Quotes from BEagle:
"Maintain point eight four, thank you Mr Scott!"
WILCO, Zirr !
"Did you ever practise total hyd fail approaches? I.e. no flaps, no slats, fixed TPI, free-fall U/C.... Around normal VAT+40 at touchdown, with probably only reverse thrust to slow the beast on landing."
No... Should that be normal V
AT +45? 3 full (non-antiskid) brake applications from the brake accumulator, or was it only 2? I was going to say that the 'Ten was unusual in not relying on system-hydraulics for the flying controls, but then I remembered that my next type, the B707 (if you can't take a joke, etc... 
) had ailerons and elevators that needed neither electric nor hydraulic power, and worked pretty well.
"The point was that all VAT references in my posts do of course concern configuration-specific VAT...."
Yes, I'd almost forgotten that the V
AT is config-specific. On Boeings and MD, IIRC, the equivalent to V
AT is V
REF, but the latter only has one value: that for full flap with full L/E devices. Every combination of L/E devices and flaps has its own increment above V
REF. V
REF is always bugged on your ASI. You then add any config-required increment for the landing, and bug that as well. During the intermediate approach, as you you extend whatever devices are available, you fly the appropriate increments above V
REF - like you do on a normal approach. Don't know about Lockheed. Did you fly the Tristar?
STALL PROTECTION
Can anyone comment on the lack of a Mach correction (if my course notes are correct) on the activation AoAs for the shaker and pusher, and the lack of LRM on the auto-ignition?