Global Aviation Magazine : 60 Years of the Hercules
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 80
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
48 Aircraft
Regarding FEAF markings, I operated XV297 back to UK in August 1971 as 48 were scaling down. Commander was the CO. (M. M. D) or Chris a Dusty pointed out in a famous cartoon in the crewroom downstairs!! We flew:
Changi - Gan, 8 Aug 5.50
Gan - Masirah, 9 Aug 5.00
Masirah - Akrotiri, 10 Aug 6.55
Akrotiri - Lyneham, 11 Aug 6.50
The aircraft certainly had FEAF markings and was going on to Colerne for servicing, Major I believe. As the F/E I was "nursing" a few problems on the aircraft when the ASCEU F/E, R.M., appeared at Akrotiri to check me on the last leg!! Maintained my B but with a stern warning from RM. IIRC a large portion of the load was "personal effects" for all crewmembers.
Changi - Gan, 8 Aug 5.50
Gan - Masirah, 9 Aug 5.00
Masirah - Akrotiri, 10 Aug 6.55
Akrotiri - Lyneham, 11 Aug 6.50
The aircraft certainly had FEAF markings and was going on to Colerne for servicing, Major I believe. As the F/E I was "nursing" a few problems on the aircraft when the ASCEU F/E, R.M., appeared at Akrotiri to check me on the last leg!! Maintained my B but with a stern warning from RM. IIRC a large portion of the load was "personal effects" for all crewmembers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good to see you back Gumpied ...
Do you have any pics you'd like to share with us ? Happy to help you with the image posting process if needed
Do you have any pics you'd like to share with us ? Happy to help you with the image posting process if needed
Dean , thanks for explanation . Glad it was calm and smooth . I agree memories fade , but you've just reignited mine , last used 30 yrs ago.... Ekco 290s .. nice Orange screen IIRC. Found the Cbs easily , 'specially on T1s which did not climb well . But more importantly picked up Bilbao's harbour wall very well even down to a short range , enabling a self guided radar approach to a dodgy field. I expect that as Ekco was an Essex mob , they'd tested it on Saarfend pier .
Must have been a first 'tho , self guided radar approach to Everests col.
Any more Albert radar stories ?
rgds condor .
Must have been a first 'tho , self guided radar approach to Everests col.
Any more Albert radar stories ?
rgds condor .
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Leslie
Age: 80
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Echo 290
It may be just another war story but I recall the story of a young Nav, en route from Changi to Gan. After several hours of ducking and weaving bad weather he advised the Captain that another track correction might be necessary as another large build up was showing on the radar about 200 miles ahead.
"Not bloody likely" was the reply. "The next airfield is in East Africa....that's Gan!"
The old ones are the best.
"Not bloody likely" was the reply. "The next airfield is in East Africa....that's Gan!"
The old ones are the best.
??
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 winged input
Never claimed to be part of a master race but here are some of my memories.
Taxiing - no problems. On ice and snow inboards to LSGI, outboards for left and right or reverse for slow. Could be done with outboards also at LSGI if careful.
Take-off no problem. Tac take-off obstacle or strip limiting slightly longer pull than expected. EFATO on outboard engine tac t/o obstacle limiting - large but smooth input of rudder while lowering nose and reducing power slightly on asymmetric live. Be quick but smooth. Lots of practice in sim. Had one LHS, after several practices start to anticipate rudder input so failed the other outboard on next go. Fin Stall and very rapid loss of control!
Climb and normal route cruise - if no autopilot - no problem by day big horizon. By night a bit tiring after a couple of hours using artificial horizon.
Low level - just like a big Jet Provost. Light, well coordinated and responsive controls up to around 210kt. Above 210kt quite easy to pull to overstress. Aircrew manual didn’t allow rolling reversals i.e. starting roll one way then quickly reversing controls, presumably due to momentum of moving wings. Very slight pause at stick neutral then roll.
Low speed e.g. fighter evasion around 140kt 50% flap 45 AOB and manoeuvering. Gentle inputs and a bit more rudder co-ordination needed especially at initial roll input. Very good turn radius and rate. Not much could turn with us and track. Gentle vertical changes and use of power could give a reasonable yoyo. Aim was to force low speed high turn rate tight turning fight. If a late sighting could use a “wingover” to negate firing solution - climb power while pitching to 20-30 degrees nose up, then 60 degree AOB, relax back pressure to start nose coming down then power idle. Choose dive angle and power up if speed needed or keep power down while levelling, 50 flap and into turning fight.
3 engine approach and landing or overshoot - no problem. 2 engine approach and landing - no problem. (John Stapp showed me how to use lots of power on inboard asymmetric then just use outboard asymmetric for speed control - not standard but easy to fly). 2 engine overshoot, gentle handling. When starting overshoot 5 degree AOB to live and dive was the mantra. AOB to validate Vmca2 and dive to aid acceleration then ease into climb. (Seats and straps were obviously designed for 6ft plus Texans wearing backpack chute. Had a smaller stature guy who obviously couldn't cinch lapstrap fully tight. Wasn't obvious until 2 engine overshoot. Controlled it but was up against lapstrap about an inch above his cushion while maintaining rudder forces!)
Asymmetric rollout. The lower the IAS when selecting GI the better. If possible choose runway to give any crosswind component from the deadside to help negate any induced swing or yaw on selecting GI. During training I wouldn’t let them do this and would choose which engine to shut down to give crosswind on worst side in order to demo that it was no problem if you allowed IAS to reduce before selecting GI. Just look well ahead then GI and use rudder to keep straight. Easy to maintain centreline every time. Abort with an engine shutdown same applied, selecting GI, adverse crosswind, outboard shutdown - look well ahead and use controls in the natural sense to maintain straight. fairly rapid rudder input and a large aileron input. Just don't rush to get GI, pause, look, select.
Crosswind landing - the technique was to approach and land using a wing down technique to counteract crosswind. In thousands of hours I never managed this very well. Wind speed and direction changed during the approach and it didn’t seem natural. Crabbed approach, look well ahead at flare, push the nose straight at flare and apply wing down to keep straight- greasers followed. (Probably had best landings with large crosswinds or asymmetric. Doesn't say much for me but in Falklands my Co-pilot was called Bambi - as he was the best friend of Thumper!!!! We all have bad spells - but 4 months of it!!!!!! Didn't help when crew were already giggling on the approach)
Tac landings - no problem if flown correctly. Some guys would try to flare too early giving IAS reduction and a bit too much vertical vector at touchdown. it was effectively an assault landing. Fly all the way to touchdown with just a small check back before touchdown.
Close formation for flypasts. Well coordinated controls helped along with instant power response. I found if on left, flying from LHS easier although looking cross cockpit and if on right flying RHS easier. Less tiring both ways. Turn radius as No. 2 or 3 quite a bit different from lead. if on outside of turn easy to drop back at start of turn and then have to get back into position. If at start of turn you squeezed UP slightly if on outside or DOWN slightly if on inside it helped maintain position. (Remember one flypast at Lye when on the run-in, No.4 DG, OC 30 called "4 out, emergency engine shut down" Leader called, "OK, see you on the ground" N0.4 called "It's ok, back in". Cool, squeezed back, shut it down then got back into position on 3.
Taxiing - no problems. On ice and snow inboards to LSGI, outboards for left and right or reverse for slow. Could be done with outboards also at LSGI if careful.
Take-off no problem. Tac take-off obstacle or strip limiting slightly longer pull than expected. EFATO on outboard engine tac t/o obstacle limiting - large but smooth input of rudder while lowering nose and reducing power slightly on asymmetric live. Be quick but smooth. Lots of practice in sim. Had one LHS, after several practices start to anticipate rudder input so failed the other outboard on next go. Fin Stall and very rapid loss of control!
Climb and normal route cruise - if no autopilot - no problem by day big horizon. By night a bit tiring after a couple of hours using artificial horizon.
Low level - just like a big Jet Provost. Light, well coordinated and responsive controls up to around 210kt. Above 210kt quite easy to pull to overstress. Aircrew manual didn’t allow rolling reversals i.e. starting roll one way then quickly reversing controls, presumably due to momentum of moving wings. Very slight pause at stick neutral then roll.
Low speed e.g. fighter evasion around 140kt 50% flap 45 AOB and manoeuvering. Gentle inputs and a bit more rudder co-ordination needed especially at initial roll input. Very good turn radius and rate. Not much could turn with us and track. Gentle vertical changes and use of power could give a reasonable yoyo. Aim was to force low speed high turn rate tight turning fight. If a late sighting could use a “wingover” to negate firing solution - climb power while pitching to 20-30 degrees nose up, then 60 degree AOB, relax back pressure to start nose coming down then power idle. Choose dive angle and power up if speed needed or keep power down while levelling, 50 flap and into turning fight.
3 engine approach and landing or overshoot - no problem. 2 engine approach and landing - no problem. (John Stapp showed me how to use lots of power on inboard asymmetric then just use outboard asymmetric for speed control - not standard but easy to fly). 2 engine overshoot, gentle handling. When starting overshoot 5 degree AOB to live and dive was the mantra. AOB to validate Vmca2 and dive to aid acceleration then ease into climb. (Seats and straps were obviously designed for 6ft plus Texans wearing backpack chute. Had a smaller stature guy who obviously couldn't cinch lapstrap fully tight. Wasn't obvious until 2 engine overshoot. Controlled it but was up against lapstrap about an inch above his cushion while maintaining rudder forces!)
Asymmetric rollout. The lower the IAS when selecting GI the better. If possible choose runway to give any crosswind component from the deadside to help negate any induced swing or yaw on selecting GI. During training I wouldn’t let them do this and would choose which engine to shut down to give crosswind on worst side in order to demo that it was no problem if you allowed IAS to reduce before selecting GI. Just look well ahead then GI and use rudder to keep straight. Easy to maintain centreline every time. Abort with an engine shutdown same applied, selecting GI, adverse crosswind, outboard shutdown - look well ahead and use controls in the natural sense to maintain straight. fairly rapid rudder input and a large aileron input. Just don't rush to get GI, pause, look, select.
Crosswind landing - the technique was to approach and land using a wing down technique to counteract crosswind. In thousands of hours I never managed this very well. Wind speed and direction changed during the approach and it didn’t seem natural. Crabbed approach, look well ahead at flare, push the nose straight at flare and apply wing down to keep straight- greasers followed. (Probably had best landings with large crosswinds or asymmetric. Doesn't say much for me but in Falklands my Co-pilot was called Bambi - as he was the best friend of Thumper!!!! We all have bad spells - but 4 months of it!!!!!! Didn't help when crew were already giggling on the approach)
Tac landings - no problem if flown correctly. Some guys would try to flare too early giving IAS reduction and a bit too much vertical vector at touchdown. it was effectively an assault landing. Fly all the way to touchdown with just a small check back before touchdown.
Close formation for flypasts. Well coordinated controls helped along with instant power response. I found if on left, flying from LHS easier although looking cross cockpit and if on right flying RHS easier. Less tiring both ways. Turn radius as No. 2 or 3 quite a bit different from lead. if on outside of turn easy to drop back at start of turn and then have to get back into position. If at start of turn you squeezed UP slightly if on outside or DOWN slightly if on inside it helped maintain position. (Remember one flypast at Lye when on the run-in, No.4 DG, OC 30 called "4 out, emergency engine shut down" Leader called, "OK, see you on the ground" N0.4 called "It's ok, back in". Cool, squeezed back, shut it down then got back into position on 3.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful . . . double the bank limit . . .
Operationally, it goes with the territory, otherwise . . . sorry, a no no.
Shows that 'official blind eyes' occur all the time
Yeah, I know, I'm just a party-pooper but nobody was left with a structural booby trap on an aircraft I was operating.
On Purple Helmet, we ended up with 100˚ bank at para drop speed and all engines at 22,000"lb torque plus (hit wake turbulence of a/c in front which had lined up on equipment DZ instead of personnel one).
It went in the F700.
Operationally, it goes with the territory, otherwise . . . sorry, a no no.
Shows that 'official blind eyes' occur all the time
Yeah, I know, I'm just a party-pooper but nobody was left with a structural booby trap on an aircraft I was operating.
On Purple Helmet, we ended up with 100˚ bank at para drop speed and all engines at 22,000"lb torque plus (hit wake turbulence of a/c in front which had lined up on equipment DZ instead of personnel one).
It went in the F700.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
206
Thanks Chickenlover. Mine was a dodgy scan from a print I had which needed a glowing endorsement concealing.
Brian. That sort of manoeuvre at drop speed and with overtorqued engines needed much more robust rectification after landing than 700 action. If it's done properly it's stressless.
Thanks Chickenlover. Mine was a dodgy scan from a print I had which needed a glowing endorsement concealing.
Brian. That sort of manoeuvre at drop speed and with overtorqued engines needed much more robust rectification after landing than 700 action. If it's done properly it's stressless.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'if it's done properly' yep, 1 g all the way round. I'm aware of basic aerodynamics. I don't mean that to sound 'sharp'.
I presume Lockheed too were aware of the same. It was them that set the 45 bank limit with 50 flap, not me.
Still Dougie, you're alive and so am I and the aircraft are probably frying pans so perhaps we'll just have to agree to differ.
I was appalled to watch the A400 working up for Farnborough. Distinct advantages to being replaced by computers . . . . similar vein.
I presume Lockheed too were aware of the same. It was them that set the 45 bank limit with 50 flap, not me.
Still Dougie, you're alive and so am I and the aircraft are probably frying pans so perhaps we'll just have to agree to differ.
I was appalled to watch the A400 working up for Farnborough. Distinct advantages to being replaced by computers . . . . similar vein.
R4,
Thanks for that post, I may well have posed the question of the experts who flew the aircrafts opinion. I reckon I understand somewhat more than a mere Airframe bloke should now. ISTR having a discussion with you once about loss of hydraulics, flying controls etc. If my memory serves the discussion revolved around the use of dissimilar engine torques. Perhaps best forgotten
Good post though.
Doug, that shot from chickenlover is a great wallpaper for your mobile, assuming you have one
Smudge
Thanks for that post, I may well have posed the question of the experts who flew the aircrafts opinion. I reckon I understand somewhat more than a mere Airframe bloke should now. ISTR having a discussion with you once about loss of hydraulics, flying controls etc. If my memory serves the discussion revolved around the use of dissimilar engine torques. Perhaps best forgotten
Good post though.
Doug, that shot from chickenlover is a great wallpaper for your mobile, assuming you have one
Smudge
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angle of bank
Tried to make some diagrams but they didn't paste.
To clarify a few bits on angle of bank. I don’t know how to get some scientific / mathematical notations into this post so will make up some of my own.
Angle of bank (AOB) doesn’t in itself place any stress on the aircraft. G (G) does. As a simplified explanation imagine that the wings are trying to clap above the aircraft but we fasten the wings such that they can’t do that. The wings try to move up but can’t and the fuselage lifts under the wings. In level flight Lift (L)= Weight (W) and the load factor G = 1. In order to maintain level flight as AOB is applied the vertical factor of the L vector will be < W which always acts vertically therefore L has to be increased to ensure that the vertical factor of L will be = W. 60 AOB needs 2G for level flight.
Up to 60 AOB the slope or curve of G required for level flight is quite shallow but once we get beyond 60 AOB the curve, and therefore G, increases quite markedly.
The formula is cosAOB = 1/G so if max allowed G is 2.5 cosAOB = 1/2.5 and then for max G in level flight maxAOB = 66.5 degrees. Lockheed placed a G limit on aircraft then an artificial AOB limit of 60 AOB ensuring max G required for level flight is 2G and aircraft doesn’t need to be overstressed to maintain level flight.
You will notice that level flight keeps being mentioned. This is the only parameter used for AOB and G fatigue calculations. If you don’t want to maintain level you can bank to any angle, pull any G less than 2G and descend actally applying less stress on aircraft than doing a 60AOB level turn. (AOB and G required for level flight is completely independent of weight or speed so applies to all aircraft at all speeds)
Lockheed set an AOB limit and a limit is a limit but exceeding that limit at less than the aircraft G limit isn’t in itself placing undue or extra stress on the aircraft (assuming that rudder input is co-ordinated to balance turn).
To clarify a few bits on angle of bank. I don’t know how to get some scientific / mathematical notations into this post so will make up some of my own.
Angle of bank (AOB) doesn’t in itself place any stress on the aircraft. G (G) does. As a simplified explanation imagine that the wings are trying to clap above the aircraft but we fasten the wings such that they can’t do that. The wings try to move up but can’t and the fuselage lifts under the wings. In level flight Lift (L)= Weight (W) and the load factor G = 1. In order to maintain level flight as AOB is applied the vertical factor of the L vector will be < W which always acts vertically therefore L has to be increased to ensure that the vertical factor of L will be = W. 60 AOB needs 2G for level flight.
Up to 60 AOB the slope or curve of G required for level flight is quite shallow but once we get beyond 60 AOB the curve, and therefore G, increases quite markedly.
The formula is cosAOB = 1/G so if max allowed G is 2.5 cosAOB = 1/2.5 and then for max G in level flight maxAOB = 66.5 degrees. Lockheed placed a G limit on aircraft then an artificial AOB limit of 60 AOB ensuring max G required for level flight is 2G and aircraft doesn’t need to be overstressed to maintain level flight.
You will notice that level flight keeps being mentioned. This is the only parameter used for AOB and G fatigue calculations. If you don’t want to maintain level you can bank to any angle, pull any G less than 2G and descend actally applying less stress on aircraft than doing a 60AOB level turn. (AOB and G required for level flight is completely independent of weight or speed so applies to all aircraft at all speeds)
Lockheed set an AOB limit and a limit is a limit but exceeding that limit at less than the aircraft G limit isn’t in itself placing undue or extra stress on the aircraft (assuming that rudder input is co-ordinated to balance turn).