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)

("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

"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.

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

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