CP-140 Aurora

[hauger]

Yikes....Bart.....having a bad day at the office?  I was just asking in a casual manner, I am not a member of the procurement board nor do I have a vested interest one way or the other....just bored, saw the thread, read a bit, and asked a question.

In no way, shape, or form did I say anything question the safety or wisdom of running with one engine caged.  Hell,if that's the way it's done, then so be it....no skin off my back.  I think though if you re-read my comments, you'll see I wasn't beaking off that it shouldn't be done, I was just mentioning I'd heard it is done.  I did not ever comment on how it's done though, nor suggest a way to do it.  I'm not sure why you think " but we would be really stupid to operate the airplane with engines shutdown in the way you have stated" when I didn't state one way or the other on how to operate.  Any Vmca comments was just me working through the asymmetric thrust and worst case scenarios in a think out loud kind of way.  That's all.

Seriously though....my comments were at best casual chilled out shoot-the-s*** type stuff on what is a public internet message board viewable by all walks of people.

Now, to clear up....I said nothing about SAR.  I did however suggest blimps (but not in a serious way).  Hell, if the powers that be think the job can be done well by the P-8, then fill-yer-boots.  I was just curious how it would run at 200 feet.  

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're just trying to inform me a bit, I'm just surprised a 5 sentence off the cuff question generated a 7 paragraph response.

 

[Loachman]

It just seemed straight-up educational to me, and quite thorough.

 

[hauger]

It just seemed straight-up educational to me, and quite thorough.

See....this is why the internet sucks.  There's no sense of tone or tempo to the responses, and so people take meanings wrong....all that "non-verbal" stuff is missing.

 

[Good2Golf]

I took it the same way Loachman did.  Although I am trying to figure out why you need a Vmca greater than 0 kts...  ;D

G2G

 

[observor 69]

Bart thanks for the excellent post. Those in the know in the Maritime aviation community will recognize that you speak as "one who knows."

 

[Loachman]

Although I am trying to figure out why you need a Vmca greater than 0 kts...  ;D

I don't even remember hearing that term before now. It can't be terribly important.

 

[aesop081]

Vmca = Minimum control speed in air

For those who care / didnt know

 

[Loachman]

I was right, then.

 

[bartbandyrfc]

Yikes....Bart.....having a bad day at the office?  I was just asking in a casual manner, I am not a member of the procurement board nor do I have a vested interest one way or the other....just bored, saw the thread, read a bit, and asked a question.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're just trying to inform me a bit, I'm just surprised a 5 sentence off the cuff question generated a 7 paragraph response.

Hauger,

Sorry, but the response was not meant to be nasty.  It's just the way I talk at the bar, and I had a glass of wine as I was typing.  No offence intended, just some witty banter to liven up the board.  A little education was also in mind, since it seemed from your post that we risk our crews and our airframe willy-nilly, without consideration of risks or redundancies. I have to be frank, this is fairly common sentiment and I get tired of it.  Again, apologies if I offended you; not my intent at all.

For Cdn Aviator, I think the ability to schwack a baddy surface vessel does not necessarily need a vis ID.  As you know, we can do this based on various ident criteria, which I can't get into in any more depth about on this board.  I would say that a Vis ID may be a bad idea in some circumstances.  The new mission kit will just make this identification job a lot easier.  Other than that, I agree that the P-7 was a missed opportunity.

You fling wing dudes can get back in your box!  ;D

 

[hauger]

No sweat Bart....the more I thought about it the more I thought I was taking things a little wrong.  One thing you can be certain of...I know fully that shutting down an engine is never a willy-nilly what-the-hell thing.  My original point with it was that shutting it down allowed you to run up N1 on the remaining engines to increase efficiency while maintaining a slower speed.  This may be highly incorrect, but these circumstances and reasoning were taught to us in Moose Jaw when we were first learning about turbines....which is how I came to make my original post.

Loachman....Vmca isn't a big deal if you're going fast enough...but you do have to be aware of it in a bunch of circumstances.  An engine failure after take off can be a big Vmca issue, as can trying to land somewhere with a caged engine, getting slow on airspeed, then deciding to go around but applying full torque to the three working engines instead of the two symmetric ones can cause a Vmca issue too.  A loss of directional control ain't a good thing, but how much of a deal it is depends on how bad the loss is, and how much altitude you have to deal with it.....if a failure occurs after take off out of Castlegar at 100ft with really big rock walls everywhere and airspeed drops below Vmca, you have a more an issue to deal with than if the same failure occurs in the prairies at 1,000 feet (just reduce the throttle on the good engine a bit).

 

[aesop081]

Not much of an issue with 3 remaining engines that crank out 4600 Shp each i suspect

 

[hauger]

Not much of an issue with 3 remaining engines that crank out 4600 Shp each i suspect

Dunno...there may have been an Aurora incident once on landing one the east coast where three engines (each cranking 4600 shp) happily tooled along while there was a loss of directional control on a go-around.  Not saying there was, just that there may have been.

 

[muskrat89]

hauger - I don't know squat about planes except that when everything is right, they fly in the air. I just can't help get the feeling that you learned/read enough somewhere to drop tech-speak into the conversation, without really knowing what you are talking about. Maybe my perception is wrong but you seem to have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of your lane here. Maybe I'm mistaken....

 

[Loachman]

Loachman....Vmca isn't a big deal if you're going fast enough...

I can be flying at zero knots and be going fast enough.

I can be flying at negative knots and be going fast enough.

I can be flying sideways and be going fast enough.

but you do have to be aware of it in a bunch of circumstances.

No I don't.

I've got over 4000 hours in a bunch of circumstances without being aware of it.

 

[Loachman]

Maybe my perception is wrong but you seem to have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of your lane here. Maybe I'm mistaken....

I have "some knowledge" but generally are posting out of my lane here, too.

He's okay from my point of view.

 

[observor 69]

Dunno...there may have been an Aurora incident once on landing one the east coast where three engines (each cranking 4600 shp) happily tooled along while there was a loss of directional control on a go-around.  Not saying there was, just that there may have been.

This what you are thinking of:

Vivid memories remain of fiery Argus crash of 1977

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=20187&sc=98

 

[hauger]

ARRGGG!

My original question was regarding the efficiency of turbo-fans at low level.  That was it.

I don't understand how that takes me out of my lane.  Further, I'm a bit confused how someone who admits no knowledge of aircraft can then call someone out for being "out of their lane".  The Vmca stuff was a complete side bar bit regarding the engines being shut down and in NO WAY has anything to do with this discussion....I'm sorry I brought it up at all.  My last post was just to show that yes, it is important, although it isn't a hell-broke-loose red page by any means.

I can assure you though, that I don't have the experience levels Bart has by any means, nor do I know anything about the operation of Aurora's at all, I am not talking out of my lane or dropping tech-speak in an effort to sound like I know something I don't.

I just wish the other posters here would move on and stop being so argumentative over such little points.

 

[muskrat89]

Maybe my perception is wrong

 

Maybe I'm mistaken....

Not being argumentative at all. I even posted two caveats...  Nor was I "calling you out". I wasn't posting as Staff, and beieve it or not - I have been wrong before. Methinks you need to relax. I don't need to know anything about planes to think that you are "meshing differently" in the thread, as opposed to the patterns I'm used to seeing. That's all.

 

[hauger]

This what you are thinking of:

Vivid memories remain of fiery Argus crash of 1977

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=20187&sc=98

Nope, that's not it.  Helluva read though.  I doubt the incident I'm thinking of made the papers (no actual accident), but may have made a Flight Comment....I just don't feel like digging through them to find it.

 

[hauger]

 
Not being argumentative at all. I even posted two caveats...  Nor was I "calling you out". I wasn't posting as Staff, and beieve it or not - I have been wrong before. Methinks you need to relax. I don't need to know anything about planes to think that you are "meshing differently" in the thread, as opposed to the patterns I'm used to seeing. That's all.

Tough but fair.  Me thinks me will chill out a bit now.

Loachman...I don't understand this zero kts thing.

Wait a minute.......you're helo's.....ahh.   ;D

Anyways....I'm done.  I'll leave the thread to the adults now.