|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 10, 2006 2:09:12 GMT
What problem's that with the flap gauge ? I'm not aware of any issues there. I'm aware some folk have reported issues with their panels, but, myself, & guys I'm in contact with "personally" down here, appear not to be having any .... whatsoever .... so .... I dunno  Mark C |
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jul 10, 2006 3:54:20 GMT
I forgot about the fuel - For now, best you can do is replace the fuel section as well from the CFG of the KC-135s with that of the 707-120 for now. The reason I say not to make other mods is that the flaps are setup differently, the tail, and overall size and operational weights of the 707 and KC-135 are very different, so making wholesale modifications will make the panel work right, but you'll be flying a 707, not a KC-135.  Anyways, here's the items I found - Under the section [turbineenginedata] modify the line - afterburner=0 to afterburner=1 This allows the Water Injection to operate properly. Paste the 707-120 fuel section in (yes, this will remove the offload tanks but the current panel won't recognize them anyway). Copy the 707-120 [smokesystem] section into the KC-135A. You're done. |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 10, 2006 4:51:53 GMT
YEAH .... I feel quite a bit more comfortable with that compromise too.
"JAY" .... you may need to live with the flap problem (I'm assuming it's only a flap increment issue you're realising rather than a performance problem with that particular gauge/panel) until such time as "dedicated" KC135 panels come along. As Chris implies, the incremental flap settings of the B707-120 panel will be quite different from those of KC135-A.
Again, I've absolutely no idea whether or not we'll see any KC135 series panel/s, but, I did request them anyway.
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jul 10, 2006 5:41:52 GMT
I can deal with the flap problem, everything else seems to be working alright now. Thanks for putting in the request for the one three five panels. Hope to see those on the site in the near future. Happy Landings, Jay |
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jul 10, 2006 8:11:42 GMT
I have equipped the 707-120 FDE with afterburners in order to simulate the boost in thrust provided by water injection. This requires modifying the AIR file as well as the aircraft.cfg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jul 10, 2006 19:21:15 GMT
Cool, any plans on doing that to the early 135 A's? |
|
|
|
Post by tanker on Jul 12, 2006 23:58:38 GMT
Yes they would. Full flaps were used as part of the normal heavyweight takeoff procedure on the KC-135A, and is still normal for several of the re-engined models of the C-135. Hmm, I flew the KC-135A from 1970 through 1974 and did a lot of heavy weight takeoffs from U-Tapao Thailand. Never once used full flaps - it was 20 degrees with leading edge flaps, run them up and start the water injection. We used about 11,000 feet of a 12,000 ft runway. Some said prayer helped. Our fuel load was 155,000 lbs with an aircraft weight of 110,000 lbs and temperatures and humidity in the high 90's. Takeoff rotation had to be held at 8 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees. Dale Dale |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jul 13, 2006 0:41:22 GMT
It wasn't normal procedure to use full flaps because that would decrease rotation speed and increase the chances of a stall right after your undercarrage left the runway, not to mention the fact that gaining altitude was really slow and dangerous because your either riding or below MCA. I have heard stories (from the horses mouth) of pilots using full flaps but depending where you were its usage varied. I'd love to hear more about your experience on the one three five. Jay |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Claus on Jul 14, 2006 6:12:52 GMT
Hey, I know it probably took some time to notice it but I have another question on the 135A in the download section. 57-1490 doesn't have a "star and bar" on the starboard side? Did she just carry insignia on the port side during that time?
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jul 14, 2006 11:09:12 GMT
The comments about "crash inevitable if water injection on one side fails" seems to imply that the initial climb speed was well below V_MCA. After all, the asymmetry moment from lost water injection would surely be much less than that for losing an entire engine...
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jul 14, 2006 13:55:06 GMT
It didn't matter what speed George, it wasn't about Vmca, or Vso, or any V-Speed. It was the fact that you suddenly lost half of your thrust on one side of the airplane. At any speed below V2, it was almost garunteed that you would be unable to react quickly enough to counteract the sudden yaw into the "dead" injection side and you'd then strike a wingtip or go into an accelerated stall.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Jul 14, 2006 13:59:57 GMT
I thought that Vmca was defined as the lowest speed at which the aircraft can be kept straight with a dead engine. Surely loss of water injection on two engines is a smaller loss of thrust than one engine failing completely?
|
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Jul 14, 2006 14:01:17 GMT
How much extra thrust did the water injection give Chris.
I wouldn't have though losing it meant half the thrust being lost on the affected engines.
Garry
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jul 14, 2006 14:05:46 GMT
From "Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker" by Robert S. Hopkins, III -
Later on, in the "Attrition" section, it lists the aircraft lost due to failure of the water injection system. All were near or slightly above V2 when the failure occured.
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Jul 14, 2006 14:10:19 GMT
The engines produced about 10,800lb dry and just shy of 13,000lb wet, so "half" is a bit of an overstatement, but still, loosing about 20% of your thrust per engine on one side of the airplane is a lot.
|
|
