
mission was nuclear strike but was converted to tanker (KA-3) and
electronic intelligence (EA-3 and EKA-3) missions.
First Flight: Oct 28, 1952
First Production deliveries: March 31, 1956 to VAH-1 (Heavy attack sqdn 1)
Few bombing missions were carried out by the A-3 in Vietnam, however the
KA-3s and EA-3 varients were extensively utilized. A-3s were withdrawn
from VAH squadrons by early 1970s, the KA-3s left the Naval reserve
service in 1989 while the EA-3s were finally withdrawn about 3 or 4 years
ago.
Recently the Hard copy ran some video of an EA-3 "Missing the
Barrier" and ending up in the Med. The pilot had missed a number of
attempts to recover on the carrier so it was decided to try a barrier
recovery. Anyway, the pilot was high on this approach (and the barrier
was sagging more than it was supposed to) and missed the barrier and went
into the drink. The plane floated for a long time (over 5 minutes), but
nobody got out. I believe the plane was based out of Sigonella, Italy,
and had apparently doing some ELINT of the coast of Libya.
This accident apparently forced the decision to stop flying A-3s to the
carriers. The Navy was short on TA-3s and couldn't continue to train A-3
pilots adequately. I have heard that when an A-3 was comming in on a
Carrier the Vultures Roost (areas on the Island that could observe the
flight deck) would be crammed with spectators baecaus the plane was
awsome to watch land due to its size, and there was always the chance to
see one crack up. I spoke to a "Whale" pilot at an airshow at Westover
AFB and he said that landing the A-3 on a Carrier was definitely exciting.
=========================================================================
"Comanche" ___
Andy Muir / \
Aircraft Structural Design __________________\___/__________________
Engineer at large / \
"See First, Shoot First, Win" (/_____\)
_____ / | | \ _____
/**** / |___| \ ****\
\ / \ /
\_____/
=========================================================================
--
Elbert I. Chang
>
> Biggest plane ever based on a carrier, but not the largest to ever
> land on a carrier. A C-130 has that honor.
>
Yikes. How in the @#$& did the pilot pulled that off?
Elbert
Kenneth Joseph Koller
Andrew Muir <coma...@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>pg...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>(big snip)
>(Stuff on E-3 going in the drink)
>This accident apparently forced the decision to stop flying A-3s to the
>carriers. The Navy was short on TA-3s and couldn't continue to train A-3
>pilots
That and the A-3 required the cable shuttle system for catapult luanches,
and took a bit of time
to set up. All new a/c have a shuttle bar built in to the front landing
gear strut.
>"Comanche" ___
>Andy Muir / \
>Aircraft Structural Design __________________\___/__________________
>Engineer at large / \
>"See First, Shoot First, Win" (/_____\)
> _____ / | | \ _____
> /**** / |___| \ ****\
> \ / \ /
> \_____/
>=========================================================================
>
>--
>
--
Ken Koller
Michael Wise
<tan...@phys.ufl.edu> wrote:
Actually, the carrier-based A-3's (nicknamed The Whale and All Three Dead)
carried a crew of 7: 1 pilot, 1 navigator, and 5 spooks (two of which were
interpretors). A friend of mine who was a spook on The Whale we had aboard
the Kitty Hawk used to boast that, as old as it was, it was the only
aircraft in the air wing which could break the sound barrier without
afterburner. They were not allowed to do this though, as the airframes
were so old, they would probably break up upon mach flight. Our A-3 had
"On Loan From The Smithsonian Institute" painted on the lower rear
fuselage.
--Mike
> > My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
> > I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!!
Richie Kittrell
> : (I also saw some rows labelled with
> : helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
>
> UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
What is the Seahawk's (the naval version of the Black Hawk)
designation?
Rick Jansky
[... snip ...]
: space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
: landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
: -------------------------------------------
: Ken Koller
: Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
: California State University, Fresno
: "Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
: kj...@mondrian.csufresno.edu
A U-2 on a carrier?! I gotta have some more info on this!
I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
MORE INFO PLEASE.
______________________________________________________________________
/ /|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| Richard J. Jansky (Rick) rja...@melpar.esys.com Falls Church, VA | |
| | |
| ... Leesburg traffic, | |
| Warrior 4-3-2-5-Victor turning Final, | |
| 3-5 Leesburg ... | |
| |/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
James Corley
The A-3 was the heaviest carrier plane. Built as the A3D Skywarrior by
Douglas in the early 1950's. The USAF adapted it as the B66. The A3 on
the boards refferred to the EKA3B Elint plane which has been off the
decks for nearly ten years. The plane was replaced with the ES3A Viking
ELINT variant.
Ken Koller
Actually the Marines fly VH-60 VIP transports. The Navy flies SH-60B
and I think E Seahawk antisubmarine helos and HH-60H combat rescue
helos. There are only a handfull of those and they are all with two
reserve squadrons, HCS-5 at NAWC Point Mugu (my dad's old outfit) and
HCS-4 who I think are over at Oceana, but I am probably mistaken.
Andrew Hutchings
writes:
> There are also a
> half dozen or so out at Van Nuys airport that a company is using for
> test purposes. I don't have any specs. on the plane, but somebody out
> there should. Hope that helped.
The aircraft at Van Nuys are operated by Hughes, mainly on radar-related work for the
B-2. Thunderbird Aviation at Deer Valley, Phoenix operate some also, alongside C-123's,
A-7's.
Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew Hutchings _|___|_ | 25 |
| Newcastle,UK \ ATC / o EGNT / |
| Internet: an...@airnorth.demon.co.uk \___/ ___-( )-___ / |
| CServe: 100427,3635 | | o o / |
| 'All my own work/opinions ......' | | 'cleared to land ..' 07 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TScho1
el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>pg...@Lehigh.EDU shaped the electrons to say:
>: type of aircraft onboard the carrier. ( I also saw some rows labelled
with
>: helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
>UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
But CVs do occoasionally host Army pukes. Remeber that during the
invasion of Haiti Ike had a full load ofArmy helos in lieu of her regular
air wing. THe pics I've seen show OH-58s but I think there were UH-60s as
well.
Andrew Muir
: > : (I also saw some rows labelled with
: > : helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
: >
: > UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
: What is the Seahawk's (the naval version of the Black Hawk)
: designation?
Three types currently in service:
SH-60B - Lamps III - Flys off escort ships. Equipped with Sono-
bouys, surface search radar, MAD bird and 2 Torpedoes
SH-60F - CV Helo - Flys off carriers. Equipped with dipping sonor,
and torpedoes (no sonobouys according to my available printed
source,"United States Naval aircraft since 1911",
G. Swanborough & P.M. Bowers, but I thought I saw the
launchers installed on aircraft in the factory).
HH-60H - "Rescue Hawk" - Combat rescue aircraft, no ASW capability,
but equipped with door guns and armored crew seats
SH-60R - New version - Rebuilds of SH-60Bs and SH-60Fs to a common
configuration. Yet to be built.
=========================================================================
Andrew Muir
: > : (I also saw some rows labelled with
: > : helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
: >
: > UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
Marines fly VH-60Ns for the Presidential flight (HMX-1). And they don't
like us to mess up the lettering "United States Of America" for
survivability upgrades.
Andrew Muir
: Ken Koller (kj...@mondrian.CSUFresno.EDU) wrote:
: [... snip ...]
: : space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
: : landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
Did they land it? I thought they only launched the U-2.
Andrew Muir
: > My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
While the A-3 and B-66 may have been built by the same manufacturer,
share general configurations and I believe powerplants, the two were very
different aircraft, with no commonality. Douglas designed a new plane
for the USAF.
Ken Koller
Reverse the props just before touchdown and it cuts down the rollout
space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
Jason Tokunaga
want to say "Skyknight", but I don't think it's right.) It was a ground
attack a/c used in the 60's I think, before the A-6. It was later
converted to either a tanker or ECM/surveillance platform.
Questions, comments, corrections appreciated.
Jason Tokunaga
Andrew Toppan
: The A3 is the Douglas Skywarrior, originally the A3D. Biggest plane ever
: used on the carrier.
Biggest plane ever based on a carrier, but not the largest to ever
land on a carrier. A C-130 has that honor.
: They are all gone now; the
: last ones I saw were at NAS Alameda with the reserves.
The last USN ones were the EA-3B 'Whales', replaced by ES-3As. There
are still a couple modified versions working in the B-2A test program.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
Andrew Toppan
: type of aircraft onboard the carrier. ( I also saw some rows labelled with
: helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
: My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
The Skywarrior, a very large subsonic nuclear strike bomber, the
largest plane ever based on a carrier. It's tremendous size & weight
dictated the size of the supercarrier United States that was designed
to carry them.
The A-3 outlived it's intended replacement, the A-5. Normal A-3s
have been gone for some time now, the KA-3 and EA-3B versions lasted
longer. The last EA-3Bs were replaced by ES-3As a few years ago
(around the time of the Gulf War). They had been restricted to land
based operations only for some time before they were finally replaced.
Andrew
Andrew Toppan
: was an electro-survalience platform, KA-3 tanker, EA-3 electronic
: agressor aircraft, and a couple of unique combinations that test
: squadrons such as PMTC and China Lake flew.
Here are all the A-3 variants I can come up with (not including the
B-66):
XA3D-1 (prototype)
YA3D-1 (prototype)
A3D-1 (bomber, later A-3A (I think))
A3D-2 (bomber, later A-3B)
EA-3A (jammer)
RA-3B (recon)
EA-3B (electronic surveilance/ELINT)
TA-3B (trainer)
KA-3B (tanker)
VA-3B (high speed VIP transport)
ERA-3B (jammer/recon)
EKA-3B (tanker/jammer)
NEA-3B (B-2 radar signature measurement test program)
: VAQ-34, which used to be
: based at NAS Point Mugu and has since moved to I believe Fallon, might
: still be flying them in the agressor role, where they go out and try
: to jam and countermeasure the hell out of everybody. There are also a
Nope...all gone.
: I don't have any specs. on the plane, but somebody out there should.
I'll post specs if anyone wants....
Andrew
--
Ken Koller
Thanks for posting the list. I think I remember there being a ERKA-3B
at Mugu about 6-7 years ago, but I'm not sure exactly what the
designation was. They had one range intstrumation ERA-3B with this
huge snoopy nose on it. Funky looking plane. They were a blast to see
fly weren't they?
Andrew Toppan
: the boards refferred to the EKA3B Elint plane which has been off the
: decks for nearly ten years. The plane was replaced with the ES3A Viking
: ELINT variant.
Minor nit-- the ELINT variant that was replaced by the ES-3A was the
EA-3B, the EKA-3B was a combination tanker/jammer.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Navy and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
RASM...@plains.nodak.edu
elbert...@nwu.edu (Elbert I. Chang) writes:
>In article <3m2a6o$m...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>>
>> land on a carrier. A C-130 has that honor.
>>
>
>
>
>Elbert
I recall the pilot put the props into full pitch reverse before
crossing the rounddown. Kinda scary with your plane still over
the water and props in reverse. No tailhook was used as I recall.
The takeoff was unusual too. Back C-130 so tail hangs over the roundown,
stand on brakes and apply full power, pop off brakes, taxi down deck,
execute quick dogleg left so right wing of C-130 will not hit carrier
island, execute quick dogleg right so C-130 will not fall in ocean, then
pray there is enough deck left for the Herky to fly!!
BTW the B-66 was an Air Force version of the Navy A-3 not the other way
around. Seems the junior armed service does not like to acknowledge
utilization of Navy birds.
Mad
Jacob M Mcguire
carrier? by Jason Tokunaga@dv349-4d.
> want to say "Skyknight", but I don't think it's right.) It was a ground
> attack a/c used in the 60's I think, before the A-6. It was later
> converted to either a tanker or ECM/surveillance platform.
>
I believe it was the Skywarrior.
----------------------------------------------------------
| If everyone _is_ actually out to get | Jake McGuire |
| you, is it still paranoia? | mcg...@cmu.edu |
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob M Mcguire
> : space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
> : landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
>
>
> : Ken Koller
> : Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
> : California State University, Fresno
> : "Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
>
>
> : kj...@mondrian.csufresno.edu
>
>
> I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
> AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
> CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
>
I am pretty sure that the first poster meant that the CIA had
launched U-2's off a carrier. This is much more reasonable, I
remember the U-2's take-off run as being about 800 feet.
Michael Wise
(Ken Koller) wrote:
> Actually the Marines fly VH-60 VIP transports. The Navy flies SH-60B
> and I think E Seahawk antisubmarine helos
Make that SH-60B and SH-60F
Andrew Toppan
: A U-2 on a carrier?! I gotta have some more info on this!
: I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
: AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
: CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
I've seen film of it. The carrier America, I belive. I don't
remember the details, but it happened.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
Michael Colangelo
( an even bigger snip of Andy's post )
I heard the same thing about A-3 carrier landings.
Question: Do you know what A-3D (as in Douglas Skywarrior) stands for?
Answer: A-3D = All 3 Dead
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Regards,
Mike
James Corley
Andrew,
I am dissapointed at your lack of knowledge about this. You seem
to be VERY up-to-date about most things. The U2 was U2R-N812X flown by
Bill Park. The plane was modified with wing folds and was even stricken
to the hangar.
Quite an accomplishment, but not a neat as when Lt Flatley ( now
Admiral) first operated a C130 from Forrestal in 1962. I have heard
several TINS tales from old-timers (Vietnam) about the resupply usage of
the C130 at Yankee Station (even one from someone at Gonzo Station 1980)
but cannot find any other confirmations, can you help?
Mark Dillon
_727_ for use as a giant COD! The proposal was considered until it
was realized that there would be no place to stash it if it went
down - it would put a halt to flight ops.
Dave Barak
paul.m...@his.com
> Douglas A3D (A-3) Skywarrior. Twin engined jet similar in configuratio
> to an S-3 Viking with high wing and underslung podded engines. origin
> mission was nuclear strike but was converted to tanker (KA-3) and
> electronic intelligence (EA-3 and EKA-3) missions.
[Remainder of well-written and detailed description of trouble getting
aboard in the Whale deleted.]
The Whale was truly a handful to get aboard, given its weight and very
slow spool up response from the primitive turbojets. Even worse, the A3D
lacked ejection seats. Naval aviators used to joke that A3D stood for "all
three dead." Ah, the gallows humor of fighting men.
---
TIMM 1.0.1 - The Ideal Mac Mailreader.
The Ideal Macintosh Mail reader
Mutual Improvement
are some rare pictures of them in the osprey colour series book on the
A-1, A-3 and A-4. some of the units in know reformed as EA-6B units in the
mid 1970's, though this was not from bombers, more from the AAR and electronic
whales.
t.
Stan Davis
When I arrived at NAS Whidbey, in July 1970, VAH-10 with EKA-3B's was the
only A-3 squadron remaining. Before 1972 it was redesignated a VAQ
(possibly VAQ-129) squadron before transitioning to EA-6B's. All of the
subsequent EA-6B squadrons started from scratch and not from former VAH
squadrons.
Disclaimer: accuracy of the above subject to fading memory and not
guarenteed.
Interisting aside: At the 1970 Whidbey air show was a takeoff demo of an
A-3 with JATO bottles attached. Try to imagine an almost vertical
take-off of one of those monsters. That memory sticks.
Interesting aside #2: The A-3 had no ejection seats. The aircrew had to
escape through a slide in the floor. That's probably the reason behind
the `all 3 dead' designation.
Stan Davis
Stan Brown
>Here are all the A-3 variants I can come up with (not including the
>B-66):
>I'll post specs if anyone wants....
That would be interesting.
TIA
Stan
--
Stan Brown st...@netcom.com 404-996-6955
Factory Automation Systems
Atlanta Ga.
--
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Windows, the only computer virus to take up 20 megs of RAM |
------------------------------------------------------------------
JST...@delphi.com
Believe that U-2 was tested on the America. As you might have guessed
because of the wingspan nothing else was on the flightdeck. About all
it proved was a carrier might provide an auxillary emergency landing
location.
Jim Strand Long Island, NY
Rainbow V 1.06 for Delphi - Registered
Darryl Shaw
>> : space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
>> : landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
>> A U-2 on a carrier?! I gotta have some more info on this!
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
>> AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
>> CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
> I am pretty sure that the first poster meant that the CIA had
>launched U-2's off a carrier. This is much more reasonable, I
>remember the U-2's take-off run as being about 800 feet.
Guys,
Actually the U-2 took off AND landed aboard the USS America in the 60's
The Deck handling caracteristics weren't too good for obvious reasons!
C-130's also landed and took off from the Forrestal at some time too.
Tailhooks Forever!
Darryl
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
> Rick Jansky (r...@h4gate.ssw.melpar.esys.com) shaped the electrons to say:
>
> : I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
> : AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
> : CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
>
> remember the details, but it happened.
Andrew's right. Check out page 36 of U-2 Spyplane in Action from
Squadron/Signal for a picture. The U-2 was specially modified, and
I think the CIA was evaluating the possibility of delivering film
directly to the carrier.
BTW, I have recently aquired about 20 "in Action" duplicates I would
like to trade for ones I don't have. If anyone is serious about trading,
please e-mail me.
- Grover
pg...@lehigh.edu
>David Tanner (tan...@phys.ufl.edu) shaped the electrons to say:
>: The A3 is the Douglas Skywarrior, originally the A3D. Biggest plane ever
>: used on the carrier.
>
>land on a carrier. A C-130 has that honor.
>
>Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
Thanks to all who responded intelligently. A C-130 on a carrier? I used
to think about it when I was little but it really happened?! Details
please!
-PA
Brian varine
On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, Jacob M Mcguire wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.military: 7-Apr-95 Re: A-3? on a
> carrier? by Rick Jan...@h4gate.ssw.m
> > : space needed to land. It took off from there too. Impressive. The CIA
> > : landed a U-2 on a carrier in the late 60s as well.
> >
> > A U-2 on a carrier?! I gotta have some more info on this!
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that with the wingspan a Dragon Lady has
> > AND its inherent nightmarish landing characteristics that even the
> > CIA could grease one onto a carrier.
> >
>
> I am pretty sure that the first poster meant that the CIA had
> launched U-2's off a carrier. This is much more reasonable, I
> remember the U-2's take-off run as being about 800 feet.
No No! I've seen pix of a U-2 on a carrier with its tailhook out grabbing
a 3 wire. It's been done. Isn't the landing speed for a U-2 pretty slow?
Couple that with a good wind and a carrier at flank speed and the U-2
could do it at a low speed (relative to the carrier). They've launched
U-2's too. Same concept, good headwind, flank speed, would you need a
catapult? It should take right off.
MKopack
Joseph D. Mazza
carrier? by Ken Kol...@mondrian.CSUF
> A-3 Skywarrior, commonly refered to as "The Whale", is a navalized
> version of the Air Force's B-66.
Are you sure? I think it was the other way around. The B-66 was a
land-based version of a carrier aircraft, rather than the A-3 being a
"navalized" version of a land-based jet.
Chris Douglas
> A-3 Skywarrior, commonly refered to as "The Whale", is a navalized
>version of the Air Force's B-66.
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. As I recall, the B-66 was an
"air-forcized" A-3.
I doubt you could design something that big and operate it from a carrier
unless you were planning it from the start.
--Chris Douglas
Analytical Methods {NWNet}
that the U-2 was used operationally off a carrier to monitor the French
nuclear testing in French Polynesia during the late 1960s. Its seems
that there were no airfields close enough to launch the U-2, so they
used the carrier.
-Dave Lednicer
da...@amiwest.com
Andrew Toppan
: el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) writes:
: >I'll post specs if anyone wants....
: That would be interesting.
Here are the specs for the EA-3B:
Crew: 7 total
Engines: 2 P&W J57-P-10m 12,400 lbst each
Weight:
41,193 pounds empty
61,593 pounds loaded
78,000 pounds max T-O
Dimensions:
74'4" long
72'6" wingspan
812 sq. ft. wing area
22'8" high
Speed: 640 mph max at sea level
610 mph at 10,000 ft
459 mph cruise
Ceiling: 41,300 ft service
Range: 1,200 nm unrefueled
Weapons: removed
Information from _Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, 14th edition_
Factual errors are theirs, typos are mine.
--
Brian varine
On 7 Apr 1995, Andrew Muir wrote:
> Richie Kittrell (rkit...@lasc.lockheed.com) wrote:
> : el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>
> Three types currently in service:
>
> SH-60B - Lamps III - Flys off escort ships. Equipped with Sono-
> bouys, surface search radar, MAD bird and 2 Torpedoes
**Also carries AN/ALQ-142 ESM system and links the
data(all data) back to the ship. Are SUPPOSED to get
FLIR and Penguin IR ASM. A few other post mention
Hellfires but I haven't seen anything on it. Anyone??
Bill Horne
[deleted]
> helo designations, i.e., UH-60.) My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
> I could identify the other designations but was stumped on the A-3!! I
[deleted]
The A3D Skywarrior came out in the mid-fifties. It was the first
all-jet powered carrier-based nuclear delivery aircraft for the Navy.
It had a huge internal bomb-bay. The large sized weapons of the period
were not suitable for external carry.
I think the A-3 remains the largest jet to have been regularly operated
off carriers. I'm sure it was the last carrier based jet without
ejection seats. We launched off Enterprise (in 1971) at up to about
72,000 pounds.
I've seen a couple of postings referring to the B-66 as the "Air Force
version of the A-3." In the words of a Naval Aviator friend of mine
who flew A-3's, then went on to exchange duty with an AF EB-66 squadron,
"They cast a similar shadow, but they aren't alike beyond that."
This statement is confirmed in a book I have detailing the development
and life of the A-3. Early on, it looked good to the AF, and they
bought some, but by the time all the requested changes were
incorporated, it was quite a different aircraft.
--
| Bill Horne |
| Tandem Computers Incorporated Internet: bho...@mpd.tandem.com|
| 9390 Research Blvd.; Bldg II Suite 400 Fax: (512) 795-2149 |
|_Austin, Texas 78759_____________________Phone: (512) 795-2112__________|
Michael Wise
(Andrew Muir) wrote:
> SH-60F - CV Helo - Flys off carriers. Equipped with dipping sonor,
> and torpedoes (no sonobouys according to my available printed
> source,"United States Naval aircraft since 1911",
> G. Swanborough & P.M. Bowers, but I thought I saw the
Your source is incorrect. The SH-60F does not have a pneumatic sonobuoy
launch on the port side like the SH-60B; but it does have 6 sonobuoy tubes
on the rear deck of the helo to gravity launch sonobuoys.
--Mike
(former SH-3H and SH-60F crewman)
Andrew Toppan
: I am dissapointed at your lack of knowledge about this. You seem
: to be VERY up-to-date about most things.
I hope you intended a smiley with that....I can't know *everything*,
you know. It is somewhat time-consuming to track the histories of
the over 200 aircraft carriers the USN has had, not to mention the
aircraft that flew from them.
: Quite an accomplishment, but not a neat as when Lt Flatley ( now
: Admiral) first operated a C130 from Forrestal in 1962. I have heard
: several TINS tales from old-timers (Vietnam) about the resupply usage of
: the C130 at Yankee Station (even one from someone at Gonzo Station 1980)
: but cannot find any other confirmations, can you help?
The only mention of C-130s on carriers I can find is the testing of
a KC-130F on Forrestal in 1963.....
Robert Woodbury
>
Stuff Deleted
> Actually the Marines fly VH-60 VIP transports. The Navy flies SH-60B
> and I think E Seahawk antisubmarine helos and HH-60H combat rescue
> helos. There are only a handfull of those and they are all with two
> reserve squadrons, HCS-5 at NAWC Point Mugu (my dad's old outfit) and
> HCS-4 who I think are over at Oceana, but I am probably mistaken.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Ken Koller
> Reporter/Photographer - The Daily Collegian
> California State University, Fresno
> "Actually, I am a lab mouse on stilts"
>
>
> kj...@mondrian.csufresno.edu
Hi All,
The carrier version of the SH-60 in the SH-60F. All carrier deployed
HS units are also equiped with at least two HH-60H's for their CSAR
component.
Rob Woodbury
Taki Kogoma
<3m3rrj$j...@pong.lasc.lockheed.com> in rec.aviation.military:
>el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>
>> : (I also saw some rows labelled with
>> : helo designations, i.e., UH-60.)
>>
>> UH-60 surprises me-- the Navy/Marine Corps don't have any.
>
>What is the Seahawk's (the naval version of the Black Hawk)
>designation?
SH-60B or SH-60F depending on accessories.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - qu...@unm.edu | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
PS Bowen
> In article <3m2a6o$m...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) writes:
> >David Tanner (tan...@phys.ufl.edu) shaped the electrons to say:
> >: The A3 is the Douglas Skywarrior, originally the A3D. Biggest plane ever
> >: used on the carrier.
> >
> >Biggest plane ever based on a carrier, but not the largest to ever
> >land on a carrier. A C-130 has that honor.
>
> Thanks to all who responded intelligently. A C-130 on a carrier? I used
> to think about it when I was little but it really happened?! Details
> please!
>
It's true--there is video of it. A Marine C-130 landed on an
aircraft carrier and immediately went to full beta on touchdown. Ended up
launching from the carrier as well, though I don't know what its deck run
was, or whether it used JATO to help.
Wouldn't have wanted to be one of the crew: on touchdown you were
committed to stopping on the deck or dying... once in beta there was no
go-around and nothing to stop the plane from going over the side and into
the water if it had too much rollout.
RASM...@plains.nodak.edu
Stan Davis <sda...@eskimo.com> writes:
>
- snip -
>Interesting aside #2: The A-3 had no ejection seats. The aircrew had to
>escape through a slide in the floor. That's probably the reason behind
>the `all 3 dead' designation.
>
>Stan Davis
I also recall that they tended to break in half and sink like a rock
if they ever landed in the water. BTW a floor mounted escape chute is
not much good on a cold cat shot.
Mad
James Corley
<7541...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Fokker also proposed a naval F28 for COD, as did McD with the DC9-15, in
the late '70s and early '80s
John Mosbarger
>
>The Whale was truly a handful to get aboard, given its weight and very
>slow spool up response from the primitive turbojets. Even worse, the A3D
>lacked ejection seats. Naval aviators used to joke that A3D stood for "all
>three dead." Ah, the gallows humor of fighting men.
>
>PAUL.M...@HIS.COM
When I was stationed at Cubi Pt. NAS (PI), we always made it a point
to watch the A-3's take off (they used ALL of the runway), and one lost
an engine and gently settled into Subic Bay. I understand that they were
nearly underpowered, even at takeoff thrust.
John
--
John Mosbarger
McMinnville, OR
jo...@hp-mcm.mcm.hp.com
Martin Mendelsohn
: My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
Andrew Muir (coma...@onyx.southwind.net) wrote:
: While the A-3 and B-66 may have been built by the same manufacturer,
: share general configurations and I believe powerplants, the two were
: very different aircraft, with no commonality. Douglas designed a new
: plane for the USAF.
The years dim the facts, but actually there was almost nothing common
between the A-3 and the B66 except the generally similar appearance.
Very few parts were interchangeable. Different engines - B66 used the
J71 at about 20,000 pounds thrust. B66 had ejection seats, A-3 didn't.
Some B66s had a very accurate nav/bomb radar system. the B66 was much
heavier. Near the end some were over 85,000 lbs takeoff weight with
40,000 pounds thrust. Takeoff roll was a real ride. In Thailand it
wasn't uncommon to use all 10,000 plus feet of concrete, and just
clear the bushes off the end of the overun.
All USAF B66s wound up as various configurations of electronic warfare
aircraft. EB66Bs (converted B66B bomber) and EB66Es (converted RB66
photo reconaissance) had a Pilot/Nav/EWO crew. EB66Cs (RB66C before
renaming) had a Pilot/Nav crew forward with upward ejection seats and
4 EWOs amidship in a pressurized compartment with downward ejection
seats. High RPF (Rectum Pucker Factor) could develop from sitting in
the downward seats on takeoff and landing. This tended to keep the
EWOs from dozing off.
Many war stories could be told. Anybody from the 41TRS or 42TRS
around to fill in more detail? Or is what's here already overkill and
BOOORRRRING?
Bill Horne
Kenneth Joseph Koller <kj...@lennon.csufresno.edu> wrote:
>In article <3m237e$d...@onyx.southwind.net>,
>Andrew Muir <coma...@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>>pg...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>>(big snip)
>>(Stuff on E-3 going in the drink)
>>This accident apparently forced the decision to stop flying A-3s to the
>>carriers. The Navy was short on TA-3s and couldn't continue to train A-3
>>pilots
I'm pretty curious about the complete reference to this. Apparently,
it hasn't arrived here yet. Anyway, for the record, TA-3's were not
used to train pilots for A-3's.
All A-3's (including the TA-3) were single pilot/control aircraft. The
TA-3 was used to train bombardier/navigators. It had multiple B/N
training positions in the back of the airplane. Pilots were trained in
aircraft that were identical to those used operationally. In the A-3
cockpit, the pilot sat on the left. The B/N position was on the right
(no flight controls), and about a foot further aft. The tail gunner
faced the rear, back to back with the pilot. A fourth person could be
carried seated on the floor (on top of the hatch) at the rear of the
cockpit. Pilot training missions subsequent to the initial demo flight
were usually conducted with the student in the pilot's seat, and the
instructor in the B/N seat.
>That and the A-3 required the cable shuttle system for catapult luanches,
>and took a bit of time
>to set up. All new a/c have a shuttle bar built in to the front landing
>gear strut.
When I was flying aboard ship (1971), we had both systems in use. The
launch crew could change rigs pretty quickly, but it still took some
time. We usually had a single A-3 as the first aircraft on each
launch. The theory was to get the big airplane off the deck and out of
the way as quickly as possible. We typically recovered last for
similar reasons. However, bridles were still being used for F-4's,
which were around for several years later than A-3's. The A-3
disappeared because newer (and smaller) aircraft took over the roles it
had. The EKA-3B was replaced by the KA-6D for refueling and the EA-6B
for jamming duties (and fleet taxi roles).
Andrew Toppan
: What is the Seahawk's (the naval version of the Black Hawk)
: designation?
The Seahawks are SH-60B (CG/DD/DDG/FFG ASW), SH-60F (CV/CVN ASW) and
HH-60H (combat rescue/spec ops). The Coast Guard flies HH-60J
Jayhawks in the SAR role, and the Marines have VH-60Ns for VIP
transport. The B, F, H and J models share a common airframe, heavily
modified from the original UH-60 design (for shipboard ops), although
the Jayhawks lack the folding tail needed to fit into most shipboard
hangars.
Joseph D. Mazza
carrier? by paul.m...@his.com
> slow spool up response from the primitive turbojets. Even worse, the A3D
> lacked ejection seats. Naval aviators used to joke that A3D stood for "all
> three dead." Ah, the gallows humor of fighting men.
Had a friend who ditched in one (drogue chute deployed on a bolter and,
due to some earlier circuit breaker mixups, stayed attached even though
it shouldn't have). He said that what he learned very quickly was that
three helmets could fit through the overhead hatch at the same time, but
not three bodies!
-----Joe
James Corley
Muir) writes:
>While the A-3 and B-66 may have been built by the same manufacturer,
>share general configurations and I believe powerplants, the two were
>very different aircraft, with no commonality. Douglas designed a new
>plane for the USAF.
True, Douglas did produce a plane very different from the A3D, but the
A3D had already been wind-tunnel tested and such, so it was easier to
de-navalize it than design an entirely new airframe requiring new
tests.
James
John Balaska
writes:
The A-3 airframe stayed in the US. Navy inventory until after Desert
Storm. The EA-3B was used quite extensively in BDA and snooping. It
did get kicked off the boat in approx. 1991 (after one went in the
drink, you know, that hardcopy story). But, it did continue to serve
the Navy's needs from shore.
AT1 John Balaska
EA-3B aircrewma
JBal...@ix.netcom.com
HEY LT. DID YOU KNOW THAT IS A MIG ON OUR TAIL AND NOT A 727?
James Corley
Mendelsohn) writes:
>
>James Corley (JDCo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
>
I didn't write the original question, only quoted it in an answer.
My father and I were both in the Navy. He was a PhotoMate (PH1) and
taught the recce systems school for the RA3, RF8 and RA5, as well as
serving two tours with RVAH12 and on numerous dets with RA3 and RF8
Sqdns. I was an AW and flew on P3s, but had an occasion to ride on an
A3 to the boat during training.
As for the A3 vs B66 debate, The B66 was a clone redseigned to meet AF
specs, mostly removing the extra strength needed for carrier ops and
adding ejection seats and installing a USAF-compatable electrical
system. The same happened when the USAF made the F86 from the FJ-1 and
the F4H-1 became the F-110A. The USAF has adapted many jets from the
Navy, But I still havent a single combat plane the navy has been able
to adapt from the USAF without a complete and total redesign (YF17 to
F18 for example).
Why the services have/had completely different specs for basic systems
is beyond any limit of logic. I Just read the Pentagon has allowed
Lockheed-Ft Worth to try to use commercailly available parts in the F16
as well as F-111 support programs. The article sez this should knock
about 3 MILLION off the price!
Your tax dollars at work!If we have overpaid by 15% simply to NOT use
parts available at any FBO, then the military (Pentagon) is far
stupider than I have already been convinced.
Joseph D. Mazza
carrier? by PS Bo...@acpub.duke.edu
> aircraft carrier and immediately went to full beta on touchdown. Ended up
> launching from the carrier as well, though I don't know what its deck run
> was, or whether it used JATO to help.
No JATO, just a "normal" deck run. Actually, there were a series of
landings and takeoffs right up to max gross weight. The C-130 was found
to be fully "carrier capable"... it's just that the ship wasn't "C-130
capable." The C-130 is so big that there was no place to put it if it
went "down" for maintenance on deck, and they couldn't make enough room
for it to land and takeoff with a full airwing embarked unless most of
its aircraft were airborne. (And in that case, if the C-130 went "down"
it would be necessary to push it over the side to get the airwing back
aboard!)
> Wouldn't have wanted to be one of the crew: on touchdown you were
> committed to stopping on the deck or dying... once in beta there was no
> go-around and nothing to stop the plane from going over the side and into
> the water if it had too much rollout.
True, but there was plenty of field carrier landing practice before they
ever went to the boat. The Navy wouldn't have allowed it unless it was
first demonstrated that it could be done safely. (It was a Marine
airframe, but the pilot was Navy: Jim Flatley was his name.) As to
reversing in the air just prior to touchdown, I really doubt it. I've
heard those stories too, but as an old Herc driver myself, I'd say
there'd be way too much chance for asymmetric power just when you really
needed to go straight: in close! Props act funny in the Beta range, and
aren't nearly as stable or tightly governed as in the Flight range. Not
to mention that NATOPS prohibits the use of Beta in flight. (Witness
more than one commuter airline crash after it was tried.)
-----Joe
James Corley
Bowen <psb...@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
>Wouldn't have wanted to be one of the crew: on touchdown you were
>committed to stopping on the deck or dying... once in beta there was
>no go-around and nothing to stop the plane from going over the side
>and into the water if it had too much rollout.
That's part of why Lt Flatley got the DFC for the job.
The C130 made its first landing empty. Thru the experiment they slowly
loaded the plane to its full max t/o weight. At no time did it need to
use JATO to assist. The STOL performance of the C130 combined with a
ship steaming at 20+ kts with a 20+ kt wind over the bow meant the
plane had 40+kt IAS before it let off the brakes. The viseo is
impressive.
My Father was attached to a photo group and took several photos,
some of which he still has. I discovered them thru Proceedings which
had a photo with his name under it. He saw the video on Wings recently
(maybe on Carriers, I dont remeber which) and told me the whole story
from his point of view, having thought it was still classified.
Bill Horne
Andrew Muir <coma...@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>James Corley (JDCo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: > My question is, what the heck is an A-3?!!
>
>: Douglas in the early 1950's. The USAF adapted it as the B66. The A3 on
>: the boards refferred to the EKA3B Elint plane which has been off the
^^^^^ ^^^^^
The EKA-3B was not an elint (electronic intelligence) collector.
The 'E' mission was active electronic counter measures, such
as jamming of SAM missile guidance radars. I guess everyone
knows that the 'K' is for inflight tanker designation.
>: decks for nearly ten years. The plane was replaced with the
>ES3A Viking : ELINT variant.
>
>While the A-3 and B-66 may have been built by the same
>manufacturer, share general configurations and I believe
>powerplants, the two were very
AFAIK, the engines were also different. A-3B's had J-57's.
>different aircraft, with no commonality. Douglas designed a
>new plane for the USAF.
EKA-3B's were created by modifying bomber versions of the
A-3. The bomber mission was eliminated by disabling the high
speed bomb bay doors. These aircraft were operated by VAQ
squadrons.
Elint A-3's were part of the A-3 variant family that was purpose
built without bomb bays and with a pressurized fuselage for
additional crew space. These included the EA-3B, the RA-3B,
and the TA-3B. In case you have seen a VA-3B, it is a modified
TA-3B. The EA-3B's were operated by VQ-1 and VQ-2. Although
the aircraft may have occasionaly landed aboard a carrier,
they were not routinely assigned as part of a carrier air wing.
Bill Horne LCDR, USN(Ret)
OiC, VAQ-130 Det 4 (USS Enterprise) 1971
Michael Wise
(John Balaska) wrote:
Although the A-3 might have got kicked off the boat in 1991; the mishap in
question occured in 1987.
Andrew Toppan
: Did they land it? I thought they only launched the U-2.
I've seen film of it landing.
TScho1
>. The USAF has adapted many jets from the
>Navy, But I still havent a single combat plane the navy has been able
>to adapt from the USAF without a complete and total redesign (YF17 to
>F18 for example).
>Why the services have/had completely different specs for basic systems
>is beyond any limit of logic. I Just read the Pentagon has allowed
>Lockheed-Ft Worth to try to use commercailly available parts in the F16
>as well as F-111 support programs. The article sez this should knock
>about 3 MILLION off the price!
If you consider a full combat aircraft "a basic system" I would suggest
you reconsider. The main reason that the Navy ---> AF transition happens
so much more often than the reverse is that the Navy operational
requirements are higher. It is relatively easy to turn a Navy a/c into an
AF one by removing the tailhook (or at least using a lighter one), putting
in lighter landing gear and eliminating the automatci wing fold. Turning
an AF plane into a NAvy one requires strengthening the whole airframe,
especially adding a "keel" for the tailhook. These tend to require so
much workas to make the project less thann feasible.
As to basic parts like fasteners, the problem is more complex. Most of
the cost in military contracts for things like fasteners and $600 hammers
is that the Pentagon (rightly or wrongly) wants to know more about how
these were made than the average users. Some requirements are reasonable
(such as demands for verifiable consisntecy) which require better record
keeping which means money. ON the other hand there are stupid things that
run up price. In my experience most of these requirements are imposed by
Congress. (requirements tthat parts and raw materails only travel in US
ships, duplictive accouting of labor practices. etc.)
Thomas Schoene
Tscho1.aol.com {It's not my fault, really it isn't}
"I must have left my .sig in my other account"
Ken Koller
>
>M{>{tan...@phys.ufl.edu}
>
>M{>pg...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
(Snip)>
>You might be interested... such an RB-66 is the plane shot down in the
>movie B.A.T. 21... (ow they shot off the tail!) anyhow gene hackman has
>to be rescued from the vietnam jungle. I think danny glover is the
>forward air controller hanging about the area looking for him in an a-1.
Excelent movie, the book is even better.
>secondly i wanted to mention that when i visited last the western air
>museum at oakland airport california had an a-3 outside. its not a very
>large museum but outside they have an a-3, a-4, a-7 and a-8. and a cool
>short brothers flying boat. and a corsair. and inside the hangar a bunch
>of neat planes including a lockheed vega and a bd-5.
>
>blue skies!
>
>Cheryl Douglas USPA A-19274
>Artist/Engineer/Irritant
>Cybervid Corporation
>Tactical Nuclear Weapons Division
>Nashua NH USA
>
>qua...@ace.com
>
> \o/ "Ich habe festgestellt, das es N I C H T S gibt, was Deine
> (( Aufmerksamkeit schneller und vollstaendiger fesselt, als ein
> \\ sich nicht oeffender Fallschirm!"
Walt Husak
>From: el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan)
>Subject: Re: A-3? on a carrier?
>Date: 7 Apr 1995 03:06:00 GMT
>The last USN ones were the EA-3B 'Whales', replaced by ES-3As. There
>are still a couple modified versions working in the B-2A test program.
I was stationed on Andrews AFB '81-'85 in the same hanger as the CNO's
detachment of aircraft. He flew in specially modified (read plush) A3D's so
that he could land on carriers. The knickname for the planes were "All Three
Dead".
walt