Lockheed Martin -The Complete Beasley II

(1)

ete

easley

(2)

Jay Rivers Beasley

1914-1996

Jay Beasley is an aviation legend. Born in Waxahachie, Texas; he first soloed in 1932; has flown over 50 difherent models of aircraft; has tested over 25 different military aircraft including the P-38, C-60, Hudson Bomber, PV-1, B-37, B-17, P2V-5F, and P-3; has twice been decorated with the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, and has been selected as Honorary Naval Aviator #l 1 . . . all as a “civilian pilot.” His logbook, if you can read the bent and curled pages, reveals over 20,097 hours total flight time, around 9,479 of which are in the P-3. He has kissed the runway in excess of 3 1,479 times in the P-3 alone.

But Jay will tell you, or anyone else that will listen, that his greatest passion lies with being an tiuence on piloting - and one would be hard pressed to fjnd a P-3 aviator today, from Ensign to Admiral, who has not read of heard of; or flown with Jay. These pages are an attempt to compile all his written guidance on

operating the Orion. Marked with adherence to sound aviation principles, and written with home-spun humor, they contain the wisdom of one who’s done it alL Each of these articles submit to one common aviation paradigm: common-sense. We believe they will improve every aviator who reads and absorbs their insight. The application of Jay Beasley’s common sense approach to aviation continues to apply as our technological improvements in Maritime Patrol Aviation expand. For this reason, we have reprinted the sage and entertaining advice of Jay which was published by Patrol Squadron Thirty One. Since Jay’s unfortunate passing May 15, 1996 it is important that all P-3 aviators young and old learn and heed the wisdom of our community’s greatest pilot.

M. L. Holmes Patrol Squadron Thirty 1

(4)

TOO MUCH TOO SOON- 28

A

number of years ago the three Natops Evaluators and I

re-wrote the P-3 Ditching procedures. There had been two

for sure,and probably some more airplanes lost during

9 the ridiculous low airspeeds some people were flying. They

ditched a number of P-2's without loss of life by just plain

I

landing on the water at the lowest comfortable speed with

adequate control. No mention of numbers. So when we came to

I

the four engine ditching instructions we said to go land on

the water. No practice needed,because it is a normal landing; '

Wellsir,I ran into a problem the first trip after

the-re;-vision hit the streets. A number of idiots said they would not

,

accept a procedure

ditching,that is.

ti:ey

coulc"nt practice. Normal four engine

.So I had to explain that someone will stall

the airplane because they might flare at 10 or so feet above

the target altitude. A perfect landing is a stall about six

inches above the ground. A stall at six inches above a chosen

simulated altitude could b.e hazardous. So sometimes a lot of

forethought is behind some of the procedures.

YOU

cannot practice all potential emergencies,but some folks

try. If a P-3 is as unreliable as they make out,1 would not

even come to work. Most of the time everything works better

than your car. The following is a list of emergencies not

practiced for one reason or another.

Sird strikes:

Near misses:

Actual ditching:

Bail out:

Actual fires and smoke removal:

Actual engine and APU fires:

Boost out landings:

Landing on unprepared runways:

Landing with nose gear retracted:

Landing with only one main gear extended;

Landing with flat tires:

Emergency brake operation:

Propeller auto-featrer on takeoff:

Propeller overspeed on takeoff:

Propeller pitchlock on landing:

Propeller de-couple:

Engine bog-down on aborts:

Actual brake fires:

Locked flight controls:

Loss of all airsreed indications:

Actual two engine landings with the props feathered:

HP antenna retrieval+ using- overw&ng,hakch:

P-3 instability at 19 knots above VNX:

Blowing birds out of oil scoop during flight:

I know how to set up most of this,but I'm not telling!

(5)

P-3

Pilot

C

onsiderable progress has been made in overcoming the subtitled problem in the P-3 program. For instance, boost-out landing practice has been reduced to the necessary minimum. It has, however, been revealed on occasion that dangerous situations are still being induced by instructors -usually during their first few months in the new bird.

Sensible Amounts of Emergency

Procedures Practice Can Be Valuable

The average training emergency in the P-3 is very easily handled, since the aircraft has an abundance of power, is easily controlled, and has considerable system re-dundancy. The fact that the pilot under in-struction can usually do a good job of han-dling the situation from the beginning may later lead him into a state of overconfidence. It may also influence the instructor to pile on more problems in order to get the student’s attention. A situation of this sort can, and has, caused aircraft accidents.

Every Pilot Is Different

An instructor certainly should not be bound so tightly by the syllabus that he is restricted in imparting valuable techniques

Training

to stable, perceptive students. Unfortunately, pilots vary in ability and temperament, which places greater unappreciated respon-sibilities on the instructor. Each pilot’s po-tential must be fully developed, but always with due regard to safety. It must be consid-ered that he will not only perform all of the maneuvers accomplished during training, but may add a few of his own after he is checked out in the squadron.

Use Horse Sense

Common sense and judgment must prevail at all times during training and squadron operations. How far to go in train-ing is always questionable, as it is obvious that all potential emergencies cannot be practiced. There are aviators with 15 years experience who have never lost an engine in flight, while others have had more than their share. Lack of training has no doubt caused aircraft damage, whereas overtraining has also been costly. In almost every case, though, sound judgment would have reduced the hazards.

A good example in training was the hot and cold attitude toward single-engine-reverse practice in the P-2 Neptune. In the past, some commanding officers refused to allow this practice in the squadron but sane

(6)

tioned its use under actual conditions “if needed.” Without previous practice this “last resort” could produce

striking

results, pun

intended.

NATOPS Is In The Act

NATOPS is the development, by many very competent pilots and assorted people, of the best known ways to handle a particu-lar aircraft under normal and emergency conditions. It is inevitable that some people will be dissatisfied with the procedures, since they had no part in their creation. Some feel that they are hamstrung with trivial num-bers and words. Others feel content to regard NATOPS as a book of law to be used, if neces-sary, in defense of their own poor judgment. The NATOPS officers, evaluators, and model managers are always in search of improved procedures and welcome suggestions by all crew members.

Today’s state-of-the-art toward stan-dardization is a far cry from only a few years ago when each VP squadron had its own SOP. It was frightening to observe conflicting procedures at each base, and sometimes in the same hangar, in the operation of identi-cal aircraft.

It is the obligation of all pilots to in-terpret NATOPS as it is designed. “It provides the best available operating instructions for most circumstances, but no manual is a sub-stitute for sound judgment. Multiple emer-gencies, adverse weather, or terrain may require modification of the procedures herein.”

Certain remote potential emergency procedures should be practiced if they are intended to be used in squadron operation. Judgment must be exercised in determining which to practice and how often. Generally, one or two satisfactory demonstrations are sufficient.

Among the maneuvers which are

possiblypracticed too often

are

two-engine-out, no-flap, and ultra-short-field landings. The P-3 NATOPS manual forbids multiple emergencies in the pattern and emergen-cies of any kind at night. Such ridiculous things as shutting off all hydraulic boost pumps just after takeoff, pulling on power lever cables, and

practicing

boost out stalls

should never be done. Taxiing down an 11,000’ runway to within 3000’ of the end, then practicing short field takeoffs might be hard to explain to the accident board.

Windmill Starts

On occasion engine starts have failed at a base without spare parts. This situation may be demanding enough to continue the trip without a lengthy delay. The decision to windmill start the engine or make a three-engine takeoff with subsequent airstart will depend on several factors. First of all, an inspection should be conducted to determine that the starter cannot be engaged to the engine by

troubleshooting

the associated

systems. Inoperative engine position (i.e. No. 1 or No. 4) and pilot experience, as well as gross weight and runway length, are only some of the other considerations. The rec-ommended maximum weight for a three-engine takeoff is 100,000 lbs under ideal conditions.

Neither procedure is difficult pro-vided proper techniques are used. However, on numerous occasions tires have been blown resulting from brake application for directional control. Probably in every occa-sion the pilot had not been trained for the maneuver.

During a windmill start the pilot has but one responsibility, to accelerate to a maximum of 90 kts and stop on the runway, whether or not the engine starts. On a three-engine takeoff he must become airborne and clear existing obstacles before perform-ing an airstart. Engine failure durperform-ing this period would create the situation that a single-engine pilot faces on every takeoff. Since the acceleration and stopping distances will generally be less than that required for a three-engine takeoff, it would seem more practical to start the engine on the ground. The NATOPS windmill start procedure is very complete and concise, but a few help-ful hints may be in order. Each crew mem-ber must clearly understand his duties and functions, which can only be accomplished by reading the procedures and streamlining them into a concise briefing. The pilot in command must not concern himself with anything but directional control and stop-ping the aircraft. Instrument scan at this time could allow a swerve to progress re-quiring immediate action. Oddly enough, the natural reaction is to stomp on the brakes rather than decrease asymmetrical power when rudder and aileron are no longer ad-equate.

(7)

l7w m eyes on the runway, the flight engineer sive airspeed prevails on short final.

unfeathers and monitors the start, and the Floating halfway down the runway copilot is the program director. He also has with excessive power is poor practice under the responsibility of assisting the pilot with any condition. This habit-forming ultra-the ailerons. Aileron positioning is very smooth landing technique has created the important during acceleration, particularly need for full reverse and maximum braking if No. 1 engine is inoperative. When the at places like Norfolk and Burbank. Add a abort is commenced, and as power is being tailwind and possible hydroplaning and the developed on No. 1, the aileron should be roll out could be extremely marginal.

applied in the opposite direction upon com- Fly the airplane and make it work for mand of the pilot. you to fit all varying conditions.

Remember that it is no disgrace to The loss of two engines on one side of abort the takeoff roll should a rapid swerve a four-engine airplane has been a rare, occur. Taxi back and try again. It would be actual occurrence. However, since the pos-embarrassing to blow a main mount or grind sibility exists, the procedure of approach the nose tires to shreds. and landing should be performed during

pilot checkout.

Flight-Idle Approach from 1000’ The need for repeated two-engine landing practice is usually exaggerated dur-This maneuver could possibly be the ing training creating unnecessary hazards most hazardous of all training maneuvers, and robbing the transitioning pilot of flight and its value is questionable. The only prac- time needed to improve normal techniques. tical value of the maneuver would be an Once the student has satisfactorily demon-approach over extremely high terrain to a strated this procedure, repetition should be short runway. Conditions of this nature exist discontinued. A concise briefing and prac-at only a few remote airports and then only tice at altitude can, no doubt, save valuable on certain runways. flight time and possible hazards in the traf-Several airplanes including a four- fit pattern. This is particularly true for two-engine prop jet transport, have been demol- engine waveoffs.

ished during training because the pilots in- Power settings are the determining expertly performed this maneuver. Proper factor for a good approach to a landing. airspeed must be maintained all the way Regardless of the number of engines being down to the beginning of the roundout to used, a normal approach can be made pro-flare. Too slow an approach can, of course, viding the total SHP is that required. For result in rapid decay of airspeed during the instance, at normal pattern weights, approxi-flare resulting in an unexpected sink rate mately 1000 SHP for each of the four engines even though the aircraft is rotated nose (i.e. 4000 SHP) is required for downwind, high. Due to the hazards involved and ques- tapering to a nominal value at touchdown. tionable practical use of the technique, it Using two symmetrical engines, the down-may be well to consider its removal from the wind leg should require each to be set at training syllabus. approximately 2000 SHP. Using two engines Many instructors no longer require on one side, the SHP required should be students to perform this item but prefer to about 2200 each to counteract the yaw factor. demonstrate one per customer. This may At the go-degree position about 700 SHP is backfire, as the student is most likely to required on each of the four engines. For perform for the crew soon after being desig- two symmetrical engines the requirement nated as a plane commander. would be about 1400 SHP and for two on one Perhaps a more realistic training side about 1500 each. In all cases, the total maneuver would be to simulate a normal SHP required on short final should total ap-glide slope approach, “breaking-out” and proximately 2000.

going contact at 100-1.50’ with 140 kts or Since power settings are all impor-greater close into the threshold of an imagi- tant in performing this maneuver, the first nary short runway. At this point the power landing should be made using symmetrical could be reduced to flight idle and a safe engines. This will allow the student to con-landing executed. This may impress the stu- centrate on power settings and a normal dent that a smooth landing can be made near pattern without the worry of directional the normal touchdown point when exces- control and rudder trim adjustments. The

(8)

fuel controls are adjusted to meet starting limitations, it is common for the horsepowers to be negative at flight idle at slow airspeeds. Should a “cut” be made at the proper flare speed, the resulting negative thrust could cause rapid deceleration to a hard landing. Therefore, power control during the flare and touchdown, as well as throughout the approach, becomes highly important. An ideal approach to a landing is one during which the speed and power are gradually reduced so that at time of touchdown the thrust is zero. However, since flight idle power is usually negative and may vary from engine to engine, it would be virtually impossible to select power lever positions producing zero thrust while looking at the runway. This problem can be alleviated by making gradual power reductions to defi-nite desired settings producing the proper deceleration and flare speed. Generally the last observed horsepower will be about 500 SHP across the board just prior to entering the flare. As the flare is established, ease off the power. Naturally the speed will diminish as the flare is established and the power is reduced. To arrest the resulting sink rate it will be necessary to tilt the wing to a higher angle to create some new lift. Detection of the sink rate is commonly known as ‘seat of the pants’, which is controlled solely by visual reference to some moving portion of the runway ahead of the aircraft.

The preceding method of landing con-ventional airplanes on runways has been the accepted practice since the beginning of aviation. However, other methods are be-ing taught by some instructors. To eliminate the possibility of an abrupt power reduction at the flare, students are being prompted to never land with less than 500 SHP across the board. With a total of 2,000 horsepower the aircraft will float for a considerable dis-tance should an effort be made to “hold it off”, especially as the weight decreases. Re-marks are often made that the airplane is difficult to land when it is light. This means that the pilot is incapable of reducing power with one hand while easing back pressure with the other without “ballooning” or “drop-ping it in.” Perhaps his instructor couldn’t do it either.

To make the airplane land at the in-tended touchdown point many pilots will actually push the nose down until contact is made with the runway. The next action is to “nail” the nose wheel to the deck to prevent

any possibility of subsequent flight, then remove the 500 horsepower by snapping the power levers to flight idle. This is not. a landing, it’s an arrival.

An ASW aircraft is an expensive plat-form for sophisticated electronic gear and not a vehicle to plumber around in and walk away contented. A smooth landing is always the desirable way to end a flight, but not if it requires the entire length of the runway. Perhaps if the basic rules of flying are re-viewed from time to time, smooth landings can be made with a lot of runway remaining. Some pilots can consistently make fairly smooth landings by touching down in a flat attitude with considerable power, and much too fast. Fast touchdown speeds do not usually present any problem on a normal runway. However, once a pilot develops this habit, problems could arise on short run-ways and on those covered with ice. From observation, the pilots who land fast are usually the ones who approach too slow hav-ing to add power to make the threshold. Some pilots worry about jockeying the power le-vers back and forth. Usually the power is reduced in order to slow up to 1.35 in order to extend land flaps. The nose must be pushed over to avoid a rapid airspeed decrease, and the proverbial “three hands full of trim” must be applied at once, because the hand is now needed on the power levers to add thrust for the landing.

It would seem that many of the basic rules of flying have been discarded for the new state of the art. The “new state of the art” does not exist, but new people appear from time to time. It still takes more power to maintain airspeed in a turn than is required in level flight. Flaps are installed on air-planes so that they may be flown slower. Landing flaps are normally extended to re-duce speed but not right at the last minute. It is still easier to put the flaps out to slow the airplane than it is to slow the airplane to put the flaps out. When landing the objective is to stop and this becomes more difficult when power is being added instead of reduced. If it is consistently necessary to add power to get to the runway, it would seem logical that too much power was reduced someplace in the approach.

Perhaps too much emphasis is some-times placed on airspeeds and altitude at certain positions in the pattern and not enough on power settings and glide slope. The airplane flies on thrust which produces

(9)

IW _Y

speed. By setting the horsepower correctly Quote from the NATOPS book. “At the and pointing the nose to the end of the base leg position, complete the landing runway the correct airspeed is usually at- checklist and commence a visual descend-tained for the respective position, in the ing/decelerating approach so that the air-pattern. If the horsepower indicators can be speed slowly tapers to 1.35 Vs (APPROACH included in the scan pattern they become flaps) or 1.3Vs (LAND flaps) as the flare is flight instruments and the best of all backup established. It is not desirable to arrive at for the airspeed indicators. On occasion the these speeds early on final approach. Ease airspeed indicators do malfunction and the off power as flare is established.”

horsepower indications can be somewhat Be that as it may. comforting.

On the Ground” Rudder is the Primary

Directional Flight Control

D

uring the early stages of P-3 pilot tran- into the wind in order to attempt to equalize sition the instructor usually demon- the wind drag. The windward wing has an strates the advantageous effect of aileron effective higher angle of attack and a slight deflection during the ground roll. The pur- amount of up aileron will somewhat relieve pose of this demonstration is a build up to the it. At this time the rudder will effectively be realization that rudder alone may not be in the opposite direction to prevent weather sufficient to correct for a yaw during ad- cocking. Identical action should be taken verse conditions. These conditions would be during crosswind landing roll out.

power loss of an outboard engine at a critical The use of ailerons only to maintain speed on takeoff and inoperative engines heading on touch and go landings is poor during reversing. The technique of using practice. Here again, the rudder is the pri-aileron to aid marginal rudder control is not mary control and ailerons are not needed. In confined to the P-3, as many pilots have fact, any aileron deflection changes the

air-assumed. foil and causes loss of lift. Pilots who steer

Ailerons are effective for steering on primarily with the ailerons are one step the ground due to the up travel being greater behind the airplane. Should a yaw suddenly

than the down travel in degrees of deflec-

develop, the first action would be to apply

tion. The wing with up aileron will have the aileron followed by rudder and sometimes greater drag creating a yaw In that direc- brake.

tion. In addition, aileron deflection will af- During normal full stop landings the feet the footprint pressure and area of the rudder should be used as the primary control tires creating a difference in frictional drag. for maintaining direction. With power set The combined forces can be used to a great evenly any place in the Beta range the rud-advantage, but sometimes to a disadvantage. der is very effective down to a comfortable Rudder is the primary directional flight con- low speed. Over controlling with ailerons trol. during ground roll, ailerons, should be followed by out of phase footwork and ran-used as an aid only when the rudder is inad- dom asymmetric reversing with an

indi-equate. vidual brake application or two are the main

It is a natural tendency for a pilot to causes of ground incident on the runway. attempt to steer the aircraft with his hands A contributing factor to the incident when a wheel is available. Handle bars would rate in two engine landing practice is the no doubt produce the same results. Since incorrect use of ailerons. Objectively the childhood these two controls have been avail- ailerons should be used to counteract the able as a means of maintaining or changing yaw created by reversing two on one side. direction. There is little or no tendency to They should be held in the full deflected steer with a control stick even though it position until their effectiveness is mini-would produce the same results. mal. In the case of an actual two-engine It is recommended during crosswind landing, it would be highly desirable to spoil takeoffs to hold a slight amount of aileron the lift on the wing with the inoperable

(10)

The &@Jf&&dt?v engines. Since no reverse flow of air is avail- opposite aileron and approximately three-able, this can only be done with up aileron, fourths full opposite rudder. A slight amount which in addition creates frictional drag on of rudder travel is retained for changes in the footprint. Directional adjustments should the wind. Should less rudder be required, be made primarily with the rudder. The ideal more reverse thrust can be applied. Random amount of reverse applied would be that aileron movement is apt to set up a chain of sufficient to maintain heading with full events leading to incidents.

Flight Idle Check at 2000 Feet

T

he HamilE Standard propeller was in-s talled on twelve Electra aircraft in 195 9. The normal procedure for NTS checks was :hen the same as it is now. During tests of the First airplane, I landed with the number one crop feathered the first twelve flights. The -eason was that during the NTS check on :limbout the NTS would continue to decay until the 5 th and 10th stage bleeds would Ipen, requiring engine shutdown. On sub-sequent restart the prop would again feather is soon as NTS occurred. Some of you in the :lee t have experienced this malfunction and nust realize why a normal NTS check should ,e obtained to ascertain the probability of a normal restart. A stabilized RPM during NTS Lc tion is all important.

Why did it take so many flights to find :he problem to be a simple misalignment of :he NTS bracket? The state-of-the-art had lot yet reached this level. Once this problem yas corrected, the number one propeller lroduced a normal NTS check, but the same :ondition existed on two more props on this ;ame airplane. I began thinking about what :ould have happened should I have, for some ‘eason, selected flight idle on a short final. f NTS had occurred on these engines, they :ould have all failed at a crucial time. I lecided to perform another check on the NTS system in addition to the normal check dur-ng climbout.

The Electra test profile called for a :limb to altitude, performing various checks ts required, ending with an autopilot coupled LS approach. The logical time to perform a light idle check would be at approach speed it a safe but fairly low altitude. Since the ILS approach at Burbank requires 2,800 feet over he outer marker, a good place to perform he idle check is in between the marker and .he runway. Most of the time the altitude was tbout 2,000 feet and the airspeed about 140 mots. To stay on the glideslope approach, Tower had to be maintained regardless of the lumber of engines being used. To prevent

overworking the autopilot the power was reduced to flight idle on two symmetrical engines and advanced on the other two. Af-ter a lengthy observation of perhaps 10 sec-onds the engine power settings would be reversed. Had the Electra profile required level flight at about 2,000 feet at any time, this check might have been made then. The desired condition for the engine/prop com-bination is a true airspeed which corre-sponds to about 140 knots IAS at about 2,000 feet of altitude. It really doesn’t make any difference where the check is made as long as this condition is met. For instance, a check can be made at 1,000 feet at about 143 knots or at 3,000 feet at 137 knots to get the same true airspeed which results at 2,000 feet at 140 knots. An inflight evaluation check can be made about 143 knots in just one round of the field.

If NTS action is experienced, a thor-ough investigation should be made. Ascer-tain that air is not being bled off by leaks in the plumbing or an anti-icing valve being stuck open. NTS action at flight idle should not be a downing gripe after these inspec-tions are made. However, if the RPM contin-ues to decay with NTS action, it definitely should be a down gripe. The most common cause of an NTS at flight idle is a lean fuel control. It is most prevalent on number two engine. The reason is that number two is started first day after day from an APU with marginal air supply. Due to poor accelera-tion the engine may start hot unless the mixture is leaned. When this adjustment is made to prevent hot starts, which are not tolerated, NTS will usually occur at flight idle. NTS is, by far, the lesser of the two evils. The NATOPS Functional Checkflight Procedures are based on a flight profile for a complete check of the aircraft and its com-ponents. It originated at Lockheed and is based on the maiden flight of each new airplane. The same procedure would be used after a rework. With the current squadron

(11)

r

1

maintenance program, it is seldom that a complete profile is required. Thus, it is per-missible to alter altitudes and so forth as long as comparable conditions are met. Terrain clearance during initial runs and restricted areas played a major role in the design of the complete profile. For instance, at the time the propellers are first feathered at Burbank we are over terrain which required at least 9,500 feet. The true airspeed is sometimes performed while crossing Los Angeles enroute to the next inertial mark. Regula-tions require altitude greater than 10,000 feet when exceeding 2 50 knots IAS. And so on. There is no substitute for good judgment in performing checks. With a simple pro-peller change there is no real necessity to climb to 11,000 feet for a feather check, especially when IFR conditions prevail. In turn, there is no necessity in checking flight idle horsepower at exactly 2,000 feet as long as the true airspeed required is obtained.

Let’s apply judgment and common sense to the Flight Idle check as it is written on page 3-50 in the A/B manual and 3-56 in the c manual.

LEVEL (2000 ft.)

a. Altitude 2000 ft. maximum; 130 to 140 knots

b. Retard power to flight idle LIMIT: (1) No NTS shall occur

(2) All engines within 200 horse-power of each other

The reasoning person making this check should first of all allow time for a stabilized condition at a constant airspeed. This cannot be accomplished if all four throttles are pulled to flight idle, and the procedure does not say that. Perhaps it should

say “retard each power lever to flight idle.” I am quite sure that most people would not dream of making an NTS check on all four engines at the same time for fear of mal-function on more than one prop. With more than one misaligned NTS system the same thing could happen while descending at flight idle. It has been mentioned that some folks are descending with full flaps at a very high rate! Why, why? The book says LEVEL, and you can’t stay level very long at a con-stant airspeed with no power.

The restriction regarding the 200 horsepower spread is simply. I found that directional control is greatly reduced at flight idle after touchdown if, for instance, num-ber one had minus 200 HP and numnum-ber four had positive 100 HP. It takes full rudder to hold the airplane straight while cleaning up for a touch and go. Add a crosswind and the situation becomes worse. (Brakes some-how get into the act about here.) A horse-power spread between the inboard engines is not so critical.

A REAL PROBLEM

Patron Umptyump has been ordered to be home based at Las Vegas to patrol Lake Head for the next decade. The field elevation there is 1,868 feet! Should we perform the Flight Idle check at 2,000 feet, or fly over to Death Valley to perform it? Why not make use of the first page in the NATOPS book where it says, “use your head” and make the check at about pattern altitude at 130 to 140 knots.

Dern It.

Short Field Landing

V

ery few are made on short runways, but a great many are performed on average and even long runways.

Reasons for landing too far down the runway are numerous, but they all add up to improper deceleration after crossing the threshold. Touchdown at the proper airspeed without floating off the runway requires a reduction in thrust combined with increased lift to offset the sink rate. Many pilots have

difficulty in gradually reducing power and are prone to land with the proverbial 500 horsepower. To prevent floating on the ground cushion they may push the nose down slightly to force the airplane on the deck. This is better than landing long, but it results in higher than desired speed and sink rate.

The average Navy runway is about 8,000 feet long. The old adage is to land in the first one-third in order to make a passing 8

(12)

lt would seem that a good pilot would larrassed to land 2,700 feet down the I. This wide tolerance, if accepted,

be habit forming and be cause for

vhen landing at Norfolk or Burbank, lly coupled with not uncommon tail snd water on the surface. Spectators

et many thrills.

Perhaps the worst exhibitions occur he pilot elects to give the Admiral a nooth landing. He is prone to leave rer on, and maybe add some, to reduce k rate to minimum. Many times the

t will be on the heavy side to prevent

.ays in taking on fuel for the next leg. suit of this combination is obvious. [ding will be long and the touchdown vi11 be fast, perhaps so fast that the .ll hesitate in selecting the Beta range. lly the airplane will stop before run-‘f the runway.

Certain airports tend to promote long landing habits. Navy Jacksonville is one of the worst even though the obstacles on ap-proach are nonexistent. The arresting gear on runway 9 is about 1,100 feet from the approach end, right at the desired touch-down spot. If the wire is knocked touch-down a lengthy delay occurs before the next land-ing is made. The wire now becomes the bar-rier, and, to ensure missing it, the pilot tends to land 2,000 feet down the runway. The wire on runway 27 is placed 2,000 feet from the approach end and frequently gets knocked down because of the habit of touching down long on runway 9. Now the habit pattern develops to land about 3,000 feet down the runway and pilots easily fall prey to the disadvantages. The young ambitious type, in giving the Admiral the nice ride he de-serves, is apt to land in the last half, or maybe the last third of the runway. It hap-pens. But it shouldn’t. (there are no long runways)

bairnurn Control

Speed

Training

; of training pilots in P-3’s and other preach to the necessary training could be zhines resulted in more and more this. If symmetric power is lost on takeoff : approaches to flying. Not to seek out roll, and you cannot go straight, stop. In ate emergency situations, but to face flight under the same conditions reduce sym-in determsym-insym-ing where to draw the metric power in order to go straight if ground tiinimum control is an area in flight contact is imminent. If altitude can be traded g which is frequently violated. The to airspeed, perform this transaction to re-ms in realism have caused a few acci- gain control, clean up the airplane, and go nd numerous incidents. A simple ap- home.

(13)

Obviously the most critical time for power loss is on takeoff. It is mandatory that a pilot must demonstrate his ability to ex-ecute a takeoff with an engine failure at the critical speed. The odds against engine fail-ure at this point are no doubt astronomical but the requirement is valid. The odds against a second failure within seconds of the first engine malfunction are even greater, and this type training by fearless instructors would seem to be invalid. With an engine chop after refusal speed the P-3 still acceler-ates rapidly to liftoff speed, and 140 knots is attained shortly thereafter. It is almost in-conceivable that another engine would fail in this short time span, and a true profes-sional would not use such a weapon to get the student’s attention. There are other ways to create humility, should this be necessary. The practice of mandatory flap retraction at 140 knots on climbout with engine failure is not only amateurish but is not in compliance with NATOPS. If the airplane is climbing and accelerating on three engines, leave the flaps set and re-enter the pattern. If unable to return, retract the flaps and proceed else-where at three engine climb and cruise speed. Historically the most critical time for slow flight with engine failure is during Vmc Air demonstrations and waveoff prac-tice after ditching drills, and not on takeoff. This tragedy has not been confined to the P-3 community. The airlines took a heavy toll during the early years of the jet transports. They now perform most of these maneuvers in simulators and have all but eliminated accidents during related training.

It is safe to assume that the first 140 knots are the most difficult to attain and that subsequent flight will be faster unless de-liberate action is taken for training maneu-vers and landing approaches. At 140 knots on critical climbout, aircraft configuration would be gear up and flaps at takeoff posi-tion. This speed would seem ideal for Vmc practice for a number of reasons.

Takeoff should be the most critical portion of the flight, configuration should be for that environment, and the worst con-ditions could be simulated with a good safety margin.

The speed is well above stall and well above Vmc with two on one side since the power will be limited by practicing at a safe altitude of 8000 feet. In addition to power limitations caused by altitude it should be further limited by using 925 TIT, resulting

in about 3200 SHP, standard day. In order to get any valuable Vmc training at 140 knots it will be necessary to use only two engines. To get the same effect with three engines a much lower speed would be necessary caus-ing the margin of safety to diminish.

Since this is a training exercise and not a test of aircraft performance, much is to be gained in the atmosphere of safety by a good margin. Control can be simulated to be marginal by not using full rudder and aile-ron deflection. If the pilot can expertly con-duct the maneuvers and corrections under these conditions, he can also do them under more stringent circumstances. The concept that the airplane will go straight only if the favorable bank angle is maintained can be made indelibly in the mind of the student, just as if higher power and lower speeds were used. Waveoff practice can be accom-plished with perfect safety. The student can relax and learn to fly rather than be in a state of panic most of the time.

Simulate feather engines one and two with gear up and flaps set at approach at about 8000 feet, airspeed 140 knots, power 925 TIT on engines three and four. Position rudder and aileron to fly straight with 5 degrees right wing down. The ball will be slightly out of center, otherwise the air-plane would turn to the right.

In the beginning, prime concern should be given to airspeed control and con-stant wing attitude. Later, altitude retention must be included. It is very important that the student be able to look out the window at least part of the time and maintain heading, bank angle, and nose attitude. With concen-tration he will be able to conduct a double scan as would be necessary during flight close to the terrain.

While holding a constant rudder de-flection ease off aileron a slight bit and note the airplane starts to turn when the bank angle departs the optimum. Reapply aileron slowly and note the turn stops when 5 degree wing down is regained. The demo can only be accomplished with constant rudder posi-tion to simulate full travel of the surface. Ease off aileron again until wings are level and hold this attitude to simulate that aileron increase is not available for recapture of bank angle. Slowly reduce power on num-ber four engine to induce bank angle return to 5 degrees right wing down then slowly reapply power. Repeat these maneuvers until the student can perform them using

(14)

nary visual scan with frequent reference to nstruments. In most cases students will fly nstruments at altitude and disregard visual .eferences. When something unusual hap->ens he has to see it on the instrument panel, lecide what it is, then decide what to do about t, and do it. This all takes time. To be able to *eat t instinctively from visual references hen check the details on the instrument )anel is the answer. If you can see outside, ook for the big picture then add finesse rom inside.

Two engine waveoff practice can be ccomplished by reducing power on engine hree and four to 1000-1200 SHP in a descent t 140 knots, wings level and ball centered. ipply 925 TIT gradually while rolling in 5 .egrees right wing down and sufficient rud-er to prevent yaw. This maneuvrud-er should be one with primary visual reference, using a loud or object on the horizon, and frequent ut secondary instrument scan. Repeat the raveoff until the student can use power, ileron, and rudder simultaneously and in-tinctively, then add elevator for altitude djustments. The common tendency is to start climb before directional control is estab-shed, and on instruments at that. Remem-er that thRemem-ere are no instruments depicting angars, towers, and other hazards to low !vel flying. Conversely, airspeed cannot be :ad looking only at these objects.

Once the above procedure is in-rained, a two-engine waveoff is easy. Pilots ill be able to apply more and more power, nd more rapidly, as they become profi-ent. The same procedures apply to three agine waveoffs. Directional control must I established before a climb is attempted. rom a landing approach, with respectable .rspeed, a three engine waveoff is an easy maneuver. From a ditching drill, with much ss respectable airspeed, it is most likely tat symmetric power application must be

favored in order to maintain directional con-trol. A slight loss in altitude with directional control is more desirable than a possible greater loss caused by improper action. In summary, the purpose of this paper is to add safety to some of the training maneuvers. The reason for using two engines on one side for Vmc practice is to be able to fly with marginal control at airspeeds which are not marginal. The suggested speed is about 40 knots above stall and about 20 knots above Vmc, two on one side with full power avail-able at 8,000 feet. Yet marginal control tech-niques can be perfected and used when the occasion arises where control really is mar-ginal. Waveoff practice is also safe in this environment and can be perfected in prepa-ration for the time it is really needed. As for the need of an actual two-engine waveoff on landing, perhaps it is over-emphasized. The time you would go around is when the ap-proach is too high and too fast. Only an incompetent would attempt one when too low and too slow. If this situation presented itself, add some power and try to make the runway. If you can do that, you don’t need to go around. As far as the runway getting fouled, when you are in the flare on two engines, this is adding far, far too much romance by an amateurish instructor.

A word of caution: When the student is on a two engine waveoff he will have full rudder tab and a lot of leg muscles pushing on the rudder. Be prepared when you elect to bring in the power on the simulated en-gines. Some of them keep on kicking the same rudder with superhuman strength, particularly if they are on instrument scan, and you have to return to two engines. Re-ally. You have to be ready.

Keep ‘em flying.

3

asic concern in flying seems to e the

Multi-Engine Training

problem of staying airborne with power Power failure in a single engine air-.ilure. At this time gravity has no opponent plane can cause considerable inconve-rd the ability to cope and think about it does nience, since the escape routes are limited to It exist. Obviously it is necessary to plan bailout or to a hazardous forced landing. lead for such emergencies should they During the early years of aviation the ler happen. powerplant was the most unreliable part ofthe airplane. Forced landings were an

(15)

ev-eryday occurrence, and pilots quickly

learned to always have a landing site se- side at or near Vmc is more unlikely.

lected when at all possible. Past records reveal that engine-out The first multi-engine airplanes were training has caused far more mishaps than actually built in order to carry more pay- in actual operation, when almost everything load, since there were few engines powerful functions correctly most of the time. After enough to handle the requirements. Safety airlines now do the two-on-one-side bit inthe loss of a number of jet airliners the in numbers was not the prime concern,

al-though an added engine could certainly be the simulator - because of the danger as well useful in prolonging flight even if altitude as the cost. Obviously some training must be could not be maintained. In order to take done in all areas of operations for reasons of advantage of the remaining engine, the pi- safety. If nothing else, the pilot must bementally satisfied that he can handle the lot had to be able to fly straight with asym- airplane under reasonable but adverse con-metric power. Otherwise he would have to

throttle the remaining engine and glide to a ditions. Many, many incidents have occurred landing as in a single engine airplane. Obvi- practicing engine-out takeoffs and land-ously, some training is necessary so that the ings when the student wasn’t actually readyand the instructor didn’t realize it. How do pilot can take advantage of the extra power

available. you know when he is actually ready to per-form? Only after he has demonstrated time Now we are off and running. Instruc- after time that he can hold the airplane tors can make it very exciting with all the straight without thinking when an engine new goodies to play with. Decision, Refusal, is throttled. In order to ascertain that he can Vmc ground, Vmc air, engine out ditching indeed do this, he must display his ability to practice, two engine go- arounds, and other go straight at all times with primary refer: maneuvers too scary to repeat. ence to scenery outside the cockpit. With In primary training the single primary reference to the instruments his powerplant seems to function perfectly ex- first effort is to keep the wings level on the cept on rare occasions when over auxiliary

fields. On two engine airplanes you can al- attitude indicator, and a yaw will develop. most bet that one of the powerplants will fail Remember that he learned to fly in a single-engine airplane where wings level meant on every training flight. It is against the

rules, however, for both engines to fail. On fairly straight flight. With asymmetric power four engine airplanes two of them will fail, this is not always true.

and, more than likely, they are on the same During visual flight at altitude have side. It almost seems that multi-engine air- ing out the window primarily, with fre-the student practice straight and level look-planes, are more dangerous than single- quent reference ‘to the instruments. In a engine jobs, since the more engines you short time he will be able to maintain atti-have exposed to possible failure, the more tude and altitude with minimum scan. At this chances they will fail. Or something. It has

always been a mystery how four Spads could time explain that directional control must be fly day after day without engine problems, maintained when an engine is throttled by when four similar engines installed in one the use of the primary directional control,rudder. Continue this exercise until it is sec-airplane have multiple failures. It is

com-mon knowledge that five-out-on-one-side ond nature to go straight by visual refer-ence, if available, then check for details on landings were made in the ten engine vin- the instrument panel.

tage B-36 -just to separate the men from the

boys. After he has performed well at

alti-When and how often should engine tude, slowly reduce power on one engine atabout 140 knots after liftoff to see if the failures be simulated in training. This seems

to be a direct function of the instructor’s student will inherently fly straight and not immaturity. For obvious reasons the student let a yaw develop. Repeat this action some-must demonstrate that he can handle the time during the approach. In both cases situation with failure of the critical engine restore the power as soon as an observation at the critical time. One good performance in is made. The objective is to ensure that the this area should be enough, considering the student will not ever quit flying the air-unlikelihood of number one engine failing plane while barking out commands for re-medial action. (This has been one of the at one knot past Vmc. Failure of two on one chief causes of incidents related to loss of

(16)

control). One other thing - the most important Once the altitude and pattern train- thing about flying is to make the airplane go ing is satisfactory there should be no prob- in its intended path - whether it be straight, lem connected with simulating engine loss in a turn, inverted, or whatever. Command on the runway. Remember one thing - you barkers and skeptics often will focus on the can’t blow a tire unless it is touching the malfunction and forget where they are go-runway. Proper ins true tion can certainly ing. It only takes a second to get behind the lessen this menace of stomping on brakes airplane, sometimes.

when the rudder would have done the job if Keep ‘em flying! used early enough.

About Vmc Air

A

lmost fifteen years ago a Commanding heading. Bank angles greater than the opti-Officer told me that during their de- mum caused intolerable loss of lift, while ployment to Adak almost all takeoffs were flatter angles requires greater airspeed. In made downwind, even in VFR conditions, any case fly with wings level when possible. the reason given was that a takeoff on a During the Electra/P-3 testing it was certain runway required a left turn using 30 found that 5 degree wing down away from degrees of bank for terrain clearance dur- the failed engine produced the lowest speed ing initial climbout They elected to takeoff at which heading could be maintained - Vmc. in the opposite direction, even with tailwinds Conditions were with number one engine as high as 17 knots, to avoid a possible Vmc feathered and 5 degree right wing down problem! Someone had spread the word that using full right rudder and varying amounts if number one engine failed in a 30 degree of asymmetric power, it was noted that, un-left bank, Vmc would be 201 knots and they der the same conditions, the airspeed had to usually had only 160 during the initial turn, be increased by 26 knots with 5 degrees of When I recovered from shock we sat down left wing down. To be specific, each degree and talked things over before making a demo of bank angle less than the optimum needs a flight to clear up this misconception. Dur- 2.6 knot increase to fly straight, obviously ing the flight all doubt regarding control- this formula works only in bank angles near lability was eliminated by flying a coordi- level attitude.

nated 30 degree banked turn to the left with Now we are off and running for some both left engines at flight idle. good old NATOPS questions. It is a pity that Many times since I have been con- the question makers sometimes have not fronted with this same bit of nonsense. The used common sense, causing misconceptions, most recent was in 1979, when several pilots to say the least. To say the most, accidents were apprehensive about losing number one could happen taking off downwind, as in the engine while making a left turn out of Cubi. first paragraph, when it is not necessary. A Someplace along the line there are class- typical question might be as follows: Find room ins true tors feeding misinformation to Vmc air in a 30 degree left bank with num-the students about Vmc air, This should be ber one feathered and the other three at carefully monitored. 4,600 SHP. The answer expected could be 201 By definition, Vmc is the lowest speed knots! Solution: Vmc with 5 degrees right at which the airplane can be flown straight wing down would be 110 knots. 30 degrees with asymmetric power, The higher the left wing down is 35 degrees away from power, the higher the minimum speed will optimum multiplied by 2.6 gives 91 knots be. The ideal airplane attitude is wings level, which must be added to 110 resulting in Vmc but lower speeds can be flown using a favor- of 201 knots!!! This means that 201 knots able bank angle when the chips are down. would be required to fly straight with 30 Over thirty years ago the FM ran extensive degrees left wing down and number one tests on cargo airplanes to find that a 5 engine out. A P-3 flies very well on down-degree favorable wing down attitude was the wind leg with two out on one side and 160 optimum for the lowest speed to maintain knots with the wings level. Why would

(17)

any-one attempt to fly straight with 30 degrees wing down. That can’t even be accomplished on four engines without losing altitude in the horrible sideslip, probable flameout of two engines with anything other than full tanks, and possibly a little dorsal fin bend-ing.

To fly straight the wings have to be somewhere near level. During the turn out of Cubi, Adak, Burbank, or wherever, should an engine quit, continue the turn in bal-anced flight to the desired heading, then roll the wings level and proceed elsewhere - just like you would do on Saturday when nobody is watching! Basic training is to drop a wing when a turn is desired. When the turnis no longer desired, level the wings. With low airspeeds and asymmetric power a few tricks may be useful in prolonging flight. If the wrong wing gets down it may be necessary to reduce power long enough to get the.good wing down, then re-apply the power. One thing is certain, if you can’t prevent the airplane from turning when straight flight is necessary, the power must be reduced and altitude loss accepted. With the P-3 you have to work at it to get in this position.

Poor training has also caused another obstacle in the art of VP flying. People have been known to fly MAD traps at speeds of 2 20 knots and more to stay above the deadly 201 knot Vmc in a 30 degree left bank should number one fail. Egad! You can lose number one, two, and three in a left bank at 150

knots, apply normal rated power on number four, roll the wings level and hunt for a place to land on the water. Naturally the power would have to be reduced to fly straight with diminishing airspeed.

Here’s one for you. What is Vmc with number one failed and the rest at 4,600 while in a 30 degree right bank? since 30 degrees is 25 past optimum, multiply this by 2.6 knots and get 65 knots. Subtract 65 from the nor-mal 110 knots and the new Vmc is 45 knots! Even if stall hasn’t occurred nobody in their right mind would believe this. Nobody should believe the 201 bit either.

When an engine fails in flight the airplane wants to roll as well as yaw. Allow-ing the wAllow-ing on the failed engine to remain low will penalize the performance because the airplane is in a forward slip - a maneu-ver designed to lose altitude without gaining airspeed. Over-reaction, in this case, would be desirable so that the good wing would be down from the start. If the airspeed is ample for directional control, the wings can be leveled for best performance. After all, down-wind and final approaches are flown wings level, since there is no need for other tech-niques with normal power and speeds. If you need to, hold the good wing down. If you dQ!ft, dQl'ft, Wh&WX YQU 618, dQdt kt tie bad wing get down.

Keep ‘em straight.

High E$iciency Engines

I

t is highly unlikely that older overhauled engines will produce much more than 100% power. For certain, the efficiency will not improve after the normal break-in pe-riod.

Invariably, the computed 104-106% engines turn out to be mere 100% efficient. This is an easy detection by noting high fuel flow along with high power for a given TIT. One or more bad thermocouples can cause the fuel control system to by-pass less fuel resulting in higher powers and higher fuel flows.

The source of the trouble is appar-ently the ground run data. At best the 1050/ 4300 check is sort of tongue-in-cheek for extreme accuracy, with so many variables

present. It should still be used until some-thing else is devised, but fuel flow readings must be observed more closely. It must be assumed that older engines are more apt to be 100% or less than they are to be 105%. A careful observation and recording of fuel flow readings along with horsepower output may reveal bad thermocouples. For instance, if #l and #4 engines produce 4100 horse-power at the same fuel flow, but #4 TIT is cooler by 20 degrees, then something is wrong with #4 TIT indication. If the TIT is the starting point, #4 would appear to be more efficient unless fuel flow is taken into consideration. The more power you have, the more fuel you burn.

The following is an example that I see

(18)

frequently in flying with the Fleet. All num- When conditions similar to those bers are approximate and horsepower and above are observed pull the power back to fuel flow gauges are calibrated. 100% after a stabilized reading is taken. At normal rated it is unlikely that a severe !&-plane OErend an2ysis. #4 overtemp would occur, but it certainly couldat max power. Turbine life can probably be 105% 100% 99% * 105% extended if power is limited to 100%. Should Predicted power at 1010 TIT: the engine efficiency actually be 105% there 4300 4100 4060 4300 is no valid reason to use more than lOO%, Actual power Observed: since aircraft performance is based on 100%. 4300 4100 4060 4300 Should the engine be only 100% but com-Fuel flow observed: putes to he 105% due to false TIT readings, 2200 2100 2100 2200 then there is a good reason not to accept the

extra power.

When the power was reduced on Perhaps a good operating technique #l and #4 to 4100 the fuel flows all would be to set desired takeoff power to as read the same! All of the engines near 100% as predictable. On weaker en-are actually lOO%, or at least they gines the limiting factor would be TIT. Horse-all produce the same power and power would be the limiting factor on stron-are comparable in efficiency. ger engines.

Engine Discussion

F

orecast power is that to be expected at much higher than indicated.

either 80 knots or zero airspeed when a Engine performance is of particular selected TIT is set. The resulting SHP will be importance in two areas, takeoff and cruise. affected by OAT and pressure altitude. For All charts are based on 100% engines, both instance, figure 11-19 indicates that 4120 in thrust and specific fuel consumption. If SHP can be expected at 80 knots on a standard the aircraft takes off in the specified dis-sea level day. Under the same conditions tance using 100% power, and if MAX range 4110 SHP is forecast at zero airspeed. and loiter airspeeds are maintained with the Since all performance is based on specified fuel flow, there should be little 100% forecast power it would seem logical to cause for further concern.

use only 100% for takeoff and climb. On weak Engine performance can be measured engines the power would be limited by TIT. on every takeoff by comparing the SHP pro-On so-called high power engines the thrust duced at a given TIT with that forecast. If the should be limited by SHP, usually attained at SHP is low there is a problem. If it is higher

a lower TIT. than forecast there is usually a problem

Predicted power is a bootleg term for with thermocouples and the power should SHP to be expected as a result of the latest be reduced to 100% value.

1050 ground run. Since the hingepoint of Years ago, each squadron had its own the evaluation is primarily TIT, a malfunc- rules on determining when to takeoff or to tion in this system can result in a false SHP abort. In general most crews would go pro-reading greater than actual. viding the SHP was no more than 200 low, Inoperative thermocouples can cause which closely compares to our present 95%. a normal engine to produce excess SHP, since During this era engine performance was the TD system will not bypass the normal measured by forecast power at 1010 or 1077 amount of fuel. The added fuel to the combus- and not by the latest 1050 check. Further tion can greatly increase the output at a evaluations were made by comparing actual selected TIT creating a false evaluation of fuel flows to those in the loiter and MAX the engine. Continued use of this condition, range tables.

particularly at MAX power, can result in The 1050 trend got into the system, turbine blade failure - since the TIT can be with good intent, only a few years ago. In

(19)

is? comn[ete

many cases it has been valuable in the fix for tern along with engine performance at take-tired engines. In many cases it has caused off. The performance can be increased by a good engines to become tired before their malfunctioning TIT sys tern, but the fuel flow time because of malfunctioning TIT systems will also be greater when a given TIT is creating over-temps at high power and ac- maintained. If a SHP is maintained the fuel cepted by the crews unknowingly. flow will remain normal with a lower

Indi-During climb and cruise the SHP, and cated TIT.

not TIT, should be set evenly across the board. Troubleshooting is easier and more accurate The aircraft flies on thrust (SHP) and not in flight than on the ground for a number of TIT. When the SHP is even and the fuel flows reasons. For instance, the aircraft is always are even all of the engines are of the same into the wind. Average variations in OAT are fuel efficiency - providing there are no of little consequence when fuel flows and gauge errors. Fuel efficiency determines SHP are the hingepoints instead of the seem-range and endurance and is of prime con- ingly variable TIT indications.

Inflight

Engine Trends

Country Style

S

ince the airplane flies on thrust, and not high powered engines reads lower. Obvi-TIT, it seems logical that horsepower set- ously the TIT indicating system is at fault tings should be of prime concern during giving false horsepower readings - a com-takeoff, climb, and cruise. To climb at 950 mon everyday condition. It has been noticed across the board or to cruise at 925 when the that the flight engineers will reduce power horsepowers and fuel flows are uneven does to 4600 SHP when it is exceeded on cold days not conform with maximum performance at 1010 TIT. They do not, however, reduce for the situation. power from 4300 to 4100 on a standard day at

In many cases, due to faulty TIT indi- 1010.

cations, the turbine is being exposed to Most aborted takeoffs occur when the higher than suspected temperatures result- horsepower does not come up to the pre-ing in premature removal, if not destruc- dieted on engines rated at 104-106 percent.

tion. In almost every case the engine is a mere 100

percent but made to look better by inopera-The following procedures are offered tive thermocouples. Should one or more of as operational tips: these thermocouples start to work the horse-power will indicate less than predicted and TAKEOFF create an abort situation under the present rules. Most of the time the airplane is taxied Determine predicted power of 100 per- to the highpower area and a new 1050 check cent for normal rated or desired power. For usually resulting in a new engine efficiency example, at 1010 TIT, 4100 SHP can be ex- of less than before. On the next takeoff the petted on a sea level standard day, whereas engine meets the predicted and everyone is only 3 600 would be produced on an 86” F day. happy to go. Aborts are wasteful of fuel, time Should these indications be exceeded by any consuming, and sometimes hazardous. Con-significant amount, the power should be sideration should be given to using 100 per-reduced to 100 percent. It is not uncommon cent power for takeoff. The limiting factor to see horsepowers exceeding 100 percent would be TIT on weak engines and horse-by as much as 300 SHP with corresponding power for so-called high power engines. high fuel flows. Invariably these engines

are computed to 104-106 percent on the pro- CLIMB verbia128 day 1050 check. Invariably when

horsepowers are matched across the board, The 950 TIT setting for climb is an the fuel flows also match, but the TIT on the arbitrary figure which is less than 1010 but

(20)

more than 925. It is suggested that a com-parative check of horsepower be made across the board when 950 is set. The high powered engines should be reduced to conform with the engine producing the lowest horsepower at 950. If the fuel flows at this point also match across the board the engines are all of the same efficiency. The TIT on the high powered engines will invariably read lower and the engines are obviously running hot-ter than indicated.

At training weights there is no rea-son to use 950 for climb. It is suggested that the first power reduction for climbout be made to 3000 across the board. In most cases the fuel flows will match closely, but the TIT may vary. Symmetrical power should be maintained for all subsequent flight.

CRUISE

For a great many years all cruise con-trol settings were determined from the Op-erating Tables, and with great success. Flight engineers kept fuel logs using fuel flow indications and frequently predicted arrival fuel to within a few hundred pounds after lengthy flight. From observation fuel flow gauges are either very, very accurate or obviously malfunctioning. It’s as easy to read ten pounds of fuel flow as it is to read a tenth of a percent rpm - or easier.

Then along came Jet Plan and other forms of cruise control and a lot of people forgot, or never knew how to use the Operat-ing Tables.

It is suggested that the Loiter Tables be used periodically enroute to the training area or whenever convenient. Select the chart for the aircraft configuration, usually “B”, and set up loiter for the weight and altitude. To save time use the autopilot for maximum stability. Adjust fuel flow/horse-power until airspeed is stable. At this time compare actual fuel flow with chart fuel flow. If they are the same, the engines are 100 percent efficient. Note that there is no mention of TIT on the charts. Note also that a delta T only affects horsepower, requiring more on hot days to get the required indi-cated airspeed resulting in a higher true airspeed and greater distance traveled. Indi-cated airspeed and fuel flow are the con-stants while horsepower and true airspeed are the variables.

Using this method the so-called 105 106 percent engines invariably come down

to near 100 percent and many times the so-called 96 percent engines come up in per-formance. Although engine efficiency can-not be computed to be 99.9 or 100.1, one-half percent is easily identified. TIT indications may vary only a few degrees at loiter power whereas they may have a wide spread at high power. The thermocouples appear to be variable, inconsistent, and unpredictable. The loiter charts eliminate the most unreli-able indication - TIT.

There is no better way to detect a change in engine efficiency than to make a comparison check of all four engines. If the horsepowers and fuel flows match each other, the engine performance is the same. Should an engine suddenly, or gradually begin using more fuel with matched horse-power across the board, then that engine should be inspected for the common ail-ments. These checks can be made on every flight without special effort and the advan-tages are countless.

The 28 day 1050 check was designed with good intent to detect changes in effi-ciency/performance. Instead it became a weapon causing many unnecessary aborts usually because an unrealistic high power was not attained as predicted. To make it worse this high powered engine may have improved with old age, which should arouse suspicion of bad TIT indications. Certain ground runs are necessary but they can be minimized if comparative trends are con-ducted in flight. a. b. C. d e. f. ADVANTAGES

The airplane is always into the wind (IAS) for which there is a fuel flow on the chart. There are no fuel flows for ground operation and a wind change can affect power output.

Unreliable TIT indications are elimi-nated.

Errors in OAT are minimizes since a delta T only affects SHP and TAS, whereas a ground one degree error could mean about 40 SHP.

Turbine life should increase since false reading high powered engines will be exposed by erroneous TIT indications. An enormous amount of fuel is not wasted every 28 days.

Airlines do it in flight.

(21)

Turbine Inlet Temperature

Horsepower

&d

Fuel Flow

I

t has been observed that high engine

per-formance is blindly accepted on 28 day holding. Every component in the TIT system trend checks. As long as it is 100 percent or has been tested, replaced, swapped, and spit above little concern is given unless the per- on without finding the problem. According formance increased several percent from to the trend analysis they are blessed with a the previous evaluation. 111 percent engine. However, when the

It is inconceivable that horsepower is matched

the check results in per- with the opposite enginet h e f u e l f l o w a l s o

formance as high as 108 matches but the TIT reads

percent month after

month without arousing flight crews have come50 degrees lower!!!! The to the rescue by using 100 percent forecast curiosity regarding the

TIT indicating system.

This is only possible since fuel flow is not one of the inputs in the calculation.

When the SHP and fuel flow are higher than those of the opposite engine a good procedure would be to reduce the higher to match the lower and compare fuel flow. Should they be the same the engines have the same performance and the TIT indicat-ing system is in error. The followindicat-ing was taken from squadron records:

power using SHP instead of TIT. Otherwise the turbine would be subjected to very high actual temperatures.

Due to heavy workloads and the ex-tremely difficult and time consuming task of pulling thermocouples, maintenance depart-ments are reluctant to work on engines pro-ducing more than 105-106 percent on the 1050 run, although most agree that a few thermocouples may be inoperative. This is understandable, but turbine pro tee tion

a.

1050 Summertime SHP 4100 4100 4300 4100 F/F 2100 2100 2200 2100 % 100.5 100.5 106 100.5 Wintertime

#2

1050

#3

1050 1050#4

should be afforded. The horsepower gauge could be placarded to use 100% NATOPS fore-cast power chart instead of 100 percent of a predicted 108 percent engine - for example. The universal use of reduced power for takeoff is the saving factor in life of the turbine. Even so, the 111 percent engine

SHP 4300 4300 4300 4300

F/F 2200 2200 2200 2200

% 100 100 106 100

It is obvious that number three en-#2

3x30 #31012 #41032

gine has the same performance since the power and fuel flow matches across the board, but the TIT is 20 degrees colder on that en-gine. This squadron is blessed with expert mechanics who exhausted every possibility of malfunctions in the TIT system and have been forced to live with it. They now have an engine that jumped from 102% to 111% and

described above would be running at 1060 instead of 1010 degrees at normal rated, it also would be near 1000 at climb TIT. Flight crews can prevent this by setting horse-power from the forecast horse-power charts for takeoff and by matching power with the engine producing the lowest SHP at 950 TIT for climb. Until the thermocouple/TIT indi-cating system is improved back to where it was about twenty years ago it may be better to use the horsepower gauges as the primary indicators. For engines rated at 100 percent and above, use the forecast power from the NATOPS book and not all of the predicted-such as 108 percent. Weaker engines should be limited by TIT.

Lockheed Martin -The Complete Beasley II

ete

easley

Table Of Contents

Jay Rivers Beasley

1914-1996

TOO MUCH TOO SOON- 28

number of years ago the three Natops Evaluators and I

re-wrote the P-3 Ditching procedures. There had been two

for sure,and probably some more airplanes lost during

9

the ridiculous low airspeeds some people were flying. They

ditched a number of P-2's without loss of life by just plain

I

landing on the water at the lowest comfortable speed with

adequate control. No mention of numbers. So when we came to

I

the four engine ditching instructions we said to go land on

the water. No practice needed,because it is a normal landing; '

Wellsir,I ran into a problem the first trip after

the-re;-vision hit the streets. A number of idiots said they would not

,

accept a procedure

ditching,that is.

coulc"nt practice. Normal four engine

.So I had to explain that someone will stall

the airplane because they might flare at 10 or so feet above

the target altitude. A perfect landing is a stall about six

inches above the ground. A stall at six inches above a chosen

simulated altitude could b.e hazardous. So sometimes a lot of

forethought is behind some of the procedures.

cannot practice all potential emergencies,but some folks

try. If a P-3 is as unreliable as they make out,1 would not

even come to work. Most of the time everything works better

than your car. The following is a list of emergencies not

practiced for one reason or another.

Sird strikes:

Near misses:

Actual ditching:

Bail out:

Actual fires and smoke removal:

Actual engine and APU fires:

Boost out landings:

Landing on unprepared runways:

Landing with nose gear retracted:

Landing with only one main gear extended;

Landing with flat tires:

Emergency brake operation:

Propeller auto-featrer on takeoff:

Propeller overspeed on takeoff:

Propeller pitchlock on landing:

Propeller de-couple:

Engine bog-down on aborts:

Actual brake fires:

Locked flight controls:

Loss of all airsreed indications:

Actual two engine landings with the props feathered:

HP antenna retrieval+ using- overw&ng,hakch:

P-3 instability at 19 knots above VNX:

Blowing birds out of oil scoop during flight:

I know how to set up most of this,but I'm not telling!

P-3

Pilot

C

Sensible Amounts of Emergency

Procedures Practice Can Be Valuable

Every Pilot Is Different

Training

Use Horse Sense

striking

possiblypracticed too often

practicing

Windmill Starts

troubleshooting

On the Ground” Rudder is the Primary

Directional Flight Control

D

than the down travel in degrees of deflec-

develop, the first action would be to apply

Flight Idle Check at 2000 Feet