|
holocaust bloopers posted:lol engine jettison. It's not like a C-5 crew would know what to do with a good engine anyway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY Since we're talking about FRED I think it's obligatory to also post this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUx5wTV4XVk
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Kilonum posted:Here, have a helicopter landing in the loading dock of the Boston Convention Center as part of a conference for critical care nurses That is an unusually steep landing, especially for an EC-135. There is a phenomenon called "settling with power", where the rotor downdraft literally washes the air out from under the helicopter when conditions are right. The BMF guys and gals are super experienced, but that was riskier than probably necessary. Then again, my daily ride is a BK-117 which has enough power to probably move the parking garage out of the way if necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's not like a C-5 crew would know what to do with a good engine anyway The sheer amount of failure on display here is staggering. I'm not remotely a pilot, but when you are on approach and near to the ground, isn't retracting the flaps the last thing you'd want to do?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Would anyone be interested in, like, a huge photobomb of stuff from my work? We have an EC-135, a couple of BKs, some old BO 105's that are on their way out to pasture, as well as our Rockwell Commander turboprop and Citation for the long-distance stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The sheer amount of failure on display here is staggering. Well I don't think the flaps are as much of a concern when you've got one of your three good engines at flight idle. FRED doesn't fly well on two engines, and it doesn't fly at all fully loaded on two engines. e: They were still a little ways out from the runway...someone with more knowledge of heavies and/or access to a C-5 -1 can correct me if I'm wrong but when you are flying an engine out approach (or two in this case  ) you generally want to keep speed up and drag to a minimum, which means minimum/no flaps setting until a landing is assured and you can slow for touchdown.The last thing you want to do is be at full flaps while still over a mile from the runway, which is what these bozos were doing. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Uhm I've been drinking and have been rapidly brain dumping poo poo to make room for civilian stuff but flying a two engine approach is uh...I forget. Maybe tomorrow I can dig through my TOs and find out what Boeing says to do with the AWACS. Yea, I kept my TOs. You're goddamn right I would.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
D C posted:The northern airlines still use them, like First Air, Canadian North, and Air North, but holy poo poo they are loud, like cover your ears when they taxi by loud. Probably not as loud as the TU-114 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-114
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Would anyone be interested in, like, a huge photobomb of stuff from my work? Photobombs are a proud tradition of this thread. Please post.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Well I don't think the flaps are as much of a concern when you've got one of your three good engines at flight idle. FRED doesn't fly well on two engines, and it doesn't fly at all fully loaded on two engines. from the 1:45 mark posted:A) What are you saying? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
"Guys I'm concerned" is the line that will always stick with me from that video.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:"Guys I'm concerned" is the line that will always stick with me from that video. I didn't watch it until your post. The fuckupness in that is incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
That has got to be the most hosed up and government-sounding alarm I've ever heard. Health and safety. Health and safety. Health and safety.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:That has got to be the most hosed up and government-sounding alarm I've ever heard. Haha I was trying to hear what you were hearing... It's "don't sink, don't sink", but it does sound a bit like that in the recording. I read that writeup that accompanied the video, admittedly I don't know what the engines are like on the c5, or what military procedure is, but surely you wouldn't shut an engine down as a precaution for a thrust reverser not locked message? It just means one of the locks didn't engage fully, it doesn't mean you're going to get a spontaneous deployment.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
Why don't we put a camera on the exterior like an A380 (the one I rode on had one on the tail and you could watch it in the seat screen) and use it to check for damage in emergency situations? Too much possibility for a distraction? The picture posted of the missing engine reminded me of that one plane that lost an engine after takeoff and took out the slats. I wonder if they'd be able to save it if they knew that was the case?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
An Airbus A319 has just had to pull an emergency landing at Heathrow after an engine fire http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22652718 Looks like there's some pretty bad damage to that engine. Possible bird strike?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:"Guys I'm concerned" is the line that will always stick with me from that video. I believe that is an exact line from some CRM training programs. It is a statement more conducive and open to discussion than "we are loving up"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I believe that is an exact line from some CRM training programs. It is a statement more conducive and open to discussion than "we are loving up" Honestly it almost sounds like Kerbal Space Program dialog between the Kermas 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate How do you not pay attention to or care enough about your airspeed. Out of all the things you should be paying attention to, it's like oh... I dunno, in the top 2. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I read that writeup that accompanied the video, admittedly I don't know what the engines are like on the c5, or what military procedure is, but surely you wouldn't shut an engine down as a precaution for a thrust reverser not locked message? It just means one of the locks didn't engage fully, it doesn't mean you're going to get a spontaneous deployment. True, and most reversers have multiple "lines of defense" that keep the reverser from inadvertently deploying. Any of them not properly working generally triggers a warning. Having said that, an inadvertent deployment will ruin your day. It's no joke. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 The C-5 can deploy reversers in-flight for emergency tanker breakaway, but that's something that happens symmetrically across the wing positions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Vitamins posted:An Airbus A319 has just had to pull an emergency landing at Heathrow after an engine fire If it's a cfm56, my money is on improperly secured cowl latches. I can't see a bird strike tearing the cowls off like that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Understeer posted:True, and most reversers have multiple "lines of defense" that keep the reverser from inadvertently deploying. Any of them not properly working generally triggers a warning. Having said that, an inadvertent deployment will ruin your day. It's no joke. If they can be deployed in flight, even if only in an emergency manoeuvre, that would make sense. The way the locks are designed on airliners is such that once stowed, the reverser cannot physically open even with an unlocked message, specifically as a result of the lauda air incident. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:If they can be deployed in flight, even if only in an emergency manoeuvre, that would make sense. There are some older photos on airliners.net of Ilyushin Il-62s opening the reversers before touchdown as I guess some kind of speed-brake feature. No idea if that was standard operating procedure or not though. First example I found. Not my photo of course.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The sheer amount of failure on display here is staggering. One of the most brilliant feats of airmanship I can recall relates to this actually... when BA038 suddenly lost thrust on both engines on what was a normal approach, the captain had the presence of mind to roll the flaps back slightly from 30 (full) to 25. IIRC, it was calculated that this simple action reduced drag sufficiently to bring the 777 over the fence, as well as the busy Heathrow perimeter road. In simpler terms, he probably saved a couple of lives simply by moving a modestly sized lever only by about about 2 inches. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Anything beyond roughly ~50% flaps is mostly drag on large aircraft, which is why I'm surprised to see the flaps at 90% when they already had an engine out. I would be surprised if this was part of the procedure on the C-5, most airliners call for much less flap and slightly higher speeds with and engine out. The 737 calls for flaps 15 OEI, where a normal approach will be 30 or 40. The AIB report specifically identified improper flap setting as one of the three main causal factors to the mishap: quote:While maneuvering under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), east of Dover AFB, mishap pilot one (MP1 ) selected 40% flaps and reduced the three remaining engines to idle. MP1 then put the landing gear down and attained full flaps (100% extended) approaching 500 ft above ground level (AGL ) at approximately 3.5 miles from the approach end of the runway. During the approach and landing, MP1 continued to move the number two throttle (shutdown engine), in concert with operating engines one and four, while leaving the number three throttle (fully operational engine ) back in idle. MP1 mistakenly used the number two throttle (shutdown engine) instead of the number three throttle (operational engine) for the remainder of the flight. Approximately 1 mile from runway 32, at 150 ft AGL and 127 knots (approach speed should have been 146 knots, with a minimum control air speed [VMCA] of 133 knots), the flight engineers recommended, and pilots selected, 40% flaps, and the aircraft stalled . At this aircraft weight (735,000 lbs), flap configuration (100%), altitude (150 ft), distance to the runway (1 mile), and airspeed (127 knots), the mishap aircraft (MA) would have stalled and crashed short of the landing runway, even without the movement of the flaps from the 100 to 40% setting. So basically the improper flap setting compounded an already hosed up situation with the wrong engine issue by slowing them well past VMCA while they were still a mile+ from the runway...which is not conducive to remaining in the air.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:There are some older photos on airliners.net of Ilyushin Il-62s opening the reversers before touchdown as I guess some kind of speed-brake feature. No idea if that was standard operating procedure or not though. Perfectly fine for those Ilyushins and a handful of others from the era. I think the DC-8 could do it as well. Reverse thrust on a low bypass turbofan with bucket reversers, especially in an aft-mount config, isn't that big of a deal aerodynamically. Still, crazy Russians.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Just seen some footage on the news of the BA 319 being towed away, looks like V2500 engines. I'm not familiar with those and whether or not they have the same problem with cowl latches that the CFM56 does.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Aluminum Overcast is at the Museum of Flight today through Memorial Day weekend. They also got authorization to fly over Safeco Field during a Mariner's game tonight. I can't find anything mentioning it on MoF's website, but I'm assuming they'll be charging several hundred for rides. gently caress me I wish I wasn't so poor 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
One of our JSTARS ate a Turkey Vulture for the weekend. Fun, came back on the other three engines just fine though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Perfectly fine for those Ilyushins and a handful of others from the era. I think the DC-8 could do it as well. Reverse thrust on a low bypass turbofan with bucket reversers, especially in an aft-mount config, isn't that big of a deal aerodynamically. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the IL-62 only have thrust reversers on the inboard engines? Idle the inboards, approach on the outboards and switch throttle positions on wheel contact.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One of our JSTARS ate a Turkey Vulture for the weekend. Fun, came back on the other three engines just fine though. Engine strikes are a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives. Also:  SUBMIT, PUNY HUMAN CONTRAPTION. I know its a Mercury, and not a JSTARS. Sue me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the IL-62 only have thrust reversers on the inboard engines? Idle the inboards, approach on the outboards and switch throttle positions on wheel contact. My understanding is that all the engines would be at a fairly high power setting, with the inboards running in reverse on final. Old jet engines have a very long spool-up time from idle (or even a setting that allows a stabilised approach) to takeoff power, so it is advantageous to run the engines at the highest possible power setting; running two in reverse means you can run all four (in the case of the IL-62) that much higher. That sort of thing was pretty common in early jet aircraft; flight-deployable reversers can be seen on many types. Another method that was used in the B-47 was a two-stage drag parachute; a small chute would be deployed on approach, which would be jettisoned in the event of a missed approach or on landing, where a much larger chute would be used for braking.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
MrChips posted:My understanding is that all the engines would be at a fairly high power setting, with the inboards running in reverse on final. Old jet engines have a very long spool-up time from idle (or even a setting that allows a stabilised approach) to takeoff power, so it is advantageous to run the engines at the highest possible power setting; running two in reverse means you can run all four (in the case of the IL-62) that much higher. Early production DC-8s had pop-out speed brakes on the aft lower fuselage, like the worlds biggest fighter jet. They were rather ineffective, and Douglas ended up deleting them, and recommending that any aircraft already delivered with them have them deactivated. Douglas then fitted thrust reversers, with the #2 and 3 engine reversers being useable in the air. DC-8s lack flight spoilers, which leads to all this silliness. (It does have ground spoilers that only activate when there is weight-on-wheels.) Arrow Air used to have a DC-8 that still had the speedbrakes, albeit wired down. They look for all the world like the anal fins on a fish.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One of our JSTARS ate a Turkey Vulture for the weekend. Fun, came back on the other three engines just fine though. Give it a few years, 3-engine landings will be as common as not.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
707's are beautiful. That's all I got.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:707's are beautiful. That's all I got. Every early jetliner is great to look at. I'm partial to the Convair 880 though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Every early jetliner is great to look at. I'm partial to the Convair 880 though. If the 707 is Scarlett Johansson, the 880 is Sasha Grey.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:If the 707 is Scarlett Johansson, the 880 is Sasha Grey. My favorite despite its early issues http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DH106_Comet
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:My favorite despite its early issues I went too far initially, but I think the Comet might be Gianna Michaels.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
It's actually Lindsey Lohan.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:If the 707 is Scarlett Johansson, the 880 is Sasha Grey. What on earth does that make the 990 and its backwards turbofans? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:31
|
|