If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me that thinks this was stupid
Many years ago when I was working a field in Maryland as a CFI, I'd
sometimes come back to the field late at night during the summer months and just walk the runway all alone sometimes. It was a great time to think; complete solitude and silence. It was also a great way to check the runway for anything loose that might cause a safety problem in the morning. Dudley Henriques "Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Dudley Henriques" wrote) I remember one that started with "What's the concrete mix ratio for concrete runways please?" and finished about 80 posts later with "Picking a good CFI is the first decision you make as a pilot that has to be right" I attended the "Open House" for Runway 17/35 at MSP two years ago. We got to walk out on the runway, see some jets (up close), look at lots of big airport equipment, visit 20(?) different contractor tent-booths, listen to a band, ...the usual stuff. g They had a cut-a-way model section of the new runway - no rebar. Project manager said that they don't use rebar when building new runways - at least not in Minnesota, I guess. http://www.mspairport.com/msp/expans...way_17_35.aspx The Mall of America is at the top of the pic @ 12:30 That's the Minnesota River, behind the MoA. It connects up with the Mississippi River, downstream, another two miles. Montblack MoA is the former site of Metropolitan Stadium (Twins, Vikings) and Met Center (MN North Stars) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me that thinks this was stupid
("Richard Riley" wrote)
Right author, wrong book. "The High and the Mighty." But in the book (and movie, IIRC) they're in a DC-4, and it's based on a true story. BTW ....add the ")" after (film), when using the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hig...e_Mighty_(film) (From Wiki... ) The aircraft (N4726V) The DC-4 aircraft used to film the tarmac, passenger boarding (Gate 4), take-off and external daylight flying sequences was a C-54A-10-DC (c/n 10315) built in 1942 at Long Beach, California by the Douglas Aircraft Company under military contract for the USAAF (s/n 42-72210). When its sequences for the film were shot in mid November 1953 the aircraft (N4726V, formerly N66694 and LV-ABR) was being operated by Transocean Airlines (1946-62), an Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier and the largest civil aviation operator of recycled C-54 aircraft during the 1950s. Novel and screenplay author Ernest K. Gann had written the original book when he was flying C-54s for Transocean over the Hawaii-California routes. Named The Argentine Queen, the plane had once been the personal aircraft of Juan Perón (the controversial three-time President of Argentina) before it was acquired by Transocean in 1953. The film's fictional airline's name (TOPAC) was integrated with Transocean's red, white, and yellow color scheme for filming. A second Transocean C-54/DC-4 (equipped with a large double door to accommodate the loading of freight on pallets) was used to film the scenes of the damaged plane on the ground at the end of the film, while the external night and damaged "in-flight" sequences were filmed in a studio using a large miniature. Scenes inside the passenger cabin and on the flight deck were filmed on sets built on a sound stage. True life end of N4726V At 8:47 PM (HST) on March 27, 1964 N4726V took off on a charter flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles with a crew of three and six passengers onboard. A little before 6AM (PST), about eight hours into the anticipated 11 hour, 40 minute flight, a Mayday call was heard from the pilot, who reported his position as about 700 miles west of San Francisco with a serious fire in engine #2 (left inboard) adding, "...we may have to put it in" (ditching the aircraft in the ocean might be necessary). No further transmissions were heard from the plane. The Coast Guard searched for five days but no traces of the aircraft or its occupants were ever found. Later investigation showed that engine #2 had a recurring oil leak in its propeller governor assembly, but the fire's cause remained unknown. Many writers have commented on the ironic similarities between the plane's role in the film and its tragic end over the Pacific. Montblack |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me that thinks this was stupid
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
"Blanche" wrote: Can you have "ground effect" over water? There's a great story about the crew of a Pan Am Stratocruiser I think it was, who were low on fuel and a long way out over the ocean. They let down to within a wingspan's distance over the water, leaned it back a ton, played with the RPM, and made it home. Can't remember the source of the story, but I do remember reading it a long time ago. You're probably thinking of the MATS C97, which was flying between Travis and Hickam (Hawaii) in 1957 when it had prop troubles. The Stratocruiser was the commercial version of the C97, which in turn was a derivative of the B-29. Both designs had problems with their 28 cylinder radials resulting in a number of accidents or incidents. Propeller overspeeds and blade failures were far too common. There was a problem with the pitch control on the props, such that when they ran out of oil, they moved to fine pitch, and couldn't be feathered. The prop would then spin wildly because of windmilling, and eventually either disintegrate or fly off due to lack of lubrication of the hub. Among the first accidents was the loss of a PanAm Stratocruiser in the Brazilian jungle in 1952, where the accident investigators had to use a PBY to land on a nearby lake, then build a temporary runway to bring in heavier construction equipment, and finally build a 25 mile road into unexplored jungle to look for clues at the accident site. They determined that the #2 engine somehow tore away from the wing, and the aircraft then failed structurally. They couldn't identify the reason for the engine failure. Another notable incident involved another PanAm Statocruiser that was just past the midpoint of a flight between Hawaii and the mainland, when the #4 prop went overspeed. The pilot determined that with the extra drag of the windmilling prop, they couldn't make the mainland, so they circled over a Coast Guard ship that was stationed mid-ocean for weather updates and for SAR, if needed. The aircraft eventually was ditched, and there are photos of the ditching floating around. Everybody, both passengers and crew, survived the ditching and were rescued. There were perhaps an additional half dozen incidents with C97s or Statocruisers where they mysteriously went missing mid-ocean, or had a prop go overspeed, and were able to land safely, so the problems were pretty well known by crews. Getting to the MATS incident, the short version of the story is that the #1 engine's prop went overspeed over the Pacific while they were still over 1,000nm from their destination. They calculated they had enough fuel for only 6 hours of flight, but were still 6:30 from Hickam. They were also losing altitude due to the extra drag of the unfeathered prop. The crew decided to shut down the #2 engine, and feather its prop, and they banked the aircraft 40 degrees to the right, as they knew the prop from the #1 would eventually fly off, and they wanted to reduce the chance of major damage. When the #1 prop flew off a few minutes later, it took three feet off one of the blades of the #2 engine prop, and dented the top of the nacelle, the top of the fuselage, and the vertical stabilizer, without causing any other major damage. They then jettisoned all baggage and freight, and eventually descended close to the surface of the ocean, where they were able to maintain altitude, the speed increased slightly, and they were able to retard the power of the two remaining engines somewhat. All probably a benefit of ground effect. Two pilots had to handle the controls, since even with full right trim, they had to brace themselves in their seats, with both feet on the right rudder pedals to hold against the considerable yaw from the two engines at high power on one side. A third pilot would spell the others to share the workload over the many remaining hours. They supposedly flew the rest of the way at between 100 and 125 feet above the water. In the end, as they approached Hilo, they found they couldn't lower the gear on the port side, and had to execute a go-around. They hand cranked the gear down, breaking through the jammed gear doors, and landed safely with 30 minutes of fuel left. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me that thinks this was stupid
On 2007-05-14 08:08:31 -0700, Blanche said:
On 5/14/2007 2:03:24 AM, "Bravo Two Zero" wrote: A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. Can you have "ground effect" over water? Used to be a common fuel saving strategy for long over-water flights. You could on a C-130, for example, kill two engines, descend to ground effect, and increase your range and/or endurance dramatically. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me that thinks this was stupid
On 2007-05-13 23:03:21 -0700, "Bravo Two Zero" said:
A small plane crashed into Lake Pleasant, just outside of Phoenix, at approx 8pm Friday, while the pilot was reportedly talking on his cellphone and flying 10 feet above the water. According to thr FAA, the pilot was talking on a cellphone to a friend in a boat below and asked the friend to shine a flashlight in the air to signal the boat's location. It appears there were two people on board. We don't know the facts, such as whether it was the pilot or the passenger who was talking on the phone, whether both were pilots, or even the actual altitude. What a reporter says he heard from the FAA is at best third hand information. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ unakm | Karl Treier | Aviation Marketplace | 3 | December 17th 04 11:37 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ unakm | Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 11:37 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ unakm | Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP | General Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 11:37 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ unakm | Karl Treier | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 7th 04 07:17 PM |