AA62,

I suspect that Dengue Dude, like me, believes that the ADS arms were designed, specifically, to prevent the extension of the ramp beyond a calculated level, in flight. From a purely aerodynamic point of view, lowering the ramp below that point into the airflow would have a great nose down influence on the aircraft surely ? Perhaps those with "hands on" experience might enlighten us. I hope Gopher 01 can recant his experience, I'm sure it will make good reading. Your #968 sounds like something I too experienced with the "hooligans" in my time, and a Captain more concerned with getting airborne, than configuration. Perhaps, as I was only SLF as an AGE, I have no right to comment, but my little pink bod, was part of that days cargo!

Smudge:ok:

Regards ADS.


For that to operate didn't you have to be airborne (ground checks could be c/o using the ground test switch STBD side in the freight bay), door up & locked & ramp open to make the micro switch on the arms?


if you wern`t attached I am sure you could power into the airflow but like smudge assume that the change in A/C attitude would lead to some puzzled looks at the front end!

Coffman,
welcome back. The RAF snatch system was totally different from the US Fulton Rescue and Recovery System. This was developed during the Vietnam war to pluck downed flyers from the jungle. I watched a display at Lyneham, using a dummy, and it looked horrendous. But if 'charlie' was after you it was by far the better option. There is at least one video on youtube I believe.
Our snatch was cobbled together for Op Corporate to pluck a small bag of mail etc NOT personnel ! We used the high tech method of rope strung between two poles the US used a helium balloon. The SAS used to use helium balloons as markers when we dropped to them in the jungle.
Hope this helps

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m...psf3b5e7c5.jpg

Close up of the 'ADS' arm. I think we are all agreed on the need for them to be connected when opening the ramp and door in flight. Also I do not think any of us can envisage a scenario where there is a need to lower the ramp below the horizontal intentionally in flight. Cock ups are quite another matter but not one of which I have any personal experience !

AA62 ...

Many thanks for the brief on the RAF Post Bag 'snatch' arrangement ... all understood :ok:

Good Evening to all Herc Thread Members ...

Behind the scenes our good friend, Dragartist, has been sending quite a few interesting pics to me and AA62. As he's about to kick-off for a spot of R&R he has asked that we share the pics with you all. Hopefully my image conversions are up to standard ... where AA62 has kindly offered to add a bit more technical content. Mind you, if Drag manages to pack his swimming shorts in time ... he might just pitch up :ok:

Here is the first pic ... which I believe could be described as "dropping a bollock" :ooh:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/...ps618d65fe.jpg

Over to you AA62 ...

Coff.

PS. Mind you ... I thought someone had been on some clandestine mission to capture a Soviet Soyuz Capsule when I first clapped eyes on the pic :}

Ah, the sequential SPAD, dropped a few of these, but only the CSUPS version on to land.:ok:

Did you guys notice the Yank SF aircraft had two external tanks on each wing . . . that must be obscene.

Bordering on 80,000 lb fuel (average fuel flow 5,000 lb/hr) and the bloody thing was being in flight refuelled . . . NO!!!

by the back door,
the SPAD was on the way in as I was on the way out. AS you have dropped several, any pics for use to peruse of that or anything to do with the 'K' ?

Dengue Dude,
a lot of fuel in the 'K' tanker too ! 63000 LBS 'upstairs' and 28000 lbs 'downstairs' and we could refuel too. But we could not top up the fuselage tanks of course. The comparison is unfair as their fuselage could be used for all manner of things whereas on the 'K' tanker...........

DD, Are you sure the additional tanks on the US SF machine are wet. I used to wonder how the TR1 took off with all that fuel in it's "underwing" tanks!

Yep they are wet.

The Iranians (pre-Ayatollah) had some too - definitely wet, but don't think they are the full (sic) 9,000 lb ones, I think they are slightly smaller in volume.

TR1/U2-R -- oh yes, different kettle of fish altogether with mission equipment.

Thanx for putting the photo up Coff. I am cr@p at this sort of thing. I could just about manage to programme PADS and JPADS.


Well spotted By the Back door. Even to note the sequential iteration.


This really was an interesting project with many ground breaking and innovative features both procedurally and technically. Not everything was brilliant and a few issues remained unresolved or less than satisfactory. It gave the opportunity to test a few concepts that spun off into future systems.


Firstly we had a proper Design Authority and CDA in Boscombe Down AED and Irving Air Chute Company. A Chinese wall between the T&E Organisation. The project was a fine example of team working and collaboration. An early CTT and forerunner to the LTPA


I had first seen the platform at CAP Toulouse in 1995. It was supposed to be cheep but turned out not so. The CSUPS was just a spin off and not part of the requirement but enabled us to undertake trials and systems development and most importantly training and currency without the need for a water DZ. One of the early sequential drops onto land was at West Frugh. I admit to jumping out of my skin. The second platform landed, I turned around to say to my colleagues "well that worked" when there was an almighty bang, and then another. I thought the aircraft has gone through the sound barrier or crashed. But it was just the delay of the thunder after the lightening as these flat bottomed wood, foam and fibre glass boards slammed onto the hard concrete.


The platform separated from the Soyuz Capsule after extraction. It came down under the 7ft extractor and was required to sink on ops. All attempts to make it sink failed.


The 7ft extractor became the Mk2. strengthened to resist more drops into salt water that the Mk1 which was close to the limit. A sequential deployment bag was developed and the bomb rack bag redesigned to stow a longer strop (the rationale was to use the 7ft in lieu of the S80 for AGE with a very forward load - Why? No one realy knows other than we had an eye on using this for CDS on the J as an alternative to the retrieval winch.


The requirement was for two loads, Split (separate DZs) or Sequential AML had strengthened the old ULLA ARM but retained the 3 levers but we only had two lengths of Bowden operating cable.


The sequence went thus: Bomb rack activated (not sure if we still had the Safety line to remove or it had already gone by then - another daft legacy carry over from the stone age). Good extractor - pull the lever having removed the safety pin. The first platform is extracted. A static line deploys the main parachute. A second static line pulls a curved pin out of a Kevlar loop to separate the Soyuz Capsule from the board. Attached to the front of the fist platform is the extractor for the second (if it were a sequential) If it was a split a second extractor is loaded in the bomb rack. Pull the second lever to release the load. If we were quick I think they would finish up 300 yds apart.


the advantage over the previous ME system was that the load was fully restrained by Skydel and the ARM without the need for additional chains or any grunting or climbing to shift the load. Two could be dropped without going round again and compromising the DZ location.


The spin offs were in the opportunities to test and develop the Nora Batty Static Lines. The DB34 bag for the SC15, The release for CDS from the J was a development of the Kevlar loop based on a 3 ring release.


Also note the floatation buoys for the Capsule.


Ping pong balls were used to get the SG of the contents about right


All of the components were reusable. Apart from the bungee cord that was an essential element of every AD System.


I never saw the system adapted for the J or A400M but feel certain this was achievable but probably not with the state of the latches and springs on the dash 4a in the state they were. Would probably have needed a bigger extractor to overcome the breakout loads. This would have been too much and would have pulled the table cloth from under the crockery and cutlery. As nearly happened with one of the cradle developments to make the platform sink.

Coff # 986,

Nice post of Dragartists shot. From a techie point of view I would have to guess the aircraft is somewhere near bay 34 ish, with the bund in the background. There's some good stuff coming in now.

Smudge:ok:

dragartist,
thanks for the explanation of the SPAD pic. As I said after my time.
This pic is I think my view of a run in to a DZ when I was on 48. Perhaps Brian the Nav or someone else can identify the place.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps7ee45062.jpg

dragartist,
your mention of the safety line kindles old memories. For those who may not understand it was a nylon cord which ran from forward of the load, through the 'D' rings of the extractor parachute which was suspended from one of the bomb racks above the ramp. This line then returned back to forward of the load. The reason for it was to prevent premature extraction of the load should the extractor leave the bomb rack prematurely .
It was (carefully) removed by the ALM at the two minutes to drop point.
We had a lot of trouble with the bomb racks in the early days, due to lack of spares and very misleading installation instructions. Add to this not every a/c had a full set and you can well imagine the potential for 'gotchers' as they were swopped from frame to frame.
Part of the load installation procedure was a test of the bomb rack with extractor and in the very early days this had to be witnessed and signed for by the Air Eng.
If the ALM got a late two min call or was nervous and rushed then the nylon line could very easily snag. You then had a real problem !

Drag ...

Many thanks for your explanation :ok:

I guess I'll have to wait until you return from your holiday ... but I have a tech question to ask ... I know ... how sad am I ;)

When dropping fuel/liquid how do you inhibit/dampen the momentum of the liquid as the load transitions from the horizontal (on exit) to the vertical in the drop. Would I be right in assuming that the "container/bladder" has some flexibility that could offer some damping ... but even so there must be quite some forces at work in this config :eek:

Best ...

Coff.

PS. More pics from Drag's archive latter ... once we've helped AA62 out with his DZ ID :ok:

AA62
 

Guess what I just found in my collection of old RAF maps?

I still have a complete set of the LL route from Changi to Kangar Kahang DZ and back.


Your photo' shows the coast just north of Mersing - the last turning point before the run-in to KK was the island in the bay just to the right, and away to the left beyond the headland you can just make out the previous turning point, Pulau ( Island ) Sri Buat. If it wasn't so hazy Pulau Tioman would be visible directly behind the ramp. It was somewhere in that area that the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse ( think I've got the names right ) could sometimes be seen.


I've driven down that coast road towards Mersing and Singapore a couple of times on holiday - the last in 2002.When our new house project is over we have promised ourselves a long overdue holiday in Malaysia!

Coff,
It looks like the load on the SPAD system is an APFC (Air Portable Fuel Container ) or a variant thereof. The inherent flexibility in the rubber absorbed the various forces involved in the drop. If it could withstand being dropped by ULLA then it would survive almost anything. The APFC was designed to provide instant fuel stocks in remote locations for a/c, vehicles and in particular helis.
No doubt someone can elaborate.

Brian,
I hoped my question would bring you forth once more ! Thank you for the information. Now where are your pics ?
Last time I went to KL we were staying at our son's place in Singapore. He was out there for over four years with his job. We decided to go to KL for old times sake. Instead of flying we took the train. First class of course ! It was such a great change from flying even if it took 7 hrs.