[Milsurplus] Re: why so many similar ELT xmtrs?

[D C Macdonald]

It's been a long time since my B-52 EW days (1963-1966)
but I think the transmitter could be shut off manually.  I
don't believe they could be shut of while the crewmember
was still in his chute on the way down.

I was on the very first B-52 strike back in June 1965.  Two
BUFFs in the lead group collided in mid-air north of the
Philippines on the fringes of a typhoon.  The sound of
many ELTs going off, some belonging to friends, is not
something I ever will hear again, thankfully.  One of the
EW officers lost had been my instructor at Mather AFB.

Mac, K2GKK/5
USAF, Retired



----Original Message Follows----
From: BOEING377 at aol.com
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] Re: why so many similar ELT xmtrs?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:05:55 EDT

In a message dated 9/12/2004 3:31:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net writes:

 > Is there anyone out there who knows the whys and wherefores about the
 > existence of so many similar looking ELT transmitters like the AN/URT-21,
 > 27, 33, 33A, 33C, 33C/M, .......?
 >

I was told that the reason had to do with the design of various ejection 
seat
systems. The ELT had to be part of the chute rig yet automatically deploy
upon ejection and that imposed constraints that made a one size fits all 
solution
impossible. Good news for ELT mfrs. Some scary tales from B 52 crews in Viet
Nam, SAMS coming up and then lots of ELT sigs on 243.0 as crews ejected from
stricken BUFFS. I wonder if combat crews had ways to shut off the autodeploy
feature on ELT so as not to alert the enemy that chutes were coming down?