How Beta can bite you

[pelmet]

The Ken Borek Air Douglas DC-3C (Basler Turboprop), registration C-GKKB, landed at Mould Bay, NU (CYMD) using Beta range to help lower the tail. Reverse was accidentally selected, which had the effect of blanking out rudder control. The aircraft veered to the left and departed the runway before power was brought up and control restored. The crew then steered the aircraft back to the centre of the runway.

[Illya Kuryakin]

The Ken Borek Air Douglas DC-3C (Basler Turboprop), registration C-GKKB, landed at Mould Bay, NU (CYMD) using Beta range to help lower the tail. Reverse was accidentally selected, which had the effect of blanking out rudder control. The aircraft veered to the left and departed the runway before power was brought up and control restored. The crew then steered the aircraft back to the centre of the runway.

Sounds like reverse (or even beta range) was selected on one side only? Blanking out rudder control sounds like a crock to me.
Illya

[Heliian]

Reverse Beta can even kill you.

Air Caraibes 2001, DHC6-300 crashed on final in St.Barthelemy, report suggests pilot tried to slow down with reverse beta(contrary to FM warnings), ended up with asymmetric thrust and stalled. 2 crew 17 pax and one on the ground perished.

It doesn't take much to get asymmetric in those ranges and rudder would not be effective at slow speeds.

[Adam Oke]

I've heard guys at work putting an Air Tractor 402B into BETA and putting on the light on short final. Obviously not reverse, but the are playing with the light to make for a shorter landing as it has a tenancy to float in the flare.

Personally, I understand the minimal margin for error and this practice is not my cup of tea, and I only go over the hatch when the tail is down....but is this a common practice? The Aussies seem to make claim that this is the norm.

[Liquid Charlie]

Speaking from current experience - indeed BETA/Reverse in not always your friend on a turbine DC-3 -- notice I don't call it a Basler - it's still a DC-3 and if one flies it like a DC-3 -- meaning - fly the fucking airplane first and keep flying it until taxi speed and beyond (or below) depending on what your point of view is -- it's old school - you need to be able pat the top of your head and rub your belly at the same time - no such thing as feet on the floor to fly vintage aircraft -- hands and feet are always going ---- NG has removed "rudder" from stick and rudder --

[Just another canuck]

Sounds like reverse (or even beta range) was selected on one side only? Blanking out rudder control sounds like a crock to me.
Illya

It's not a crock. It can happen. The turbine -3 should only be selected into full reverse once the tail is down and even then caution should be exercised. One thing Basler should have done, IMO, is make the rudder bigger. It was done to the Super -3... it should have been done to the turbine as well.

At the same time, the aircraft has a very large tendency to pull left at low speeds. On skis, it's not uncommon to have full power on the left engine while the right is still under 50 %. You can slowly add the power as your speed increases and the rudder becomes more effective.

It's a fun airplane but it's not to be taken lightly. It's a big old tail dragger and can bite you if you're not careful.

As far as the beta argument goes. It was also common practice to throw the Caravan in beta in the flare as it also has a tendency to float. I learned this technique flying it overseas where they are used to fly into some pretty short strips. Some would use this technique. Others would lift the flaps from 30 to 20 in the flare and plunk it down. Also common practice in the 206. Personally, I would choose the beta technique but that's just me. It's also common in the Turbo Beaver or Otter if you're going into a short lake. Push the nose down and put it in beta a bit. Just make sure you take it out when you want to flare or your elevator won't work.

Is this right? No, I guess not... the book says so. But it's better than running off the end of the runway or hitting the trees on the other side of the lake.

[Cat Driver]

One thing Basler should have done, IMO, is make the rudder bigger. It was done to the Super -3... it should have been done to the turbine as well.

Unfortunately in the Super 3 the rudder travel limits its effectiveness and it is less effective than the DC3.

In other words the DC3 can be landed in a stronger X/ wind than the Super 3.

[Illya Kuryakin]

One thing Basler should have done, IMO, is make the rudder bigger. It was done to the Super -3... it should have been done to the turbine as well.

Unfortunately in the Super 3 the rudder travel limits its effectiveness and it is less effective than the DC3.

In other words the DC3 can be landed in a stronger X/ wind than the Super 3.

Only flew a Super once. Not to be confused with an RD4. The Super had some sort of geared rudder. Feeling was gone. Like putting power steering in a Lotus. Pure crap. Don't think the turbine beast has this? LC?
Illya

[Just another canuck]

Unfortunately in the Super 3 the rudder travel limits its effectiveness and it is less effective than the DC3.

In other words the DC3 can be landed in a stronger X/ wind than the Super 3.

Fair enough. And I have no complaints about the DC-3's crosswind capability. But I can't help to wonder... would the airplane handle better at lower speeds with a larger rudder? In theory it should. For arguments sake, lets pretend the travel would be the same. Or perhaps we should just pull the power levers to idle and use the brakes. However, from what I'm told, they are becoming harder to come by and are quite costly as well.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Unfortunately in the Super 3 the rudder travel limits its effectiveness and it is less effective than the DC3.

In other words the DC3 can be landed in a stronger X/ wind than the Super 3.

Fair enough. And I have no complaints about the DC-3's crosswind capability. But I can't help to wonder... would the airplane handle better at lower speeds with a larger rudder? In theory it should. For arguments sake, lets pretend the travel would be the same. Or perhaps we should just pull the power levers to idle and use the brakes. However, from what I'm told, they are becoming harder to come by and are quite costly as well.

You lost me. Use the brakes, instead of the rudder? Tail up, or down? From what I remember, the brakes were pretty much foot rests. I used to keep them straight on take off with asymmetric engine power till the rudder became effective. Landings were all hands and feet. Brakes were secondary. As for having Beta and reverse, it's an aid. If you "need" either, you're behind the plane.
Illya

[Cat Driver]

I would think the Super 3 would take a stronger X/wind if they increased the size of the rudder and gave it more travel Just another Canuck.

I have not flown the Basler, but have a fair amount of time in the Turbo Goose and when landing on a runway you have to really be careful in beta and reverse......in fact it is downright frightening if you are not careful....I was checking out a twin Otter driver in one and he used reverse right after touch down on his first landing and we went off both sides of the runway before I could get the beast back under control, it was the closest I ever came to an accident.

[Just another canuck]

You lost me. Use the brakes, instead of the rudder? Tail up, or down? From what I remember, the brakes were pretty much foot rests. I used to keep them straight on take off with asymmetric engine power till the rudder became effective. Landings were all hands and feet. Brakes were secondary. As for having Beta and reverse, it's an aid. If you "need" either, you're behind the plane.
Illya

Sorry. I meant for landing. Use the brakes instead of beta or reverse. And I try not to use either until the tail is down. A little beta is okay. The same applies today with regards to keeping it straight on take off. Asymmetric power until the rudder takes over.

What happens with the turbine is that beta and reverse are available so it gets used. And it should... with caution. My thoughts were that with a larger rudder, perhaps it would be a little more effective when you start to bring the power levers into beta range. I could be wrong. I can only assume that with the piston -3, this was never a problem, as you always had a constant airflow over the tail.

And to clarify, I was referring to the bladder brakes. We can't use disk ones with skis so we don't really use them at all.

I was checking out a twin Otter driver in one and he used reverse right after touch down on his first landing and we went off both sides of the runway before I could get the beast back under control, it was the closest I ever came to an accident.

This is exactly what happens in the -3 as well. Guys coming over from the Twin or a 1900 or any other tricycle where full reverse is common practice learn very quickly it's not the same animal.

[linecrew]

Only flew a Super once. Not to be confused with an RD4. The Super had some sort of geared rudder. Feeling was gone. Like putting power steering in a Lotus. Pure crap. Don't think the turbine beast has this? LC?
Illya

Which R4D? There were a bunch but only one of them, the -8, was based on the Super.

R4D-1 USN/USMC version of the C-47
R4D-3 Twenty C-53Cs (troop transport version of the C-47) transferred to USN
R4D-5 C-47A variant 24-volt electrical system replacing the 12-volt of the C-47
R4D-6 157 C-47Bs transferred to USN; re-designated C-47J in 1962
R4D-7 44 TC-47Bs transferred from USAF for use as a navigational trainer; re-designated TC-47K in 1962
R4D-8 R4D-5s and R4D-6s re-manufactured with stretched fuselage, Wright R-1820 engines, fitted with modified wings and redesigned tail surfaces; re-designated C-117D in 1962

[Liquid Charlie]

The Basler conversion -- has the same rudder config as the standard DC3 -- having said that it is almost 4 feet longer - end result - higher eye to wheel and more keel surface -- now for larger rudder -- I'm not thinking it would help much - in xwinds that exceed demonstrated you do indeed run out of rudder to keep the aircraft on the centre line with a cross controlled approach -- who does that anyway -- so in a real strong xwind you crab and kick it straight - closer to the ground the better and the momentum of the aircraft will line you up for a "straight" touch down - as pointed out it is important to fly the aircraft so your biggest friends in a xwind are flight control first -- ailerons especially -- people seem to forget about then -- I don't know why -- there are a few aircraft I flew that I consider 2 fisted -- the DC3 is one of them - so with both hands on the wheel I never get to the BETA until I am on the runway and well into my landing roll --

I must admit the Basler had me stumped for a while when I first started to fly it -- but one day the light came on and a little flash back from days gone by and I looked at the airplane and said to myself -- it's a fucking dc3 - now just fly it like that -- magic --

[Meatservo]

The reason people "forget about the ailerons" is because of the way pilots describe this "kicking it straight" method of doing a crosswind landing, as if the ailerons have nothing to do with it!


yes people forget about the ailerons, which is why I am not a fan of the popular description of the "kick it out" method of crosswind landing. Of course while you're "kicking" you're preventing the resulting yaw from inducing downwind roll by applying opposite aileron... voila, you've got crossed controls.

I really think in a lot of cases people involved in a debate on this crosswind stuff wind up in arguments about it while trying to describe the same damn thing. I use the cross-control method, but when I was a new guy I would cross the controls and sideslip down from 500 feet to touchdown. I still think this is gainful when you're trying to let a green co-pilot land, so he or she can get used to the concept.

Now of course I stay "crabbed" until a fraction of a second before touchdown, whence I "kick" the nose over to line the plane up with the runway and cross the controls a bit to make sure the upwind gear stays put.

I think the inaccurate description of this method is what causes low-time pilots to approach the runway in a crabbed attitude, try to kick the nose straight, and then touch down flat with the ailerons centred and skid downwind off the centreline.

I think the two "techniques" are the same damn thing, it just differs when and where you choose to "cross" the controls. No-one here is actually doing the roll-out in a high crosswind with the ailerons neutral are they?

There seems to be some belief that there are two mutually exclusive forms of tackling a cross-wind, when I think they are variations on the same thing. You can count on "momentum" or whatever to help you leave crossing the controls till the very last second, but I think the popular yet inaccurate description of this variation in technique is what causes co-pilots to scare the bejeezus out of captains in a crosswind.

I'm not saying the "kicking out" method of landing in a crosswind is B.S.; rather, I am suggesting that if you take a careful look at what is happening, you'll see some righteous crossing-of-the-controls happening at touchdown.

Respectfully,
M.S.

[PilotDAR]

During my training in the Basler, I was firmly told no beta until the tailwheel is on. I found the beta in the Basler to be not as dramatic as the Twin Otter or Cheyenne, but it would still rob air from the tail.

The effect of reverse blanking the tail was very noticeable with the C 182, on the step after landing. It would start doing a yaw roll coupled dance, which was un nerving. My Flight Manual Supplement for this mod on a Cessna floatplane will prohibit the use of reverse on still on the step.

[Liquid Charlie]

Ah Meats it is in essence the same control input - we use to have this discussion all the time -- but it the crab until scarred method a good firm boot on the rudder followed by aileron correction uses the momentum of the aircraft yawing to line you up in winds where cross controlling for the whole approach you would not be able to maintain centre line due to full control deflection --

Having said that when crabbing on something like a 727-200 or any aircraft with a long body you could not line up on the centre line because if you did you would not be in the centre of the runway when you kicked the crab out -- 727 was particularly bad since in landing config anything much more than about 8 degrees wing down you ran the chance of scuffing a canoe -- not one you paddle -- lmfaooooooo -- I find xwind technique is where your comfort zone is -- best xwind aircraft I ever flew was the 748 but i'm sure others are just as good -- Herc was good but not as good as the hawker

[Illya Kuryakin]

Yup. 748 is the best X-wind critter I've flown. Funny thing is, I found the DC3 to be very good as well. The real 3, not these new fangled ones. LOL
Illya

[vcollazo]

This doesn't just apply to props. On the DC9, reverse thrust blanks out the rudder. You have to be very careful using moderate to high reverse thrust on a slippery runway with a crosswind. When I was a green FO landing in DTW one winter evening with the conditions just stated, I damned near went off the downwind side of the runway with full rudder control into the wind. The grizzled old captain laughed his arse off as it became a a question of whether I was going off the side or get it slowed down to taxi speed first. He finally took pity on me and suggested that I come out of reverse. Instantly the rudder regained effectiveness, and I was able to correct back to centerline.