SEFEGeorge

Could play hell after a RON party night.

Not sure how many of you have a Jeep but I found this forum site for just about kind of questions you might have that are Jeep related. Good site. A lot of helpful people. Not spamming, etc. I found some useful answers to questions about our '09 Liberty.

Seems like a familiar tail number. Might have been at the Rock when I was there, 75-77, 79-82.

Just uploaded some RVN pictures to my gallery. No people or plane pictures. Just patches, graphics, etc.

Saw this years ago but still so applicable in today's world.

I think I have a picture of that one but have never been able to identify the airplane?

Bob

Wrote up a bird at LRF once for a hard landing. Thought that the nose wheel strut was trying to give me a rectal exam. Sure pissed off the IP. A Major (alpha-hotel) if I remember correctly. Maintenance wasn't too happy either.

Added

Casey, 0543 crash happened right after I left LRF for EDF. Info I received was that they had taken off late for maintenance and was trying to rejoin the formation. They were pulling a turn to join on the tailend and a VFR bug smasher was in the way, they quickly reversed the turn and lost a wing.

Glad I could help! I think that the scissor chart is a good supplement to the explanatory CFL figures at the beginning of the Takeoff section and gives a slightly different perspective. One thing I didn't make clear in my original response was how to use the separate VCEF wind correction which I don't think is very clear in the 1-1: you must enter the VREF/VCEF chart with a CFL that has NOT been corrected for wind. The separate VCEF wind correction accounts for the re-balance of CFL so if the VREF/VCEF chart is entered with a CFL that has already been corrected for wind, the effect will be double-booked.

But you are correct that the chart I included is a simplification. In reality, both the accel-go and accel-stop curves are nonlinear and wind (among other things) affect the curves differently. The dominant force during acceleration is engine thrust, which changes with airspeed, while the dominant force during deceleration is braking, which is essentially constant. Also, the simple chart assumes a balanced condition, where VCEF is not being limited. With the E and H models, VMCG plays a big role and can set VCEF when VCEF < VMCG. This is called an unbalanced condition since CFL is being set by accel-stop distance alone. There are also other factors like maximum brake energy limits, power transition limits, etc.

Accel check time is there to ensure that adequate engine power and thrust is available during takeoff to meet the scheduled performance. When wind is present, the reported values should always be used in the accel check time chart to get an accurate speed and time.

I think the big takeaway from this discussion is that VREF and VCEF are both important. In my experience, a lot of pilots only care about VREF because they don't really understand what CFL and VCEF tells them. VREF only addresses half of the problem: it tells you the maximum speed when you can stop within the runway. It doesn't tell you anything about the distance that would be required to continue the takeoff from that speed. CFL and VCEF are measures of takeoff performance that are independent of runway length and cover both sides of the takeoff problem (accel-go and accel-stop).

It seems to me that the best way to apply these numbers is CFL/Vcef first. It would seem that if the runway available meets or exceeds CFL then Vref may not come into play since you can accelerate to Vcef then stop or go, then Vcef=Vref. It would also seem that the only time Vref comes into play is when CFL is greater than runway available. Then Vref is calculated and used, as well as speed/time check, refusal distance, etc.

This comes from an old FE's memory so take it with a grain of salt. I haven't seen the charts in 30 years, so....... To me this is the simplest way to explain it.

"CFL and VCEF are measures of takeoff performance that are independent of runway length and cover both sides of the takeoff problem (accel-go and accel-stop)" This may be the case, but without a runway length taken as part of the equation then the CFL/Vcef actually become useless. This seems to imply that if you have 3,000' available and CFL is 4,000' then you can till use Vcef just because of takeoff performance. Maybe this is just a simplistic way of looking at it.

Planning on "being there." Well here, but there in spirit.

I always liked flying with a pilot that was more on the ball than just the average stick jockey. I could give him the numbers, etc., but an informed pilot took those numbers and knew what he could and could not do with them. The pilot knows how the plane "feels" to him, I did not other than what I could see, hear, and somewhat feel. Luckily I never really had one of the short field, hi-pucker factor take-offs. Sure some short field stuff at Alaska sites, but we were never really that heavy or with high temps/PA.

Only had to take off a few times really heavy but those were from long runways, Hickam, Kelly, even EDF, etc.

Came across this site. Thought it might prove interesting to some. Seems to be more about the boots on the ground grunts but still interesting.

http://www.witnesstowar.org/

Damn, another one of us old timers have made the fini flight. Gonna miss you Dan. You get the gear pin? Never met you in person so we'll get a cold one when we meet up.

Oh so that is what droop check meant. I thought it meant.. UHHH never mind!!!!!

Well Giz for us old folks you just might be correct.

LPS sounds like the culprit to me. Could be a nasty situation given the right circumstances.

Seem to recall that we used to show a technique of putting the flaps at 20% to get a little extra lift and high rudder boost when needed.

When I worked for UPS a couple years ago we had a 747 crash in Dubai. Had something to do with lithium batteries overheating in the cargo. Filled with smoke and crashed. Only 2 person flight crews suck. Really no one to fight the fire. Guess having FEs and loads isn't such a bad thing huh? Smoke was so bad they can't see the instruments you can't really fly the bird to landing. Someone designed an clear "air-bag" type device that connected to the smoke mask and was large enough to press the bag against the instruments to be able to see them and fly.

You might also try this: http://www.airport-data.com/world-airports/countries/VN-Viet-Nam-Airports.html

I think you're creating your own confusion. A failed main boost pump is not a standard operating situation. Therefore I would land on crossfeed. With a regular Herc without inflight refueling, etc., there's no in tank pump to fall back on. Never had a failed main tank boost pump. But I would land on crossfeed to ensure that the engine had a constant flow of fuel. On approaches, landings, etc., there's always a chance for a missed approach, tower initiated go around, etc., and I want to make sure that the engine would not flameout from fuel starvation if there was any chance any yanking and banking happening.

Interesting. #1 seemed to be windmilling a little. Blown tire is no surprise, only emergency brakes I imagine (based on my fading memory). It'll be interesting to hear what caused the loss of 2 engines.

Seem too recall that while I was at Hickam, we had a bird land with no utility system. FE was Jake Hallman. Honolulu airport was not very happy with leaving the bird sitting on the runway waiting for a tug.

Back in late 70s, we were flying in Saudi for a month or so (anyone remember the BAT missions?) and we picked up 2 1/2 tons of Kotex and flew it around . . . made four or five stops, at each one downloaded just a portion of the Kotex. That was our load for the day.

kim

Was it manifested as spill absorbent material?

Yep, had some great times and great trips; the Saudi mini rote, embassy support trips, Reforger, short field landing training at Grafenwoer, etc, although they treated us like we were a PCS rote squadron. That took it's toll on quite a few marriages -- mine included.

Don R.

Amen to that Don. You heard the expression "my wife is going to get pregnant and I want to be there"? Well I wasn't.

The worst check ride I ever survived was from a examiner that was getting a check ride from a real hard ass.

Probably the best check ride I ever received was from Doug Grant, 616 MAG SEFE, on the Duck Butt mission out of EDF. Guess he figured it wa a way for him to go on the mission. Not a lot of questions asked, just a "fair" share of beers drank every RON. Luckily there were 2 FEs on the mission! Him and me.

2nd best, flying back from up north. Doug Parsons, 17 TAS SEFE, was administering the ride. Engine oil temp had climbed above 100 degrees. Told the pilot we needed to cage the engine. Doug asked why since we had a 5 minute limitation in flight. I had to say, off intercom, it's above 100, not 85-100. He said "oh" and sat down on the bunk.

I sure miss the good ole days of flying. When I went to Hercs everything was so regimented. Flying recips, they'd schedule a "weekend trainer" and leave it up to the crew as to where we went. Just get x amount of hours on the plane. One weekend we took a VT-29 to Offuit, pilot wanted to visit someone. It was an ok RON. Then on to Key West the next day. Better RON.

I knew Lynn Hebdon, he was 16SOW examiner (CMSGT) the last few years I was flying. Gotta say I didn't really care for him too much.

Not surprised that he made Chief. I didn't care for him or his ways. Only cared about what was good for himself and didn't care one iota for his FEs. Biggest ass-kisser, yes man I ever saw when it came to dealing with higher ups. One he upgraded Randy Weisner (?) before me as a kiss-ass move, my attitude towards him changed a lot. Not to insubordination levels but tense. He even came to intramural bowling one day at EDF to talk with me. My "chief of staff" stopped him and told him to discuss business at work.

I think it was about 10 years ago that I first went to the VA Clinic and applied. Got my ID right away and they're been my medical provider ever since. I didn't actually file a claim with them until this current one. Even when I had insurance through work I still went to the VA, paid a normal co-pay and insurance covered the rest. When I was out of work it was nice that the VA still took care of my medical even without insurance. Still had to pay some but at least it wasn't as much as to a civilian doctor.