Use of the brake chute
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of the brake chute
Just a question from a non-mil pilot, have just a "few" hours on large transport a/c.
From some ex mil drivers I heard stories about the use of the brake chute in crosswind conditions, as far as I recall the crosswind limits were severely reduced.
Would some of You like to share a few experiences here?
We there any incidents like RWY excursions or worse caused by this?
Richard
From some ex mil drivers I heard stories about the use of the brake chute in crosswind conditions, as far as I recall the crosswind limits were severely reduced.
Would some of You like to share a few experiences here?
We there any incidents like RWY excursions or worse caused by this?
Richard
DB.
The chute does reduce crosswind limits a bit but I would not say severely.
I will not give actual numbers but for the Hawk the reduction is small. For the Jag I don't recall any difference which may mean I wasn't paying attention or my memory is failing me. Worrying in either case!
BV
The chute does reduce crosswind limits a bit but I would not say severely.
I will not give actual numbers but for the Hawk the reduction is small. For the Jag I don't recall any difference which may mean I wasn't paying attention or my memory is failing me. Worrying in either case!
BV
Could be a little skittish in crosswinds in the F4, but you could easily dump it, or as some wags did, go around in max burner and wait for it to blow off above 200KCAS. Good aid for spin recovery though!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, Jaguar brake chute deployment had no crosswind limits below the normal crosswind limit for a dry/wet runway of 23 knots or flooded runway that was lower, only speed limits for normal and emergency use and conditions of airframe (nose on deck and engines pulled back). 
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 11th Jul 2016 at 21:32.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the F-4, Phantom, the recommended cross wind limit for drag chute deployment was 25 Kt and recommended maximum cross wind limit for the aircraft was 35 Kt.
For a dry runway at sea level standard day, no wind, with a 35,000 lb aircraft (about 2,000 lb fuel on-board) using maximum anti-skid breaking the landing distance (by the book) was 3,000 ft. with a drag chute and 4,000 ft. without the drag chute.
As has been pointed out with a less than dry runway the landing distances and the effect of cross wind on the drag chute were much greater.
For a dry runway at sea level standard day, no wind, with a 35,000 lb aircraft (about 2,000 lb fuel on-board) using maximum anti-skid breaking the landing distance (by the book) was 3,000 ft. with a drag chute and 4,000 ft. without the drag chute.
As has been pointed out with a less than dry runway the landing distances and the effect of cross wind on the drag chute were much greater.
You mentioned larger aircraft. The crosswind limit on the Victor (K1) was 25 kts, and as far as I remember this did not affect the decision to stream the chute. In fact the chute was almost invariably streamed, except sometimes when away from base to save the crew the onerous task of repacking the spare for the next flight (at home the lads on the line did that). Even then all the criteria for not streaming had to be met (runway length, headwind component, etc) and more often than not we streamed, which found us humping the spare chute up a giraffe and jumping up and down on it to persuade it to go into its compartment, which always seemed too small!
Bevo,
I would assume those stopping numbers for the F-4 would be for the original full TE flap config with functional TE BLC. Steady tone touchdown (impact) approx 135-140?
The USAFR & ANG Phantoms quite early had the TE BLC capped and TE flaps limited to about 1/2 travel IIRC for MX relief reasons. Most people flared (not all, some diehards still planted it) them 'normally' from IIRC about 155 if on speed. 4000' for a no chute would be optimistic I think, even at sea level for the modded ones.
Generally 2 reasons to no-chute, unplanned a malfunction, here full anti-skid braking may be necessary....or as TTN says planned to avoid the usually unpleasant task of self installation away from home, although for F-4s, Transient Alert at ubiquitous F-4 bases were of course trustworthy. (Worst drag chute installation was on the F-100 and those days away from home you had to do it yourself)
Runway and conditions permitting, our rule of thumb for planned no-chutes (gouge applied nicely to all three F-100, F-105 & F-4) was to stay off the brakes until below 100 KIAS and then you could lean on them and you wouldn't get hot brakes. We'd no-chute into Miramar and never got turned away at the Octagon hot pits for brakes.
(But you were taking the chance that you may end up wishing that you'd got on them earlier, but that's what tailhooks & BAK 9/12s are for.)
I would assume those stopping numbers for the F-4 would be for the original full TE flap config with functional TE BLC. Steady tone touchdown (impact) approx 135-140?
The USAFR & ANG Phantoms quite early had the TE BLC capped and TE flaps limited to about 1/2 travel IIRC for MX relief reasons. Most people flared (not all, some diehards still planted it) them 'normally' from IIRC about 155 if on speed. 4000' for a no chute would be optimistic I think, even at sea level for the modded ones.
Generally 2 reasons to no-chute, unplanned a malfunction, here full anti-skid braking may be necessary....or as TTN says planned to avoid the usually unpleasant task of self installation away from home, although for F-4s, Transient Alert at ubiquitous F-4 bases were of course trustworthy. (Worst drag chute installation was on the F-100 and those days away from home you had to do it yourself)
Runway and conditions permitting, our rule of thumb for planned no-chutes (gouge applied nicely to all three F-100, F-105 & F-4) was to stay off the brakes until below 100 KIAS and then you could lean on them and you wouldn't get hot brakes. We'd no-chute into Miramar and never got turned away at the Octagon hot pits for brakes.
(But you were taking the chance that you may end up wishing that you'd got on them earlier, but that's what tailhooks & BAK 9/12s are for.)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465,
Yes my experience also was to not use the chute on cross countries so as not to worry about packing the chute. Never had a problem as long as I planned for it ahead of time.
Yep those are the “book” numbers for the F-4C/D. Of course the F-4E, after the slat mod also only had ½ flaps, but with the slats the numbers are pretty close. When I flew with the Navy squadron (VX-4) none of their F-4J/S had operable anti-skid. They didn’t use it on the boat and on shore they never bothered to keep it working. Of course we always had both approach and departure end cables if things didn’t go well.
Yes my experience also was to not use the chute on cross countries so as not to worry about packing the chute. Never had a problem as long as I planned for it ahead of time.
Yep those are the “book” numbers for the F-4C/D. Of course the F-4E, after the slat mod also only had ½ flaps, but with the slats the numbers are pretty close. When I flew with the Navy squadron (VX-4) none of their F-4J/S had operable anti-skid. They didn’t use it on the boat and on shore they never bothered to keep it working. Of course we always had both approach and departure end cables if things didn’t go well.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The British F4 (F4K and F4M) were based on the USN F4J. Consequently we had all of the benefits of a navy jet, Full Flap, Full BLC, Wide Tyres, plus we had Anti-Skid. The Royal Navy F4Ks also had Drooped Ailerons, Slotted Stab and Rapid Reheat.
We operated to a 35kt crosswind limit with and without the chute. The aircraft was generally very stable on the ground. My first tour was at an airfield with a 7490 ft. runway. To land without a chute there, particularly for 1st tourists, often ended up with hot brakes or an Over-Run Cable engagement.
To prepare for the Falklands we perfected the 21 unit approach. This put the approach speed down at 125kts. By deploying the chute airborne and "No Flare" we were landing at about 115 kits. By immediately standing on the brakes we were able to stop in 2400 feet.
If, for operational reasons, we had to land at an airfield with a crosswind exceeding 35kts it was the norm to take an Approach End cable.
Much maligned by those who did not have the luck and pleasure to fly such a great aircraft.
We operated to a 35kt crosswind limit with and without the chute. The aircraft was generally very stable on the ground. My first tour was at an airfield with a 7490 ft. runway. To land without a chute there, particularly for 1st tourists, often ended up with hot brakes or an Over-Run Cable engagement.
To prepare for the Falklands we perfected the 21 unit approach. This put the approach speed down at 125kts. By deploying the chute airborne and "No Flare" we were landing at about 115 kits. By immediately standing on the brakes we were able to stop in 2400 feet.
If, for operational reasons, we had to land at an airfield with a crosswind exceeding 35kts it was the norm to take an Approach End cable.
Much maligned by those who did not have the luck and pleasure to fly such a great aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew a HunterFGA9 from Lyneham to Tengah - 9 landings - and it wasn't until Tengah that I dared to stream the shute and promptly got a bollocking from the tower for dropping it in the wrong place. By then, not my problem!
More info on the Victor chute after Tankertrashnav's post.
At 48ft across, it was the largest chute in regular use anywhere in the world. It weighed 165lbs, and as TTN alluded, it was an absolute c@#t to re-load. If it wasn't used, it had to be specially authorised, which meant it was used on nearly all landings. There was no x-wind limit, but as the Victor slowed down, it could start to weathercock the aircraft and you could lose directional control. It was normally dumped on the runway, but if landing at an airfield where they had no means of recovering it, or they didn't want to have the runway blacked for while, it could be 'flown' by keeping the inboards at 75% to be dumped at a more suitable location.
This of course (like so many things with the Victor) could lead to adventures. I 'flew' a chute back to the ramp at a civilian airport in Sicily which decided it wanted to be a hot air balloon on release and it climbed to a considerable altitude before completely enveloping the Lear jet of a local 'businessman' who apparently, you really didn't want to annoy! The ground crew got it off before anyone found out. I also dumped a chute due to X-wind at another civilian airport having intended to 'fly' it. ATC sent their tiny ATC assistant to collect it in her FIAT Panda - which was not going to work - ever. They got a bit annoyed with us.
At 48ft across, it was the largest chute in regular use anywhere in the world. It weighed 165lbs, and as TTN alluded, it was an absolute c@#t to re-load. If it wasn't used, it had to be specially authorised, which meant it was used on nearly all landings. There was no x-wind limit, but as the Victor slowed down, it could start to weathercock the aircraft and you could lose directional control. It was normally dumped on the runway, but if landing at an airfield where they had no means of recovering it, or they didn't want to have the runway blacked for while, it could be 'flown' by keeping the inboards at 75% to be dumped at a more suitable location.
This of course (like so many things with the Victor) could lead to adventures. I 'flew' a chute back to the ramp at a civilian airport in Sicily which decided it wanted to be a hot air balloon on release and it climbed to a considerable altitude before completely enveloping the Lear jet of a local 'businessman' who apparently, you really didn't want to annoy! The ground crew got it off before anyone found out. I also dumped a chute due to X-wind at another civilian airport having intended to 'fly' it. ATC sent their tiny ATC assistant to collect it in her FIAT Panda - which was not going to work - ever. They got a bit annoyed with us.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTN You are correct. The Xwind limit on the K1 assumed that the chute was streamed as to do so was SOP. Were you with me when we took one to Hal Far to be cremated? One of those that Tony Cannane and I had to do for very short runways. In this case it was streamed at about 50ft so that when it fully developed you were in the landing attitude (and of course over the runway). You may remember that at Hal Far this put you over the sea looking at a shear cliff.
Pontifex - no I wasn't on that trip. Sounds very dramatic, the approach reminds me of coming into Perranporth on my first landaway when doing my PPL. I asked Tony Cunnane if I could go on his trip to Catterick, but it was restricted to a four man crew.
I do however remember you bringing us in safely to Leuchars once with crosswind right on the limit and being pleased that you, and not a certain squadron exec who attained very senior rank wasn't in the LHS. No names ... etc
I do however remember you bringing us in safely to Leuchars once with crosswind right on the limit and being pleased that you, and not a certain squadron exec who attained very senior rank wasn't in the LHS. No names ... etc
The Vulcan had a fairly low crosswind limit of 20 kts, with or without chute, mainly due to the low wing tip clearance in the flare when anything over 3.5 deg of roll could result in contact. Consequently the TBC was not streamed until the nose wheel had been lowered.
There were other good reasons for this as well. But, as usual, it didn't apply to senior officers. On a display, one squadron commander selected stream on short finals. The resulting gyrations were unusual to say the least and the heavy landing check took some considerable time to complete. i don't believe he did it again.
YS
There were other good reasons for this as well. But, as usual, it didn't apply to senior officers. On a display, one squadron commander selected stream on short finals. The resulting gyrations were unusual to say the least and the heavy landing check took some considerable time to complete. i don't believe he did it again.
YS
I still retain a great deal of sympathy for the guy in the Left hand seat of a Victor K1A when we landed at McClellan c 40 years ago. The Area Controller was doing us a favour by putting us on a sort of 40 mile right base leg but we were high and fast and eventually when we turned on to finals we were still too high and fast..We landed half way down the runway and didn't stream the chute. When we shut down the brakes were smoking badly. We were scheduled to night stop day off night stop and then set off for Hickam. When we returned to the aircraft there was hydraulic fuel absolutely everywhere. The crew chief diagnosed that 7 new brake units were required. So, for us, San Fransisco again, then Tahoe, Carson City Reno and aweek or so later we left. At Hickam the Chief decided the 8th unit needed replacing. Another few days off. Good for us rear crew but, as I said, sympathy for the Captain who had to carry the can.
When I was based at Abingdon in 1959 it was a common occurrence to see B-47s passing overhead inbound to Brize Norton or possibly Fairford, trailing their brake chutes. Did/do our aircraft do such things, or was it strictly on the ground only before the chutes were popped?
Picture here:
http://air-boyne.com/wp-content/uplo...Castle-AFB.jpg
Picture here:
http://air-boyne.com/wp-content/uplo...Castle-AFB.jpg
Well, there were the 2 x A1 QFIS in an FGR2 T-bird on det in Cyprus, who decided to firstly fly a 21 vice standard 19 AOA approach, then secondly to pop the chute on short final. Cue red faces as they were needless to say dumped in the undershoot!
Last edited by 57mm; 13th Jul 2016 at 21:58. Reason: Correction
When I was based at Abingdon in 1959 it was a common occurrence to see B-47s passing overhead inbound to Brize Norton or possibly Fairford, trailing their brake chutes. Did/do our aircraft do such things, or was it strictly on the ground only before the chutes were popped?
Douglas Aircraft operated an EB-47 for Navy EW training out of Tulsa in the early 70s. Very weird to see US Navy painted on the side of a B-47.
I think they had different/better engines because they didn't use an approach chute. But when that monstrous drag chute came out in the typical Oklahoma winds.....I'd guess that thing was a handful in a crosswind with that tandem landing gear. I don't know if they could rotate/angle the gear in a x-wind like a B-52.
Flew a few times in the Hun with one of the B-47 pilots who was also in the Tulsa Guard transitioning from C-124s to F-100s at the time. That was a handful also.
I think they had different/better engines because they didn't use an approach chute. But when that monstrous drag chute came out in the typical Oklahoma winds.....I'd guess that thing was a handful in a crosswind with that tandem landing gear. I don't know if they could rotate/angle the gear in a x-wind like a B-52.
Flew a few times in the Hun with one of the B-47 pilots who was also in the Tulsa Guard transitioning from C-124s to F-100s at the time. That was a handful also.
