|
Post by grayrider on Jul 16, 2007 0:39:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 16, 2007 0:52:07 GMT
Easy ! My understanding is that some (if not most) KC135-R aircraft are not actually equipped with thrust reversers .... and despite being powered by CFM56 turbofans too. Indeed Benoit and myself have provided 2 soundpacks for the CFM turbofan powered C135 SERIES aircraft .... 1 with reverse thrust and the other without it. Our John DETRICK was telling me recently that most of the fields into which these military aircraft operate have quite long runways anyway .... so .... the absence of reverse thrust really poses no major problems at all. With regard to our models. Of course the nacelle panels/buckets will be seen to slide backwards for reverse thrust on those aircraft models equipped with reversers .... whilst on non-reverser equipped models there will be no such animation. If you're not sure which of the C135 series should and should not have soundpacks with reverse thrust then open up the AIRCRAFT.CFG file for each .... scroll down through all the data until you come to the following entry .... [TurbineEngineData]Pay particular attention to the following line of data .... reverser_available=If this last line reads reverser_available=1 then that particular aircraft is reverser equiped. If this last line reads reverser_available=0 then that particular aircraft is not reverser equipped. Study this and apply (or alias) your soundpacks accoordingly, but, don't be lured into changing any of the suffixes applying to the above data. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jul 16, 2007 4:54:22 GMT
Ya know, Mark is absolutely right about that. Most "Caseys" don't have TR's on them. I've seen a few odd balls that have TR's, mostly "E" and "T" models, but other than that you're not gonna find TR's on KC-135's for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that these birds operate in some pretty rough weather and early models that were TR equipped were prone to having the wiring short out on takeoff in rainy conditions. This caused adverse yaw which, at such a slow speed and attitude, would constitute a hairy take off for the crew and one hell of a pickle for the pilots. Also take into note that a fully fueled Casey will not land heavy. Sure she's overweight on takeoff but when landing it isn't uncommon for crews to do a fuel dump to lighten up the bird. This will significantly improve handling characteristics, allow for a smoother approach, and ultimately reduce your landing roll. Remember Newton's laws, an object in motion tends to remain in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force. The less you got in your trunk, the less force you're gonna have to apply during your roll out. If you're gonna shoot landings in the pattern don't take off with a full load. If you're flying cross country you can simulate a fuel dump by changing your fuel status manually. (George, that might make an extremely useful gauge if you can get that one to work mate!) Even if you don't dump some gas you can still make a short stop (remember this is a Casey, so short is still pretty long). All you have to do is come in with full flaps at around 190kts. Try and aim for the threshold so by the time your gear hits the pavement you should be right on the numbers. Once your down, bring your engines back to 10% or just chop the throttle all the way back and deploy the spoilers. Keep a nose up attitude until the nose wheel drops and gently bring her down. The trick here is not to relieve the back pressure on the elevators all the way. With your tail feathers sticking up, spoilers still out, and flaps all the way down you have a ton of aerodynamic braking at your disposal. Oh, by the way, don't forget that you have wheel brakes while your doing all this. Happy Landings, Jay
|
|
|
Post by bobdawkins on Jul 16, 2007 22:14:05 GMT
|
|