Guppy,
Very tellingly, you will not answer the question: Are you a transport captain on a heavy?
You are definitely not captain material imho. To be this petty and paranoid and and take quotes of mine out of the context of the paragraph they were is not admirable. No, I am not some secret enemy of yours you seem to have made during your condescending posts to others in the past. This is what I mean about your inability to focus on the debate topic and not take things personally. Subjects such as V1 should rise or fall on their own merits. We should be able to detach ourselves from the argument at hand and examine the subject of heavy jets electing to chance an overrun independent of the individual airmen behind the screen names.
Please do not take snippets of my posts out of context.
Here is the whole paragraph in which the meaning is one of prolonging the airframe:
Complete Quote by pacplyer:
She's a tough old bird, but there's little chance she won't break up at those huge weights off the overrun. The fuselage bends quite a bit in turns on normal taxiways so we used to make gentle ones and pull straight ahead after turning to untwist the airframe stress. If you do a 90 degree turn with differential brakes and power, the corner windscreen will likely crack. The 200's loaded a lot heavier than the 100 was (the power to weight is less on the 200F.) Nasa picked the 100 to ferry the shuttle because the empty weight is lower even thought the early JT9D engines were smaller thrust.
Still isn’t clear to you now? O.K., I’ll try to spell it out. You no doubt, have an engineer fuel burn procedure for older 100 airframes where the S/O burns down to about 21.5 on the outboard tanks before he switches to inboards and lastly dumps the wing tip tanks before descent. Right? Do you know why this done? Do you think the titanium spar is going to crack and you will fall out of the sky if he forgets and doesn’t switch to inboards on time? No. This fuel burn procedure, developed at my airline, like the “pull one plane length ahead after the turn” taxi procedure is to reduce the long term accumulative metal stresses on the airframe. Doing a rare tight turn to keep from sending the heavies behind you from re-diverting or ditching is not going to damage a newer -200F airframe. This is this part of the concept of airmanship that I’m talking about in which it seems is completely absent in some pilots today. I would expect some crappy airline like Adam Air to close the airport because his nosegear steering failed and he doesn't have enough common sense to use differential brakes and power to clear the only usable runway after landing at a place that has no tugs (1999 I think,) but I would expect a more professional pilot to make a better choice if he is able to do so.
I apologize if I was being ambiguous.
Regards,
pacific plyer