Squawk as you see fit (Off Topic Thread)

Lockheed

martinsvi wrote: »

how did it go? Are we going to have another pilot on the boards?

It went amazing! I really enjoyed it, and I will fly again in future. The Grob was a really nice plane.

smurfjed

OUCH..........

JCX BXC

smurfjed wrote: »

OUCH..........

Was there anyone on board!

Irish Steve

If there were, they were all down the back, and if they were not down back when it reared up, they probably were after it did so.

Full tanks, bags in the hold and a number of passengers down the back first would do that. Looks scary, but probably didn't do a lot of damage. If there were passengers/people on board, there was more chance of significant damage to the nosewheel if they didn't move carefully to restore the balance point forward of the main gear.

smurfjed

Its a green aircraft, so it didnt even have an interior, look at the aircraft to the left and you will see a tail stand. I don't know why this one didn't have one.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

Its a green aircraft, so it didnt even have an interior, look at the aircraft to the left and you will see a tail stand. I don't know why this one didn't have one.

That'll teach me not to look at pics on a small screen:)

Now I look closer, it looks like the tail prop is on the other side of the aircraft by the wing tip. Thanks for the clarification

smurfjed

That wasn't as embarrassing as this one ..:)

mr.anonymous

Is anyone else seeing ads for PW100 engines when they're on the A&A forum?

Think it's out of my price range! :P

smurfjed

This is a military 707, burning oxygen really is a scary thing. The fire started during the takeoff roll so they were able to abort.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

This is a military 707, burning oxygen really is a scary thing. The fire started during the takeoff roll so they were able to abort.

I'll troll you by pointing out that oxygen doesn't burn.

pepe the prawn

smurfjed wrote: »

That wasn't as embarrassing as this one ..:)

I was a talk given by a 777 captain recently and he mentioned that when they do positioning flights in them they have to be very careful when opening the throttles at the start of the take off run because the nose will just point towards the sky if you don't push the control column down and apply throttles smoothly, now that's nice power to have!

eatmyshorts

pepe the prawn wrote: »

I was a talk given by a 777 captain recently and he mentioned that when they do positioning flights in them they have to be very careful when opening the throttles at the start of the take off run because the nose will just point towards the sky if you don't push the control column down and apply throttles smoothly, now that's nice power to have!

I've flown empty 777F's lots of times (including a TOGA takeoff last time) and never heard of that problem.

smurfjed

I'll troll you by pointing out that oxygen doesn't burn.

:) The full report is here...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-a-us-air-force-aircraft-commander-prevented-a-spy-plane-with-27-people-aboard-from-crashing-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

:) The full report is here...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-a-us-air-force-aircraft-commander-prevented-a-spy-plane-with-27-people-aboard-from-crashing-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

"Investigators were unable to determine the fire’s ignition source but found that it was fanned by a faulty oxygen system that had been improperly serviced during the airplane’s last depot maintenance "

Fanned by the O2. They don't seem to have been able to determine the actual combustion sequence though, which is strange.

pepe the prawn

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I've flown empty 777F's lots of times (including a TOGA takeoff last time) and never heard of that problem.

Just repeating what I was told along with a room full of other people. Maybe he was exaggerating or trying to make it sound more than what it actually was.

eatmyshorts

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Just repeating what I was told along with a room full of other people. Maybe he was exaggerating or trying to make it sound more than what it actually was.

On empty 777F flights, we have to carry water ballast to stay above Minimum Landing Weight. Below that weight, an engine failure on a good around could result in a loss of control due to thrust asymmetry. That's the only restriction on light weight flights.
Below 217000kgs, a Flap 25 landing is recommended too.

smurfjed

Minimum Landing Weight

Is this a -F limitation? Our -200's have an OWE of about 146,000, how much lighter is the -F?

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Is this a -F limitation? Our -200's have an OWE of about 146,000, how much lighter is the -F?

I'd have to look up the Bulletin to get the specifics.
The F has 110k GE90's. The problem is the rudder moment on a single engine go around.
200's only have 92k Trents or 90k GE's.

eatmyshorts

Last empty 777F take off was out if Sydney. Had to go TOGA due to a locked out thrust reverser.
Passed through 2000 feet doing 6000 feet per minute.
Brakes off to FL410 in 12 minutes. It's a rocket ship.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Is this a -F limitation? Our -200's have an OWE of about 146,000, how much lighter is the -F?

Also, we've a Vref floor of 137 kts on the F to alleviate the problem.

pepe the prawn

eatmyshorts wrote: »

On empty 777F flights, we have to carry water ballast to stay above Minimum Landing Weight. Below that weight, an engine failure on a good around could result in a loss of control due to thrust asymmetry. That's the only restriction on light weight flights.
Below 217000kgs, a Flap 25 landing is recommended too.

Is the ballast distributed relatively evenly or more forward/aft?

eatmyshorts

The other quirk of flying an empty F:
If the last landing was at near MLW, and the next take off is empty.... the gear won't come up!
Something to do with WOW logic. Boeing issued a Bulletin about it. You have to press the Gear Override to get it to come up.

eatmyshorts

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Is the ballast distributed relatively evenly or more forward/aft?

It's put at the back.

pepe the prawn

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The other quirk of flying an empty F:
If the last landing was at near MLW, and the next take off is empty.... the gear won't come up!
Something to do with WOW logic. Boeing issued a Bulletin about it. You have to press the Gear Override to get it to come up.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between V1/VR speeds for the 777 fully loaded vs empty? Given same runway conditions and meteorological factors etc

eatmyshorts

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between V1/VR speeds for the 777 fully loaded vs empty?

It varies wildly. Performance uses a balanced runway, so its not always reflective of mass.
I've seen it around 125 and as high as 180.

smurfjed

Taken from the B777 FCOM

Takeoff roll
• Set takeoff thrust by 80 knots
• Monitor airspeed
• Maintain light forward pressure

I always thought that this was to improve the nosewheel contract with the runway as this was the main means of steering at this stage of the takeoff. The same applied to the G-IV, its also written in our B747 manuals.

smurfjed

Performance uses a balanced runway

Even with computerised takeoff analysis?

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Taken from the B777 FCOM



I always thought that this was to improve the nosewheel contract with the runway as this was the main means of steering at this stage of the takeoff. The same applied to the G-IV, its also written in our B747 manuals.

That's standard procedure. But if you don't, you won't even notice.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Even with computerised takeoff analysis?

200LR out of Doha the other night. Almost empty. Still had Vspeeds above 160.
It'll reduce thrust all the way down to 78 degrees.
Way more than Airbus will.

smurfjed

Its nuts to think that these are operated with TO-1 and TO-2 both with 40% ATM thrust reductions, so you are basically planning your takeoff with less than half the power available after V1 of only ONE engine!