I
n 1966 we decided to run some additional I was at the controls. The fuel governor test tests on the actions of a pitchlocked prop, switch was activated on number three since diverse opinions made it advisable. gine. At that time the switch had to be held to The test was made on P-3 number 5 174 while the ON position instead of being two position,as it is now.
The prop was pitchlocked at 15,500 feet at 260 knots and 2350 SHP. Immediately the RPM went to 106% and the SHP became negative 200. Obviously the fuel topping governor had done its job by taking away all the fuel except just enough to run the en- gine. Throttle movement had no effect on horsepower and it remained at minus 200.
The following numbers were observed during reduction of airspeed and altitude with the throttle full forward:
240 knots 105.4% SHP 750 220 knots rpm 105% 1250 200 knots rpm 104.8% SHP 1850 190 knots rpm 104.5% SHP 2200 180 knots x-pm 104.2% SHP 2450 160 knots rpm 104% 2900 150 knots rpm 103.5% SHP 3200 TIT 1010 140 knots rpm 103% SHP 3200 TIT 1018 At this time a descent was begun at 140 knots with the other three engines at flight idle. The following was observed:
14,500’ 102% 3400 1030
13,500 rpm 101.8% SHP 3650 TIT 1056 10,500’ rpm 101% SHP 4100 1070
7,500’ 100% 4500 1070
6,500’ rpm 98.5% SHP 4600 1070 Descent was continued to 6,200’ at 140 knots during which the SHP was held at 4600 by throttle movement while the rpm contin- ued to decay towards the minimum desired of 95%. An attempt to unlock the pitchlock at this time was unsuccessful and the prop had to be feathered. Obviously had the airspeed been increased the rpm would have also increased.
Another test was run at 1000’ at 180 knots when the blade angle was relatively low. Initiating pitchlock at this time re- sulted in rpm in excess of 105% and SHP at plus 200. Any attempt to climb at this air- speed resulted in rpm increase and SHP de- crease. An increase in airspeed while level at 1000’ resulted in the same. This is why you have been encouraged to unfeather at a high airspeed and at a higher altitude to be at a higher blade angle should the prop have a hydraulic malfunction.
K-13
I
n 1961162 several TPS graduates testing the P-3 suggested that the rudder forces be inhibited at high speeds. They were fighter pilots who feared an uneducated VP pilot might apply full rudder at 405 knots and bend the tail feathers.To begin with it is next to impossible to apply huge amounts of rudder at 405 knots. Secondly, no VP pilot would attempt to do this for any reason.
Until about 1976 the Rudder Boost Cut- out circuit breaker was never pulled except on periodical functional checks by ground personnel.
About this time frame the simulator hit the streets with a number of inputs pre- viously not visible during normal and emer- gency operations. One was that the rudder
pressure increased somewhat when operat- ing with less than takeoff flaps and asym- metric power set. The simulator seems to exaggerate these forces to the point where adequate rudder travel is not available. As a result the pulling of K-13 was adapted under certain conditions of flight.
NATOPS says:
1.
Pull K-13 on two engine landings.
Which two are lost? Should it be pulled with symmetric power in case another engine is lost and a go-around is neces- sary?
2.
Pull K-l 3 on no flap landings.
approach and a go-around become pulling K- 13. The student had never heard of
essary? the K-13 but before touchdown he was well
schooled by the engineer and instructor 3. There are no requirements for pulling- pilot and everybody forgot the gear, except
K-13 on a three engine landing. Is this the tower at the last minute. because another engine is not likely to
quit making a go-around improbable? FACTS
Yet there is a WARNING about checking
available field length for a no flap land- The Electra does not have the K- 13
ing!!! tern.
It almost sounds like inadequate 2. Takeoffs are made with maneuver flaps rhyme or reason for pulling K-13. at high altitude fields, enhancing per- formance. Airlines use the “overspeed” ASSUMPTIONS AND WHAT IFS technique on almost all airplanes.
are restricted for takeoff with less than Unless both hydraulic systems are takeoff flaps set because of the K-13 operating, rudder control is degraded under sys tern.
certain conditions.
What if the hydraulic system fails SUGGESTIONS in a MAD trap at 300 feet and two engines on
one side fail about the same time. 1. Eliminate the circuit for rudder boost What if two engines on the same side cutout. It is not needed for normal flight fail just as maneuver flaps are selected on envelope. At the time adequate
climbout. power is needed a circuit breaker
Who is going to raise the flaps must be pulled to get it under certain tween the time the first engine and the conditions.
second engine fail just after liftoff? This was
going on a few years ago. The instructor 2. Fly with the K-13 circuit breaker out all would demand that the flaps be raised by 140 of the time.
knots or else another engine would quit.
There were no reports of rudder problems 3. Revert to the procedures used the first with K- 13 in. Why not pull K- 13 during 14 years. Leave the breaker in all of the takeoffs as well as landings. At a reserve time. It can always be pulled should you base a P-3 touched number two prop on the run out of rudder when the flaps are less runway and flew around the field then approach, low airspeed, lots of sively. Primary cause, K-13. The student operative engines, and possibly actual lot of S-3 background was given a two hydraulic system failure. This was gine landing on his fourth hop. Prior to never reported.
reaching the 180 the engineer asked about
Landings
F
ewer than 100 have been made because Why do we still keep practicing such the flaps would not extend from full up foolery when it requires a full stop and asposition. much as 15 minutes to get off the ground
again at busy airports. At a time when flight
l The tail was never dragged on actual hours are at a premium it seems that other
landings. maneuvers are more important. Such as re-
peated precise normal patterns and touch- . The tail has been dragged many times downs at the proper speeds and areas of the practicing. runway. The answer is that it’s fun, so the younger pilots say. Some instructors say it is
l Landings short of the runway have necessary to teach pitch control. You don’t
control. Some say it’s the challenge of pick- ing a touchdown spot and landing on it (like short of the runway). I thought we always tried to land in a small area of the runway. But after observation I am seeing long land- ings made like they were 20 years ago. Don’t digress to amateurish flying in the normal everyday environment while wasting time doing no-flappers because it is a departure from boredom.
The following is a conservative estimate of landings:
Total Total Total
Unit Hours Landings Units Landings VP 150,000 450,000 24 R A G 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 8 8 0 , 0 0 0 2 RES 40,000 80,000 13 UTIL 20,000 40,000 6 240,000 20,000 7 280,000 T o t a l
The odds against having to make a flap landing are about 141,000 to one. I was
unlucky in having to make one in my expo- sure to 31,497 landings in the P-3. That one was in the YP-3, which was a mutilated Electra.
Every pilot should have made a flap landing prior to solo. Just to know in his own mind that he could do it if necessary. This should be done in RAG training with expert instructors. Then forget it, just as we finally did with no-boost landings. Only two boost-out landings have been made for real, and they were unnecessary. Both times the crews failed to understand the basic electri- cal system in trying to restore partial power. The odds on having to make a boos t-out land- ing are to two. Odds for normal landings are near one to one.
It seems shameful that pilots have to fly a NATOPS warm-up session before the evaluator steps aboard. Have they been un- safe for the past year? Think about having to do a no-flap or two engine landing without recent practice. Egad, it’s enough to drive you nuts. Somehow the pilots always come through with flying colors when the chips are down, and without recent practice. Must a no-flapper be made on a NATOPS check when records show that the pilot was once qualified? No.
Normal landings are not boring if done right.
Why
Landings Should Be Practiced
By Joe
1.2.
They are trying to take all the fun out of flying by methodically taking these termed risky maneuvers out of the pro- gram.
Ans: ASW flying is risky enough with- out teasing the animals. As a pilot ma- 3. tures he gets his thrills out of a precise submarine chase and a precise unevent- ful arrival at home plate.
Even though the odds are 150,000 to one that you will ever have to make one, it could still happen.
An s: True. Once a one engine landing had to be made in an Electra, so perhaps this should be practiced also. As a matter 4. of fact some Navy pilots were doing this about twenty years ago, until NATOPS came out with a restriction against cre-
ating power losses on more than two engines. Navy pilots get bored, it seems, unless there is some sort of an emer- gency on every flight. .
No flap approaches teach the student that pitch attitude does in fact control airspeed and power controls rate of sink. Just like they said at Pensacola.
Does this happen only on final approach, or can it be demonstrated at any time? Wasn’t this taught through- out training or is it just on no flap P-3 landings?
No flap approaches teach a pilot to pick a spot on the runway and land on it.
Isn’t every approach made with this in mind or is the touchdown spot
The
landing training. But once a pilot is quali- fied cease practicing and spend the flight time on something more useful. Most of the time everything works, so why don’t we practice with that in mind.
Years ago we did no flap boost out landings. Now that will separate the men from the boys. Had this maneuver been kept in the training we would certainly have lost some airplanes. Only two were made for real, and they didn’t have to be made. The crews were lax in their basic knowledge of the electrical system. Now get this boost out landings came close to being put back in the training because some JO’s told a Flag that they would bail out rather than make a boost out landing. This was only a few years ago. I suggested to the Flag that if this sort of thinking prevailed it might be necessary to give the crews actual bailout practice!!! Be- lieve it or not.
A long time ago I was at Barbers Point doing classroom and flight training. About twenty years ago I was making headway in getting people to quit doing so many flappers and more normal landings. So help me the launch airplane took off with 127,500 gross for an Alpha, and had a flap asymme- try when the flaps were retracted to full up. They dumped all they could, flew for ages with the gear down for fuel burn, and fi- nally wisely elected to land before dark even if they were overweight. They touched down at about 140 kts, which was about right, but about 2500 feet down the runway. Too fast to select Beta, right? They stopped on the very end of the runway with very hot brakes. A good job? No, he should have gone around and landed with a lot less runway behind him. Now get this, for the next week just about every landing at Barbers Point was a no flapper. All of the squadrons decided they had better practice up. None of this proved a thing because the average landing weight was 85,000 (91,320 was max).
So maybe we should practice heavy weight no flappers to make it real should it be getting dark etc. Egad, if such a situation exists fly to Patuxent or Edwards or some- place where there is a super long runway.
Flying is dangerous. Why make it more so by all this practice for highly unlikely emergencies. Look at the number of tires blown on practice two engine landings dreds) versus those blown on real two en- gine landings (one).
only important on a no-flapper?
5. No flap landings teach the student not to let the nose prang down hard as soon as the main mounts touch the runway.
Is he allowed to do this on other landings? If so we had better start over with some new ins tors who will not allow such action. A very lame excuse for doing no-flappers.
6. No flap landings teach the student the importance of the 13 5 knot limit for selecting Beta.
Since when do the props know what flap setting you have.
7. It’s true that no flap landings have been made short of the runway, but not very many. Things like this happen once in a while.
An s: Things like this should never However, it is easy to misjudge how high the wheels are above the deck when the cockpit is cocked up to a very high angle. There is a worthwhile move on to monitor pitch attitude on the indicator as well as eyeballing.
8. So the airport neighbors bitch about approaches being too low and scaring them half to death. Let them. The airport was here first.
If you can win this one they will hire you as manager of any major air- line airport.
9. No flap landings are fun and normal landings are nothing.
Ans: That just about sums up the ques- tion in hand. It is amazing that many pilots take no pride in precision landing technique, but grade themselves on emergencies, where there are accept- able tolerances. Maybe they can’t make a perfect normal landing.
Comments
I have heard some wild excuses for not giving up no flap landings. Some so wild that I am reluctant to repeat them for fear of hurting feelings. Like the one about under- wing Ice buildup to the point of the flaps being frozen to the wing, necessitating a flapper in absolutely intolerable weather.