|
Post by ma1marv on Jan 4, 2014 0:32:09 GMT 9
OK - ALL you MA-1 guys need to look at this and give us a reply! I was an MA-1 tech all my life while on active duty, even though I managed to get myself into the instructor duties at Lowry. There are a couple of questions I have for all the MA-1 types who worked the "6" in the last couple of its flying years. Things I just never thought of until today. First - lets take the basic 080 - the display scope. I know that at the tech school we had the 080's modified on all 4 of the trainers. I also know that the HUD was used for the gun system. Now the only aircraft that were modified for the gun were the vertical tape "A" models. SO - the question is - what did you do for the Round eye models when you changed out the 080??? Did some or all of the HUD hardware come off?? What about the newer version of the 149 that attached to the 080 - did that stay and was it used on ALL models of the "6" Second - the 083 - the control stick. Was the same 083 used on ALL of the vertical AND round eyes?? The gun mod had the gun select switch on it and some extra interaction with the computer was necessary to provide for the site and ranging pippers that were displayed on the 080. Were you able to install a modified 083 into a roundeye? Third - The computer programs - I'm sure that the computer drum had to have a special program installed for the gun mod aircraft. Did a gun mod program also work with the unmoded systems as well? Fourth - the 305 unit - basically the same question as the 083. Would a modified 305 unit work in a roundeye or "B" model?? Last - what would happen when when you went to work on a gun-mod acft and needed to make a box swap to see if that was indeed the problem?? I'm sure that some of the units could be swapped. At Lowry's tech school, we had the trainers ALL modified to the latest mods available. I often wondered why we didn't have a round-eye version at the school. All four of the crazynose trainers were vertical instrument version. When we did the receiver mod we purposely only modified two of the trainers with the new receiver. That was because we could see the end of the "6" program was near and we did not see the expenditure of modifying all four of them. We did that because of the receiver mod being tied to the re-skin mod of only 85 or so airframes. The last student we had got trained on both receivers and the gun mod. I believe he went to Griffiss. Well guys - just had to put these questions down and I'm curious as to what actually took place on the line. You guard troops - let us know how things went for you as well on maintaining the MA-1 system. MArv
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 4, 2014 2:32:05 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jan 4, 2014 2:40:16 GMT 9
I worked Round-eye F-106 most of my career in MA-1. That's all we had at McGuire and it was definitely different than Lowry trainers. We were enrolled into FTD classes 4 hours a day for 6 months to gain a better understanding and experience on MA-1. Round eyes had a few different components, not usually associated with Instruments. The TSD had a different selector switch on top right corner. When I got assigned to Tyndall, I was a primary Round Eye B Model tech. But that didn't keep me from working Vert Inst birds. In fact, they didn't even give us any remedial training on them. I had only worked Vert at Lowry. So I learned quick. I worked Quick Fix most of my career as well. So at Tyndall, I had to look in cockpit to see what I was working on. We had a mix of about 40% Round and 60% Vert birds. If I remember right, the 083 was different, but used spare wires to control gun. We had used the same setup (Spare wires and switch) for a camera mod we made to about 4 aircraft for use in Alaska filming Bears during intercepts. I got to work on "Test Sq Birds at Tyndall as well We had an A and B model. 795 was A model as I remember and I forget B Model. We had a couple guys assigned to them as primary duty, but they only worked day shift. So when shift was over, they would brief us on special mods if needed. I can't comment on most of your questions since I left MA-1 for Flight Simulation in Jan 1971. I did help install the initial Lead Computing Optical Sight (HUD) for gun mod. That was a bear of mod as was anything on top of instrument panel. Lorin
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jan 26, 2014 5:17:20 GMT 9
Probably gonna hurt myself on this one Marv, but I'll try. My tenure with the 6 began in 1973 and carried through to its retirement. Most of my "familiarity" with the gun came during my supporting year of the MA-1 FDT for the ANG. By that time all the A models at Langley used vertical instruments with the conventional 080s and camera. HUD was added later. So there was no conflict in 080 configuration while I was there. From my follow-on civilian FDT days, I know the ANG gun birds had a different 080 with a HUD on top and what they called the ODU (optical display unit) mounted on the side. The switches were different on the O80. I remember a mode switch that had about 7 or 8 positions and different controls for the reticle. I know from the FDT that that one mode coupled the gun with radar ranging (heads down) and one supported visual attack through the HUD (heads up).
I don't believe the gun mod caused any hardware change in the 083 just a "reprogramming" of what certain existing switches did. I remember there was a box added in the radar rack for gun symbology. The only other change I remember in the cockpit was on the armament control box where they added /Gun to the Special Weapon selection. You had to have Spec Wpn/Gun selected on the armament panel before the mode switch on the 080 would work.
As far as I know, whenever there was an OFP update the software issued was common to the fleet regardless of configuration. That suggests that the gun code was embedded in all aircraft.
Not sure on the 305...mainly because I've managed to purge most of the unit numbers from my memory over the past 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by ma1marv on Jan 26, 2014 12:52:54 GMT 9
Not bad for your recall there! On the gun mod birds - the Vertical instrument "A" models, the control stick (the 083) had a gun select switch on it in the middle between the two handles. When a pilot selected that switch - the system when into "Boresight".. For the gun to fully function, the Armament control panel had that Sp Wpn/GUN setting and the lock and arm switches were also used. When in boresite mode - the pippers came up on the 080 and appeared on the ODU as well. This allowed the pilot to see through the combining glass and see the target ahead of him The three pippers gave the pilot an indication of the bullet flight path as they were three different sizes and were placed at three different locations on the display. They actually showed the drop of the bullets so the pilot could judge where to aim when flying. There was a second mode available the allowed the RADAR or even IR scan to be displayed on that scope and the combining glass so the pilot could see where to "Fly the dot" so to speak. Now it sounds real complicated but in actual use it was very simple. Keep the RADAR in sweep mode and lock on, then follow the dot and look for the fire signal, OR go to boresight and basically fly manually!
I'll have to go back in memory for more info because I'm sure there are a few little things I've left out.
As for replacing MA-1 units, I'm sure the most all of the units could still interchange between aircraft, but in the last couple of years, the "Gold Plate" mod really demanded that all units stay with one airframe, by serial number for effective record keeping. I also know that the units were taken to mockup and all electronic parts were gone through with an extremely fine look see. If it was out of tolerance - even a bit the component was changed, then that box went back into the same airframe.
Do you remember how many Code 1 flights were accomplished by the aircraft in your squadron?? 40 - 50 was not uncommon!
MArv
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 27, 2014 0:00:57 GMT 9
Not bad for your recall there! On the gun mod birds - the Vertical instrument "A" models, the control stick (the 083) had a gun select switch on it in the middle between the two handles. When a pilot selected that switch - the system when into "Boresight".. For the gun to fully function, the Armament control panel had that Sp Wpn/GUN setting and the lock and arm switches were also used. When in boresite mode - the pippers came up on the 080 and appeared on the ODU as well. This allowed the pilot to see through the combining glass and see the target ahead of him The three pippers gave the pilot an indication of the bullet flight path as they were three different sizes and were placed at three different locations on the display. They actually showed the drop of the bullets so the pilot could judge where to aim when flying. There was a second mode available the allowed the RADAR or even IR scan to be displayed on that scope and the combining glass so the pilot could see where to "Fly the dot" so to speak. Now it sounds real complicated but in actual use it was very simple. Keep the RADAR in sweep mode and lock on, then follow the dot and look for the fire signal, OR go to boresight and basically fly manually!
I'll have to go back in memory for more info because I'm sure there are a few little things I've left out.
As for replacing MA-1 units, I'm sure the most all of the units could still interchange between aircraft, but in the last couple of years, the "Gold Plate" mod really demanded that all units stay with one airframe, by serial number for effective record keeping. I also know that the units were taken to mockup and all electronic parts were gone through with an extremely fine look see. If it was out of tolerance - even a bit the component was changed, then that box went back into the same airframe.
Do you remember how many Code 1 flights were accomplished by the aircraft in your squadron?? 40 - 50 was not uncommon!
MArv It is really great that the OLD Ma-1 WEEEEEEEENNNNIE has retained so many memory cells after being around all those radiation generating devices... But , even better, PERHAPS, is his telling us tire kickers about the equipment and how it operated on OUR A/C..... My Six time was on "Zero Time A/C, so I wasn't around when some of this exciting stuff was happening....... In fact after I left Loring in Dec 63, I never saw an operational Six again, and didn't touch one again until I was a guest of Lee and June Nellist at KI Sawyer in 2007. In fact the 94th FIS left Osan AB, Korea 2 weeks before I arrived to be stationed at Suwon in Nov 70. Thanks to all of you career Sixers for your histories that you contribute here. Pats 2 sites probably have the best history of any a/c ever assigned to the USAF.... The Old Sarge
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jan 28, 2014 14:10:02 GMT 9
Ah the boresight switch. Now I get it. Didn't make that connection. Is that when they referred to the pilot having an "iron sight"?
I can't say we had a preponderance of Code I's in the 73-79 time frame. But the gold plate initiative doesn't surprise me because in 78 when we went to Tell each aircraft selected to go was worked exclusively by an assigned MA-1 tech. Each tech was charged to prep his bird and as a result the boxes where more or less "married" to the aircraft because now you had time to take each box or series of boxes to mockup and align them together on the stand. So the steering/tracking loops where all tight as was the IR alignments. In other words every subsystem got checked over whether it was needed or not and anything marginal replaced.
As a result, when they came back from the competition, several aircraft flew Code I for several successive flights. I think the longest one flew something like twice a day for 4 weeks before it had an inflight for MA-1, and then it was a minor Code II.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on May 13, 2014 23:03:07 GMT 9
As an even older MA-1 troop we had lots of other interesting modes. One of the first was with the Data Link System. Originally we had a Frequency Division Data Link (FDDL). It was replaced by the newer Time Division Data Link (TDDL). While going through MA-1 School at Lowry we had to learn both systems since the mods were on-going. Didn't mean a lot to flight line guys, but Mock up guys had to repair both systems for a period of time. Interesting to note also was the scope of system repairs for MA-1 Flight Line. Originally we took care of everything. That included Flight Control Systems electronics and the physical alignment of flight controls. We also did all of Armament Systems including Door Controls and intervelometers. And all generators except the 28 VDC main Gens. All instruments and associated controls and sensors including pitot tube, angle of attack etc. Over the years more and more was given to specialists. First came the Flight Control Specialists. I didn't mind that as rigging flight controls was bit hairy. I worked on a team at McGuire that would do Phase Inspection on all birds coming back from IRAM. Depot maintenance. One of most time consuming was a total bore sight of Aircraft. We had a bore sight board we positioned at 1,000" from setup point of A/C which was just forward of main landing gear. It took longer to set up A/C on jacks and leveled that to do checks and/or alignments. 069 optical Sight, all 4 rails antenna, IR head etc had to be aligned. I don't know what all they did at depot, but most of the physical alignments were basically a one time alignment, but most had to be aligned/realigned upon return. One of the most time saving mods was the self contained IR Nitrogen system. I would say 75-80% of our IR inop write ups was traced to a bad nitrogen load. Crew Chiefs liked to crank up the pressure and get it serviced quickly. But they would freeze the valves and not get a good load. So nitrogen would work good on preflight, but fluid would deplete too fast and no IR in flight. On generator replacements, our electric shop took over generator replacements in mid 1960's. But we always ended up going out and hooking up wires to correct terminals. It got so bad our Chief of maintenance said he didn't want electric shop touching MA-1 power. So we took over gen changes again. Lorin
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on May 14, 2014 5:27:30 GMT 9
Great overview Lorin! How long was tech school for MA-1? Then when you got to your first assignment, how much longer in FTD classes?
Pat P.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on May 14, 2014 7:44:31 GMT 9
MA-1 school was the longest at Lowry Tech center. We had 34 weeks of basic electronics followed by Set School. I was at Lowry for 58 weeks counting Personnel awaiting training space (PATS) and it's KP. That was were we spent our time waiting on Security Clearance to be approved. After arriving at McGuire we had 6 months of 4 hours a day at FTD and then our normal shifts for OJT. I worked swings so did PM FTD. Mids and days did AM Class. I got my 5-level after almost 2 years active duty. I was then eligible for E-4. Most of the Crew Chiefs were already E-4 by that time. MA-1 was zeroed out on promotion lists due to stateside nature of business. I ended up making E-4 under Exceptional Airman Promotion System. That was an AF level promotion for folks in frozen career fields. I had well over 3 years active duty when promoted. I was red-lined 3 cycles in a row at SQ/Division level promotion board. After getting 5 level I got to go to Hughes for tech school on new IR and also the Hydraulic driven magnetron radar mods. I also got to factory school on the yellow barrel test set at AAI in Baltimore MD. I also went to several FTD Classes on new mods when I missed factory school for them. Most MA-1 troops went on to nice careers in electronics/computer systems. So, like me, went career and did all right as well. Lorin
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 5, 2014 22:58:05 GMT 9
Question... What do you call an F-106 without an MA-1 System working correctly?
Answer: A very high speed single person Taxi.
If the AN-ASQ 25 wasn't working it was a 2 seat high speed taxi.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 6, 2014 0:06:34 GMT 9
Question... What do you call an F-106 without an MA-1 System working correctly?
Answer: A very high speed single person Taxi.
If the AN-ASQ 25 wasn't working it was a 2 seat high speed taxi. NOT SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We installed ballast and flew an aerial demonstration on Armed Forces Day...............................................................
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 6, 2014 2:46:37 GMT 9
Sorry...my reference to taxi was not taxi meaning ground movement...but like a fare paying method of transport from one place to another. Lol Lorin
PS...NASA flew two F-106's for years with no MA-1 system. They had uhf, TACAN, ILS and a few other nav aids installed. But not the original MA-1 stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 6, 2014 2:58:35 GMT 9
Sorry...my reference to taxi was not taxi meaning ground movement...but like a fare paying method of transport from one place to another. Lol Lorin
PS...NASA flew two F-106's for years with no MA-1 system. They had uhf, TACAN, ILS and a few other nav aids installed. But not the original MA-1 stuff. I knew that, I just wanted to let a lot of people know that even back when I was teaching Orville how to sew the linen on the wings, we knew that airplanes would be carrying stuff that hadn't been dreamed of yet........... BTW, in 1961 or was it '62, Capt. Palouzzi of the 27th FIS scored a kill at Tyndall with an inoperative MA-1 system.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 6, 2014 10:09:49 GMT 9
The MA-1 was a very complex system and it could survive several malfunctions and still do part of job. It had back up systems. A kill with MA-1 dead would require 28VDC and the optical sight dropped and a Genie launched....And a lot of luck.
If RADAR was out, IR could be used. If computer was inop, Optical Sight method etc. Lorin
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Oct 7, 2014 14:44:40 GMT 9
The MA-1 was a very complex system and it could survive several malfunctions and still do part of job. It had back up systems. A kill with MA-1 dead would require 28VDC and the optical sight dropped and a Genie launched....And a lot of luck.
If RADAR was out, IR could be used. If computer was inop, Optical Sight method etc. Lorin And I've heard that if all that was out, slice the Bear's wing off with the wing of your aircraft. Geez. Glad it never came to any of that.
|
|
|
Post by dude on Mar 11, 2015 5:21:24 GMT 9
During the 911 Commission hearings I believe it was Gen Eberhart who testified that the predecessor to the F-16 alert birds from Andrews could have engage and damaged the hijacked aircraft using its tail hook.
Did any of you MA-1 types get to work with the Range Gate Stealer mod we put in the FDT just before it retired?
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 11, 2015 22:36:10 GMT 9
I din't work on FTD trainer. But the MA-1 system got a mod to counter the range gate stealer at the same time it got the hyd driven Magnatron. That would have been years before leaving service. When we did exercises against the B-52 fleet we had to detune hyd mag to give them better training. MA-1 was only system that could defeat B-52 at will.
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Mar 12, 2015 8:40:52 GMT 9
I din't work on FTD trainer. But the MA-1 system got a mod to counter the range gate stealer at the same time it got the hyd driven Magnatron. That would have been years before leaving service. When we did exercises against the B-52 fleet we had to detune hyd mag to gioutve them better training. MA-1 was only system that could defeat B-52 at will. Seeing I left the Six in 1967, I missed out on the later mods.
However, when the IR was installed, our pilots drove the SAC ECM guys nuts.
They were constantly whining that the 5th FIS was not being fair, because our pilots were sneaking up on the B-52s, using IR, which SACs B-52s were unable to cope with.
Our pilots had lots of good stories about BUFF guys whining at them in the O Club.
Jim Too
|
|
|
Post by dude on Mar 14, 2015 5:22:21 GMT 9
I din't work on FTD trainer. But the MA-1 system got a mod to counter the range gate stealer at the same time it got the hyd driven Magnatron. That would have been years before leaving service. When we did exercises against the B-52 fleet we had to detune hyd mag to give them better training. MA-1 was only system that could defeat B-52 at will.
Right the mod was there, but the FDT didn't have a test for it. With the stealer board, it could test the Manual IF GAIN control on the 080 in practical application. The stealer was designed to go after the 020's AGC circuits. It superimposed an identical but stronger gain pseudo target over the actual target. This caused the 020 to drive the AGC down which switched the radar lock to the pseudo target. The program would then reduce the range rate of the pseudo target which caused a separation of the actual ranges as the pseudo target "walked off" from the real target. With the AGC way down, the real target was effectively invisible on the scope until about ten miles separation was achieved. At that point the program turned the pseudo target off and once the AGC recovered, the real target reappeared miles below where it had been. Manually turning the gain back up on the 080 brought the real target back into view.
|
|