Anyone ever reverse inflight w/Garrett??

[na265]

Yes, NASA does have a sim. Even got to fly it back in October, way cool. In talking to some of our Executive types, when flying the GII with the reversers out it wasn't to bad. Some shaking and stuff like that. Kinda funny deal: in the beginng of using the GII, they wouldn't land, just did a go-around. When the Shuttle Pilots were doing the real deal, they said it felt very stange to go all the way to the ground, since all they had ever done was the go-around.

 

[JAFI]

Xjcaptain, are the CT7 engines direct drive or no, this depends on your view of what a free turbine is. The CT7 engine propeller is directly connected through the gearbox to a shaft that runs the full length of the engine to the power turbine at the end of the engine. The length of this shaft is around 6 feet.

The Pratt PT6 prop is connected to the gearbox, which is not connected to the power section at all. The TPE-331 engine is a direct drive from the engine to the prop. My point was that all turbo prop engines are not the same. Are we splitting hairs here, maybe? The discussion was going the road of who did what in what engine. I feel they were mixing apples and oranges. You can’t operate all turboprops the same. Something will break.

na265 points out that NASA uses the GII with the reversers deployed. Now he is talking about a turbo fan engine. An interesting point but perhaps, not close enough when the question about a specific turbo prop engine. I do not think the GII is allowed to go into reverse in flight. I think the NASA GII is a public use aircraft and does not have a "N" number and I'm sure if a waver was required, they could get one.


So now we went from apples and oranges to adding bananas to the discussion.

Fruit salad anyone?

 

[low-n-slow]

Let me add that although I have gone into beta and as somebody above stated 'very gently' into reverse while decending from flight I see this as no big deal in my circumstance, a single engine ag plane powered by a PT-6 and would not try this practice in the multi engine airplanes and couldn't tell you about a Garrett.

The orginal question was asked if it could be done with a Garrett, didn't say what type of airplane, just asked whether or not it could be done and I thought he got bashed unnecesarily.

I personally could'nt imagine reversing a multi engined airplane while in flight, I'm thinking this thought process is where some of the remarks maybe came from...but it wasn't the question!




BTW, having lived in the Orlando area all of my life and spending many days fishing the Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon I have witnessed the NASA G/whatever making practice shuttle approaches, that thing comes down like like a brick. It is awesome to see.

 

[727PAA]

CASA

The CASA accident you refer to had much more to do with the props themselves than the engine. On the C-212 the Dowty-Rotols have two sets of springs to bring the prop back to Flight idle. I believe that the Metro's have one. I have heard that the operator of that fateful airplane operated both types and since the props fit. They installed one prop from a Metro onto the 212. Hence, one prop came out of Beta much faster.

Eagle also had two crashes in Puerto Rico of C-212's, almost into the same spot. Both were thought to have been from "inadvertant" selection of Beta/reverse in flight. After the second accident, CASA put weight on wheel switches into the 212 as well.

That's as much as I remember....

I wouldn't do it with a TPE 331 if I was at 31,000...NO WAY!!

 

[username]

I did a simulated inflight reverse on a TPE331 in a Jetstream 41 simulator. The aircraft crashed within about 30 seconds despite my best efforts. It's my understanding that if you pull the good engine to flight idle and feather the reversed one ASAP while shoving the nose over it's just barely survivable given enough altitude. I didn't get to try that as it took 30 minutes to reboot the sim after the crash.

 

[Swass]

I did a simulated inflight reverse on a TPE331 in a Jetstream 41 simulator. The aircraft crashed within about 30 seconds despite my best efforts. It's my understanding that if you pull the good engine to flight idle and feather the reversed one ASAP while shoving the nose over it's just barely survivable given enough altitude. I didn't get to try that as it took 30 minutes to reboot the sim after the crash.

You suck, Avbug could have saved it in only a couple of hundred feet or so. At least that's what he'd write here.

 

[uscpilot]

USC,

When did I ever state that reverse would be "instantly fatal" as you put it?. I thought so... For you to ask such a ridiculous question about putting the engine into reverse in flight makes me seriously question your reasoning, knowledge, background, etc, etc,.. I guess common sense may illustrate a few key points if you would take the time and learn about the proper operating procedures (normal), emergency procedures, concept, etc, etc. I was simply responding to this person's questions which I thought were a tad off in right field. I sure hope I am not a passenger on Cwazy Clown Airlines when you get the call. I guess that just about sums it up.

Study a little bit about "loss of control" attributed to this on the NTSB pages, I bet you may find yourself a few examples..

I would love to hear the stories about people using this in flight as you have stated, so I will wait patiently... I can only imagine what is to come.

3 5 0

350
Ok if you take OD on sleeping pills or slash your wrists you might not die instantly, but it would happen rather fast. For give me for taking you out of context (sarcastic). You love to argue semantics, but then thats all that you have. My question (which you did not answer) had to do with when you became an expert. I do not think it is wise to make assumptions about something which you know nothing about. The origional poster asked a legitimit question and you felt compelled to denigrate him. I did not ask the question so dont put words in my mouth, especially if you are going to fault me for the same.
My reasoning: No prior understanding of turbine engines and curiosity.
My knowledge: No prior knowledge of turbine engines.
My background: All piston, no beta or reverse.
To me common sense would say to ask questions unstead of jumping to an unfounded conculsion.
As far as normal operating procedures I think it has been established that this was a very abnormal situation. I think that was the whole basis for the question. I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to emergency procedures and concept. I think you were just pulling words out of your a$$, or wrote while you were intoxicated.
Oh you were "simply responding". Is that how you respond to all questions, no matter how stupid or intelligent they are?
I think your no it all demenor is far more dangerous than my desire for the truth. I feel sorry for any students that you might have had, assuming that you instructed. God knows what important knowledge they are lacking simply because they were scared of how you might respond. So please tell me how asking a question, no matter how stupid it seems, is more dangerous than not asking it?
You must be reaching if you have to pull obvious jokes off my bio to insult me. Cwazy Clown Airlines was a Simpons reference, I am so sorry to mislead you. I feel compeled to inform you that many of the other bios in this form are jokes or out right lies. If your is not a joke then I have to question the to use your words,"reasoning, knowledge, background, proper operating procedures (normal), emergency procedures, concept, etc," as a shark clearly does not have the ability to manipulate the aircraft's controlls.
And if that "summed it up" then why didnt you stop there?
Maybe unstead of being a smarta$$ you could have origionally responded with the advice about looking at the NTSB reports. That seems to have been your only substantive contribution.
As far as hearing other stories, how lazy or stupid are you? There are several other people here who you have claimed to do what you equated with ODing or slashing your wrists. You dont have to imagine, just read the other postings.
I cant wait to hear you backpeddle on this one.
usc

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: yes, a very stupid question

and also the Porter typically comes equipped with a PT-6 and not a Garrett.

Porters are eqipped with PT-6's, Garretts, and some Turbomecca engine. This particular Porter had a garrett.

As for reversing, I had a friend who flew skyvans (garretts) many years ago, at his company, part of thier training was putting both engines into beta in flight. I'm not sure what the purpose of this was, and I'm certainly not reccomending it, but they did it on a fairly regular basis and there and never had a crash as a result. So, it is not the sure and instantaneous death that some suggest. I also know a captain who liked to put the DC-6 into reverse on short final, until one day he had some serious pitch control issues on short final. Again; it wasn't instantaneous obliteration, (or even bent metal) but it scared him enough that he decided not to explore that particular edge of the envelope anymore.

 

[Mogus]

This all reminds me of the if-you-put-your-car-in-reverse-while-going-down-the-freeway-your-transmission-will-explode myth.

 

[350DRIVER]

USC,

I am very touched after reading such a thoughtful and touching response from you (no sarcasm intended). You seem like you would be an absolute joy to fly with after reading about all the knowledge & wisdom that you seem to have (once again no sarcasm intended). The original poster asked a question and as you can see he got quite a few answers, like them or not. I will not waste my time in a pi$$ing match with you since that would be a complete and absolute waste of time. You may think as you wish, truly it has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever since your posts reak of ignorance. It is always a pleasure to see such long posts directed at me, touching in more ways than one.!!

My background: All piston, no beta or reverse.

Enough said, better you said it than I. Stick with the "pistons" at Net, you see more down low anyways. (better view)

3 5 0

 

[uscpilot]

USC,

I am very touched after reading such a thoughtful and touching response from you (no sarcasm intended). You seem like you would be an absolute joy to fly with after reading about all the knowledge & wisdom that you seem to have (once again no sarcasm intended). The original poster asked a question and as you can see he got quite a few answers, like them or not. I will not waste my time in a pi$$ing match with you since that would be a complete and absolute waste of time. You may think as you wish, truly it has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever since your posts reak of ignorance. It is always a pleasure to see such long posts directed at me, touching in more ways than one.!!



Enough said, better you said it than I. Stick with the "pistons" at Net, you see more down low anyways. (better view)

3 5 0

350
Very chicken $hit of you. Oh well just bow out now. Cant take the heat? Try not to use so many cliches next time, how about some origionality. I mean come on "waste of my time", give me a break. Then you have to make fun of me for flying a prop. Ouch that hurt. You lost and you still had to get a last word, very classy.
Let me ask another question. Given your track record I am sure that you wont answer these either.
What is it that I think? Did I ever say that it was a good idea to use beta or reverse in flight? My whole point has been to critisize you for your childish comments in regards to the origional poster. I cant imagine that the origional post is any more moronic than the garbage that you spew out.
Alright I kind of answered that for you. Here is the same one from earlier: What is better, to ask a question or pretend that you know the answer? I am waiting with baited breath.
usc

 

[350DRIVER]

USC,

I think my track record speaks for itself but I do appreciate the kind words, like I previously stated it is always nice to see such a long response dedicated to me.

keep flying those "pistons", atleast you understand them. (I would hope)

3 5 0

 

[Fly BI]

Flaming factoid...

Just to pause the flame action here....

When my father started with Delta Air Lines In 1972, he was a DC-8 Flight Engineer. It was a common practice to put engines 2 & 3 into reverse while 1 & 4 were at flight idle during a descent. This was a preferred way of slowing the aircraft. This practice was dicsontinued towards the end of the 70's when it was discovered that the numbers 2 & 3 engine pylons and mounts required constant attention at B, C, and D checks. The practice was never approved when the DC-8 was re-engined with the CFM's.

This isn't a direct comparison but close.

 

[Vector4fun]

Regarding the NASA G-II STA fleet, they are indeed registered with an N-number, though I don't know what catagory. (research? experimental?). They use up to 92% thrust in reverse, and did a lot of their own structural work on the reversers and wings. Also, the main gear deploys during descent, but the nose gear stays up. The cockpit is pretty cool.

I once asked one of their guys if they could maintain 10,000' (6000 agl) and 250+ kts to the FAF for me to beat a string of SWA 737s in. No Problem! But the lead SWA pilot didn't believe it till he watched it.

More info here:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/9703feat.html

 

[uscpilot]

USC,

I think my track record speaks for itself but I do appreciate the kind words, like I previously stated it is always nice to see such a long response dedicated to me.

keep flying those "pistons", atleast you understand them. (I would hope)

3 5 0

I would have to agree with the comment about track record. You are very uninformed and obnoxious.
What is the point about the backhand comments about my experience being limited to pistons? When have I claimed to be an authority on turbines? If anything your responses compared to the others on this board show you are anything but an authority.
Your continued personal attacks on my background do nothing but weaken your position. My point, which you have deliberatly avoided time after time, has to do with your condiscending comments to those who are ignorant in a field where you seem to have a very rudimentary understanding. You are the embodiment of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Again as you said your track record speaks for it self.
And dont tell me that my comments have , " absolutely no effect ,"on you. Your denial is proof enough that it does effect you. If you truly didnt care you would leave, but your ego wont let you. Did the door and cabin of your aircraft have to be modified so your huge head could fit in. Your ego is so large that it would satisfy the requirements for another crewmember.
Again tell me how I am not worth your time, and am ignorant. Just give evidence, also answer the dam question.
usc

 

[Swass]

I would have to agree with the comment about track record. You are very uninformed and obnoxious.
What is the point about the backhand comments about my experience being limited to pistons? When have I claimed to be an authority on turbines? If anything your responses compared to the others on this board show you are anything but an authority.
Your continued personal attacks on my background do nothing but weaken your position. My point, which you have deliberatly avoided time after time, has to do with your condiscending comments to those who are ignorant in a field where you seem to have a very rudimentary understanding. You are the embodiment of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Again as you said your track record speaks for it self.
And dont tell me that my comments have , " absolutely no effect ,"on you. Your denial is proof enough that it does effect you. If you truly didnt care you would leave, but your ego wont let you. Did the door and cabin of your aircraft have to be modified so your huge head could fit in. Your ego is so large that it would satisfy the requirements for another crewmember.
Again tell me how I am not worth your time, and am ignorant. Just give evidence, also answer the dam question.
usc

Bravo! I am tired of his arrogant attitude as well, he's a smart ass.

 

[Brae123]

Anyone ever hear the story about the CASA 212 that did the reverse in flight? Basicly the captain was making a short downwind, tight base, and decided to put the engines into reverse to loose some altitude going into DTW. The original CASAs where approved for this type of flight. To make a short story even shorter, one engine came out of reverse and the other did not. Crashed into the terminal and killed everyone on board and took out some rampers also.

Talk to the chief pilot over at Murray Aviation, he can tell you all about puting TPE-331s into reverse during flight!

 

[avbug]

Swass,

I'm not too sure what I ever did to step on your genetalia, but I really don't care. I didn't know I had a problem with you, I guess I do now, you pinheaded little **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

When you're done with your assesment, perhaps you will have something meaningful and constructive to add? Doubtful, but best of luck. Can you at least stick to the subject, while you're engaging in the personal attacks?

Better, if you're going to throw out those little jibes, you might as well start a new thread. Think you can do that?

 

[Swass]

Avbug,
I get a extremely tired reading how you've already done it this way or that and you make it sound that if anyone here does it another way then they are idiots.

It seems that every thread started with someone asking a good question turns into you being a holier than thou professor on how you did it this way or had this experience and this is the only way it should be done or you are a dumbass. I'm sure lots of folks here feels the same way, we get a little tired of how badass you make yourself come across.

Maybe it's just that you are strongwilled (stubborn) and can't accept that there may be ways other than your own. (A good example would be Marinegrunt's moving thread, although I likedthe part about asking a church for help.)

See ya.

 

[350DRIVER]

Avbug has more experience than most combined. I don't think too many people share the same views as you regarding him. Most are extremely happy to benefit from his vast knowledge of this industry, I am one of them.

I get a extremely tired reading how you've already done it this way or that and you make it sound that if anyone here does it another way then they are idiots.

Simple solution would be not to read his posts, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

avbug, keep up the good work... I think the vast majority of people on this board take pride in being able to obtain knowledge from you.

3 5 0