RAH E175 crosswind landing in ORD

Old Pete said:
In the video of the B-52, it seemed to weathervane a bit more into the wind after deployment of the chute. Did you ever notice that when landing with a strong crosswind?
Click to expand...

We had crosswind limitations for use of the chute, was about 15 or 20 knots or so knots (don't remember the exact number) due to not only the weathervane effect, but to the drag chute straps tearing apart the underside of the rudders when the wind drags the chute that direction, damaging what is known as the tip caps, which is a multi-thousand dollar repair. And for this same reason, unlike planes like the F-4 which retained its chute while exiting the runway, we had to jettison ours on the runway by maneuvering into the wind, powering up, and pulling the release handle. We could do non-chute landings, but it was a tricky maneuver as you had to land and immediately get the nosewheel down, then get on the brakes, whch would inevitable smoke due to all the accumulated grease because they're hardly used with the drag chute.. Aerodynamic braking was prohibited in the F-117.
 
adk said:
So if a 1000 hour RATP is hired at TSA how many hours would he need to upgrade?
Click to expand...

Timmy Tucker said:
49A1D3E0-FBD5-4B15-8D0E-2477F0E5941A_zpsqg5shuce.png


I'm just going to leave this right here...
Click to expand...

tumblr_li9f9bvKvW1qgck0io1_400.jpg

Too much cellulite.
 
MikeD said:
We had crosswind limitations for use of the chute, was about 15 or 20 knots or so knots (don't remember the exact number) due to not only the weathervane effect, but to the drag chute straps tearing apart the underside of the rudders when the wind drags the chute that direction, damaging what is known as the tip caps, which is a multi-thousand dollar repair. And for this same reason, unlike planes like the F-4 which retained its chute while exiting the runway, we had to jettison ours on the runway by maneuvering into the wind, powering up, and pulling the release handle. We could do non-chute landings, but it was a tricky maneuver as you had to land and immediately get the nosewheel down, then get on the brakes, whch would inevitable smoke due to all the accumulated grease because they're hardly used with the drag chute.. Aerodynamic braking was prohibited in the F-117.
Click to expand...

Any reason for this? You'd think the FBW could be programmed so you could keep the nose in the air as long as possible and then start to let it down before you slammed it in eh?
 
jtrain609 said:
Any reason for this? You'd think the FBW could be programmed so you could keep the nose in the air as long as possible and then start to let it down before you slammed it in eh?
Click to expand...

It's a design issue. The 117 is essentially a lifting body with a full flat undersurface, it couldn't efficiently or effectively be aerobraked and was very susceptible to lifting back off the runway if even the slightest bit of excess backstick was applied and a few degrees excess AOA while attempting to aerobrake...something extremely detrimental at anything slower than touchdown speed. So the procedure for a no-chute landing called for normal touchdown, then briskly get the nose to the runway and hold forward pressure on the stick while commencing light-moderate braking, ending up in about a 9000-10,000 foot rollout in order to avoid hot brakes, another thing the 117 was highly susceptible to. For me, it felt completely unnatural to be forcing pressure onto the nose gear due to my background of always learning and putting into practice "protect the nose gear". But that was the procedure. Because if aerobraking was done incorrectly, the jet was very susceptible to ending up looking like this:

117a.jpg
 
I think I was in the back of this plane! The guys up front did a great job, but in the back, it was sceeeery!!!

:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
jtrain609 said:
I don't have a whole lot of hours in the JungleBus yet, but overall I don't know what to think of this. I'm generally paranoid about dragging an engine/wingtip, or maybe worse, popping the spoilers up on one of the wings with too much aileron input. So in the grand scheme of things, is this the worst landing ever? I don't know, and I've probably done worse at some point in my life.

Who are all the guys I terrorize on a regular basis... @Nick, @NC_BE300, @amorris311, @BlueMoon, what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

The AOM for the 175 says something like 16 degrees to smack a nacelle and that seems like a lot of bank to me and would be really really noticeable up front. I would say something around 5 in a stiff crosswind is about right, but honestly never looked to see what other pilots or myself put in, I usually am looking to see how much pitch we're at (which is 6-8 degrees for most)
 
BlueMoon said:
The AOM for the 175 says something like 16 degrees to smack a nacelle and that seems like a lot of bank to me and would be really really noticeable up front. I would say something around 5 in a stiff crosswind is about right, but honestly never looked to see what other pilots or myself put in, I usually am looking to see how much pitch we're at (which is 6-8 degrees for most)
Click to expand...

And to add to what he said.....Tail strike arena is around 10*

As far as the video goes, opinion wise, looks busy and a bunch going on, but referencing bad wind conditions not bad?
Again better perspective could change that. Either way, don't want to armchair quarterback.

If this video pops up in a FOQA meeting/bulletin.....well then that'll be a talking point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top