Re: Flying The Aussie Super Connie

Date:         19 Aug 98 00:57:38 
From:         cowboy@ram.net.au
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Re: Flying the Aussie Super Connie

 Sandy I anticipate you will get a lot of questions so I am getting in early
with three.

I notice that you have quoted the Vmcg as 84 kts and the Vmca3 as 91 kts. This
is  different to the B747 Classic where the Ca is less than the Cg. There it
makes sense of course as the aileron can assist in maintaining control in
flight.

Q1  On the connie, presumably the 91 kts is for the CRITICAL ENGINE  failure
case and if the props rotate the way I imagine they do, then the number 4
(stb outboard) is the critical engine. Your statement that below 84 kts , the
take off must be rejected but you cannot get airborne below 91 kts with an
engine failure or the aircraft will be uncontrollable begs me to ask what the
procedure is in that unlikely event of loss of the critical engine after V1
but prior to the Vmca.

Q2
In another area the article states ‘if the speed at the threshold is correct
(usually 100 -150 kts), flaring at the right height ‘
Is there a misprint in speeds. That seems to be a high range for threshold
crossing speed considering  the quoted speeds down wind, etc. (maybe you are
stating the full range for the full landing weight range)

Q3 From what you know now what is you opinion on the efforts of  a pilot to
revert to the connie with  only experience on a big jet compared with the
efforts needed long ago when pilots came onto the connie from a lancastrian,
dc 4 or even the B-17, B-29, Boeing strata -cruiser line.

What about going from the super connie to the b707 as against the reverse as
you have done.

Hope I haven’t put you on a spot mate, see you at Nowra air day on 30th
August. Good luck.

cowboy

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum