She may have decided to do that on purpose (she may have been mistaken in her purpose, but we don't know that it was carelessness). She controlled the plane well and didn't panic when it sank into ground effect over the water. Any takeoff you can fly away from is a good one.
Whatever her purpose - she was careless. If not careless then inept.
Ya gotta point me to the link concerning her lack of panic experiencing ground effect. Here again, I'm at a loss. Ground effect is fun. It's good. Drag is dramatically decreased and lift - hell, you can go forever. True - you're somewhat lower than treetop.....well, a whole lot lower than treetop.........you know, you can pull up to avoid the waves?
Sorry 'bout the psp reference. That came from experience and reading the report - making an assumption.
For Gary LaPook - yupper: A-1's - 3; Mig 17's - 0 before I rotated back. Then the North Viet Nam pilots got smart ...........
No fixed tail wheel - lotsa air from the prop wash past the rudder. The engine was so powerful, it was possible due to torque, to flip her on the runway. Hard right rudder, some stick. You're right in that we kept the tail on the ground for a good roll. 14,000 lb aircraft carrying 10,000 lbs ordnance, avfuel and me.
Well, lemme get back to some reading.
{and, by the way - for those combat pilots on the board, i just finished
"Migs Over North Vietnam" by Roger Boniface. Written with the perspective of the enemy pilot against American pilots. Boniface went to Viet Nam and interviewed those guys then wrote, on their behalf a somewhat accurate (somewhat bullshit) account of their side. He does not include those 17's downed by our "Spads'.} Good read.