DC-6 picture and question

[Vector4fun]

Maybe you guys can answer this for me...

In 1997, I was flying therough ELP, and noticed a DC-6/7 taxiing out. What I'm curious about is it had (still has?) the AA orange lightning bolt on the fuselage. Did the owner purchase the airplane directly from AA and has it been in continuous service since then? One of the people with me was an AA captain.

I recall ground control telling me it was part of a frieght operation.

Fly safe!

I was working at ELP Tower back then. I don't know who owned the -6 back then, but they used to keep it over at 5T6 when idle, bring it over to ELP a couple times a week for some freight runs down into Mexico. Sure was a pretty airplane. Lots of people asked about it.

So, did you also notice the CV-990 parked out there, or see the F-100 in NM Guard colors? Lots of odd/rare airplanes passed through there...

 

[bafanguy]

CV-990

Was the CV-990 flying or just parked, collecting guano ? If was flying, it must've been a tight formation with a fuel truck.

 

[mar]

The dreaded 3-engine ferry

Geeze, I'm sorry I missed this thread from the beginning. I was "on the road" as the airline pilots say--except there twern't no roads where I was.

Three engine ferrys are a fact of life. I don't have much to add except that maybe someone might find the actual documentation interesting. Here's my company's chapter on the subject.

My comments italicized in brackets.

A. General
Three engine takeoffs are permitted to move the aircraft from an airport where no maintenance is possible or practical to a maintenance base with one engine and/or propeller inoperable.

B. Takeoff Restrictions
1. Obtain a 3 engine ferry permit from maintenance and make appropriate logbook entry.
2. No revenue cargo shall be on board.
3. Only the crew necessary for flight operation will be on board the aircraft.
4. Maximum gross weight must not exceed 81,000 pounds.
5. Adjust takeoff weight to meet the requirement for runway length and elevation in accordance with enroute limitations...etc...
6. The propeller of the inoperative engine must be removed or feathered prior to takeoff.
7. Close the cowl flaps on the inoperative engine (-4 degrees).

C. Prior to takeoff
Observe the following safety precautions:
1. Adjust the seat and rudder pedals so that FULL RUDDER can be applied.
2. Complete the clean up items on the engine failure checklist.
3. The propeller of the inoperative engine must be FEATHERED or REMOVED, the IGNITION OFF, and the cowl flaps FULLY CLOSED.
4. Set the trim tabs to ZERO TRIM.
5. Extend wing flaps to the 20 degree DOWN position [Yeah like we'd extend wing flaps to the 20 degree UP position...]
6. DO NOT RAISE THE NOSE WHEEL from the ground BELOW a speed of 91 KIAS [Three engine Vmc is 83 KIAS]

D. Takeoff procedure
1. After lining up with the runway, hold the brakes and perform the 30 inch check [manifold pressure] on the three operating engines. On gravel runways, perform the 30 inch check on the roll, if runway and conditions permit. Accelerate symmetrical engines to maximum wet power. [Water injection allows greater manifold pressure]
2. As soon as the airplane is rolling (approx. 9 to 17 knots) gradually accelerate the remaining engine up to take off power.
3. Maintain directional control with the nose wheel steering. As required, apply slight down elevator to obtain greater traction of the nose wheel. (With an aft CG down elevator is required throughout the takeoff run.)
4. Apply full rudder away from the inoperative engine until a speed of 61-69 knots is reached. Decrease rudder application to the amount required to hold the airplane straight.
5. After all throttles of the operative engines are set for takeoff power, apply about 1/2 aileron toward the side with two engines operating.
6. Directional control up to 61-69 knots must be maintained by the use of nose wheel steering. From this speed to the liftoff speed, directional control is maintained by a combination of nose wheel steering and displacement of the rudder and ailerons. At the liftoff speed lift the airplane off the ground cleanly and simultaneously roll the wings down about 5 degrees away from the inoperative engine. This will decrease the amount of rudder required to hold the airplane straight.
7. Caution must be excercised whenever the operating airspeed is below the two engine out VMCa airspeed of 115 knots.
8. If obstacle clearance is required, climb at V2 speed. When obstacles are cleared make the transition to enroute climb configuration and speed.


--So there you have it. Now you know how to takeoff a DC6 with three engines.

Obviously the most critical time during the entire manuever is when you're accelerating between the three-engine Vmc (83 knots) and the two-engine Vmc (115 knots).

An additional engine failure (on the same side) between these two speeds would ruin your whole day.

As for the procedure itself, it takes some teamwork and a really good briefing.

The FE (per the Book) will advance the symmetrical engines. The Capt will steer with the tiller and rudder and "feed in" the remaining engine as the rudder gains effectiveness. The FO will keep ailerons deflected into the good engines until the Capt releases the tiller and steers with the yoke. When the Capt is flying the plane with aileron and rudder and elevator he'll "give" the remaining engine to the FE and it's pretty much a three engine flight from there.

It really is no big deal *except* for that short time between 3-eng Vmc and 2-eng Vmc.

Not to mention contaminated runways...and skipping nosewheels.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: The dreaded 3-engine ferry

An additional engine failure (on the same side) between these two speeds would ruin your whole day.

Will an empty '6 climb on two engines?

 

[mar]

You bet.

Empty. Sure. You bet.

Especially in cool dry air. Like in Alaska.

You know what the deal is about Alaska: We get away with a lot of crap up here just by virtue of the fact that our density altitude for most of the year is thousands of feet below sea level.

The DC6 flys like a normal airplane when it's empty.

Two engines, loaded, at night, over the mountains, picking up ice...my friend, that's an emergency. Dump the fuel, head for the low ground.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Just for comparison...I recently flew with a guy who is a KC-135R driver in his spare time. He told me that in the event of a loss of two engines on one side of that airplane, normal procedure is to pull the outboard engine on the other side to idle and climb away!

The thing must have the thrust-to-weight ratio of a Titan missile...

Must be nice...

 

[TonyC]

Just for comparison...I recently flew with a guy who is a KC-135R driver in his spare time. He told me that in the event of a loss of two engines on one side of that airplane, normal procedure is to pull the outboard engine on the other side to idle and climb away!

The thing must have the thrust-to-weight ratio of a Titan missile...

Must be nice...

The T-38 at one time held several time-to-climb records. When I went to UPT at Columbus, the very aircraft that set those records was on the line being used every day - - had a placard of sorts on the left side of the nose. A stenciled record of which records, what times, what days they were set. Not a bad ride for a trainer, huh?

Anyway - - the KC-135R outclimbs the T-38.

I've never flown the R-model, but from what I've heard, they've had to restrict the nose-high attitude that they're allowed to use in order to prevent overshooting leveloff altitudes without severely under-"G"ing it.

It's good to know there's a written procedure for a 3-engine taxi in the -6. The other -135's I've flown were expected to takeoff in wartime even with only 3 engines, but there was not a procedure prescribed to do it. I suppose that if it had ever come to that, I would have advanced the symmetric engines to takeoff power, used full rudder and nosewheel steering, and advanced the third engine as much as those controls allowed. As the rudder became more effective, I could advance the third engine to takeoff power. We didn't have any takeoff data for that kind of takeoff, so we would have just been goin' on luck. If we'd lost another engine, we'd have been looking for a place to crash that wouldn't block the takeoffs behind us.

 

[mar]

Must be *really* nice

I've often thought (guilty of Monday morning quarter-backing) that if the crew of Yukla 27 Heavy would've just retarded the power they may have survived.

Here's a link if you're interested:CVR transcript Boeing E-3 USAF Yukla 27 - 22 SEP 1995

 

[TonyC]

Re: Must be *really* nice

I've often thought (guilty of Monday morning quarter-backing) that if the crew of Yukla 27 Heavy would've just retarded the power they may have survived.

Understand that the E-3 doesn't have the same engines that the R-model tanker has. While the TF-33's that they have are far superior to the turbojets on the A-model tanker, they're still nowhere as powerful as the CFM-56's. I have no idea what their weights were that fateful day, but I know I would have had a hard time thinking about retarding another engine while the stick shaker was going and with rapidly-rising terrain in the windscreen.

I don't know enough about what happened to really offer an intelligent comment about the accident, but here I am blabbin' anyway. From the transcript it sounds like they're dumping fuel - - so they're heavy enough to be concerned about that, and they're "coming back around for an emergency return." If that involved a turn towards the bad engine, your advice to retard the symmetric engine might be right on the money. I thought I remembered, though, that the airplane continued straight ahead. I had just separated from the Air Force, though, and didn't have that stream of information anymore.

 

[mar]

Counter-intuitive improvisation

Yup.

Retarding the power after a bird strike and subsequent stick shaker is not a natural act.

That's why I say I'm guilty of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

I would've done exactly what they did: Called for max power.

When a DC6 suffered a wing separation after an inflight fire while attempting to land at Russian Mission, a remote Yukon village, I was guilty then too of asserting they should've just landed on the tundra.

My logic in both cases is that an off-airport landing straight ahead and under control is much better than a Vmc roll or wing separation.

But hindsight is 20/20 and I've looked at both accidents in detail and try to keep them in the front of my mind every time I commit aviation.

Fly safe.

 

[TonyC]

I should have explored the link a little more - - there's a description of the accident here: ASN Accident Summary

#2 engine was a catastrophic loss, and #1 was stalling, so they effectively lost both engines on the left side, and then commenced a turn to the left. They got to a maximum altitude of 250 feet. I'm not sure there's anything they could have done to survive, but I concur with your logic about straight ahead.

I honestly believe that a huge factor in this accident that was overlooked by everyone was the chronic fatigue that everyone in the unit was enduring. They had TDY rates well in excess of 300 days per year, and were flying record numbers of hours annually. Our unit was just ahead of them in hours and TDY, and we had a crew of 2 pilots and 2 navigators literally fall asleep during a cruise portion of a long sortie. When you get to the point that you're running on empty, so to speak, you're not able to handle challenges such as the one they faced that day with the brains and hands working at 100%. As you well know, even little mistakes can kill, and a tired pilot is more apt to make little mistakes.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

You were asking about the AA painted DC-6 in the El Paso Area...

It was at least based at Santa Teresa, along with the DC-3. The 3 moved a LOT more than the 6 did, and it was apparently cargo charters for the oil business.

The -6 was painted like that because AA wanted to film a commercial with a Douglas flying formation with some new airplanes. So, AA paid to paint and polish the airplane, in exchange for the use of the airplane for the commercials. This was in the mid to late 80's I think.

Either way, they've got pictures inside the office of the company that owns it flying along with the jets (which were painted in the old scheme for the commercial). Looked real pretty then, since it was polished. When I was at Santa Teresa, the owner told me about every week to call him the instant I had a commercial certificate and he'd get me my FE and put me to work. That didn't exactly pan out, he said the insurance company now wants a lot more times to do anything... Either way, he's a real nice guy, and you can probably chat with him if you stop by. He also used to sell fuel.

Dan

 

[frankdrebin]

3 Engine Ferries

It has been said the Bae-146 had four engines because it needed three engines to be ferried. The engines often had problems.

 

[mar]

Bring Another Engine?

Doesn't BAE stand for 'Bring Another Engine'?

That's what I heard anyway.