Prop food...

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:09 pm

My understanding is that the 748 is an outstanding aircraft, and I've seen how little runway they use first hand. I also flew a spare tire into Pang with 2 engineers to replace it. They told me that blowing tires on landing happens with frightening regularity as the crew has to use a great deal of breaking to get the old beast to stop when heavy.

The "grandfather clause" question? I'm not sure how you or I would go about getting one, but I know that it exists. I know that the turboprop I fly has a shit load more horse power per pound and can meet second stage climb requirements single engine easily compared to the Hawker, but because it's brand new we have to meet more stringent regulations that northern operators.

Apparently in 2010 all the exemptions ar grandfather clauses are set to expire. We'll see what happens. Someone will either have to buck up and start lengthening runways all over the north, or the exemption will be extended until something catastrophic happens. Given enough time one or the other WILL happen.

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:39 pm

Co-Joe, man you are so smart. I wish i was as smart as you!

Can you please tell me more, please enlighten us.

The tires don't blow all the time because of hard breaking. Unless the antiskid, well a very poor mans version on the 748 doesn't work, which is a maintenance problem. Mostly happens because frozen brakes, not landing straight, etc. We've poped tired on our Saabs before, guess its because of hard breaking too, damn we should lengthen all the runways.

Thats it, no one use breaks, you may pop a tire. Co-Joe says so.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:41 pm

1. The tyres (British spelling...it is British, afterall) "pop" because there is little or no weight on the tyres when brakes are applied. Very rare if the brakes are used as they are intended to be used, regardless of weight...I've been to Pang in a Hawker...many times..no flats! I've only had one tyre go flat on a Hawker....ran over a nail! Never had one get stuck either.
2. Hawkers dont depart from 3000 foot runways, at 46,500 pounds.
3. Reverse would indeed add to a margin of safety...so would two engines, and nobody has a problem with PC12's/Caravans loosing engines on take off?
4. What the PHUQUE is "the overrun drill? Must be something the pilots preform because they know they wont make the take off? Kind of like a "Hail Mary...dont let us die...this is going to leave a mark!"?? Geeze, I've got over 5000 hours on Hawkers...and I've never even HEARD of such a drill....no it's not something I would have forgotten. It's not like after "SHHHHHHIIIIIIIITTTTTTT" you're going to have time for a drill?
5. What happened to the thread on "Prop Food"?

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:32 pm

After feeding your prop, dont forget to clean it with a nice bucket of prop wash

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:42 pm

Look rd you don't have to be an asshole about it.

C-206 · Post by **C-206** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:09 pm

Doc,
5000 hours in a 748, and you never heard of an overrun drill?
kidding right!
Almost makes me want to go to the hanger and check the AFM right now.
Even co-joe alluded to the accident where the Hawker hit the terminal, that was a 'hydraulic loss' and 'overrun' gone bad.

co-joe,
No such exemption. In 2010 there MAY be a change in the single engine performance regs. For now, the HS-748 meets the performace standards set by TC, just like your King-Air.

C-206

C-206 · Post by **C-206** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:12 pm

One more thing,

co-joe,
How is lengthening runways going to help with climb performance?
206

Fatass · Post by **Fatass** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm

Doc wrote:1. The tyres (British spelling...it is British, afterall) "pop" because there is little or no weight on the tyres when brakes are applied. Very rare if the brakes are used as they are intended to be used, regardless of weight...I've been to Pang in a Hawker...many times..no flats! I've only had one tyre go flat on a Hawker....ran over a nail! Never had one get stuck either.
2. Hawkers dont depart from 3000 foot runways, at 46,500 pounds.
3. Reverse would indeed add to a margin of safety...so would two engines, and nobody has a problem with PC12's/Caravans loosing engines on take off?
4. What the PHUQUE is "the overrun drill? Must be something the pilots preform because they know they wont make the take off? Kind of like a "Hail Mary...dont let us die...this is going to leave a mark!"?? Geeze, I've got over 5000 hours on Hawkers...and I've never even HEARD of such a drill....no it's not something I would have forgotten. It's not like after "SHHHHHHIIIIIIIITTTTTTT" you're going to have time for a drill?
5. What happened to the thread on "Prop Food"?

1. I agree. I've also had a Hawker into Pang many times with no flats.
2. I agree.
3. Whatever.
4. I'll match your 5000 on Hawkers. If you really want, PM me and I'll spell out what I've got for an over run drill as per more than one companies SOP's.
5. The Hawker that ate the Airbus looks like he completed the over run drill.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:13 pm

C-206 wrote:One more thing,

co-joe,
How is lengthening runways going to help with climb performance?
206

It's won't. But it will allow a greater safety margin to meet accelerate stop/ accelerate go criteria that as far as I understand the 748 doesn't have to meet. But newer and more powerful turboprops in the same weight category have to.

Like is said, the world's most efficient means of converting jet fuel into noise is an impressive performer. Unmatched for the price. Lengthening runways will increase safety margins for all the aircraft. My understanding (and forgive me if it's flawed) is that in 2010 all turbine aircraft with 10 or more seats will not only have to be TAWS equipped, but will have to be able to meet balanced field criteria.

All of them. 200's, 100's, 99's, even the lovely two headed float roadent.

Fatass · Post by **Fatass** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:29 am

Co jo

Not to keep jumping on you man, but your not picking up what I'm putting down. The 748 meets 705 requirements. Every take must prove balanced/unbalanced field performance which means ASD is also proven. Thats not just something I heard from a guy that knows a Hawker mechanic, its a fact.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:49 pm

Uh hung.

Sure you can. So in CYXP with a gravel runway 2920' in length and a mountain to the east and south you can accelerate to V1 loose an engine and safely stop in the remaining runway without ending up downtown? And the book shows this? Or at V1 +1 you can accelerate to Vr and safely climb out as required and the AFM says so?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:54 pm

PROP FOOD.....this was all about prop food....where'd it go? No more pics? Lets see more mangled props!

cumufsumyunguy · Post by **cumufsumyunguy** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:55 pm

What the heck do mountains in the vicinity have to do with ASD and Balanced Field etc....??? You're in over your head CoJoe...please stop before you embarass yourself further. Well, I had better go check if I have any loose engines, if so I had better tighten em

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:03 pm

Sorry for getting off topic....I got nothing else...

bohica · Post by **bohica** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:25 pm

Thats a fitting picture COJOE. Kinda makes me think the deer is YOU and the overall story being told in the picture is your knowledge of what you don't know.

Mine as well quit while your aDead.

Here It Comes Again

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:25 am

Co-joe. Just how long a runway do you want to feel safe. It appears you think longer is safer so would 5 miles be good for you? I have an airline business for sale, only catch is I get it back if you can't make a go of it. No refund for you.

Fatass · Post by **Fatass** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:09 pm

co-joe wrote:Uh hung.

Sure you can. So in CYXP with a gravel runway 2920' in length and a mountain to the east and south you can accelerate to V1 loose an engine and safely stop in the remaining runway without ending up downtown? And the book shows this? Or at V1 +1 you can accelerate to Vr and safely climb out as required and the AFM says so?

That is what the performance numbers tell us. Not that I'm gung ho to test it.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:50 pm

Will this cheer you up?

You have my opinion, as misguided as it may be, there it is, attack it as you want to, but I've had enough of this thread and am not arguing it anymore.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:04 pm

Spokes wrote:I thought it was a bad idea to use this if you have an engine failure at say just before V1? Not preaching, just a bit confused.

Why is it a bad idea?...just like to know what you've been told. Anything thats going to help you stop is a good idea. When you have 200,000 kg of momentom behind you every little bit helps. Just be prepared for what the A/C might do...but then if you have the directional control from the eng. fail, the reverse from the good eng. will be a non event.

Fatass · Post by **Fatass** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:00 pm

Co Joe

Yeah, way better bud.

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:35 pm

Buster wrote:
Spokes wrote:I thought it was a bad idea to use this if you have an engine failure at say just before V1? Not preaching, just a bit confused.
Why is it a bad idea?...just like to know what you've been told. Anything thats going to help you stop is a good idea. When you have 200,000 kg of momentom behind you every little bit helps. Just be prepared for what the A/C might do...but then if you have the directional control from the eng. fail, the reverse from the good eng. will be a non event.

My understanding is that going full reverse with only one engine will drive you sideways off the runway. I really don't have any experience at this, just what they told me at an ATP seminar.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:22 pm

Spokes wrote:
Buster wrote:
Spokes wrote:I thought it was a bad idea to use this if you have an engine failure at say just before V1? Not preaching, just a bit confused.
Why is it a bad idea?...just like to know what you've been told. Anything thats going to help you stop is a good idea. When you have 200,000 kg of momentom behind you every little bit helps. Just be prepared for what the A/C might do...but then if you have the directional control from the eng. fail, the reverse from the good eng. will be a non event.
My understanding is that going full reverse with only one engine will drive you sideways off the runway. I really don't have any experience at this, just what they told me at an ATP seminar.

Full reverse with one engine on an uncontaminated runway works. Ive done it in the 200 in training and in the sim. In fact in the sim we did it with 600 RVR, a JBI of .2 and a 15 kt direct x-wind. Not sure if it was realistic, but hey if it gets you stopped earlier then I'll use it.

It definitely depends on the airplane, and also works best at higher speeds when the rudder is more effective.

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:02 pm

OK, a 200 is a pretty small plane. The seminar had bigger stuff in mind I think. There you go though.

bohica · Post by **bohica** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:08 am

I have to say this thread has to die for cojoes sake. I think he musta signed off so that is good. I sure wish I coulda been in there as his sim partner or hanging around his CARS lessons so I could pick up on all the knowledge. Maybe him and I will go for a beer again one day and catch up on things. Did I say again, ha, whatever.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:34 am

I have found that there is a much bigger difference between flight idle and the beta stop than from the beta stop to full reverse.