Ansett and the Fokker Friendship
Just flew up to the Shuttleworth collection yesterday (now that is a place to visit),
and my eye caught an airfix kit...F27, BUT in TAA colours with the rego TFF(did that exist?).
Shame on not having an Ansett one!
and my eye caught an airfix kit...F27, BUT in TAA colours with the rego TFF(did that exist?).
Shame on not having an Ansett one!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Tinny, at first I thought you had done a good job in photoshop,but upon checking my trusty "Airliners in Australian Service,vol 1",I see that strange combo did exist.
For those interested,VH-TFF first registered 6/59 & cancelled 10/80.(probably in service before some of the pilots who flew it were born)....leased to East-West 3/75-11/75.
For those interested,VH-TFF first registered 6/59 & cancelled 10/80.(probably in service before some of the pilots who flew it were born)....leased to East-West 3/75-11/75.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my favourite aircraft types, the Ansett Fokker Friendships. 
Apart from that fantastic ferry flight half way round the world, my first ever jump seat ride was in one, out of Essendon down on the ''Islands Run", back in 1969.
Also had some odd trips with them, like the night we were going up to Bundaberg from Brisbane, and we had an RAAF Hercules and some other aircraft following us because an unidentified aircraft, believed to be carrying drug runners, was sticking VERY close to us trying to avoid being seen on radar.
Apart from that fantastic ferry flight half way round the world, my first ever jump seat ride was in one, out of Essendon down on the ''Islands Run", back in 1969.
Also had some odd trips with them, like the night we were going up to Bundaberg from Brisbane, and we had an RAAF Hercules and some other aircraft following us because an unidentified aircraft, believed to be carrying drug runners, was sticking VERY close to us trying to avoid being seen on radar.
By today's standards it was slow, noisy and thirsty. By the standards at the time it was good. It had a couple of challenges to those used to hydraulics (such as on the DC3), like the pneumatic nosewheel steering and brakes. To taxy smoothly took a bit of anticipation.
If pilots had come from the DC3, its crosswind handling was generally no problem. But for those brought up on more forgiving types and who did not master the proper technique, it could bite quite badly in anything over about 20 knots of crosswind. On an icy runway it got quite exciting at even 15 knots of crosswind.
The instrument and radio layouts on the early ones were awful because every operator had their own ideas about where to plant stuff in the cockpit. Later on Fokker got their act together and came up with a fairly standardized layout, discouraging operators from too many modifications.
In the air it was very stable and very, very manoeuverable. Also very strongly built. More than one was rolled during post-production test flying and one was stall-turned and looped during demonstrations to the military. Some were sold with hard points on the wings but I don't know whether any were ever actually armed, though some that went to military service were fitted with wide rear doors for meat-bombing.
The HS748, which appeared later on the scene, handled better and started out from day one with a much better cockpit, but was not quite as fast for the same fuel flow and never made the sales figures of the Fokker.
All eclipsed of course by the Dash 8 and ATR.
If pilots had come from the DC3, its crosswind handling was generally no problem. But for those brought up on more forgiving types and who did not master the proper technique, it could bite quite badly in anything over about 20 knots of crosswind. On an icy runway it got quite exciting at even 15 knots of crosswind.
The instrument and radio layouts on the early ones were awful because every operator had their own ideas about where to plant stuff in the cockpit. Later on Fokker got their act together and came up with a fairly standardized layout, discouraging operators from too many modifications.
In the air it was very stable and very, very manoeuverable. Also very strongly built. More than one was rolled during post-production test flying and one was stall-turned and looped during demonstrations to the military. Some were sold with hard points on the wings but I don't know whether any were ever actually armed, though some that went to military service were fitted with wide rear doors for meat-bombing.
The HS748, which appeared later on the scene, handled better and started out from day one with a much better cockpit, but was not quite as fast for the same fuel flow and never made the sales figures of the Fokker.
All eclipsed of course by the Dash 8 and ATR.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Oct 2010 at 11:26.
Mach - I don't think landing in a crosswind was ever a problem, keeping straight afterwards (when the "wake" from the props in ground fine could blanket the rudder) certainly could be!
Bit confused about your comment re different operators having different (poor) layouts given that this thread is entitled "Ansett and the Fokker Friendship"- all Ansett F27's had a quite good standard layout, which changed into a distinctly more modern layout with the advent of the -500. There were three variants of radio/autopilot fit, the Mk.2's changing at VH-FNP I think. VH-MMS when it came into the Ansett fleet from MMA still had the original horrible TAA panel, but thus thankfully was changed very quickly.
On one engine it was a modest but decent performer - however it required considerable rudder force (140 lbs rings a bell in the dim recesses of my memory) and 5 degrees bank towards the "good" engine.
My enduring impressions are of the noise (no whimpy ear protecting headsets or an intercom then; you simply shouted at each other) and starting using ship's batteries which inevitably deginerated into attempting to meter the fuel using the HP cock.
But I loved every minute...
Bit confused about your comment re different operators having different (poor) layouts given that this thread is entitled "Ansett and the Fokker Friendship"- all Ansett F27's had a quite good standard layout, which changed into a distinctly more modern layout with the advent of the -500. There were three variants of radio/autopilot fit, the Mk.2's changing at VH-FNP I think. VH-MMS when it came into the Ansett fleet from MMA still had the original horrible TAA panel, but thus thankfully was changed very quickly.
On one engine it was a modest but decent performer - however it required considerable rudder force (140 lbs rings a bell in the dim recesses of my memory) and 5 degrees bank towards the "good" engine.
My enduring impressions are of the noise (no whimpy ear protecting headsets or an intercom then; you simply shouted at each other) and starting using ship's batteries which inevitably deginerated into attempting to meter the fuel using the HP cock.
But I loved every minute...
Silly Old Git
The (handling?) characteristic probably most notice I reckon is the bastard thing cant be slowed down when you want it to because of the min. torque requirement
Imagine presenting an AC for certification today with that written in the manual
Imagine presenting an AC for certification today with that written in the manual
Last edited by tinpis; 16th Oct 2010 at 19:39.
Dora - apologies if this is purely an Ansett thread. It appeared to have become a bit less parochial. I took the question 'what was it like to fly?' to be more general.
The very worst cockpits I ever saw were in the Gulf Air fleet, where there were four completely different layouts. One in particular had some really nasty navaid switching that would have you trying to fly the ILS in VOR mode if you were not really careful. Another had no less than 4 RMIs and 4 of those old cross-pointer ILS/VOR displays spread around the place but not an HSI in sight.
No crosswind landing is over until the rollout is complete....applying the gustlock at anything above taxy speed was a definite no-no and earned more that one of my trainees a severe bollicking if they did it at 50 knots. On an icy runway that almost guaranteed an unwelcome excursion, because the nosewheel itself was too lightly loaded to be anything more than an aid to taxying around corners.
The 40 psi torque limitation was a nuisance, but could be worked around. It was known that most of the potential for layshaft shuttling occured at low power settings, but considered by some engineers that the powertrain could tolerate short periods at flight idle. So, if too high and fast, the situation could usually be salvaged by pulling all the power off for a short burst, thus adding heaps of drag from the props. Don't get me started on those wonderful propellers - truly engineering masterpieces. These props were not exclusive to the F27 as all RR Darts sported a version of them. Absolutely brilliant, and the best auto-feather system even today, because it's always there if you need it.
The very worst cockpits I ever saw were in the Gulf Air fleet, where there were four completely different layouts. One in particular had some really nasty navaid switching that would have you trying to fly the ILS in VOR mode if you were not really careful. Another had no less than 4 RMIs and 4 of those old cross-pointer ILS/VOR displays spread around the place but not an HSI in sight.
No crosswind landing is over until the rollout is complete....applying the gustlock at anything above taxy speed was a definite no-no and earned more that one of my trainees a severe bollicking if they did it at 50 knots. On an icy runway that almost guaranteed an unwelcome excursion, because the nosewheel itself was too lightly loaded to be anything more than an aid to taxying around corners.
The 40 psi torque limitation was a nuisance, but could be worked around. It was known that most of the potential for layshaft shuttling occured at low power settings, but considered by some engineers that the powertrain could tolerate short periods at flight idle. So, if too high and fast, the situation could usually be salvaged by pulling all the power off for a short burst, thus adding heaps of drag from the props. Don't get me started on those wonderful propellers - truly engineering masterpieces. These props were not exclusive to the F27 as all RR Darts sported a version of them. Absolutely brilliant, and the best auto-feather system even today, because it's always there if you need it.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 18th Oct 2010 at 01:58.
Didn't Air Queensland operate the F-27 for a period in the mid 1980's before getting the ATR-42's?
What sought of TAS and cruise altitude would an F-27 obtain on a 200nm leg?
What sought of TAS and cruise altitude would an F-27 obtain on a 200nm leg?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't Air Queensland operate the F-27 for a period in the mid 1980's
All this Ansett F27 talk is bringing back many other memories.
Like the run from BNE-GLT every afternoon and back in the morning, normally a race with the TAA F27.
I remember one particular morning we got out of Gladstone first and into Bundaberg first, but our Captain was very disappointed that TAA departed Bundy before us and arrived into Maryborough first.
TAA left there first, then after we departed our captain requested a special low level clearance, telling the pax it was for their benefit to give them a great view of the scenery, which it did.
Of course we scooted along low and fast and then when TAA requested descent into Brisbane they were slowed down due ''other traffic'' below them.
WE WON...........
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAA Fokker at Maryborough 1972, with Island Airways Cherokee 6 waiting for Orchid Beach connecting passengers (Ansett taxying in)
They were bringing engineers, there was another Ansett broken Fokker sitting on the threshold of 35, with a pneumatic nosewheel steering problem.
(p.s. sorry about the mould on these old slides, but they should clean up reasonably well..)
They were bringing engineers, there was another Ansett broken Fokker sitting on the threshold of 35, with a pneumatic nosewheel steering problem.
(p.s. sorry about the mould on these old slides, but they should clean up reasonably well..)
Moderator
it could bite quite badly in anything over about 20 knots of crosswind.
Can recall going into Cooma one blustery day with Peter K. Peter was driving and (without looking up the charts I can't recall the runways) but we were aligned with the other runway due drift sufficient to the point that the FS chap queried just which runway we were trying to find.
The instrument and radio layouts on the early ones were awful because every operator had their own ideas about where to plant stuff in the cockpit.
As most of the AN machines were fitted out worse than the average GA Cessna, I guess it didn't matter all that much .. especially when one considers just how simplistic the cockpit was.
The HS748, which appeared later on the scene, handled better and started out from day one with a much better cockpit, but was not quite as fast for the same fuel flow and never made the sales figures of the Fokker.
As I recall the F27 started off around 1958 and the 748 1960.
So far as Australia was concerned, I was advised by several (who ought to have been in the know) that AN/TAA were intending to sign up for the 748 mainly due to runway length problems in the network.
Donald George (who was DG from the mid 50s) then made the unilateral decision that DCA would extend all airline country runways to a minimum of 5000ft. Exit the 748 plan (200 kts or thereabouts) and enter the F27 from stage left (230 odd kts).
Then again, many years later, I was doing some engineering work on the 748 and obtained an OEM report on lightweight operations of the beast out of what could euphemistically be termed .. soft surfaces. Quite an impressive beast .. to the extent that, were it a horse, one would have had a flutter on it for the Caulfield recently.
I don't think landing in a crosswind was ever a problem,
On one engine it was a modest but decent performer - however it required considerable rudder force
crosswinds might have been interesting (although I can't recall any great problem - especially considering the conservative limit imposed by DCA when the Type was introduced here) but everyone will recall the shaking leg on asy details. So far as performance .. I have visions of going out of Tennant on both - wet - and going nowhere fast ...
My enduring impressions are of the noise (no whimpy ear protecting headsets or an intercom then; you simply shouted at each other)
Which is why I (and a lot of others ex-AN) am three-parts deaf with the characteristic Rootes blower audiogram signature ...
The 40 psi torque limitation was a nuisance, but could be worked around.
Memory probably is a bit rusty now but my recollection is that the problem existed if one constrained the torque in the range 0-40psi (?). That is to say, either close the throttles or keep it above 40 but stay out of the low range (?). With miniscule planning effort keeping above 40 wasn't a difficulty as I recall.
the best auto-feather system even today, because it's always there at high power if you need it.
Can recall on my initial AN endorsement, the IP (Ted W) demonstrating successive feather/unfeather on an example with the SEP2 (?) autopilot .. the aircraft just motored along on track with the ASI going up and down as one might expect. Now, the ALJ-30 (?) was a completely different animal.
Can recall going into Cooma one blustery day with Peter K. Peter was driving and (without looking up the charts I can't recall the runways) but we were aligned with the other runway due drift sufficient to the point that the FS chap queried just which runway we were trying to find.
The instrument and radio layouts on the early ones were awful because every operator had their own ideas about where to plant stuff in the cockpit.
As most of the AN machines were fitted out worse than the average GA Cessna, I guess it didn't matter all that much .. especially when one considers just how simplistic the cockpit was.
The HS748, which appeared later on the scene, handled better and started out from day one with a much better cockpit, but was not quite as fast for the same fuel flow and never made the sales figures of the Fokker.
As I recall the F27 started off around 1958 and the 748 1960.
So far as Australia was concerned, I was advised by several (who ought to have been in the know) that AN/TAA were intending to sign up for the 748 mainly due to runway length problems in the network.
Donald George (who was DG from the mid 50s) then made the unilateral decision that DCA would extend all airline country runways to a minimum of 5000ft. Exit the 748 plan (200 kts or thereabouts) and enter the F27 from stage left (230 odd kts).
Then again, many years later, I was doing some engineering work on the 748 and obtained an OEM report on lightweight operations of the beast out of what could euphemistically be termed .. soft surfaces. Quite an impressive beast .. to the extent that, were it a horse, one would have had a flutter on it for the Caulfield recently.
I don't think landing in a crosswind was ever a problem,
On one engine it was a modest but decent performer - however it required considerable rudder force
crosswinds might have been interesting (although I can't recall any great problem - especially considering the conservative limit imposed by DCA when the Type was introduced here) but everyone will recall the shaking leg on asy details. So far as performance .. I have visions of going out of Tennant on both - wet - and going nowhere fast ...
My enduring impressions are of the noise (no whimpy ear protecting headsets or an intercom then; you simply shouted at each other)
Which is why I (and a lot of others ex-AN) am three-parts deaf with the characteristic Rootes blower audiogram signature ...
The 40 psi torque limitation was a nuisance, but could be worked around.
Memory probably is a bit rusty now but my recollection is that the problem existed if one constrained the torque in the range 0-40psi (?). That is to say, either close the throttles or keep it above 40 but stay out of the low range (?). With miniscule planning effort keeping above 40 wasn't a difficulty as I recall.
the best auto-feather system even today, because it's always there at high power if you need it.
Can recall on my initial AN endorsement, the IP (Ted W) demonstrating successive feather/unfeather on an example with the SEP2 (?) autopilot .. the aircraft just motored along on track with the ASI going up and down as one might expect. Now, the ALJ-30 (?) was a completely different animal.
JT - only three-parts deaf? Sorry, speak up, I can't hear you.
Me too.
Me too.