The F28-1000 operated its first RPT service in Australia 50 years ago today
Cilba:
By 1986 the APU had been fixed. Ansett went through about 60 broken APU starters by about 1980 and I was asked to find out what was going on. Turned out that the three little fingers of the APU starter clutch sometimes didn't disengage and when the APU fired up the poor little electric starter was over revved until it contacted the casing and failed. Garrett were a horrible company to deal with back then, even Boeing hated them, but they were the only commercial source of APUs at the time. I forget but somebody tried to make a substitute but it never took off.
Sunfish- I have no idea where that notion came from. I flew the F28 (with a couple of breaks) from 1986 until 2007. 17 different aircraft. During that time I never had the APU fail to start, and I found the unit to be totally reliable. We could operate under the MEL with the APU unserviceable, in which case the right hand engine was left running at turnarounds.
Originally Posted by B772
Referred to as the pocket rocket by MV crews who had not flown jets previously. Most of the pilots moved up to the F28 from the F27.
Engine Fire Handle F28
As I recall the story told me when I started on the F28 in 1982, on the very first scheduled MMA flight from Perth on a cold winters morning there was a "moment" in the cockpit.
Two captains were operating (dangerous !) , both wearing their jackets - as the guy in the RH seat reached for the after start checklist, the cuff of his jacket caught the right engine FIRE handle and flipped it open.
As designed, this shut off the fuel - but to the LEFT engine ! Which of course shut down.
The investigation found that all the recent aircraft from the Fokker cottage industy factories had the wiring back the front....
Two captains were operating (dangerous !) , both wearing their jackets - as the guy in the RH seat reached for the after start checklist, the cuff of his jacket caught the right engine FIRE handle and flipped it open.
As designed, this shut off the fuel - but to the LEFT engine ! Which of course shut down.
The investigation found that all the recent aircraft from the Fokker cottage industy factories had the wiring back the front....
Sunfish- thank you for your prompt and informative reply. It is a bit of interesting history. Certainly all the while I flew the F28 I had no issues with the APU.
I heard that the F28 was the only aircraft that could do Port Moresby - Lae in a straight line over the highlands, other aircraft would need an extended route as they couldn't climb and descend steeply enough. Can anyone confirm this ?
It certainly could. It was a remarkable aircraft when it came to its climb and descent capabilities, and its manoeuvrability when operated in the PNG highlands.
Carrier tough
In the early 1980’s, the US Navy put out a request for a new COD aircraft through the MMVX program. Various manufacturers tendered proposals, including Grumman, with an improved version of the C-2. Lockheed offered a new, turbofan design derived from the S-3 Viking, and a few unusual proposals.
Fokker Aircraft, of the Netherlands, proposed a derivative of their successful F28 regional airliner, called the F28 Mk.5000. McDonnell Douglas proposed a navalized version of the venerable DC-9-10 airliner, and lastly, it appears as if Boeing proposed a carrier modification of the 737-200. While it might seem odd operating an aircraft the size of an airliner off of the small flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the concept was proven as possible nearly 20 years before the start of the MMVX program.
In November 1963, the Navy conducted tests to see if the idea of a “Super COD” was possible. These dramatic tests saw a crew, led by Lt. James Flatley, land a KC-130 on the deck of the USS Forrestal 21 times with no tailhook, and take off with no catapult assistance. These tests, while a success, proved that the C-130 was too large of an aircraft to routinely operate off of a carrier, and the Navy in the end procured the C-2.
For this story, I want to take a closer look at the proposed airliners which were made to handle carrier operations.
An artist’s representation of the F28 COD proposal landing on a carrier, from a Fokker sales brochure – Image: Fokker
With the Fokker MMVX proposal, a special STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) version of the F28 was penned. It featured redesigned landing gear that could extend to raise the nose of the aircraft, thus increasing the wing’s angle of attack to improve takeoff distance during a catapult launch, a tailhook, and a slightly redesigned wing that could fold for easier storage on the deck of the ship.
Another drawing from a Fokker sales brochure, highlighting the modifications to enable carrier operations – Image: Fokker
Instead of the standard Rolls Royce Spey turbofans that powered the standard F28, Fokker proposed to replace the engines with either Rolls Royce Tays from the F100, or a non-afterburning variant of the GE F404 turbofan that powered the F-18 Hornet.
Another feature that Fokker proposed was adding refueling pods to underwing hard points. This capability would allow the plane to refuel two fighters at once, doubling the previous carrier tanker’s capacity. Fokker went as far as demonstrating the performance of a stock F28 to the US Navy on a simulated carrier deck, but orders were not forth coming.
In the early 1980’s, the US Navy put out a request for a new COD aircraft through the MMVX program. Various manufacturers tendered proposals, including Grumman, with an improved version of the C-2. Lockheed offered a new, turbofan design derived from the S-3 Viking, and a few unusual proposals.
Fokker Aircraft, of the Netherlands, proposed a derivative of their successful F28 regional airliner, called the F28 Mk.5000. McDonnell Douglas proposed a navalized version of the venerable DC-9-10 airliner, and lastly, it appears as if Boeing proposed a carrier modification of the 737-200. While it might seem odd operating an aircraft the size of an airliner off of the small flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the concept was proven as possible nearly 20 years before the start of the MMVX program.
In November 1963, the Navy conducted tests to see if the idea of a “Super COD” was possible. These dramatic tests saw a crew, led by Lt. James Flatley, land a KC-130 on the deck of the USS Forrestal 21 times with no tailhook, and take off with no catapult assistance. These tests, while a success, proved that the C-130 was too large of an aircraft to routinely operate off of a carrier, and the Navy in the end procured the C-2.
For this story, I want to take a closer look at the proposed airliners which were made to handle carrier operations.
An artist’s representation of the F28 COD proposal landing on a carrier, from a Fokker sales brochure – Image: Fokker
With the Fokker MMVX proposal, a special STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) version of the F28 was penned. It featured redesigned landing gear that could extend to raise the nose of the aircraft, thus increasing the wing’s angle of attack to improve takeoff distance during a catapult launch, a tailhook, and a slightly redesigned wing that could fold for easier storage on the deck of the ship.
Another drawing from a Fokker sales brochure, highlighting the modifications to enable carrier operations – Image: Fokker
Instead of the standard Rolls Royce Spey turbofans that powered the standard F28, Fokker proposed to replace the engines with either Rolls Royce Tays from the F100, or a non-afterburning variant of the GE F404 turbofan that powered the F-18 Hornet.
Another feature that Fokker proposed was adding refueling pods to underwing hard points. This capability would allow the plane to refuel two fighters at once, doubling the previous carrier tanker’s capacity. Fokker went as far as demonstrating the performance of a stock F28 to the US Navy on a simulated carrier deck, but orders were not forth coming.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Buddy Starts" were used quite regularly in Air Niugini up until the death throes of the type.
I have tried explaining the procedure to my current compatriots and their eyes just glazed over.
More regularly was setting forth on a 6 sector day around the islands with an unserviceable APU and the fun of 'hot refueling' at every stop.
No wonder we were thirsty at the end of the day.
9000 hours on the F-28 and only wish I could turn the clock back for a few more!
F-28 1000/3000/4000 didn't matter, it just wanted to be flown fast.
PNG and an F-28 were a perfect pair.
I have tried explaining the procedure to my current compatriots and their eyes just glazed over.
More regularly was setting forth on a 6 sector day around the islands with an unserviceable APU and the fun of 'hot refueling' at every stop.
No wonder we were thirsty at the end of the day.
9000 hours on the F-28 and only wish I could turn the clock back for a few more!
F-28 1000/3000/4000 didn't matter, it just wanted to be flown fast.
PNG and an F-28 were a perfect pair.
As I recall the story told me when I started on the F28 in 1982, on the very first scheduled MMA flight from Perth on a cold winters morning there was a "moment" in the cockpit.
Two captains were operating (dangerous !) , both wearing their jackets - as the guy in the RH seat reached for the after start checklist, the cuff of his jacket caught the right engine FIRE handle and flipped it open.
As designed, this shut off the fuel - but to the LEFT engine ! Which of course shut down.
The investigation found that all the recent aircraft from the Fokker cottage industy factories had the wiring back the front....
Two captains were operating (dangerous !) , both wearing their jackets - as the guy in the RH seat reached for the after start checklist, the cuff of his jacket caught the right engine FIRE handle and flipped it open.
As designed, this shut off the fuel - but to the LEFT engine ! Which of course shut down.
The investigation found that all the recent aircraft from the Fokker cottage industy factories had the wiring back the front....
wow Fokker!!
Not an F-28 but on our F-50’s we had a ( false ) Fire warning after landing in CBR and discharged an Engine Fire bottle in the left Engine. Later the Engineers asked us if we’d fired the bottles, seems the discharge light reset after the batteries were switched off and when you turned the batteries on again there was no discharge light.....Meaning any of the F-50’s could have been flying with empty bottles. All F-50’s grounded again, the only way was to weigh them until Fokker fixed the problem...
Damn little Fokkers....
As a kid I was pax on a few of these flights. We took off, climbed at some absurd angle (so it seemed), leveled off at cruise, the F/A's raced down the isle, handing out drinks, then back to collect (about 5 mins level flight), then the plummet into Nadzab. Exciting stuff when you are 10.
Quickest Regular International Jet service I have ever flown was between Vanimo,PNG and Sentani, Papua in an F28.
Under 50 NM .............and always seemed to be flown at 300 Kts or faster and by the Captain.
4 HF calls and 3 VHF calls to be made before the PNG/Papua border (18 NM) which may explain the sector selection!
Under 50 NM .............and always seemed to be flown at 300 Kts or faster and by the Captain.
4 HF calls and 3 VHF calls to be made before the PNG/Papua border (18 NM) which may explain the sector selection!
Evertonian
"Ladies and Gentlemen. As the rest of the Crew & I consider PHE to be a $hit hole, we won't be landing there however, if PHE is your final destination..."
One G. D. on an early morning departure from Perth. Allegedly couldn't see the "Door Open" light because of sunlight streaming at a low angle into the cockpit. It must have messed up the FA's hair!
That shows the strength of the aircraft and the standard it was built too, on nearly any other type the door would have been torn off and likely impacted the wing or tailplane on its way.
To have even been considered for aircraft carrier use it would have to have been a solid piece of kit, deck landings are basically controlled crashes.
To have even been considered for aircraft carrier use it would have to have been a solid piece of kit, deck landings are basically controlled crashes.
That shows the strength of the aircraft and the standard it was built too, on nearly any other type the door would have been torn off and likely impacted the wing or tailplane on its way.