Hangar Queens?

[Dax]

A roomate of mine way back in the day was on the Roosevelt for sometime and was a die hard Hornet fan and would always bash the Tomcats... go figure... but he once told me about the "Hangar Queen"(s) on cruises. As the story goes, given the maintenance challenges of the 'cats, there would always be at least one or two full airframes stashed away for the exclusive purpose of stripping for parts.

I'm picturing an airframe basically gutted almost to the bone; panels open, missing components, flaps, slats, speed brakes, stripped and missing, fluids dripping all over itself, etc... just an overall general mess of a shell of an aircraft.

My question, is this true or is it just a term for jets that are/were constantly under maintenance (i.e. F-14s)?

[kenlilly106]

I've heard the term "Hangar Queen" to refer to a jet that requires so much maintenance that it spends more time in the hangar than on the flight line or in the air which usually results in it being relegated to 'parts donor' status.

And I think your assesment of what one looks like is correct, it would gradually be stripped of usable parts until there was nothing left to remove, at which point it would be scrapped out.

Ken

[Reddog]

Are there hangar queens on board carriers and at USN/USMC air fields, yes, but not to the extent you describe.

One of the rules the Navy has it that an aircraft has to be flown at least once every 30 days or it must be reported to NAVAIR why (in detail) the aircraft has been “down†for more then 30 days.

Usually what would happen is a plane would go “down†for a part and that part would be projected to be received weeks away, so the aircraft would be placed in the hangar, awaiting the part. In the mean time, if other aircraft went “down†for other parts, the maintenance department would “rob†those parts from the first jet in order to keep rest of the squadrons aircraft flying. Once that original part was received, the aircraft would be made ready for flight and flown before the 30 days where up. If the part was not received in time the squadron can do one of two things, report it or “rob†the part from another aircraft and turn that aircraft into the “parts binâ€.

It’s not the maintainers or squadrons fault, it the supply system and Navy system in general. When you are deployed to some far off ocean with no access to supply lines from land, things take a while to get to you but the rules don’t take that into account.

Every type of aircraft goes through this, the F-18’s did it also.

The worst we did was “rob†a horizontal stab from one jet to another, once, and after that we said heck with it, report the down jet and MAKE the system support us.

Also, even thought most panels are suppose to be interchangeable from one type of aircraft to another of the same type, they generally are not. Since all aircraft flex’s and warps differently, even within the same type, after a while some panels will not work if you take the from one jet to another. Usually radomes, flaps and control surfaces are exempt but panels are usually the one item that you have trouble robbing from one jet to another.

If you see an picture of a jet in a hangar stripped down to near nothing, it usually is not a “hangar queen†but going through a mod (short for modification) or major maintenance to repair some structural issue. When the aircraft is going through mod or major repair the reporting criteria is a little different, you don’t have to report the reason why the aircraft has not flown for more then 30 days in minute detail.

One other issue with wanting to fly a jet before for the 30 day mark, if the aircraft has not been flown within 30 days, it requires a Functional Check Flight Charlie (commonly called a Pro C). On the Pro C all of the aircraft major systems are checked out and if it fails (for just one little tiny issue, like a light bulb burned out) the Pro C has to be repeated until EVERYTHING passes. If the aircraft is down for more then 60 days it requires a Pro A and every system in the aircraft is check out, good luck on having a Pro A pass on the first try, never seen it done.

So as you friend said, yes there are hangar queens but they are not as bad as one would think and they are not reserved to only the oldest airframes, even the younger aircraft go through the same issue.

HTH

Reddog :)

Edited December 16, 2009 by Reddog

[Reddog]

I've heard the term "Hangar Queen" to refer to a jet that requires so much maintenance that it spends more time in the hangar than on the flight line or in the air which usually results in it being relegated to 'parts donor' status.

And I think your assesment of what one looks like is correct, it would gradually be stripped of usable parts until there was nothing left to remove, at which point it would be scrapped out.

Ken

This would apply to the WW II and Korea era, not modern aircraft maintenance procedures.

Reddog :)

[FIGHTS ON]

I'm sure Reddog & others will reply. yeah the term "hangar Queen" is used. Especially on Carriers as the logstical/supply chain isn't as easy as it is for the Air force (if they can be ar**d to come into work from their hotels etc). So once a plane becomes U/S (unservicable) for want of a stores item that isn't readily available, that whole airframe can become a "christmas Tree" for providing spare parts for the rest of the sqn to keep other jets/helos servicable. The 'risk' management then becomes deciding on just how much you are gonna rob from that a/c - the more you take out, the more man hours & work that are going to be required to fix that a/c back into flying condition. Clearly for older a/c maintainance defines painful, whereas Hornets are supposed to be plug-in parts that are designed to be easily swapped.

in an era where budjetry contraints are very tight, it is easier to "hangar Queen" an airframe than to find the money to buy new parts, but the long term consequences of this false economy will come home to roost later.

Great idea for a model - another use for all those open panals / spare engines that Trumpeter seem determined to provide! :)

[Tilt]

During a couple 'tours' at 4 Wing Cold Lake, I've seen a couple Hanger Queen CF-18's. At 1 AMS they usually had 1 or 2 F-18's hanging out in the one side. I can't recall 100%, and wish I would've snapped photos - but the one I saw was missing a few pieces here and there. I think the nose cone was gone, and a couple panels. Likely there were many internal parts gone too. They used this (and others I imagine) for weapons loading qualifications and trials. The day I was there, they had a couple 'newer' weapons techs getting qualified. It was a pretty cool sight. I would imagine Canada has a few more "Hanger Queens" by this stage.

[Nev]

Are there hangar queens on board carriers and at USN/USMC air fields, yes, but not to the extent you describe.

One of the rules the Navy has it that an aircraft has to be flown at least once every 30 days or it must be reported to NAVAIR why (in detail) the aircraft has been “down†for more then 30 days.

There's a great story in Phantom over Vietnam of when this rule was introduced. The resident Hangar Queen was a shell at this point. In the end it flew 1 circuit of Da Nang with flaps welded down, a missing rear canopy and a host of other parts not there. It was then "diagnosed" with a "fault" that was unrepairable in the field, stripped of every useful part and shipped back to the States :)

[FIGHTS ON]

edit ; As predicted, Reddog has indeed replied. I should add that with the Royal Navy (& RAF) I have used & heard the term Hangar Queen used, although reddog is probably right in that the term probably originates from WWii/Korean War timeframe with the USN. As stated above, it seems to be becoming the short term solution to all our Defence funding issues - i reckon they'd be stripping HMS Victory for spares if they could find a use for the cannons/spars.

I remember being on a detachment to Deci ACMI range in Sardinia with 800 Sqn (Sea Harriers) when spare parts were urgently needed. Clearly by the late '90s the RAF had moved onto the newer GR7 (AV-8B) airframes, but as luck would have it, the RAF had donated a gateguard of an old GR3 (nice paint job i seem to remember). Just like raiding the fridge for small nibbles, once you start stealing, you end up going back for more. Anyway I think it was our 3rd night there before the RAF police finally caught on to the fact that this once pristine gate guard was being stripped bare. (that or the over ambitious plan to steal the whole tail plane). :) Who says the Air Force have no humour....

[kenlilly106]

This would apply to the WW II and Korea era, not modern aircraft maintenance procedures.

Reddog :)

Thanks for the correction after your post, appreciate it.

Ken

[Reddog]

edit ; As predicted, Reddog has indeed replied. I should add that with the Royal Navy (& RAF) I have used & heard the term Hangar Queen used, although reddog is probably right in that the term probably originates from WWii/Korean War timeframe with the USN. As stated above, it seems to be becoming the short term solution to all our Defence funding issues - i reckon they'd be stripping HMS Victory for spares if they could find a use for the cannons/spars.

I remember being on a detachment to Deci ACMI range in Sardinia with 800 Sqn (Sea Harriers) when spare parts were urgently needed. Clearly by the late '90s the RAF had moved onto the newer GR7 (AV-8B) airframes, but as luck would have it, the RAF had donated a gateguard of an old GR3 (nice paint job i seem to remember). Just like raiding the fridge for small nibbles, once you start stealing, you end up going back for more. Anyway I think it was our 3rd night there before the RAF police finally caught on to the fact that this once pristine gate guard was being stripped bare. (that or the over ambitious plan to steal the whole tail plane). :) Who says the Air Force have no humour....

Glad to know we (F-14 squadrons) weren't the only one's to "rob" from the "petting zoo". I don't know how many trips we made out to that old F-14A that use to be at NAS Oceana. By the time I left Oceana I think all of it's spoilers and flaps had been swapped out, along with alot of the panels and other little parts. Now you know why they got rid of the old F-14A, it was nothing but a pile of junk parts held together by the paint job and bird droppings. We use to hold our breat everytime someone went to move it for a dog and pony show event.

Reddog :)

[William G]

Wow even in the AF we had Hangar Queens and Cann Birds (Cannibalization Birds)

Some parts on the F-16's were a little hard to come by (Fuel Quantity Gauges, Fuel Quantity Control Units,and even Fuel Flow Indicators)

We had the same policy that the bird had to fly within 30 days.

I remember only one aircraft that did not get to fly in 30 days and that was 85-1513 "D-Bus" it was grounded with a bubble on the skin of one wing, and we had to wait for a wing to come to us. I remember that bird in the hangar at Misawa shortly after we accepted it to when I PCS'd to MacDill...

Joe Sambor and the others had a fun time fixing that one, I got lucky and didnt have to stick around.

William G

[Don]

If I remember correctly (I don't have the book in front of me right now), there is a picture in Squadrons USMC Phantoms in Combat of an F-4B laying on the ground without any gear and with virtually every major panel off and the interior gutted of parts to help keep the other Squadron Phantoms in the fight (I believe even the stabilizers, canopies, and nose cone were removed). I always thought that it wold make for a neat diorama using an old F-4B kit that has been junked or something.

Cheers!

Don

[Scott R Wilson]

Wow even in the AF we had Hangar Queens and Cann Birds (Cannibalization Birds)

Some parts on the F-16's were a little hard to come by (Fuel Quantity Gauges, Fuel Quantity Control Units,and even Fuel Flow Indicators)

We had the same policy that the bird had to fly within 30 days.

I remember only one aircraft that did not get to fly in 30 days and that was 85-1513 "D-Bus" it was grounded with a bubble on the skin of one wing, and we had to wait for a wing to come to us. I remember that bird in the hangar at Misawa shortly after we accepted it to when I PCS'd to MacDill...

Joe Sambor and the others had a fun time fixing that one, I got lucky and didnt have to stick around.

William G

During my time in the USAF from 1982-1991 we also had "cann birds" we robbed parts from, but the 30 day limit was also there. An airplane was considered "Hangar Queen" status if it went over 30 days without flying. When a cann bird was approaching 30 days, all of a sudden we'd be robbing parts from other planes to fix the former cann bird to keep it from going Hangar Queen status. Hangar Queen was a BAD THING. We also had to meet FMC (Fully Mission Capable) and PMCS (Partially Mission Capable- Systems) goals, or the higher ups would make our lives miserable. Imagine being put on 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week until the PMCS rate was acceptable, nevermind that all the airplanes that were NMCS (Not Mission Capable-Systems) were for bad engines, and no spare engines to be had... We all just sat around, nothing to do, but our bosses could report to their bosses, "We're doing everything we can to be the PMCS/FMC rate back up, we've got everyone on twelves!" and make themselves look effective. Logic need not enter the picture, it wasn't a requirement.

Scott Wilson

[Trojan Thunder]

We called them '"Christmas Trees" in the RAAF since they had all sorts of presents the supply chain could not provide. I don't recall a time limit on how long a jet could be in that state. We did have one jet (A Mirage twin seater) that was a source of spares for about 6 months and then it was put back togther as it needed the hours put on it. And guess who got a ride in it on its engine air test! :D :D And it flew perfectly too might I say, first time I had been to Mach 1.6 :D

When I was with our VIP SQN we had a hangar queen that we nick named "Christine", she had a mind of her own.

[coairmech88]

During my time in the Navy (1980-84),aircraft robbed of parts that could not be made airworthy in a reasonable amount of time were designated SPINTAC,a NAVAIR acronym for SPecial INTerest AirCraft.

[Reddog]

During my time in the USAF from 1982-1991 we also had "cann birds" we robbed parts from, but the 30 day limit was also there. An airplane was considered "Hangar Queen" status if it went over 30 days without flying. When a cann bird was approaching 30 days, all of a sudden we'd be robbing parts from other planes to fix the former cann bird to keep it from going Hangar Queen status. Hangar Queen was a BAD THING. We also had to meet FMC (Fully Mission Capable) and PMCS (Partially Mission Capable- Systems) goals, or the higher ups would make our lives miserable. Imagine being put on 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week until the PMCS rate was acceptable, nevermind that all the airplanes that were NMCS (Not Mission Capable-Systems) were for bad engines, and no spare engines to be had... We all just sat around, nothing to do, but our bosses could report to their bosses, "We're doing everything we can to be the PMCS/FMC rate back up, we've got everyone on twelves!" and make themselves look effective. Logic need not enter the picture, it wasn't a requirement.

Scott Wilson

We had to do the same thing in the Navy also, 12 on/12 off 7 days a week so the wing would think we where busting our butts trying to get our birds up. In reality, we where sitting around playing cards and doing "busy work", and just waiting for parts.

Reddog

[William G]

We had to do the same thing in the Navy also, 12 on/12 off 7 days a week so the wing would think we where busting our butts trying to get our birds up. In reality, we where sitting around playing cards and doing "busy work", and just waiting for parts.

Reddog ;)

I tell ya, I had enough of those 12 on 12 offs to last me a lifetime.

85-1513 was "Special" as it was almost an impossibility to can the wing from one viper to fix another

but I do remember rumblings from the DCM saying we had to do it.. again cooler heads prevailed.

Sometimes the jets going into Phase Dock were the targets of the can ...

William G

[William G]

I'm picturing an airframe basically gutted almost to the bone; panels open, missing components, flaps, slats, speed brakes, stripped and missing, fluids dripping all over itself, etc... just an overall general mess of a shell of an aircraft.

Getting back to the original question and subject for the thread...

I was actually thinking about doing an F-16A in the same state,

Radome open, radar gone, the panels open and most of the boxes out, as well as parts out of the cockpit.

One stab off with the rudder isa removed and even the bathtub and doughnut removed with the engine out. all this was to have been in 1/48th back in the late 80's but I got sidetracked, and we know how that goes...

Now I may try it If I can get a Tamiya 1/32nd for cheap. hehe

William G

[Scooby]

During a couple 'tours' at 4 Wing Cold Lake, I've seen a couple Hanger Queen CF-18's. At 1 AMS they usually had 1 or 2 F-18's hanging out in the one side. I can't recall 100%, and wish I would've snapped photos - but the one I saw was missing a few pieces here and there. I think the nose cone was gone, and a couple panels. Likely there were many internal parts gone too. They used this (and others I imagine) for weapons loading qualifications and trials. The day I was there, they had a couple 'newer' weapons techs getting qualified. It was a pretty cool sight. I would imagine Canada has a few more "Hanger Queens" by this stage.

Anything in 441's hanger was a Hanger Queen. They needed to borrow from the mighty 416 Squadron to maintain a daily flying schedule. ;)

701 was a pig. So was Triple Pig, 333 (Herc).

[dahut]

I'm picturing an airframe basically gutted almost to the bone; panels open, missing components, flaps, slats, speed brakes, stripped and missing, fluids dripping all over itself, etc... just an overall general mess of a shell of an aircraft.

My question, is this true or is it just a term for jets that are/were constantly under maintenance (i.e. F-14s)?

Don't go that far. I was aboard the USS JFK back in the day, and yes, there were 'Cats in the 'bay that were the subject of 'maintenance efforts'. But stripped to the frame shells, held together with safety wire and dripping their fluids everywhere?

No.

There were always 'hangar queens' below decks, aircraft undergoing repair of some sort. Didn't matter what kind, you could find one or two down there, getting work done. But the NAV didn't strip them to shells and just leave them hulking down there as parts stores. They got fixed, whatever it took - or they got craned off at the next opportunity.

And while I was not in an F-14 outfit, I can say that the stories of the Tomcats inability to hold itself in once piece are greatly exaggerated. There was only one aircraft I feared on the flight deck, and that was the F-14. I clutched onto many a pad-eye, hunkering down as their stinking, hot blast tried to whisk me over the side. Meanwhile, they shouldered their way into the launch queue, oblivious to the little ants behind them.

I'll say it in the face of all the Bug-Lovers out there... the Tomcat was the last of the fleet going bruisers. Sure they guzzled fuel and had only one real purpose - airborne rule. In todays misguided political climate and ever shrinking budgets, that doesnt fly (pardon the pun). The by-word today is "multi-role utility." Compromise, in other words.

But, boys, let me tell you this: there was NO comfort to be had on those inky, black nights at sea, like the comfort of knowing the Tomcat was on CAP overhead.

There will never be another like them. Tomcats forever, baby!

Edited December 17, 2009 by dahut

[ALF18]

As Scooby mentioned, the CF uses the term "Pig" as often as "hangar queen." I remember my father telling me about a dual CF-104 (104666) that they called "triple pig" because it was always broken. And believe it or not, I've actually heard about that Herc Scooby mentioned!

The Canadian supply system is even more parts-poor than the USN on deployment. Our CO on 433 Squadron, shortly after we reopened with the CF-18, decided he would try to prove a point with Supply. He banned any "rob" action, so that even if one jet was down with a missing actuator for the right rudder, and another one was down with a missing actuator for the left rudder, it was forbidden to install one in the other aircraft and make it serviceable. Within a few weeks we went from averaging about 8 to 10 aircraft serviceable (out of our allotment of 12; keeping in mind that 1 or 2 were always in some kind of major 'phase' inspection) to about 4 or 5 serviceable, and getting worse.

After two months of this trial, we convinced the boss that his point had been made, that Supply would never react anyway, and that the only ones hurting were the squadron members. Back to freely robbing parts, and back to far more aircraft serviceable.

Tilt mentioned some aircraft used as Load Trainers in Cold Lake. Those were very likely airframes that have had their Fatigue Life expire, and are now permanently grounded. When that happens, sometimes the tail number will have a "B" added to it. We have two I know of in Bagotville; one is for load training, another is for battle damage repair practice, and the other often sits on the ramp with no apparent purpose in life to the casual observer.

ALF

[Finn]

In terms of Load Training at Cold Lake, we got whatever a/c was available at the time, as long as power could be applied, assorted pylons/launchers were installed, and it sat on in all wheels, it was okay to use. During annual re-certs i loaded a/c that were fully servicable and other times i loaded a/c that were missing engine(s), panels, canopy and even the seat.

Jari

[John B]

Reddog - Cannibalization and "Hangar Queens" were illegal maintenance practices. You'll never find any paperwork that proves I ever did any of that. (It's called "creative maintenance".)

If you have 10 "systems" down for 10 different defects. You could then order parts/ repair components to repair all 10 "systems" and have 10 "systems" down while you waited for parts to show up. It makes it real hard for any unit to be mission-capable.

=OR=

You could make 9 good systems and one really screwed up "system" with a 10 messed up "subsystems". You could order parts/ repair components for all 10 systems as normally would. You could then put "systems" back into full operation as parts show up. The good news is that if the supply system is really behind, it looks like everything is broken. A red flag goes up and the parts get sent to you with a higher priority. The bad news is that if a paper-pusher inspects your maintenance dept, the MO and CO can get fried. I was once told to "do what I had to get things up and let someone else worry about the red tape". If you did do that, you had to make sure no "systems" were down for too long.

I've never admit to resorting to officially-forbidden maintenance practices like "Hangar Queens", "cannibalization"*, "performing maintenance in the field without the proper tools", "secret parts stashes", "swapping with other units", and "purposely declaring anything unrepairable so that I could then scrap it, delivering it to DRMO, and coming back to DRMO to take every single servicable part off the same system I just scrapped"**. That would all be illegal and you'll never find any evidence I did any of that. Remember it's called "creative maintenance". That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

That said, no self-respecting maintainer likes to see any "systems" in his charge down for any amount of time. You busted your butt to get as many fully-operational as possible. You never purposely started out deployment with Hangar Queens. You were also proud if you could end deployment without any Hangar Queens. I found it a point of pride that we could fix all the defects, of course I could be just be the only maintainer who thought that way. I doubt that.

* One could possibly hide "cannibalization" and "Hangar Queens" by making sure all "systems" had components and subsystems installed even if they were all broken and periodically moving the system so that it didn't collect weeds and dirt around the tires. But I don't know anything about that....

**Cargo pockets and high-back Hummers are made to put things into. You know us Marines, our uniforms had plenty of cargo pockets and a bunch of us drove high-back Hummers.

Edited December 17, 2009 by John B

[Scooby]

Tilt mentioned some aircraft used as Load Trainers in Cold Lake. Those were very likely airframes that have had their Fatigue Life expire, and are now permanently grounded. When that happens, sometimes the tail number will have a "B" added to it. We have two I know of in Bagotville; one is for load training, another is for battle damage repair practice, and the other often sits on the ramp with no apparent purpose in life to the casual observer.

ALF

They were FLE jets, but a FLE jet could go back into service. 702 was FLE'd out three times. We stripped it three times and it was put back into service three times. A FLE jet can actually "rest" and regain some flying time. I was astonished when I found this out.

[Tilt]

Anything in 441's hanger was a Hanger Queen. They needed to borrow from the mighty 416 Squadron to maintain a daily flying schedule.

I suppose that's about right. 441 was more of a Man's Man flying Squadron. They rode it hard, and put it away wet. No dilly-dallying like the pink-boys of 416!!

LOL

And yeah, Alf and Jari are right. If I remember right, the one day I was in there, the one was a full on hanger queen (missing many parts), and the other was a bit more complete. I remember Rambo's jet - 188777 - he called it "triple pig" too. Something about triple digits made for a wanky aircraft.