|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 2, 2024 2:45:18 GMT 9
No more of the one size fits all approach, We saw that with many weapons in second half of 20th century. The F-111, F-4, C-130 and recently the F-35. Does it make sense? On paper yes, but it's a logistical nightmare. Even the F-106 with it's assortment of Round eye/vertical instruments/A models/B models/Gun or not/ Weapons System mod level.
An example was the Tactical Situation Display (TSD) that sat between pilots legs. They we different between round eye/vert. They went through a series of Updates which changed part number/mods. Way back when at Tyndall we had some MA-1 guys who would "borrow" a part from jet parked next to it. If it fixed problem they would go get it repaired or take one from supply point. If it didn't fix issue they might leave it. That caused a lot of new issues with part they left in. It might not be correct part and cause malfunction when next powered up.
The Tech Orders could never keep up with each airframe. Ou -4/Parts Tech Order was updated almost monthly to try and keep current. When we ordered part we had to first look for part we needed, then look for Model A or B, then at tail number and then mod history. A lot of mods were done at IRAN (Inspect and Repair as Necessary). Those were usually mostly current. But some mods were done locally and those were usually later to get TO updated. So we tried to keep local records on local list to try and prevent Undoing a Mod. Of course I am talking about MA-1 System with it about 250 black boxes for A models and about 30+ extras for B model. Some TCTO's were just taking black box to Mock-up and they would mod on spot. Those seldom changed part number and if lucky they might put sticky paper label to show status.
At Spangdahlem AB GE we had almost every model of F-4 made. We had F-4C, F-4 D, F-4D-LORAN, F-4E and F-4C/G Wild Weasels. We didn't have the Navy/Marine versions
Ever search for number of different C-130 variations there were? Back about 1990 I worked for two years trying to determine Configuration of different models. It was a nightmare. Every airframe was different. Not the moment they left manufacturing plant but as soon as they started flying and maintenance. I remember the _4 parts list was so outdated it was almost useless. We ended up picking 4 different C-130's and trying to validate parts list for just 20 items. You would not have believed the parts list. It was down to serial number for almost every part. We selected the Nav station on e-model and found over 200 combinations based on mods and models.
Why is C-130 so bad? The USAF doesn't own or maintain TO. The C-130 was developed by Lockheed and they own engineering/Tech Data and they just charge USAF/Marines/Navy/Coast Guard for maintaining baseline Tech manuals.
I have concentrated on Logistics of issue. Crew members have same issue. Aircrews have to stay current on what they fly. Each Version has differences and Aircrews have to be STAN/EVAL Certified on each variation. At Tyndall we trained/recertified F-106 Pilots. But they were trained based on what squadron they would be assigned to. They even got Orientation to A and B model of same Instrument configuration. Maintenace also faced same issues.
So as far as using a weapon for different uses it may seem easy, but first off, the airframe using the weapon has to have system to detect/track/ and fire the "New" capability. As example we had many versions of F-4, but only the Wild Weasels (WW) could detect SAM type emissions. To expand capabilities our Wild Weasels would fly with 2 F-4 missile carrying wingmen. When WW id's target they would pass Lat/Long of site to one of wingmen who would launch missile, not to ECM, but location. That extended capability by multiples. The F-4G WW had a APX-38 system to identify Emissions and ID type and exact location.
Anyway. Use weapon as designed. Much better chance of success.
Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 3, 2024 2:29:11 GMT 9
My earliest memories of the F-106 were when I was first assigned to 539th FIS McGuire AFB NJ. This photo was taken by then TSgt Theodore Ted Schmitz. Ted and his wife Viola never had children and often had some of us single MA-1 guys to their house for dinner and cards. Sadly, they both were in failing health and decided to end it together by pistol. RIP. Ted was active on this site years ago. He was friends with both of our old friends Jim the old sarge and pastor Jim. I last saw Ted at Ramstein AB GE at NCO Club. I was TDY from Spangdahlem at the time attending NCO Academy at Kapon Barracks, a nearby Army site. many of our F-106 phots were bt Ted.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 5, 2024 3:33:35 GMT 9
No more of the one size fits all approach... Reminds me of what a fellow FE told me once about the B-1B. (He was a crew chief on them before he became an FE.) He said each of the B-1s were practically handmade. An example he gave me was one could not simply take a panel off one airframe, and expect it to fit on another as the holes drilled for the dzus fasteners were not aligned the same. If one was damaged for whatever reason, sheet metal would have to fab up a new one to fit that specific aircraft. Crazy.
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 5, 2024 3:46:23 GMT 9
Pretty clear photo of 56-0464 with the original, 318th/498th FIS tail flash. No date on this pic, but has some cool highlights in it. Notice the 325th FW insignia in the center of the tail flash. I'm curious about the cord coming from the intake cover and what looks like loops around to the other intake. That's my best guess anyway; just never noticed that in other photos. I zoomed in but cannot read the pilot's name on the canopy rail ("CAPT JAY xxxx?" I don't think it's Capt Huss), and sure would like to know what that marking is just forward of the armament placard. (Hmm?) Also note no IR seeker-head hump. no UHF antenna, and no data link antennas. All important features if one was ever to model this aircraft. (Of course it would be nice if someone came out with decals with that tail flash!)
And finally, check out those F-100 Super Sabres of the Thunderbirds in the background!
56-0464 crashed on 4 August 1964 (when I as almost 5 months old!), and there is a specific page on it under the 318th FIS page in the media/photos section.
Another great photo! Enjoy! Mark O
 |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 7, 2024 3:09:15 GMT 9
In memory of Major William J. Vinopal, 1929-1966. Pray the men, and women searching for him, and his aircraft (58-0798) find him. Mark O
 |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 8, 2024 6:58:26 GMT 9
Here's one I've never seen before. I found this on the DVIDS site for the 95th Fighter Squadron, and was the only F-106 photo in the bunch, but a good one! Check out the maintainer on a crew entry ladder up in the speed brakes of 57-2502! Other tail numbers clearly in the shot are 57-2497, and 57-2496 of the 95th FIS, but check out the five aircraft at the end of the line. Definitely 498th FIS Sixes! Additionally, there is a Piasecki SH-21B "Flying Banana" way off in the background. I have no date, or location on this photo, but seeing there are two F-106 squadrons in the photo, I am guessing it was some kind of exercise, and seeing how flat it looks there I am also going to guess it was at Tyndall. Nice shot! Enjoy! Mark O
 |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 12, 2024 0:50:41 GMT 9
Now here is one that is already on the main F-106 site under "Tail Numbers". The difference is THIS one is in COLOR! I imagine old photos like this may have been copied as black & white for publication, but not sure. Still, it's cool to find the original color versions. 59-0112, and 58-0766 of the 2nd FIS taken 25 July 1971 at Wurtsmith AFB. Enjoy! Mark O
 |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 12, 2024 2:21:03 GMT 9
Mark. I remember back in about 1965 we had 4 jets come back from Inspect and repair as necessary (IRAN) with a test color. They were a very light blue. It was a test to see if color effected detection, in A-A combat. It was weird color and we could tell difference when they were on final approach or doing go-arounds. Pilots said they could lose them easier in days of few clouds, but not on normal days it didn't help or hurt. Then we had a couple come back with Upper surfaces: Non-Specular (light-diffusing) Medium Blue Gray and Undersurfaces: Light Gray. The Navy also tried these colors at Red Flag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 12, 2024 5:54:53 GMT 9
Mark. I remember back in about 1965 we had 4 jets come back from Inspect and repair as necessary (IRAN) with a test color. They were a very light blue. It was a test to see if color effected detection, in A-A combat. It was weird color and we could tell difference when they were on final approach or doing go-arounds. Pilots said they could lose them easier in days of few clouds, but not on normal days it didn't help or hurt. Then we had a couple come back with Upper surfaces: Non-Specular (light-diffusing) Medium Blue Gray and Undersurfaces: Light Gray. The Navy also tried these colors at Red Flag. This is a photo in the book Wings of Fame (Volume 12) that has some extensive coverage of the F-106. It shows 57-2513 while at San Antonio ALC at Kelly in what they called "Air Superiority Blue", but it has no date on the photo. It's not the best picture as I just snapped a pic of the pic with my cell phone, but it is clearly the blue. (Notice the way they painted the external tanks as well! Pretty sharp!) Anyway, they tried the same thing when the F-15 Eagle was first introduced in the early 1970s. I read the same thing you mentioned about it not really helping, nor hurting with regards to the F-15 as well.
Pics of both... Mark O
  |
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Mar 12, 2024 7:29:43 GMT 9
Mark. I remember back in about 1965 we had 4 jets come back from Inspect and repair as necessary (IRAN) with a test color. They were a very light blue. It was a test to see if color effected detection, in A-A combat. It was weird color and we could tell difference when they were on final approach or doing go-arounds. Pilots said they could lose them easier in days of few clouds, but not on normal days it didn't help or hurt. Then we had a couple come back with Upper surfaces: Non-Specular (light-diffusing) Medium Blue Gray and Undersurfaces: Light Gray. The Navy also tried these colors at Red Flag.
S - Secrecy
T - That
E - Enemies
A - Acknowledge
L - Lead to
T - Tactical
H - Hallucinations
Next Gen aircraft are proving that stealth happens better when aerodynamic shapes change, and radar absorbent paint is used.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 12, 2024 11:49:43 GMT 9
I worked for years with a retired Col who was known as Dr Stealth. He was System Program Office (SPO) for stealth technologies. Stealth is a combination of many different technologies. Not just radar signature. It includes Infrared, frequency shifts, sound, wave distortion etc. The special Stealth paint is to cover up poor physical design. It is also very expensive and original stuff was heat sensitive and required air conditioned hangers.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 12, 2024 11:52:44 GMT 9
It is a sharp contrast. Special paint to help is detection and bright paint on tail and other spots. Red/ International orange are just the opposite of low observables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Mar 12, 2024 11:56:13 GMT 9
Mark. I remember back in about 1965 we had 4 jets come back from Inspect and repair as necessary (IRAN) with a test color. They were a very light blue. It was a test to see if color effected detection, in A-A combat. It was weird color and we could tell difference when they were on final approach or doing go-arounds. Pilots said they could lose them easier in days of few clouds, but not on normal days it didn't help or hurt. Then we had a couple come back with Upper surfaces: Non-Specular (light-diffusing) Medium Blue Gray and Undersurfaces: Light Gray. The Navy also tried these colors at Red Flag. This is a photo in the book Wings of Fame (Volume 12) that has some extensive coverage of the F-106. It shows 57-2513 while at San Antonio ALC at Kelly in what they called "Air Superiority Blue", but it has no date on the photo. It's not the best picture as I just snapped a pic of the pic with my cell phone, but it is clearly the blue. (Notice the way they painted the external tanks as well! Pretty sharp!) Anyway, they tried the same thing when the F-15 Eagle was first introduced in the early 1970s. I read the same thing you mentioned about it not really helping, nor hurting with regards to the F-15 as well.
Pics of both... Mark O
Admittedly, my eyes suck, but 2513 just looks like the standard ADC FS16473 Gray to me. Of interest, if memory serves the very first attempt at a stealth aircraft was in WWI, the Germans reskinning a Taube with some kind of sheer or transparent material trying to reduce the visibility of its shadow on the ground. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but then again neither does sending masses of men into machinegun meatgrinders when you could just have a few men wit very strong marksmanship skills and superior rifles headcanoe the MG operators. Side note, explanation for our non-modelers, the Federal Standard color system as cataloged in FS595 has specific meanings. For example basic black, FS17038 is gloss, 27038 semi-gloss and 37038 flat. Taking our standard 16473 ADC Gray: 1 (Gloss) - first digit is luster - 1 gloss, 2 ssemigloss/satin, 3 flat 6 (Gray) - second digit color family (0 brown, 1 red, 2 orange, 3 yellow, 4 green, 5 blue, 6 gray, 7 "catchall" for black/white/purple/metallics) 473 - last three digits identify specific hue, though I forget the scientific details, lower numbers are darker colors federalstandardcolor.comAir Superiority Blue is FS15450; for comparison among the blues 1/2/35042 are Sea Blues (great for depicting an SR-71 at speed; best known for late-WWII to Korea Navy planes), 15044/35044 are Insignia Blue used in national insignia and the unique shade for the Blue Angels is 15050. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 13, 2024 1:04:10 GMT 9
Kind of an interesting find. I was searching for info on Wurtsmith AFB, and came across this photo of the 94th FIS hanger with the huge, squadron insignia, and obviously noticed the sign posted next to it. If you recall that same sign was on posts in the ground while the 94th was in Korea for Operation Red Fox. The 94th relieved the 71st in June, 1969, and stayed until 16 November 1969. They just swapped aircraft with the 71st since both were stationed at Selfridge, and re-marked the tails to the 94th colors. (That's why you see some photos of the 94th aircraft in Korea with no tail art.)
So, I am of the theory that they made the sign in Korea then brought it home because it says, "Worldwide Air Defense" on it, and why would they paint that on a sign when they were at Selfridge? Make sense? Wouldn't you love to have that hanging in your man-cave these days though?!
Enjoy! Mark O
  |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 13, 2024 1:42:26 GMT 9
Mark,
I think what the top photo is, is not hanger, but the SAGE building. Big huge Concrete Intercept Controller Station. We had one next to our 539th FIS at McGuire and I worked on Air Force Portal and all Financial Web Site at SAGE facility at Gunter AFB AL.
Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 13, 2024 2:41:04 GMT 9
Mark, I think what the top photo is, is not hanger, but the SAGE building. Big huge Concrete Intercept Controller Station. We had one next to our 539th FIS at McGuire and I worked on Air Force Portal and all Financial Web Site at SAGE facility at Gunter AFB AL. Lorin Lorin, click on the photo, look at the upper left, and you can see the hanger door open, and a vehicle in the lower left. Helps put the building size in perspective. Definitely not a SAGE building, as they did not have a direction center at Wurtsmith.
BTW, I grew up on the old Larson AFB in Moses Lake, WA, and saw the old SAGE building there almost every day. It is still there, in fact, and is used by a company called Titan. Here's a link that shows some pics of it, and what they do. Also, I had just got stationed at Grand Forks AFB in March of 2003, and in June they started demolishing the old SAGE building there. It was used by the missile wing up until they deactivated in 1998, and sat empty as I recall, so they tore it down. My kids were little at the time, and really liked watching the wrecking ball hit the walls! (I did too!) Not sure if I still have pics of that.
EDIT: I suspect my ex may have any pics I took of the GFAFB SAGE building, but I did find these...
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 13, 2024 3:07:24 GMT 9
Admittedly, my eyes suck, but 2513 just looks like the standard ADC FS16473 Gray to me. It's definitely blue. I took a photo, of a photo in a book, with a cell phone. It's blue. Mark O
 |
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Mar 13, 2024 3:14:58 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 14, 2024 7:29:45 GMT 9
Was poking around, and found this from a Richards-Gebaur AFB base directory. They (base directories) all had some little write-up on the units stationed at the base, and this is the one on the 71st FIS. If you notice, they reversed the photo of Lt. Col. Stanley. (  !) BTW, he was the commander of the 71st when they deployed to Korea, and on the main page under the Korean deployment there is a good story from him. Here is a web page with another bio of Col. Stanley as well.
Col. Stanley passed away January 20, 2006.
You really can't identify the tail numbers of the Sixes in the photo, but you can see that they are carrying the original, external tanks, so the photo was obviously taken before the summer of 1967. Most likely just a picture they had already, but who knows.
Enjoy! Mark O
 |
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator 
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445 
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Mar 14, 2024 9:50:22 GMT 9
|
|
!) BTW, he was the commander of the 71st when they deployed to Korea, and on the main page under the Korean deployment there is a good story from him. Here is a web page with another bio of Col. Stanley as well.
