Fred

Well, so what? They finally flew their airplane. Boeing will finally fly their airplane soon. A C-5 ain't a C-141 ain't a C-130 ain't a C-123 ain't a C-7. They each got their niche. The record of multi-role airlifters ain't so hot. So a C-5 can theoretically land on dirt. So a C-17 can theoretically reverse taxi. Sure. Develop from scratch a price-competitive competitor to a re-engined G-222 a.k.a C-27? Hmmm

Recalling from some CRM information and schoolhouse papers and memory...spring of '92 a SOLL trainer near Pope AFB with a "stand-up IP" tactics guru aboard. "Idle hands are the devil's workshop", time-to-kill before "darkness" and a simulated 3-engines maximum performance tactical climb to be practiced. Airspeed was allowed to decrease below Vmca and further to "out of aileron too" and control was lost. Final nail was a "knock-it-off" type response that saw symmetrical thrusts reduced toward or to idle. We do know that there is a significant difference between power-on stall speed and power-off stall speed and the consequences of stalling one or both wings with significant yaw and/or rudder deflection. This was within a few months of the Evansville Indiana accident where incorrect rudder application during high power asymmetrical thrust maneuver resulted in a loss-of-control accident. As I recall MAC came down shortly thereafter and said no more simulated two-engines in the airplane, and no more simulated three engines takeoffs in the airplane, and less copilot three-engines training. As I recall. its been quite a few years...I personally knew one of the pilots in a seat...a very smart guy with a technical education; extremely surprised that this happened to him. I believe that the exchange officer was not in a seat, as I recall.

Well, a navigator would know what to do. Are you a navigator?

Hmmm...if you want to spend the money, you can probably buy a operator's guide http://www.esscoaircraft.com/Litton_Aero_Products_LTN_51_p/31210.htm Its been quite a while, but as I recall the 72 was just an improved 51 with a couple more features. We had both kinds in addition to several with LTN-92. Generally, you should have as still or motionless a platform as possible for an accurate alignment. Just because you could get an alignment while starting engines would not necessarily mean that you should. I can't imagine moving the machine during ins alignment being a smart thing to do. What does your flight manual say about it?

looking at some (but not all) recent dash-ones, it appears that they deleted the sub step: "rudder boost pressure - checked" on the flaps retraction step. Wonder if there is a reason for this? The books do caution still in section 5 about full or abrupt rudder inputs with high boost. Maybe that substep was never in some of the manuals? It was in the L-382 manuals and the ones Lockheed sells the foreign customers, as I recall.

Hmmm...so developmental cost has been 1.5 billion dollars; that's 1,500 million dollars if I remember right, and the cost per airplane to do the mod is nine million dollars. What exactly is it that the current fleet--at perhaps Dyess, for example--can't do in their present configuration? Is that right--that they are not allowed to fly in Europe? Anywhere in Europe? This is incredible! Almost as incredible as the amount of money and time spent on the AMP program, with almost nothing tangible to show for it! Off with their heads! What exactly is the time frame of the whole AMP scheme? From original idea to present? First I heard of it was more than eight years ago. They can't figure this stuff out in eight years? Must be tougher than rocket science...or brain surgery...(maybe they need some). My$0.02

...and a simulator. When I first heard about "AMP", I thought "a lot of money for marginal capability improvement; not much bang for a lot of bucks". I betcha most of the work being done trash haulin' these days could be done just fine by "A" models with a couple cheap INS or GPS sets installed...

That picture was painted on a panel in the cockpit of 73-1597 or 1598 when they were assigned to the 374th. Maybe had a Filipino artist do it. Security not such a big deal then; remember the furniture store truck coming out to the airplanes to unload Narra bars and papasan chairs etc. etc. Tac treasures. Them were the days...

Hmmm, by the time I went through in '71, we were sleeping in hammocks slung between a couple of trees. I recall awakening when a very large banana tree nearby fell over in the middle of the night. It was early in rainy season, but pretty wet and muddy. I had a K2-B and the "combat boots" they issued me at OTS. Envied some who had jungle fatigues and jungle boots. Actually had to grab on to shrubs and branches to get up some of the slippery hills. No traction with the boots I had. Yes, the rats were out and about at night in our campsite. The instructor told us to be careful about discarding food, and they had to move the campsites pretty frequently on account of rats. There was a cfisher in 17th whn I was there 70's...remember him because I got three responses for the price of one on the startup checklist: "Gen's ON; Battery; No Press"; as I recall...

If you'd have been down around Howard '90 - '91 or so, you could have seen it its USCG colors. Along with the "real" AWACS and USN Hawkeyes. The Customs Service even had one there...an Electra/P-3 with a dish on top. Lots of "AWACS". All of us were fightin' the "war on dope" among other things. Are we winnin' yet?

Hmmm...these discussions about obsolete pubs and OPSEC kind of reminds me of the safety "privileged information" message reports used to be broadcast on AIGs to the universe, and using cell phones aboard airplanes. You can't stop it unless you use draconian control measures and that ain't gonna happen, so the point is it ain't truly important...if it was, it would be controlled (maybe)

SamMcGowan wrote: Hmmm... Yes, I\'m pretty sure the C-47 has a retractable gear. Last time I rode one was 1972, so its been a while. I know a PA-12 is fixed gear conventional gear or \"tail dragger\". Did you ever fly a tail dragger? I did. But that too has been more than 30 years ago. I do recall picking the tail up sometime after starting takeoff run, and relaxing some forward pressure on the stick to allow the tail to drop a little and establish takeoff attitude as takeoff speed is reached. I\'m not sure what force could cause the tail to rise when I did this. Not gravity; I\'m sure. Not thrust...well, maybe reaction to the propeller stream being deflected by the elevator? That\'s a possibility. Drag? Not likely. Hmmm...lift? Well; I suppose that\'s about all that\'s left. Maybe there\'s such a thing as negative lift? Or lift in a negative direction?

\"...The wing on any airplane (rotors on a helicopter) are the only part that actually \"flies\" (produces lift) and the balance point is on it. The tail exerts a downward moment to hold the nose up and does not produce lift. \" Hmmm...conventional gear aircraft (C-47, PA-12, etc.) ?

navonfire wrote: Us? You must have a mouse in your pocket... I\'ve had the unpleasant duty of being present at the site of a fresh C-130 crash to initiate the safety investigation, but that was many, many years ago. I can appreciate your concern for protecting the innocent from wild speculation, and the classified from unauthorized disclosure and/or compromise. There doesn\'t seem to be any classified information depicted; just a wrecked airplane. Nowadays, if it can be seen or heard, it can be recorded, digitized, and made accessible to a bushman in the Kalahari via wireless internet. Thats the way it is. Should be plenty of expert witnesses, voice recordings, and data recordings. \"They\" must have determined that \"they\" had sufficient evidence for the investigation, and that the difficulty/danger of securing the site warranted destroying the wreckage. I\'m sure that the results of the investigations will be made public, to the extent allowed, in due time.