I worked on the E-2C Hawkeye for 4 years in the early 80's with VAW-110 Firebirds. I got to take 2 cat shots in the Hawkeye. I still learned things I never knew before. Thanks Wombat !!!
"Clipper": what a great call sign for a Navy pilot! BTW, I think the decision to bring the E2 down on the carrier ASAP was a good one. If there'd been a hydraulic system leak, as nearly happened, I'm guessing the E2 would quite probably been controllable only for the short time that enough hydraulic fluid remained. Then the loss of or greatly diminished flight control could easily have led to the loss of the crew and the aircraft.
I want to know if he was skiing or snorkelling to get that tan line! 🤣🤣 More seriously, I've always thought that landing was tougher and a bigger responsibility for E-2 and Viking pilots. Bigger planes, less nimble, and more lives on the line. I wonder how much easier he found landing the Hornet?
On the fences around RAF/USAF Mildenhall are signs The signs say something like 'If you stand near this sign for a while the Radar will cook you' Unsure I would feel entirely comfortable sitting where Wombat did with a giant microwave spinning round above my head
Regarding the contratotating propellers. So the Westland Wyvern and Fairy Gannet got it right. The gannt had two gas turbines and would cruise on one to extend it's range. Great video.
'92 12 yrs old Grumman family day at either bethpage or calverton. They had all the aircraft on a line. I was fascinated by the E2. How does that thing fly, was my thought.
I think the only movie that's ever given the E-2 any love is the movie The Final Countdown. They gave it a decent amount of screen time too. I still carry a healthy bit of respect for the E-2 after a certain airpower demo done on my first ship USS Kitty Hawk, we had VAW-115 Liberty Bells and one put on a flight demo, it's uh WAY more agile than you'd think. And I guess just to make sure they drove the point home they did thier take on the "Dale Snodgrass" if I have to elaborate on that you aren't much of a military aviation fan. This ended different however, looked fucking AWESOME to us but pilot got in a decent bit of trouble.
Keeping enough parts on the boat - if you’ve got to have L and R versions of everything engine-wise then you’ve doubled your parts inventory when space on the boat is very very limited.
Benefits to coaxial contra rotating propellers: 1) Greatly reduced net propeller torque per engine. Costs to achieve the single benefit? 1) Additional weight that must be paid by the design's useful load capacity and increased induced drag every moment the aircraft flies. 2) Additional length of the engine-transmission-propeller unit, which would result in increased difficulty in handling an aircraft that is already pushing hard against the allowable size limits for a carrier-based aircraft; i.e., the additional volume would make moving and stowing what is already a big aircraft more of a hassle every time it must be moved on the ship. 3) Accessing the propellers for inspections, firefighting and servicing would be more difficult. Again, more hassle for the operations crew. 4) In terms of initial development of the aircraft, contra rotating propellers and the additional components add significant development costs vs the base "one propeller per engine" design unless a mature, proven combination that was previously developed exists and is in current production. 5) More complex, moving parts means more wear, more opportunities for bad interactions (aka, trouble), more inspections, more maintenance, more troubleshooting and almost certainly lower dispatch and in-flight reliability. 6) Additional spare parts, each of which has a supply chain, are required on shore and on the ship, therefore more inventory to buy, transport and manage. Bottom line: Unnecessary weight and complexity are the enemy, especially in aircraft. The only time complexity is worth paying for is when it's necessary, for example to obtain capabilities that cannot otherwise be produced, such as is given by helicopters or Ospreys. Whenever I look at a Transformer, I see thousands of potential failure modes and servicing requirements. In the case of the C-2/E2, I'm fairly certain the Navy & Grumman decided the juice of coaxial contra rotating, or even opposite-rotating props wasn't worth the squeeze. The only reason Lockheed went to opposite-turning propellers for the P-38 is because flight testing proved it to be completely necessary.
Nice one! . . .but, no drag from the radar? . . .no, it's out there, it's in the the airstream, it produces drag! If not, then Newton's 3rd law is wrong or that is some powerful snake oil it's covered in! 😄
Saw it was Wombat and clicked straight away. Wombat is such a cool dude
Thanks so much for the shout out! I love working with you AND accidently learning a whole lot about these incredible air craft!😄
I worked on the E-2C Hawkeye for 4 years in the early 80's with VAW-110 Firebirds. I got to take 2 cat shots in the Hawkeye. I still learned things I never knew before. Thanks Wombat !!!
Fun fact. The nickname for the E-1 Tracer was ''Willy Fud''!
Great listen. Good to see TR
Glad you enjoyed it
"Clipper": what a great call sign for a Navy pilot! BTW, I think the decision to bring the E2 down on the carrier ASAP was a good one. If there'd been a hydraulic system leak, as nearly happened, I'm guessing the E2 would quite probably been controllable only for the short time that enough hydraulic fluid remained. Then the loss of or greatly diminished flight control could easily have led to the loss of the crew and the aircraft.
WOMBAT your merch is awesome I bought 2 coins and 2 bottle breachers I love them i gave 1 ea. to my 12 yr old grandson he wants more.👍👍
19:10 reminds me of the "old wives tale" that the MiG25 radar would kill rabbits at under a mile.
good job WOMBAT really like to listen to ya, when you getting back on mover & gonky show really miss ya over there.👍👍
Wombat!!!!! Love him!
What a fascinating conversation!! wow....
Great interview! I really liked the Q&A format. Thank you both!
I want to know if he was skiing or snorkelling to get that tan line! 🤣🤣 More seriously, I've always thought that landing was tougher and a bigger responsibility for E-2 and Viking pilots. Bigger planes, less nimble, and more lives on the line. I wonder how much easier he found landing the Hornet?
He obviously got to close to the radar while it was emitting
On the fences around RAF/USAF Mildenhall are signs
The signs say something like 'If you stand near this sign for a while the Radar will cook you'
Unsure I would feel entirely comfortable sitting where Wombat did with a giant microwave spinning round above my head
Regarding the contratotating propellers. So the Westland Wyvern and Fairy Gannet got it right. The gannt had two gas turbines and would cruise on one to extend it's range. Great video.
'92 12 yrs old Grumman family day at either bethpage or calverton. They had all the aircraft on a line. I was fascinated by the E2. How does that thing fly, was my thought.
I think the only movie that's ever given the E-2 any love is the movie The Final Countdown. They gave it a decent amount of screen time too.
I still carry a healthy bit of respect for the E-2 after a certain airpower demo done on my first ship USS Kitty Hawk, we had VAW-115 Liberty Bells and one put on a flight demo, it's uh WAY more agile than you'd think. And I guess just to make sure they drove the point home they did thier take on the "Dale Snodgrass" if I have to elaborate on that you aren't much of a military aviation fan.
This ended different however, looked fucking AWESOME to us but pilot got in a decent bit of trouble.
I actually prefer this interview format, Mike.
Glad you enjoyed it.
What are your thoughts in flight refueling for E-2?
Centerline or bust, that is a tough deal. But if I know Wombat is at the controls, I'll have the whisky and the blanket etc ... :)
I can't not say it now when I see him ...... Hawkeye the Noo!
I wonder why the design wasn’t a counter rotating prop on the same engine?
Keeping enough parts on the boat - if you’ve got to have L and R versions of everything engine-wise then you’ve doubled your parts inventory when space on the boat is very very limited.
Benefits to coaxial contra rotating propellers: 1) Greatly reduced net propeller torque per engine. Costs to achieve the single benefit? 1) Additional weight that must be paid by the design's useful load capacity and increased induced drag every moment the aircraft flies. 2) Additional length of the engine-transmission-propeller unit, which would result in increased difficulty in handling an aircraft that is already pushing hard against the allowable size limits for a carrier-based aircraft; i.e., the additional volume would make moving and stowing what is already a big aircraft more of a hassle every time it must be moved on the ship. 3) Accessing the propellers for inspections, firefighting and servicing would be more difficult. Again, more hassle for the operations crew. 4) In terms of initial development of the aircraft, contra rotating propellers and the additional components add significant development costs vs the base "one propeller per engine" design unless a mature, proven combination that was previously developed exists and is in current production. 5) More complex, moving parts means more wear, more opportunities for bad interactions (aka, trouble), more inspections, more maintenance, more troubleshooting and almost certainly lower dispatch and in-flight reliability. 6) Additional spare parts, each of which has a supply chain, are required on shore and on the ship, therefore more inventory to buy, transport and manage. Bottom line: Unnecessary weight and complexity are the enemy, especially in aircraft. The only time complexity is worth paying for is when it's necessary, for example to obtain capabilities that cannot otherwise be produced, such as is given by helicopters or Ospreys. Whenever I look at a Transformer, I see thousands of potential failure modes and servicing requirements. In the case of the C-2/E2, I'm fairly certain the Navy & Grumman decided the juice of coaxial contra rotating, or even opposite-rotating props wasn't worth the squeeze. The only reason Lockheed went to opposite-turning propellers for the P-38 is because flight testing proved it to be completely necessary.
Wombat, a guy sure, but massive respect man , you almost sound like me ;)
Dome does contribute drag, just not (or little) induced drag.
Wombat!
Nice one! . . .but, no drag from the radar? . . .no, it's out there, it's in the the airstream, it produces drag! If not, then Newton's 3rd law is wrong or that is some powerful snake oil it's covered in! 😄