Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago - Washington Post

"Jim Macklin" wrote
Was that before they restricted the landing flap setting?
How much difference did that make in distance? I was just a
very low time pilot when that was done, understand it was
because the 727 would get way behind the power curve, is
that true?

Any restriction in landing flap setting would have been due to
noise limitations, not performance.

Bob Moore

If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
| Was that before they restricted the landing flap
setting?
| How much difference did that make in distance? I was
just a
| very low time pilot when that was done, understand it
was
| because the 727 would get way behind the power curve, is
| that true?
|
| Any restriction in landing flap setting would have been
due to
| noise limitations, not performance.
|
| Bob Moore

Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another in Lake
Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The high T tail
exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines revised the landing
configurations .

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?

Do you know if part of that was to limit landing flaps to 40
degrees?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"sfb" wrote in message
news:KZknf.21270$qF6.2269@trnddc01...
| Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another
in Lake
| Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The
high T tail
| exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines
revised the landing
| configurations .
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
| If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
| accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
| degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
| recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
| Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
for
| couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
| early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
727
| and any changes in certification re flaps?
|
|
|

No, I don't know the details, but will always remember the accidents as
my boss was on the Cincinnati flight and my parents lost friends in
the Lake Michigan accident.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:nJnnf.28515$QW2.12069@dukeread08...
Do you know if part of that was to limit landing flaps to 40
degrees?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"sfb" wrote in message
news:KZknf.21270$qF6.2269@trnddc01...
| Mid sixties. United dropped one at Salt Lake and another
in Lake
| Michigan coming into O'Hare. America at Cincinnati. The
high T tail
| exacerbated the sink rate so Boeing and the airlines
revised the landing
| configurations .
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:5_jnf.28491$QW2.16430@dukeread08...
| If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
| accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
| degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
| recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
| Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
for
| couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
| early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
727
| and any changes in certification re flaps?
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote

If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?

Go back to your little airplanes Jim. The following article is
from the May-June 1965 issue of the Boeing Airliner. Is that
far enough back for you?

"Flap Angle
One of the factors having the greatest effects
on stall and initial buffet speeds is the angle the
flaps are set at during flight. The 727 flap angles
are given in trailing edge deflections of 0, 2, 5,
15, 25, 30 and 40 degrees. An increase in flap
angle increases the camber of the wing so that
it will produce the same lift at a lower speed than
a smaller flap angle setting would produce. The
effect of flap angle on initial buffet and stall can
be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for flap angles 0,
15, and 40 degrees. The graphs also present the
points where the stick shaker operates and shows
the 7 percent margin required by Civil Air Regulations
for adequate stall warning. In all cases, except at 30
and 40 degree flaps, initial buffet will occur at a
speed higher than the 107 percent stall speed
requirement. However, initial buffet is never less
than 4 percent above stall speed even at 40° flaps.
Since the reference landing speed (Vref) is 130
percent of the stall speed, there is adequate speed
margin for landing."

Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.

Yes, there were a couple of early landing accidents
attributed to excessive sink rates and the fix was to
change the technique that the pilots were using.

Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
and the sink rates that it causes?

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

Do a Google for "Boeing 727 landing flaps" and you will find
several NTSB reports about flap settings and crashes do to
autopilot problems. I do remember there was an article
about the FAA/Boeing restricting flap extension after a
series of landing accidents. Maybe some one remembers, I
think 40 was the reduced setting.

I just have a clear memory of the article in FLYING or Air
Progress.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
|
| If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
| accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
| degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
| recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
| Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation
for
| couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
| early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first
727
| and any changes in certification re flaps?
|
| Go back to your little airplanes Jim. The following
article is
| from the May-June 1965 issue of the Boeing Airliner. Is
that
| far enough back for you?
|
| "Flap Angle
| One of the factors having the greatest effects
| on stall and initial buffet speeds is the angle the
| flaps are set at during flight. The 727 flap angles
| are given in trailing edge deflections of 0, 2, 5,
| 15, 25, 30 and 40 degrees. An increase in flap
| angle increases the camber of the wing so that
| it will produce the same lift at a lower speed than
| a smaller flap angle setting would produce. The
| effect of flap angle on initial buffet and stall can
| be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4 for flap angles 0,
| 15, and 40 degrees. The graphs also present the
| points where the stick shaker operates and shows
| the 7 percent margin required by Civil Air Regulations
| for adequate stall warning. In all cases, except at 30
| and 40 degree flaps, initial buffet will occur at a
| speed higher than the 107 percent stall speed
| requirement. However, initial buffet is never less
| than 4 percent above stall speed even at 40° flaps.
| Since the reference landing speed (Vref) is 130
| percent of the stall speed, there is adequate speed
| margin for landing."
|
| Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
| 1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.
|
| Yes, there were a couple of early landing accidents
| attributed to excessive sink rates and the fix was to
| change the technique that the pilots were using.
|
| Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
| and the sink rates that it causes?
|
| Bob Moore
| ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
| PanAm (retired)

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
Besides flying the line in the -200 series from 1986-
1991, I taught the -100 series back in 1977-78.

After 1991, there was an FAA order to block out the 40 degree flap position
on 727s. It is because of balked landing performance with stuck flaps, not
because of noise limits. The quickest way to comply is to put a bolt behind
the 30 degree setting. Guess what happened to the bolt when we went into
4900' with 2% downslope and obstructed final approach?

Would you like a lesson on the flap/speedbrake interaction
and the sink rates that it causes?

How about roll rates with half speedbrakes?

D.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message

If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?

I never heard of any 727 with 50-60 flaps. [caveat: Ihave no training or
experience in very early models] 40 is the max I've ever heard of, and at
many carriers 30 was the max in normal operations. 40 flaps when relatively
heavy required a fair chunk of power on the final approach. There were
early sink-rate accidents related, as Bob pointed out, to operating
procedures. Procedures were changed, leading into the era where the
stabilized approach is considered standard. As explained to me years ago,
the early 727s were flown by many pilots transitioning from large radial
powered propeller craft, who essentially tried to fly the 727 in similar
ways, trying to take advantage of the 727's clean wing and remarkable
ability to descend. It didn't work I don't really know if this explanation
is accurate, but it sounds plausible. But the approach accidents were
related to sink rate and engine spool-up time. Results would have been
similar at 30 flaps because it was the way the airplane was being flown that
was the problem, not the configuration. The 727 will come down like an
elevator if you ask it nicely.