Quoted: I have seen some pretty dang big dings and dents that nobody knew where there till they inspected it, birds and big rocks I guess.    For the naysayers, I will get a copy of the -1 for tactical decents, and translate only the relevant parts here.  (tomorrow, I just got home from work)

The Navy has a couple of CFM-56's that have not been demated from the E-6B wing since the original install.
Over 15,000 flight hours.

Members of the NAVAIR E-6B Program Office (PMA-271) and Strategic Communications Wing 1 marked a first in U.S. military aviation history on May 28 when they commemorated an E-6B Mercury engine that surpassed 15,000 hours of flight time without the need for major repair or removal from the wing. Oklahoma City community members, defense industry members from CFMI, Boeing and GE joined Wing and NAVAIR personnel to celebrate the milestone event during the ceremony held at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla. In early May, the CFM-56-2A-2 turbo fan engine, the engine that powers the E-6B Mercury, surpassed the 15,000-hour mark. This is the first time in U.S. military aviation history this milestone has been achieved.

I can't remember if you have to change the fan blades in matched sets of three or five.
In any case you can replace the fan blades in less than a couple hours.

Does the C-17 have leading edge slats or flaps or a combination of both?

Quoted: Quoted: I have seen some pretty dang big dings and dents that nobody knew where there till they inspected it, birds and big rocks I guess.    For the naysayers, I will get a copy of the -1 for tactical decents, and translate only the relevant parts here.  (tomorrow, I just got home from work)   The Navy has a couple of CFM-56's that have not been demated from the E-6B wing since the original install. Over 15,000 flight hours. Members of the NAVAIR E-6B Program Office (PMA-271) and Strategic Communications Wing 1 marked a first in U.S. military aviation history on May 28 when they commemorated an E-6B Mercury engine that surpassed 15,000 hours of flight time without the need for major repair or removal from the wing. Oklahoma City community members, defense industry members from CFMI, Boeing and GE joined Wing and NAVAIR personnel to celebrate the milestone event during the ceremony held at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla. In early May, the CFM-56-2A-2 turbo fan engine, the engine that powers the E-6B Mercury, surpassed the 15,000-hour mark. This is the first time in U.S. military aviation history this milestone has been achieved. I can't remember if you have to change the fan blades in matched sets of three or five. In any case you can replace the fan blades in less than a couple hours.

I LOVE the CFM-56, best high bypass turbofan going.  We use them on all of our KC-135Rs ya know.  There have been CFM-56s that have gone over 25K hours on the wing! www.cfm56.com/news/press/2002/cfm02-34.htm  

The pratts on the C-17 aren't that good, but they are pretty dang sturdy, except the POS core T/Rs.  We change blades in pairs on them, takes a few minutes, no fuss, no muss.  I've still never seen a CFM-56 in a pic like this though.

Quoted: Does the C-17 have leading edge slats or flaps or a combination of both?

Slats.  

Huge fully blown flaps, slats, spoilers (barn door sizeX8) and of course ailerons, elevators, rudders (all dual/split except ailerons).  Four 4K psi hydraulic systems, 12 pumps, tons of redundancy.  

Both, IIRC.

We get C-17s into NAS Whidbey every now and then, when one of our "expeditionary" Prowler squadrons goes on deployment. My dad worked on the C-17 program for a while at McDonnel Douglas plant in Long Beach, CA, before they were bought by Boeing. He wrote some of the tech manuals.

When will the Air Force wake up and build KC-17's, AC-17's, EC-17's, RC-17's, and MC-17's?

The C-17 could be the next DC-3 or C-135/B-707.

Quoted: Both, IIRC. We get C-17s into NAS Whidbey every now and then, when one of our "expeditionary" Prowler squadrons goes on deployment. My dad worked on the C-17 program for a while at McDonnel Douglas plant in Long Beach, CA, before they were bought by Boeing. He wrote some of the tech manuals.

That's the Douglas plant in Long Beach.
Once the C-17 production run is over and Boeing sells the Long Beach plant Douglas Aircraft will really be dead.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Heres a C-130 on a combat approach.Hold on to yer lunch! Made hot… www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006_c130_amazing_approach.wmv HOLY HELL

The size of the plane makes it impressive but my daily approach in the 172 is the same deal. Base to final at 1000' AGL so the last broadcast can make it through and then nose up til 60Knts, select flaps 40 degrees, mixture full lean, and steep turn til just off the threshold. Mixture rich and flaps select up at the flare, and off at the first intersection. With 30knts of wind just 180 back to the end. Scares the crap out of everybody accept me, my rider, and airport employees who see it everyday.

Quoted: When will the Air Force wake up and build KC-17's, AC-17's, EC-17's, RC-17's, and MC-17's? The C-17 could be the next DC-3 or C-135/B-707.

Those would rock, most could be roll on/roll off packages.  I have put a lot of thought into the AC-17, you could put a mount for the targeting optics on it and create removable door/panel fuselage plugs and you could remove the boom boom and go back slick pretty quickly.  It would pay a weight penalty, so they could build 10-20 of them and call it good.  I picture a cut down 155mm or 120mm hanging out the left troop door.  The KC would be cake, roll a hose out the ramp for you Navy guys and be done with it, it does carry 240,000 pounds of gas already.    We already sort of have the MC-17, its called SOLL-II, look it up.    The RC and EC could all be strap on stuff too, add the antennae permanently and roll on the personnel/equipment as needed.  

I love the quick config changes the way they are now, we have already replaced the C-141, C-9, C-130 (augmented greatly), and C-5 (also augmented).  C-17s have moved 75% of the cargo in the AOR since GWIII kicked off.  We can convert from medivac to airdrop to pax to rolling stock to pallets in minutes, and we do it all the time.  It's pretty cool, but we need at least 220 of them, the original number (not the budget cutting "compromise" number).  

Quoted: Quoted: When will the Air Force wake up and build KC-17's, AC-17's, EC-17's, RC-17's, and MC-17's? The C-17 could be the next DC-3 or C-135/B-707. Those would rock, most could be roll on/roll off packages.  I have put a lot of thought into the AC-17, you could put a mount for the targeting optics on it and create removable door/panel fuselage plugs and you could remove the boom boom and go back slick pretty quickly.  It would pay a weight penalty, so they could build 10-20 of them and call it good.  I picture a cut down 155mm or 120mm hanging out the left troop door.  The KC would be cake, roll a hose out the ramp for you Navy guys and be done with it, it does carry 240,000 pounds of gas already.    We already sort of have the MC-17, its called SOLL-II, look it up.    The RC and EC could all be strap on stuff too, add the antennae permanently and roll on the personnel/equipment as needed.   I love the quick config changes the way they are now, we have already replaced the C-141, C-9, C-130 (augmented greatly), and C-5 (also augmented).  C-17s have moved 75% of the cargo in the AOR since GWIII kicked off.  We can convert from medivac to airdrop to pax to rolling stock to pallets in minutes, and we do it all the time.  It's pretty cool, but we need at least 220 of them, the original number (not the budget cutting "compromise" number).

Don't forget BC-17.  

Wouldn't it be nice to see one loaded out with BLU-82s in a strategic airlift configuration (pallets side-by-side)?  

How many MOABs would fit in there?

On that note, let's see 'em load a C-5 in similiar fashion.

Quoted: Thrust Reverser 101 with pictures of the C-17 system

Too bad they misidentified the UPS plane, that's not a DC-9, but rather a 727

Quoted: Quoted: Forgive me for being dense, but does the air go backwards through the fan, in through the grate, out through the front inlet cowling? Surely the fan does not go into reverse...or do the fan blades have variable pitch, like a propeller? No, the reverser grates are aft of the fan. So the air still goes thru the fan. When you select reverse, the cowls open (exposing the grates) and the inside of the nacelle (between the engine, and the nacelle) are blocked off. The only way out for the air then is thru the grates. Think about it like this. The actual "power" part of the engine is much smaller than the nacelle, let's just say half as big. The fan air normally just flows around the "engine", and out the back. Where it mixes with the hot exhaust air. The reversers just re-direct that "outside air". The engine and fan never change directions. IIRC, certain versions of the DC-8, and the concorde could use reverse in flight as well.

I don't know about the Concorde, but the DC-8-70 series (CFM-56 engines installed) had the ability to deploy the number 2 and 3 engine reversers in flight.  It was a problem that they ran into with an aircraft with the fuselage size of a 757 with the wing area of an L-1011.  At idle, the rate of decent was horribly low that they had to make the inboard engines to be able to reverse so that they could decend without busting Vne.

Quoted: I found this Tactical Descent procedure using only open source means (google, of course), so don't yell about opsec please.   17.12. Tactical Descents. If necessary, reverse engine idle thrust and speed brakes can be used to obtain rapid descents from high altitudes. Initial descent rates of over 12,000 fpm may be achieved. Tactical descents are always flown single ship and use of the flight director for guidance is recommended.

Thanks CB! I tried a google myself but failed.

aa

Quoted: The size of the plane makes it impressive but my daily approach in the 172 is the same deal. Base to final at 1000' AGL so the last broadcast can make it through and then nose up til 60Knts, select flaps 40 degrees, mixture full lean, and steep turn til just off the threshold. Mixture rich and flaps select up at the flare, and off at the first intersection. With 30knts of wind just 180 back to the end. Scares the crap out of everybody accept me, my rider, and airport employees who see it everyday.

WTF?

Making your base-to-final radio call at 500' would work just as well so who cares.
Why the F would you set your mixture to full lean? Pull it back to idle, sure, but full lean? That's not going to do anything except make a go-around scarier.
You just turned on final. In what direction are you doing a steep turn after that? Do you mean sideslip? I'm going to have to call BS on this one.

Sure, you can hang from flaps 40 at idle, and it seems steep, and it is fun (well, some people are scared), and every Cessna pilot has done it because you need to do it in primary flight training, so Big Deal. And it isn't ever going to be nearly as steep as somebody equipped with beta or reverse thrust.

aa

Quoted: Quoted: The size of the plane makes it impressive but my daily approach in the 172 is the same deal. Base to final at 1000' AGL so the last broadcast can make it through and then nose up til 60Knts, select flaps 40 degrees, mixture full lean, and steep turn til just off the threshold. Mixture rich and flaps select up at the flare, and off at the first intersection. With 30knts of wind just 180 back to the end. Scares the crap out of everybody accept me, my rider, and airport employees who see it everyday. WTF? Making your base-to-final radio call at 500' would work just as well so who cares. Why the F would you set your mixture to full lean? Pull it back to idle, sure, but full lean? That's not going to do anything except make a go-around scarier. You just turned on final. In what direction are you doing a steep turn after that? Do you mean sideslip? I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Sure, you can hang from flaps 40 at idle, and it seems steep, and it is fun (well, some people are scared), and every Cessna pilot has done it because you need to do it in primary flight training, so Big Deal. And it isn't ever going to be nearly as steep as somebody equipped with beta or reverse thrust. aa

Our broadcast radio for the traffic watch operation will start to fizzle and cut out below 1000' AGL.

The drag off the prop is much greater with the engine dragging than with it idling. I have over 6000 hour of flight time, and spend the rest of my time A&Ping so trust me here. The decent angle and vertical speed are greater mixture off.

The manuver looks like a falling leaf. You do steep turns both left and right and at low airspeed the aircraft just slides down.

This is just maximum decent manuver. You can watch many different operations use them including parachute jump ships and glider tow operators. BTW I don't recommend the average weekend warrior do this or aerobatics or IMC approaches or anything they cannot handle. I was just showing the need for the manuvers linked in the thread for Tactical Decents.

Quoted: Quoted: They don't use max reverse in flight for the tactical descents, just  flight reverse idle. Wicked shit. Fixed it for ya, they do open the reversers.

Drrrr        

Quoted: Quoted: Heres a C-130 on a combat approach.Hold on to yer lunch! Made hot… www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006_c130_amazing_approach.wmv

I would shit my pants And I still want a ride doing that, messy pants and all.  

Quoted: Quoted: I've heard the C-17 can lose altitude at over 20,000ft/min on a tactical approach!!!!! Drop the flaps and gear, push the throttles past the gate into reverse, lower the nose and trim the aircraft up and there ya go....

Deploy spoilers and put the inboard engines into reverse idle.

You will look like a refrigerator in freefall an radar.

Quoted: Shouldn't be able to move throttles into reverse unless you have gear down & weight on wheels. He probably meant to say throttles to flight idle.

I'm coming into this late, but yes, you can deploy TRs in flight.

Another tidbit.

At a gross weight of 585,000 pounds it can touch down at 600 fpm.

How much energy is that?  Over half a million pounds impacting the ground at 10 fps?

Quoted: Quoted: Is that possible? In flight, no touch down swithes activated? Just curious, or are the stops in the throttle quadrant all that's there? Do you guys bother to READ my posts?

No we ignored them all

Quoted: Another tidbit. At a gross weight of 585,000 pounds it can touch down at 600 fpm. How much energy is that?  Over half a million pounds impacting the ground at 10 fps?

That is an engineering marvel there!

Did you hear about the C-17 crew that did a touch & go in a mine field in the 'Stan?

Quoted: The manuver looks like a falling leaf. You do steep turns both left and right and at low airspeed the aircraft just slides down.

So how many turns/reversals do you get in from 1000' AGL?

This is just maximum decent manuver. You can watch many different operations use them including parachute jump ships and glider tow operators.

I used to be a static line JM (crap, now I've dated myself ) and never saw either technique (mixture lean, falling leaf) used. Fast, spiraling descents, yes, absolutely, but those were at Vne. On the occasional load where there was time to get out (i.e. didn't have to immediately pick up another load) the pilots would often beat me to the ground no matter how hard I spiraled down.

BTW I don't recommend the average weekend warrior do this or aerobatics or IMC approaches or anything they cannot handle.

Nope, not me. I'm happy to just slip it in if necessary. I do like a steep approach, though, a side effect of learning to land parachutes first, I think.

aa

Quoted: Quoted: The manuver looks like a falling leaf. You do steep turns both left and right and at low airspeed the aircraft just slides down. So how many turns/reversals do you get in from 1000' AGL? This is just maximum decent manuver. You can watch many different operations use them including parachute jump ships and glider tow operators. I used to be a static line JM (crap, now I've dated myself ) and never saw either technique (mixture lean, falling leaf) used. Fast, spiraling descents, yes, absolutely, but those were at Vne. On the occasional load where there was time to get out (i.e. didn't have to immediately pick up another load) the pilots would often beat me to the ground no matter how hard I spiraled down. BTW I don't recommend the average weekend warrior do this or aerobatics or IMC approaches or anything they cannot handle. Nope, not me. I'm happy to just slip it in if necessary. I do like a steep approach, though, a side effect of learning to land parachutes first, I think. aa

You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater.

By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire.

My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car.

I wish I spent as much time in the air as I do driving my truck. Im lucky to get 5 hours a week.

Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car.

You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern?

And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right?

IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way.

The funny thing about the big C-17 is that it began life back in the 1970's as a replacement for the C-130 Hercules; it was MUCH smaller back then! This was the McDonnell Douglas YC-15, which was entered in the AMST (Advanced Medium STOL Transport) program, where it was in competition with the Boeing YC-14. That program was terminated after two each prototypes were built and flown.

Another funny thing is that both prototypes eventually made it into series production...but, the YC-14 design was copied by the Soviets, who now fly it as the AN-72!

Good designs are too hard to kill I guess.

Quoted: Quoted: Thrust Reverser 101 with pictures of the C-17 system Too bad they misidentified the UPS plane, that's not a DC-9, but rather a 727 Quoted: Quoted: Forgive me for being dense, but does the air go backwards through the fan, in through the grate, out through the front inlet cowling? Surely the fan does not go into reverse...or do the fan blades have variable pitch, like a propeller? No, the reverser grates are aft of the fan. So the air still goes thru the fan. When you select reverse, the cowls open (exposing the grates) and the inside of the nacelle (between the engine, and the nacelle) are blocked off. The only way out for the air then is thru the grates. Think about it like this. The actual "power" part of the engine is much smaller than the nacelle, let's just say half as big. The fan air normally just flows around the "engine", and out the back. Where it mixes with the hot exhaust air. The reversers just re-direct that "outside air". The engine and fan never change directions. IIRC, certain versions of the DC-8, and the concorde could use reverse in flight as well. I don't know about the Concorde, but the DC-8-70 series (CFM-56 engines installed) had the ability to deploy the number 2 and 3 engine reversers in flight.  It was a problem that they ran into with an aircraft with the fuselage size of a 757 with the wing area of an L-1011.  At idle, the rate of decent was horribly low that they had to make the inboard engines to be able to reverse so that they could decend without busting Vne.

All the DC-8s could do that. As a matter of fact,the DC-8-10/40 series had a translating ring on each engine,also helped in a REAL small way with helping to quiet down the racket(Delta got the first noise violation,at NY-Idlewild/now JFK). BTW,my ol'man flew Delta 727s,at 40 degree flaps,a 72 will drop like a lead safe.

Apparently the USAF has a hardon for the C-17 today too, look at the main page:

www.af.mil/

Three out of five headlines are C-17 stuff (I guess Boeing told them to put on the full court press to keep the assembly line open past 180 )

C-17 surpasses its one millionth flying hour

Single C-17 breaks airdrop record

C-17s deliver relief to Kauai

Quoted: Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car. You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern? And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right? IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way.

Check back in when you have 2000 hours please. You don't have a clue.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car. You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern? And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right? IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way. Check back in when you have 2000 hours please. You don't have a clue.

I passed 2000 hours 11,000 hours ago.   I've got five type ratings, still hold a CFII/MEI, and I've been a check airman on three different fleet types.  I've "got a clue".

My point is, that when you do things that are non-standard,  (shutting down the engine to expidite your descent qualifies).  You are setting yourself up.  What happens one time you need to go around, push the mixture back in, and nothing happens?  It may work out ok, and it may not.  

When I was a student, my instructor simulated an engine failure with the mixture.  When he pushed it back in, the engine would not re-start.  That was the begenning of my only off airport landing.  Somthing I'd rather not repeat.  I enjoyed a brief interview with the local FSDO Inspector.  But my Instructor got to take a 609 checkride.  If those are things you think you might enjoy, by all means continue what you are doing.

One of my shooting friends is an active BA 777 pilot (He lives in the US, loves guns--take that UK!)

Anyway...it seems a 12Kft/min descent is no great shakes. A mere 777 will do that as well and is required to if they need an emergency descent in the event of a rapid depressurization. No thrust reversers required. On the other hand he couldn't really compare at what descent angle each plane could do it. I wonder how much steeper it can be in a C17?

aa

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car. You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern? And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right? IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way. Check back in when you have 2000 hours please. You don't have a clue. I passed 2000 hours 11,000 hours ago.   I've got five type ratings, still hold a CFII/MEI, and I've been a check airman on three different fleet types.  I've "got a clue". My point is, that when you do things that are non-standard,  (shutting down the engine to expidite your descent qualifies).  You are setting yourself up.  What happens one time you need to go around, push the mixture back in, and nothing happens?  It may work out ok, and it may not.   When I was a student, my instructor simulated an engine failure with the mixture.  When he pushed it back in, the engine would not re-start.  That was the begenning of my only off airport landing.  Somthing I'd rather not repeat.  I enjoyed a brief interview with the local FSDO Inspector.  But my Instructor got to take a 609 checkride.  If those are things you think you might enjoy, by all means continue what you are doing.

OWNED


That was a good post. When I operated for the airlines, we had a cheif instructor in the B1900's, he made a good point to us one day: Can the plane do it? Sure. If you do it, there better not be any other alternatives..

When I got to the 74's as a PFE, I really enjoyed hearing some of the stories these guys tried telling me about what they could make the whale do...I told them, "that's nice..Bend metal on your own time."

But I don't know a thing..I only have 5k+ hours in  Herc's, B1900's and 74's... I quit BTW..

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car. You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern? And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right? IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way. Check back in when you have 2000 hours please. You don't have a clue. I passed 2000 hours 11,000 hours ago.   I've got five type ratings, still hold a CFII/MEI, and I've been a check airman on three different fleet types.  I've "got a clue". My point is, that when you do things that are non-standard,  (shutting down the engine to expidite your descent qualifies).  You are setting yourself up.  What happens one time you need to go around, push the mixture back in, and nothing happens?  It may work out ok, and it may not.   When I was a student, my instructor simulated an engine failure with the mixture.  When he pushed it back in, the engine would not re-start.  That was the begenning of my only off airport landing.  Somthing I'd rather not repeat.  I enjoyed a brief interview with the local FSDO Inspector.  But my Instructor got to take a 609 checkride.  If those are things you think you might enjoy, by all means continue what you are doing.

I don't pull mixture just anywhere. I have the threshold made and am stalling for time on final for a reason. Non standard is what I do. I routinely violate FAR 91:311 too. In 6500 hours I have had structural failures, flutter, wake turbulance, and all manner of low level manuver.* I have a waiver for that.
The checklist is there for a reason but sometimes the reason is to cover ALL circumstances adequately and not necessarily the best way for the situation. Case in point, we work on a Bonanza owned by a retired lifetime Forest Service pilot with 12,000 hrs. We were helping him ferry his aircraft from Boise to Nampa for the annual inspection. The temp outside was below freezing and he was running the AC on the ground to warm it up WITH THE COWL FLAPS OPEN. Why was he doing that? The checklist says so. The reason it says so? Because the engine is least likely to overheat on the ground in all conditions with the flap open. It is safe? Yes. Is it best? Not hardly.

Case number 2. The checklist calls for mixture full rich below 5000'. No mention of conditions, of temperatures, of carburetor modifications made by Airworthiness Directives, etc. Why does the checklist say that? Because the engine is likely to stay running barring fouling in most conditions below 5000'. Is it best? Not at all.

I have 0 incidents, 0 accidents, and 0 violations so far. I am on a first name basis with both the local ATC (I am their pet) and most of the FSDO. I know WHY so I have been liberated from a few of the checklist items (the items are still covered just in a more precise way).  When I hop in an unfamiliar aircraft I go back to ground zero with any performance or operational parameters that I am not intimately familiar with.

The whole point of my original post was to show similar needs for unusual manuvers in other facets of aviation, not to get in a wizzing contest or what not. I am not reckless. My line of work just specializes in manuver, usually low level. I have as many tricks to use as I can master to widen my margins of control. I see my share of weekend warriors that are unsafe at any speed.

Also, I don't see you posting how stupid it is to stand a C-130 on its nose and decend fast enough to disrupt everything within the interior of the aircraft. My manuvers are smooth and puke-free.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You know what a dutch roll is? Just think of a hard 45 degree coordinated roll reversed as soon as the angle is met. Little change of direction maybe 20 degrees. This type of thing is to avoid shock cooling an engine on air cooled types. Obviously, pulling mixture is a bad idea if you are losing lots of altitude as the cylinders will go cold. As it is I have a 7 minute window between reports and the 1000' only takes 10 seconds or so to get rid of then another 8 over the threshold and flare. The reports continue on the ground via repeater. By using all my tricks I can adjust the approach as needed. If I am short of the runway simply undoing any of the things I am doing will extend the glide/fall. On other flights where there is no time constraint, a more common approach will do. I had a landing I used to do in a Piper Tomahawk that was a maximum decent, soft field, short field, type thing. I could land, stop and get off at the first intersection in less space than the weekend supercub crowd. Never even squeeked a tire. My last set of tires on the F172 lasted 9 months. Thats about 800 hours at less than 2 hours flight per landing. You just get good at it. I spend more hours a day in a plane than most people spend in their cars. You don't think twice about driving your car. You ever consider how the conversation with the FAA will go?  Or how the accident report will read?  When somthing unexpected happens, and you intentionally shut down your only engine while in the pattern? And you don't ever exceed 30 degrees nose down, or 60 deg bank while doing this with a passenger,  without chutes, right? IMHO.  When you beleive that because you spend more hours a day in an airplane, than your car. That you can do things like this routinely,  you are setting yourself up for bad things, in a big way. Check back in when you have 2000 hours please. You don't have a clue. I passed 2000 hours 11,000 hours ago.   I've got five type ratings, still hold a CFII/MEI, and I've been a check airman on three different fleet types.  I've "got a clue". My point is, that when you do things that are non-standard,  (shutting down the engine to expidite your descent qualifies).  You are setting yourself up.  What happens one time you need to go around, push the mixture back in, and nothing happens?  It may work out ok, and it may not.   When I was a student, my instructor simulated an engine failure with the mixture.  When he pushed it back in, the engine would not re-start.  That was the begenning of my only off airport landing.  Somthing I'd rather not repeat.  I enjoyed a brief interview with the local FSDO Inspector.  But my Instructor got to take a 609 checkride.  If those are things you think you might enjoy, by all means continue what you are doing. OWNED That was a good post. When I operated for the airlines, we had a cheif instructor in the B1900's, he made a good point to us one day: Can the plane do it? Sure. If you do it, there better not be any other alternatives.. When I got to the 74's as a PFE, I really enjoyed hearing some of the stories these guys tried telling me about what they could make the whale do...I told them, "that's nice..Bend metal on your own time." But I don't know a thing..I only have 5k+ hours in  Herc's, B1900's and 74's... I quit BTW..

Yep, it sounds like he has about twice my flight time.

I get paid to get the reporter from 1000'AGL to his car in the 7 minute broadcast window. It is my aircraft and I don't bend anything. I pamper the pig so I don't have to fix it unless absolutely necessary.

I hold an active A&P and IA as well. He is wrong about circumstances he is not familiar with period. People jump out of airplanes with parachutes for no reason. Dangerous, but accepted. Pipelines need to be patroled, criminals chased, lost snowmobilers found, back country outfitters supplied, banners towed, gliders launched, traffic watched, land photographed, airshow aerobatics performed. None of these operations are normal, run of the mill weekend warrior or airline transport rides, but someone has to do them. With good judgement and a mechanic background I just happen to be good at it.

BTW the scariest thing I do is the banner towing. That keeps me on my toes and the checklist reads something like this.

1) pick up banner

2) in case of emergency release banner

3) if altitude is insufficient to recover, Kiss your butt goodbye

Wasn't this thread about C-17s?

Quoted: Wasn't this thread about C-17s?

I hear they go into places where people are like, at war and stuff. I don't do that. It is dangerous.

Quoted: Wasn't this thread about C-17s?

I think..Here back on topic:

Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't this thread about C-17s? I think..Here back on topic: www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic589.jpg

My daughter and neice got to sit in one at the Mountain Home AFB airshow in 2001 IIRC. Very nice machine. Sad we don't build enough to suit our needs for 25 years and then some.

McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17.

Quoted: McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17.

I bet Boeing didn't like that

Quoted: Quoted: McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17. I bet Boeing didn't like that

I thought I heard the same thing about Lockeed and the C-5A. I know if I was tooling up for something as big as a C-17 I would find every possible sale on the globe.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17. I bet Boeing didn't like that I thought I heard the same thing about Lockeed and the C-5A. I know if I was tooling up for something as big as a C-17 I would find every possible sale on the globe.

McD was,this was before the merger with Boeing,they were losing their ass with the MD-11 and the MD-90 at the time.No cargo line would buy the C-17,as there were lots of used DC-8s,747s....ect on the market. However,Delta,Continental,and Alaska airlines all bought the longer version of the C-130 back in the 1960s.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17. I bet Boeing didn't like that I thought I heard the same thing about Lockeed and the C-5A. I know if I was tooling up for something as big as a C-17 I would find every possible sale on the globe. McD was,this was before the merger with Boeing,they were losing their ass with the MD-11 and the MD-90 at the time.No cargo line would buy the C-17,as there were lots of used DC-8s,747s....ect on the market. However,Delta,Continental,and Alaska airlines all bought the longer version of the C-130 back in the 1960s.

I wonder if it would be possible for the military to use any of the hundreds of mothballed commercial aircraft in AZ. Use a platform like the 747-400 or the 737 to perform some roll without having to build new airframes. Naw, probably cost more than building from scratch.

Quoted: I wish I spent as much time in the air as I do driving my truck. Im lucky to get 5 hours a week.

I feel for ya friend. I wish I could afford to have somebody else take some of my load. My minimum week is 20 hours weather permitting, and this summer could see 30+ hours per week. Then I have to work all weekend to get the maintenance done. Sometimes I pull a 14 hour day on Saturday to get the 100hr done, go to church sunday, drive a bus for church, and start the whole thing over again. Oil changes every 8-9 days sucks when it doesn't let up.

Quoted: Apparently the USAF has a hardon for the C-17 today too, look at the main page: www.af.mil/ Three out of five headlines are C-17 stuff (I guess Boeing told them to put on the full court press to keep the assembly line open past 180 )

By the looks of your avatar you must be at McChord, right?  I'm hoping to be a 2A5X3 reservist at McChord pretty soon.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: McDonnell Douglas tried to sell a civilian version of the C-17. I bet Boeing didn't like that I thought I heard the same thing about Lockeed and the C-5A. I know if I was tooling up for something as big as a C-17 I would find every possible sale on the globe. McD was,this was before the merger with Boeing,they were losing their ass with the MD-11 and the MD-90 at the time.No cargo line would buy the C-17,as there were lots of used DC-8s,747s....ect on the market. However,Delta,Continental,and Alaska airlines all bought the longer version of the C-130 back in the 1960s. I wonder if it would be possible for the military to use any of the hundreds of mothballed commercial aircraft in AZ. Use a platform like the 747-400 or the 737 to perform some roll without having to build new airframes. Naw, probably cost more than building from scratch.

The military subcontracts with outfits like Polaris,Lynden,and that ratty outfit known as Kalitta(if they're still around). Much cheaper.

As a former Kalitta employee, connie doesn't run a ratty outfit.

Connie grew that ratty outfit up to the 9th largets cargo carrier in the world, btw..Not any more..KHI destroyed all he did. He is flying the 74's out YIP still. Good man, good company, good people working there.