|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 17, 2006 4:36:31 GMT
Just a neat little detail concerning our B707-120/138 & DC8 SHIP ONE 1958/DC8-10 panels and their water injection systems which I'd like to share with everyone .... or at least draw to the attention of those whom haven't yet have noticed. Best procedure is to sit on the centerline ready for T/O. Lock on the brakes .... and stand the throttles up to full power .... I thinks that's around 2.65-2.75 EPR from memory. Once T/O power is acquired .... flick on the 4 water injection switches (or use keyboard commands CNTRL/SHIFT/F4 I think) .... each of their associated green lights will illuminate to confirm water injection is working .... you'll also see the EPR values suddenly rise a fraction further .... then let go the brakes .... hurtle down the runway .... rotate and get airborne getting the gear and flaps all cleaned up as you go. Go to spot view if you've got time (as well has 6 hands) and admire the 4 thick pillars of black eahaust smoke streaming from out behind your aircraft (so long as you have the HJG B707 Heavy Smoke FX file installed) .... very authentic  .  The same also now applies to our DC8's with Water Injection/thrust augmentation too  You only get around 2-3 minutes of visable water injection/fireworks (black sooty smoke) .... assuming you leave the fascillity activated after T/O. Now .... here's the neat little detail. When all the water is consumed the 4 water injection lights will automatically extinguish .... and in this same moment you should, if you quickly turn your attention to the EPR gauges, observe a slight but sudden reduction in indicated engine power  .... simulating the loss of thrust after water injection. To hell with whether or not the water injection panel is located correctly or not on the main 2D panel. It's nice to have this little detail worked into the simulation as authentically as it is  Just thought I'd share that with everyone since there's been so much discussion around this particular subject ;D Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jul 17, 2006 9:16:36 GMT
Actually Mark, the proper procedure is to turn the pumps on and then push up the throttles. On the real airplanes, that usually didn't work and the crew would put the trottles to 80% N1 and then turn the system on.
Either way, I haven't seen anyone complain about the location of the system on the panel. I mentioned that I'd like to know if the switch locations and number of switches were the same from the KC-135A and 707 or if they are different. I understand the lack of images, it was more of a musing than complaint and I worded it as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 17, 2006 9:32:09 GMT
I couldn't get the smoke factor to work that way.
Which is why I eventually opted for my prescribed precedure above .... essentially what you've mentioned as an alternate procedure.
I never in the slightest manner interpreted it as a complaint !
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhalinda on Jul 17, 2006 13:46:21 GMT
I like to take off with water injection, and then once I'm settled into a climb, go to Options/Instant Replay, and watch my takeoff from the beginning. Then I can enjoy the smoke show without worrying about the flying.
Once the replay catches up to the present, it pauses, at which time I return to the cockpit and resume my climb.
I also like to drag and drop the tower to the far end of the runway and slightly to the side, before takeoff. Then when I replay and go to tower view, it's like I'm standing at the edge of the runway watching that smoke-belching beast rotate right in front of me. Fantastic!
Regards,
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 14, 2007 8:36:10 GMT
Wow I didn't know that. But then why does the 707 look sleeker and thinner than the 135? It always looks like the "35" has a bit more junk in the trunk. ;D Is the 135 shorter also? Yes, the C-135 is 2 feet 3 inches (0.69 m) shorter than the Boeing 720... |
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 14, 2007 14:56:10 GMT
By the way, how many distinct FDEs do we have here for the C-135 series? I'd like to replace them with new FDEs based on the 707-120, but I don't know if there are any important differences (other than the 3 engine types) which need to be taken into account?
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 14, 2007 15:09:25 GMT
Different weights, different fuel tanks, different wing, different tail, different landing gear, I'm not sure it's a good idea to use a 707-based FDE for any KC-135 since many changes were made during the 707-120 production run that were never made with the KC-135. The "Tall Tail" was incorporated to the KC-135 but not the 707-120, the wing of the KC-135 doesn't have the same lift devices as the -120s (only partial-span Krueger flaps) and the flap design is somewhat different (no wing-body fillet as on the 707).
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 14, 2007 21:22:35 GMT
I'm really asking whether a single FDE could be used for all J57-powered C-135-series aircraft (give or take changes in the loading stations and body tanks), or for all TF33-powered aircraft, or for all F108-powered aircraft, or whether there are different members of the C-135 family that have genuinely different flight dynamics from each other...
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 17, 2007 0:41:06 GMT
For the most part, they are all pretty similar for a given engine type with the TF33 birds being the only exception as there were 3 different versions of the TF33 used on those aircraft, two without thrust reversers and one with. The only other major differences in-type would be the aircraft with external modifications (like the ECs and RCs) where the various fairings and other modifications (removal of refuelling boom, movement of pitot tubes, etc) would cause changes in handling and performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jun 17, 2007 3:02:57 GMT
Engines, yes....that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. Getting into details like fairings and modifications....thats a little too detailed. Besides EC's were pretty much stock tankers with their guts removed and a whole bunch of cool gadgets instaled inside. Okay, okay, plus-minus a few new bells and switches attached to the fuselage. Point being, the flight dynamics weren't that different from a stock casey. RC's, on the other hand, their nose and cheeks apparently cause some interesting handling characteristics. What those are exactly, well you're gonna have to dig up a "Hog" pilot to figure those out.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jun 17, 2007 8:49:49 GMT
For the most part, they are all pretty similar for a given engine type with the TF33 birds being the only exception as there were 3 different versions of the TF33 used on those aircraft, two without thrust reversers and one with. The only other major differences in-type would be the aircraft with external modifications (like the ECs and RCs) where the various fairings and other modifications (removal of refuelling boom, movement of pitot tubes, etc) would cause changes in handling and performance. Which TF33 birds had thrust reversers and which didn't? |
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jun 18, 2007 14:26:35 GMT
I have a list of the entire fleet and what those converted to TF33 had, but by and large, the KC-135Es assigned to ANG and AFRES units who were based at International Airports (like the PA ANG at PIT or the IL ANG at ORD) had reversers. If they were at a SAC/USAF base, they probably didn't. The ECs and RCs that had TF33s for the most part also had reversers. I know there were a couple of test aircraft (NKC/JKC) aircraft that didn't have reversers as well, but it was a confusing time for the fleet because the aircraft that got engines from the American 707s that were purchased by the USAF for this purpose got reversers and aircraft re-engined with new turbines from the P&W factory didn't, so it's again the USAF procurement specialists at work confusing everyone.
|
|
. 
.... simulating the loss of thrust after water injection.
