Onlookers at St.Malo..

Post by **DaveB** » 09 Jan 2007, 00:28

That was cruel Garry but amusing all the same

I like the idea of prodding the engines to get the props out of the way

Intuitive and very effiecient

ATB

DaveB :tab:

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 09 Jan 2007, 01:09

Garry Russell wrote:Have you tried it Peter?

No Garry,

I have quite a few hours on the Anson 19 but the nearest I got to an emergency was when I took one up for an air test with a full load of ATC cadets, including one in the cockpit. I worked through the list of things I was to test and left to last the starboard engine feathering...It feathered perfectly!...But sadly refused to unfeather. So my one and only single engined landing in the Anson. Went pretty well as I had loads of height and landed back at Leconfield.

The fact that it could be landed wheels up without damage was pointed out to me when I had my only two training flights before starting work with it. I enjoyed the Anson 19, it had a posh VIP layout inside and I did 272 hours in it

Post by **MALTBY D** » 09 Jan 2007, 01:10

That 100% rating really doesn't tell the truth does it Dave.

Though I might keep up with you this month on the old rating score, but got done for landing lights off under 1000ft yet again.
Doing some sightseeing around the mountains half way to Inverness. BONG :roll:

DM

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 09 Jan 2007, 02:15

DanKH wrote:Oh, I see Chris. Thank you for pointing that out.

It was pointed out to me when I made the query about the R4D-6 our CAF Wing hosts in a similar fashion to what was made here. They said that it'd been tried more than once and they actually ended up doing more damage landing with the gear up than landing on partially extended gear (i.e. unlocking and allowing gravity to extend the gear to nearly locked). It was explained that on the DC-3/C-47 at least the lack of gear doors and partial exposure of the wheel had to do with allowing the gear to be extended with the minimum of hydraulic assist up until the need to lock the gear down which could then be accomplished with a hand pump and a minimum number of strokes (considering you had 2 people in the cockpit and the hand pump wasn't in a great spot so pumping time was at a premium). By having the tire partially exposed, it allowed for a quicker initial deployment of the gear into the airstream, which then meant that the gear only required 10-15 strokes on the hand pump to lock down instead of the 30-40 needed on other aircraft with enclosed landing gear.

Post by **DaveB** » 09 Jan 2007, 02:17

It used to David.. it really had

I notice on another thread your 200 is up today and coincidentally, I ran my 700th (now 705). I don't think I'm flying any less than I've always done.. just a case that everyone else is flying more. I managed 8 flights today which under any circumstances is a lot though I see you managed 9.. proof if ever it was needed

In the end, all this means is that CBFS further consolidates it's position on the VA. I just wish the money was real!!

ATB

DaveB :tab: