Strange placement of aircraft on deck of 'INTREPID'

Dave Downs · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:51 am

I've just started a book on the history of the INTREPID, and one of the photographs really caught my eye. It shows the INTREPID with the deck configured for flight ops; in the port side about 1/4 of the way from the bow is what appears to be a Hellcat with the tail of the plane seemingly hanging in space over the side. The main gear is on the deck by about 3 feet - what/how is supporting the tail?

I found the same picture on the web - go here:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/11.htm

Look at picture NS021125

NEVER MIND.....If I had read the caption with the photo I would have known that it was sitting on a outrigger.....

:oops:

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2636

There's a metal channel that sticks out over the edge of the deck. The tail wheel would be rolled into it.
They have several pictures of this type of installation in the National Archives photo collection, I've just never scanned them.

Regards,
Mike

Seafury1 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:35 pm

From an email I received;

"While this may look like a gag shot, it is actually a "transport of a transport" necessity. The B-52 was in Beirut, Lebanon undergoing routine fuel tank cleaning. Workmen accidentally damaged the bladder system and had to install the bladders from smaller c-130s temporarily. The plane was flown to nearby McCollough air base where it was lifted upon a barge bound for Tyre on the Mediterranean. Once there it was off-loaded onto the carrier deck for transport to Crete where the appropriate tank bladders were installed. It was then flown back to Beirut. Military cooperation in action."

richkolasa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:16 pm

I'm not buying that photo as real. Not that it's not possible, but I can't see the Navy allowing a carrier to be rendered useless as no air ops seem possible. Why wouldn't they just fly the new fuel bladders to Beirut or Tyre?

Rich

cozmo · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:26 pm

While the photo looks cool, when were B-52's based in Beirut? Had to have been a long time ago, and were F-18's a part of the fleet then? When was the Nimitz there? How was the plane lifted aboard? And why were the planes stranded on the bow?

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Seafury1 wrote:

From an email I received;

"While this may look like a gag shot, it is actually a "transport of a transport" necessity. The B-52 was in Beirut, Lebanon undergoing routine fuel tank cleaning. Workmen accidentally damaged the bladder system and had to install the bladders from smaller c-130s temporarily. The plane was flown to nearby McCollough air base where it was lifted upon a barge bound for Tyre on the Mediterranean. Once there it was off-loaded onto the carrier deck for transport to Crete where the appropriate tank bladders were installed. It was then flown back to Beirut. Military cooperation in action."

That's obviously a fake! That story is fake on so many levels, that it's not even in the realm of possibility.

Rather than write a long drawn out post on the reasons, this sums it up best:

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/?p=5849

Seafury1 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:47 pm

warbird1 wrote:

Seafury1 wrote:

From an email I received;

"While this may look like a gag shot, it is actually a "transport of a transport" necessity. The B-52 was in Beirut, Lebanon undergoing routine fuel tank cleaning. Workmen accidentally damaged the bladder system and had to install the bladders from smaller c-130s temporarily. The plane was flown to nearby McCollough air base where it was lifted upon a barge bound for Tyre on the Mediterranean. Once there it was off-loaded onto the carrier deck for transport to Crete where the appropriate tank bladders were installed. It was then flown back to Beirut. Military cooperation in action."

That's obviously a fake! That story is fake on so many levels, that it's not even in the realm of possibility.

Rather than write a long drawn out post on the reasons, this sums it up best:

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/?p=5849

I have made no claims, and make no claims. You seem a little offended? I agree with the link you posted. This was sent in an email to me, looks pretty cool though!

SHAEF1944 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:48 pm

Not best quality, but ...

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Seafury1 wrote:

I have made no claims, and make no claims. You seem a little offended. I agree with the link you posted. This was sent in an email to me, looks bitchen though!

No, I'm not offended, and I don't blame you Seafury! I just get upset when the so-called "viral e-mails" try to pass something off as truthful and it's not. Some examples of fake ones the past few years:

1) The Pearl Harbor pictures that were supposedly found undeveloped in a Servicemen's locker. Half of the pictures were from the National Archives.

2) The supposed new "top-secret" Stealth fighter on the desk of an aircraft carrier. This was a movie prop used for the movie, "Stealth".

3) The video of the Red Bull aerobatic plane which sheds it's wing and supposedly lands with one wing. It was all CGI and fake imagery, combined with real imagery.

4) The 9-11 conspiracy pictures (Do I even need to comment?)

5) The TWA 800 conspiracy pictures (Do I even need to comment?)

The list goes on and on. I wish the liars who put out this trash would stop garbaging up my e-mail inbox.

I'm not agry at you Seafury1!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:48 pm

I agree with you warbird, they get old. Now as for the Flight 800 stuff, well, I just think that the NTSB's explanation is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Nathan · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:59 pm

warbird1 wrote:

Seafury1 wrote:

I have made no claims, and make no claims. You seem a little offended. I agree with the link you posted. This was sent in an email to me, looks bitchen though!

No, I'm not offended, and I don't blame you Seafury! I just get upset when the so-called "viral e-mails" try to pass something off as truthful and it's not. Some examples of fake ones the past few years:

1) The Pearl Harbor pictures that were supposedly found undeveloped in a Servicemen's locker. Half of the pictures were from the National Archives.

2) The supposed new "top-secret" Stealth fighter on the desk of an aircraft carrier. This was a movie prop used for the movie, "Stealth".

3) The video of the Red Bull aerobatic plane which sheds it's wing and supposedly lands with one wing. It was all CGI and fake imagery, combined with real imagery.

4) The 9-11 conspiracy pictures (Do I even need to comment?)

5) The TWA 800 conspiracy pictures (Do I even need to comment?)

The list goes on and on. I wish the liars who put out this trash would stop garbaging up my e-mail inbox.

I'm not agry at you Seafury1!

Yeah...some a$$holes trying to pass off this crap. Sadly some people buy it!

I still come across those "Pearl Harbor photos found in a brown camera" crap every so often. :roll:

And that thing has been out for like 4 years now! JEEEZZUUSSE!:?

Seafury1 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:22 pm

Don't spend to much time on stuff like this, you might have a heart attack or something. If people cant tell the difference, then that's there deal. Besides some of this photoshop stuff is pretty creative.

Nathan · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:37 pm

Seafury1 wrote:

Don't spend to much time on stuff like this, you might have a heart attack or something. If people cant tell the difference, then that's there deal. Besides some of this photoshop stuff is pretty creative.

Hi seafury...hope you did not take my post the wrong way. It wasn't against you.

I spent a good amount of time researching and studying about Pearl Harbor then when I saw false info being passed around the net it upset me. I guess thats why it bothers me. I want people to learn facts. :wink:

-Nate

cozmo · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:49 pm

Still, its a neat picture.

Though I prefer real one's. Like the C-130 on the America (I think), and the U-2 on a deck as well.

richkolasa · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:58 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

I agree with you warbird, they get old. Now as for the Flight 800 stuff, well, I just think that the NTSB's explanation is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Well, at least they pulled back their original one where they said one of the stewardesses dropped a bic lighter into the garbage chute and it "went down the wrong pipe" into the fuel tank.

Rich

Warbird Information Exchange

Strange placement of aircraft on deck of 'INTREPID'

Who is online