Flying the Aussie Super Connie
cow...@ram.net.au
Sandy I anticipate you will get a lot of questions so I am getting in early
with three to start.
I notice that you have quoted the Vmcg as 84 kts and the Vmca3 as 91 kts. This
is different to the B747 Classic where the Ca is less than the Cg. There it
makes sense of course as the aileron can assist in maintaining control in
flight.
Q1 On the connie, presumably the 91 kts is for the CRITICAL ENGINE failure
case and if the props rotate the way I imagine they do, then the number 4
(stb outboard) is the critical engine. Your statement that below 84 kts , the
take off must be rejected but you cannot get airborne below 91 kts with an
engine failure or the aircraft will be uncontrollable begs me to ask what the
procedure is, in that unlikely event of loss of the critical engine after V1
but prior to the Vmca.
Q2
In another area the article states ‘if the speed at the threshold is correct
(usually 100 -150 kts), flaring at the right height ‘
Is there a misprint in speeds. That seems to be a high range for threshold
crossing speed considering the quoted speeds down wind, etc. (maybe you are
stating the full range for the full landing weight range)
Q3 From what you know now what is you opinion on the efforts of a pilot to
revert to the connie with only experience on a big jet compared with the
efforts needed long ago when pilots came onto the connie from a lancastrian,
dc 4 or even the B-17, B-29, Boeing strata -cruiser line.
What about going from the super connie to the b707 as against the reverse as
you have done.
Hope I haven’t put you on a spot mate, see you at Nowra air day on 30th
August. Good luck.
cowboy
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
cow...@ram.net.au
There is an excellent seven page article with great colour pictures in the
June 1998 copy of the English magazine AEROPLANE MONTHLY.
(www.ipc.co.uk/pubs/aeroplan.htm )
Although he is too modest to publicise it himself it has been written by
Captain Sandy Howard, a QANTAS B747 Classic senior check and training
Captain. We all know Sandy as a regular poster on the aus.aviation news
group.
The article describes the main features of his endorsement , circuit training,
engine out and normal approaches and other peculiar features of engine
operation, flying with hydraulic boost on and off and the brute strength
required on some occasions.
Sandy uses his unique dual endorsement to highlight to pilots with heavy jet
ratings the differences in techniques required to accurately fly the two
types. The difficulties operating a big four engine prop verses a big four
engine jet make interesting reading.
For those interested in fact and figures, on boost, BMEP settings, approach
speeds , etc, the article will answer all your questions and then some.
The magazine is available at all good newsagents in the Sydney area and I
thoroughly recommend it.
Posters use the above name for the thread as any broad classification will be
lost in the Deja archive. Witness what comes up when you interrogate the
archive for 707.
Sandy Howard
it via email. However, I do have some answers.
>I notice that you have quoted the Vmcg as 84 kts and the Vmca3 as 91 kts. This is different to the B747 Classic where the
>Ca is less than the Cg. There it makes sense of course as the aileron can assist in maintaining control in flight.
>Q1
> On the connie, presumably the 91 kts is for the CRITICAL ENGINE failure case and if the props rotate the way I imagine
>they do, then the number 4 (stb outboard) is the critical engine.
>Your statement that below 84 kts , the take off must be rejected but you cannot get airborne below 91 kts with an engine
>failure or the aircraft will be uncontrollable begs me to ask what the procedure is in that unlikely event of loss of the
>critical engine after V1 but prior to the Vmca.
A1. Simply, 91kts is the minimum V1, since V1 must always be equal to
or greater than Vmcg. I don't think I quoted a V1 lower than that, and
we mormally use 95kts.
>Q2
>In another area the article states 'if the speed at the threshold is correct (usually 100 -150 kts), flaring at the right
>height ' Is there a misprint in speeds. That seems to be a high range for threshold crossing speed considering the quoted
>speeds down wind, etc. (maybe you are stating the full range for the full landing weight range)
A2. Yes, they transposed the figures; should read 100-105kts [and did
so in the almost identical Australian Aviation article.] Max touchdown
spedd is 140kts!
>Q3
>From what you know now what is you opinion on the efforts of a pilot to revert to the connie with only experience on a
>big jet compared with the efforts needed long ago when pilots came onto the connie from a lancastrian, dc 4 or even the
>B-17, B-29, Boeing strata -cruiser line.
The article covers the jet to Connie. What we forget today is that in
the '40's and '50's, they didn't have simulators. Coverage of
emergencies in those older a/c was done in the machine. Some of the
sequences required near super-human effort [or at least major gym
work] and some near & actual hull losses occurred in training
accidents. Don't forget that as many aircrew were killed training in
WWII as were KIA! We stuck to a training syllabus that covered
manoeuvres which could be safely simulated in the light of modern
airline training practice and risk analysis.
I might somewhat controversially conjecture that there may have been a
post-war culture of only super-humans being able to fly the "top"
beast of the time. They then make if difficult for those coming later
to jump through the hoops. Consider that when these Conniest were
operated by the USAF and USN, they would have had their share of very
young men flying them without the benefit of an exhaustive background
in aviation; simply a properly disciplined training program. The
airlines have learnt their lesson today in conducting what I would
call "balanced" endorsement and training programs; take the time to
teach the students properly, then check their proficiency. It's too
expensive to do otherwise.
>What about going from the super connie to the b707 as against the reverse as you have done.
The big problem here would be the overall speed of the aircraft;
nearly double what they'd been used to. It takes time to adjust, plus
a bit of the "super" factor, and you can see why so many had trouble.
Not unlike the technology leap from round dial to glass cockpit which
has challenged a few.
Cheers
Sandy
Sandy Howard
Sydney Australia
sandyh...@hartingdale.com.au