Picture of the day

Looks like they weren't the only guys to see a need for a half-track fire truck...

cb737300cd4516f0e68b1bdea136667f.jpg
 
ricohman said:
As a mechanic I have wondered about trades and conscription or voluntary service for that matter.
If an aircraft tech joined the armed forces, would they assign him randomly or take his trade into account and put his skills to use after basic training?
It would take an army of mechanics to keep all that machinery running.
Click to expand...

In my ROTC class (1973) a civil engineering major was given a commission in the Finance Corps and a accounting major was given a commission in the Corps of Engineers. So not the army does not take into account you civilian skills. Luckly for these two the Professor of Military Science knew someone at Department of the Army and got things switched.
 
ricohman said:
As a mechanic I have wondered about trades and conscription or voluntary service for that matter.
If an aircraft tech joined the armed forces, would they assign him randomly or take his trade into account and put his skills to use after basic training?
It would take an army of mechanics to keep all that machinery running.
Click to expand...

There is a mobilization trade order. Basically, it takes trades apart and details civil occupations that are comparable to the pat of a military trade when assigning conscripts to mobilization jobs. It was very interesting. For example a survey tech is as likely to end up as an Field Engineer (Survey) or an artillerymen (Survey). When and army expands on mobilization many trades are broken into components based on civil skill sets. Makes it easy to expand quickly.
 
In the swiss army it is like that. I did my apprenticeship working in a warehouse, so the army put me into (artillery) logistics. Same goes for everything else. Mechanics become mechanics in the army as well. On the funny side: many of those who work in an office end up in the infantry since there are not that many desk-related jobs in the army that are done by conscipts.
 
I get looking at this and a few things - the unbent prop, for example - make me wonder if this wasn't an inattentive driver rather than pilot error...

I wish there was more info. Lost to time, I guess.
 
Edit: LOL thinking the same thing!!!

Doesn't say if there was a driver in the Radio Control Truck or not.
Maybe it was moving and the driver wasn't paying attention.
Thinking maybe there was a Instructor AND Student on board the Harvard with both canopies open.
Just a guess.
No damage on leading edge of port wing either. (that's visible in pic)
View attachment 269305
 
Last edited:
woodchopper said:
looks pretty obvious to me

the back of the van is all pranged up too so the prop was running, look at the top of the door frame.

as for damage to the port wing, you only see the tip not the inboard part of the wing so the damage is likely further inboard.

the plane ran into the van.
Click to expand...

Prop tip resting on the bumper is also bent forward......maybe the student pilot had it in for the controller.
 
woodchopper said:
looks pretty obvious to me

the back of the van is all pranged up too so the prop was running, look at the top of the door frame.

as for damage to the port wing, you only see the tip not the inboard part of the wing so the damage is likely further inboard.

the plane ran into the van.
Click to expand...
There’s no way that engine was running when that collision occurred. Both tips would have been curled badly. Seen enough prop accidents to confirm that.
 
Hard to tell exactly what happened. I wish my uncle was still around, he flew that crazy bird. He used to tell me that the only time it was safe from ground loops, was when the wheels were chocked and the prop had stopped turning. Absolutely terrible ground handling, but a lot of fun to fly.
 
However the collision occurred (probably a taxiing accident - student wasn't making his S-turns), the collision occurred at low power as evidenced by the only slightly FUBAR'd prop. Of course the -1340 came to grief at the sudden stoppage when she nosed over. Mind you, back in those days -1340's were a dime a dozen grab another and she's back in service in a few days.

Edited for correct engine type.
 
Last edited:
7ECA said:
However the collision occurred (probably a taxiing accident - student wasn't making his S-turns), the collision occurred at low power as evidenced by the only slightly FUBAR'd prop. Of course the -985 came to grief at the sudden stoppage when she nosed over. Mind you, back in those days -985's were a dime a dozen grab another and she's back in service in a few days.
Click to expand...
You’ve probably got the best explanation so far. If the prop was turning, it couldn’t be a above idle. Canopies being open kinda tells that they were occupied during the incident.
 
remember forward visibility from a any tail dragger is poor, I sat in the BCAM Harvard today to check it out and the aeroplane obviously taxied into the van in the blind spot
 
55recce said:
remember forward visibility from a any tail dragger is poor, I sat in the BCAM Harvard today to check it out and the aeroplane obviously taxied into the van in the blind spot
Click to expand...

I think the worst aircraft for forward visibility is the US F4U Corsair , carrier landing and takeoffs were not for a below average pilot , even on a runway , must have been a challenge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom