Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Anyone ever reverse inflight w/Garrett??

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Reverse In-Flight

Reading through these replies has provided me with at least a good ten minutes of hyserical laughter.

My .02 ? I've never reversed a Garett turboprop in-flight; but I would assume the implications were fatal. I asked around and got a lot of these faces :eek: as a response... guess that about sums it up.
 
350DRIVER said:
uavchaser >>>1. Anyone ever done this??
2. What were the results??
3. Would you do it again??
____________________________________________________

Let me respond with a few more "educated" questions>>

1) Ever slit your wrists?? What were the results??
2) Ever overdose on a mixture of crack & sleeping pills??
3) Would you do it again??

The three questions that you have asked are probably three of the dumbest I have ever seen on this board..

congrats,

3 5 0



Exactly.
 
avbug said:
No, no. Everybody's probably right. When one goes into reverse or beta in flight, the airplane explodes. Not simply begins a slow rupture, but every rivet, every lap seam, every component, stringer, longeron, spar, bulkhead, and the very skin, first begins to glow, and then the airplane shakes like a banshee with unholy specteral gastric distress. The skin begins to glow brighter and brighter until it's terrible radiance exceeds even the noon-day sun, and then things begin to come apart. I hear that if one even looks at such an airplane, one will be blind for life.

Still, I have to wonder. When the aircraft is sitting tied down on the flight line at night, with no airflow over that elevator, or rudder, or ruddervator, or elevon, or...how come it doesn't end in complete catastrophy, then? Perhaps just because it doesn't have so far to fall?

But what about that downwash that prevents certain catastrauphic effects...that download on the "elevator." Is it the horizontal stab that benifits from download, or is it the elevator? Hmmm. I wonder. And does that download go away when reverse or beta is entered? (Clue: does it go away if the engine is shut down and the prop feathered in flight?). So long as that airplane is moving forward, it doesn't go away. It may be altered or varied, but it doesn't go away.

Personally, I'm finding a basement apartment. Now that I know that the risk of a turbopropeller going into reverse accidentally in flight exists, and that it's sure to end in catastrauphic disaster, I want to get as far underground as I can. Those airplanes could be raining down any minute. Gotta go. I think I hear one overhead right...


See what I mean.
 
So what you're really setting forth is that you have nothing to contribute, then? I sort of thought so. It's easy to spend time tearing down...but what about the thread? Do you have any experiences or significant insight to provide, or are you going to simply post quote after quote and make cryptic or derrogatory comments following each one? You might as well just start a new thread...you've nothing to contribute here.

You've heard from several folks with experience directly related to the question. What experience do you have? Even lacking germain experience, perhaps you can offer something other than personal commentary on posters? I don't believe the thread regards posters, but ground range operations in flight. Your commentary is becoming boring.

Lxapilot, you assume it would be fatal? Your vast experience gave you pause to laugh? Then ten minutes of hysterical laughter was worth all our effort.
 
350DRIVER said:
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.



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
Man you are such a hypocrite. You critisize and denigrate the origonal poster, then myself for not automatically knowing that the use of beta, or reverse in flight is dangerous. You contenued this assult even after several people claimed to have done it and survived.
Now as if the last two pages never happened you put all this praise on avbug. This an individual that has willingly put his aircraft in reverse while in flight, an act you equated with suicide. When posed as a question, you claimed it was the stupidest that you had ever seen on this board. While I do agree with your assment of avbug it is out of place give how your posts are in complete disagrement with his.
Since you have embraced avbug would it be safe to assume that you no longer stand by your previous staments?
usc
 
USC,

You are an absolute fuc$ing joke in my eyes, I would love to laugh in your face if I ever had the chance to do that. I loved the posting about a "so-called" SWA plane landing at the wrong airport, you cannot even get your facts straight... Why not research the "topic" before you continue to make an a$$ out of yourself? You are by far the biggest "joke" that I have seen to date to post on this board. You are flying pistons because you have no where else to go, Craig had a "laugh" ot two when I mentioned it was your dumb a$$ that questioned whether or not it was "OK" to reverse a turbine engine inflight, and to think he was part of the reason you were hired, what a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**i$ joke.... Fortunately you are flying the "pistons" where you have no turbines to deal with, God forbid.. And they hired your sorry a$$.? Unreal, fortunately you have no pax onboard to endanger or harm.

I absolutely 100% stand by my previous posts since this is by far far the most screwed up thing I have heard.. Do people survive? YES. Is it "approved" or "suggested" ? NO, bottom line moron. Enough said... Please dip**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** show me one aircraft manual or training program where this is suggested.. thought so..


you are an absolute joke man- stay on the "pistons" - atleast you won't fuc$ up too badly..:cool:

3 5 0
 
350,

This was for a possible flight test for an unspecified project, there is no "approved" or "suggested" applicable to what we do. This whole thread simply started from an engineer who probably has a lot more knowledge than you do about the details of this particular scenario. I did personally talk with our representative from Honeywell and he did not recomend it and I will post his e-mail later, on his reasoning on this matter. At least he has some sort of basis for his explanation unlike your quick usumption of instant death or destroyed aircraft.

AvBug,

Thank you for the backup and for not coming to an automatic conclusion like some of these guy's who come up with answer's lacking closure and a true understanding of the question at hand. As far as I am concerned, your input is always welcome and I have learned a great deal from you and you are a true asset to this board.

Thank's to the rest of you who did not blow off my question like some of the self-proclaimed educated participants who believe they have the knowledge beyond what they have been a part of. If you have not tried this manuever please stop the pesamistic feedback, it truly lacks focus of the
topic. I am quite sure the flames will continue so go ahead.

uavchaser (no longer)

Ace Tomato Co.
;)
 
I've done it in the jetstream 32 sim. We could go from 10,000 ft over the threshold and land the aircraft in the first half of the runway. There was no problem bringing it out of reverse for the flare.

DISCLAIMER: This was done just for fun, and it's possible the aircraft would not perform as well.
 
350DRIVER said:
USC,

You are an absolute fuc$ing joke in my eyes, I would love to laugh in your face if I ever had the chance to do that. I loved the posting about a "so-called" SWA plane landing at the wrong airport, you cannot even get your facts straight... Why not research the "topic" before you continue to make an a$$ out of yourself? You are by far the biggest "joke" that I have seen to date to post on this board. You are flying pistons because you have no where else to go, Craig had a "laugh" ot two when I mentioned it was your dumb a$$ that questioned whether or not it was "OK" to reverse a turbine engine inflight, and to think he was part of the reason you were hired, what a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**i$ joke.... Fortunately you are flying the "pistons" where you have no turbines to deal with, God forbid.. And they hired your sorry a$$.? Unreal, fortunately you have no pax onboard to endanger or harm.

I absolutely 100% stand by my previous posts since this is by far far the most screwed up thing I have heard.. Do people survive? YES. Is it "approved" or "suggested" ? NO, bottom line moron. Enough said... Please dip**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** show me one aircraft manual or training program where this is suggested.. thought so..


you are an absolute joke man- stay on the "pistons" - atleast you won't fuc$ up too badly..:cool:

3 5 0
If you did mention it to Craig did you tell him what I said? Did I ever advocate doing this in flight?
If your destortions to Craig were anything like how you contenue to misconstrue my posts, then I am sure that I will be fired shortly.:o
I am curious how my questioning the endresult of reversing a turboprop would cause people to question my judgement. Now that you are through laughing at that please note that I never said it "was ok", or "approved", "suggested", or even remotely safe. Though you have implied that by your use of quotes. I also dont understand why you contenue to sight the lack of support for, reversing turboprops inflight, from manuals or training programs. It was established long ago in this thread that this a "procedure" was about as far from the bounds of normal as one could be. You just got through heaving praise on someone who admitted to doing it (avbug). And I am the joke, and making an a$$ out of my self? Whatever.
:rolleyes:
I am in the pistons because Airnet does not hire into the jets. We start in the props. I am still in the props because of the lack of pilot turnover. You are aware that the market has been flooded with qualified pilots lately?
What a life you lead. You get a kick out of telling people about your life on a chatroom. Do you still live with your parents too?
As far as the SWA thing, say what you want. I admitted that I was wrong. I knew that as soon as I left that I should have just said 737. But the post was made and I was in the air, the damage was done. Besides, with regardes to reversing in flight, I never claimed to be an expert. I just got tired of reading your obnoxious posts.
usc
 
USC,

I absolutely had no intent to "strike" at you with the personal attacks that have made this thread into somewhat of a very boring one at best, however after reading your responses directed towards me I had little that I could inject that was productive. I agree, avbug did this inflight as well as others who have shared there experiences and they are still here to talk about it. My comments and "experience" comes from a wide variety of time spent in the turbo-prop fleet as well as other aircraft, initial, recurrent, differences training, and upgrade training. Am I an "expert" by any means?, absolutely not.. I am no more qualified than any other captain that I have flown with and who has proven his ability & skills. The main variables that have made up where I stand on this topic came from the training, manuals, experience, instructors, normal procedures, etc, . I guess one cannot advocate something that has been told from early on "to avoid" doing...







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.


I shall wait with avbug for the cookies and milk. . . .


3 5 0
 
Wow, I decided to check back in on this thread, only to discover that it's turned into a full-scale throwdown!

<ducks head back out the door as a bottle breaks on the wall>
 
Found this one
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00195&key=1

Maybe this one on an MU2
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010619X01205&key=1

Air tractor
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19493&key=1

1900
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001204X00107&key=1

Saab-Scania
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X00741&key=1

And that was with me searching for beta at the ntsb website. Never the less. I am sure the pilots were unhappy with the outcome. Or happy that they can show their friends their write up on the NTSB website. :eek:
 
If anyone initiates a group hug, I'm outta here.

Someone approached me a couple of years or so ago, asking about accidents in ag airplanes involving beta. I dont' remember all the details, and I didn't save any of it (wish I had). However, I believe it regarded the PT6 (rather than the TPE331).

This person was involved with someone looking into uncommanded beta or reverse in flight, and relayed the details of a particular incident involving (I believe) an air tractor. In that case, the aircraft had been flying level over the field and had experienced an uncommanded excursion into beta. Being heavy and already close to the ground (5'), the aicraft was lost (along with the pilot,if I recall...I'll try to locate the information).

The aircraft autopsy revealed debris in the beta valve. This was believed to be the cause, or a major contributing factor, to the event.

As I started doing a little research, I found a number of similiar events that either could have been caused by this same thing, or were. All ag aircraft, all very low level, all uncommanded.

I know a number of jumper drivers that use beta on the way down...most of whom are outside the limitations for the aircraft. Even have video of one doing that and rolling on the descent. (It wasn't me, I wasn't there).

One noteable practitioner of beta on descent was Wayne Handley in his Super Raven. He was eventually badly injured during an airshow (Monterey, I think) when he was unable to bring the aircraft out of ground range during the descent. He could do some amazing things in that aircraft. His incident was not the result of using ground range in flight directly, but a malfunction. He performed that demonstration many times before many people.

Entering a ground range in a turbojet is allowed on a few aircraft, and a whole lot more acceptable in general than on a turbopropeller airplane. A turboprop, in many cases, an run away in ground range, and generally the topping funtions that prevent overspeed either fuel functions or propeller overspeed functions) are cammed out upon entering the ground range.

In those cases, it's not so much a risk of loss of aircraft controllability (provided the evoloution doesn't occur at 5'), but of potential loss of engine control, and a steep degredation in performance. Given ample atltitude in which to bring the aircraft out of beta, it's not an issue. However, mechanical problems, and potentially air loads, may prevent recovery from ground range, resulting in a very big problem. Holding ground range to touchdown can be a problem, excepting certain applications during the landing to enhance reduced-distance capability.

In th case of a slow landing, reducing beyond idle can get the aircraft down a little faster with less residual idle thrust on landing, resulting in a shorter stopping distance. Not something used in normal practice. It's also at these slower speeds that one is less likely to risk any kind of overspeed or loss, due to reduced forward velocity, and less airspeed velocity to drive the propeller.
 
To the original poster(it's 4 pages back and I can't recall your callsign)

I flew the SA-227DC when I was in the Navy and once brought those Garretts(sp?) back into beta while in-flight...the continous ignition lights sure came on and I knew immediateltly I'd done something wrong but we experienced no adverse effects other than puckered sphincters. To be sure, it's not a recommended nor authorized maneuver but if one recognizes one's mistake and gets the power levers back over the hump and into the positive range it's certainly not an immediate killer. I guess it could be if there were some asymmetry in the prop response. We were at 3000 ft descending into some class D but I doubt that would matter if one or the other would have decided to stay in Beta. I've thought about it often but since I've moved on to a different type a/c haven't revisited the experience until you asked the question. Bottom line: Not authorized but it can (and has) happened with mixed results. Luckily we came out OK.
 
While I personally haven't done it. I do have lot's of time flying Garrett TPE 331-10,12's and a little in PT-6's and have been in enough ground schools to hear many stories. Who knows if they are true or not but it usually takes somebody with intimate knowledge to start the original stories. I do believe that it can be done at Beta idle and I say this because I've flown enough planes that don't have the fuel control units adjusted properly which causes a prop so flat that it could be in beta without even coming over the gates. You can even here it just by listening to the airflow.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top