A question on reversers

Okay, I mainly just lurk here but thought I'd throw my two cents on
this.

When I was flying KC-135's in the '70's we'd air refuel a C-5 every now
and then.

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.

Anyway, it's the only time I've known that thrust reversers were
employed in flight.

Today I'm retired and am flying my Warrior around Montana, and don't
plan on refueling a C-5 any time soon.

--Walt
Bozeman, Montana





John Gaquin wrote:
wrote in message

If you float in above the threshold a fair bit higher than Vref, is it
acceptable technique to chance the reverser to preclude landing too far
down the runway?

It is bad technique to "chance" anything. Jim is right in that if you're
out of position for landing a miss should be your first consideration.

I can't speak for all transports, but I seem to recall on the 727 and 747
there are lockouts that prevent reverse actuation in flight. Not 100% sure
of the physical lockout on the 727, and too lazy right now to look it up.
:-) I do recall that inflight reverser use was possible on at least some
models of the DC8.

In any event, I wouldn't consider use of reverse immediately before landing
a good idea.

Walt wrote:

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.


Wow. And there evidently doesn't appear to be a maximum thrust limit
for deployment of the reversers either

Ramapriya

wrote:
Walt wrote:

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.


Wow. And there evidently doesn't appear to be a maximum thrust limit
for deployment of the reversers either

Ramapriya

This from the ancient memory area of my brain, so all appropriate
cautions should be exercised . . .

I seem to remember that years ago (perhaps a few decades) that I was
reading a Pilot Report in Flying magazine. The author was on final
approach in a Turboprop Commander (690?) and placed his hands on the
throttles with his fingers in position to pull the unlocks that would
have permitted him to pull the throttles back through into reverse.
The manufacturer's rep in the right seat immediately rebuked the author
and cautioned him not to touch the unlocks while airborne. I guess the
manufacturer thought that this would be a really BAD thing.

I miss the days when Flying's pilot reports were many pages long. It
seemed they were written more by test pilots and less by the folks in
marketing. I guess one reason maybe how long the magazines can have
access to the planes. One the editors commented last month, that in
the old days they would have the plane for a week and they would fly
them long distances. I recall some months back, a pilot report on the
Flight Design CT2K, where it seemed that the author declined landing
the plane because of bad crosswinds. A safe decision that I agree
with, but I remember thinking: "Sheesh, didn't they have enough time to
fly to another field or wait for better weather the next day?" Telling
us how a plane behaves in the pattern and during landing strikes me as
a matter of prime interest.

Blue skies to all . . .

John

Walt wrote:
When I was flying KC-135's in the '70's we'd air refuel a C-5 every now
and then.

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.
--Walt
Bozeman, Montana

I find this hard to believe especially given the problem a C-5 recently
had with a thrust reverser becoming unlocked after take-off. Where
would a C-5 be if the bucket were to fail in the deployed position
airborne? Any current C-5 pilots care to confirm or deny the approved
use of thrust reversers airborne?

Kingfish wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:
But I agree, jets require the

squat switch (unless there is a malfunction) to deploy
reverse.


I read recently the C-5 that crashed at Dover, DE had a #2 engine
reverser unstow right after takeoff. The crew attempted the approach
with full flaps instead of partial flaps per the POH and the sink rate
was too high to overcome.


It was an "unlock" indication which is one step before an "unstow". They
shut down the engine in question to prevent an aysmetric deployment.. I
THINK i saw that they had pulled the opposite side engine (#3) back to
idle for some reason (directional control presumably... but I would have
thought the rudder would have enough authority for that..)..

I heard the full flap thing too.. but my version has them retracting
from full to some partial setting, and that the airplane was flying
below the stall speed for that weight and flap setting, and then simple
physics took over.

Dave

150flivver wrote:
Walt wrote:
When I was flying KC-135's in the '70's we'd air refuel a C-5 every now
and then.

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.
--Walt
Bozeman, Montana

I find this hard to believe especially given the problem a C-5 recently
had with a thrust reverser becoming unlocked after take-off. Where
would a C-5 be if the bucket were to fail in the deployed position
airborne? Any current C-5 pilots care to confirm or deny the approved
use of thrust reversers airborne?

Well, being on the KC-135 side of the refueling I can't verify what the
C-5 did on the break-away.

I'd like to hear from a C-5 pilot too. It was supposed to be standard
break-away procedure for a C-5. I'll be more than happy to be corrected
on this.

--Walt

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
Kingfish wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:
But I agree, jets require the

squat switch (unless there is a malfunction) to deploy
reverse.


I read recently the C-5 that crashed at Dover, DE had a #2 engine
reverser unstow right after takeoff. The crew attempted the approach
with full flaps instead of partial flaps per the POH and the sink rate
was too high to overcome.


It was an "unlock" indication which is one step before an "unstow". They
shut down the engine in question to prevent an aysmetric deployment.. I
THINK i saw that they had pulled the opposite side engine (#3) back to
idle for some reason (directional control presumably... but I would have
thought the rudder would have enough authority for that..)..

I heard the full flap thing too.. but my version has them retracting from
full to some partial setting, and that the airplane was flying below the
stall speed for that weight and flap setting, and then simple physics took
over.

Dave

The report also said that after securing the #2, they continued to
operate the #2 thrust lever instead of the #3 which was still operating.
Dead foot, Dead engine.

Al G.