|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 9, 2011 15:30:03 GMT -5
On a recent flight FSPax kindly failed an engine of my passenger-converted C-47. This occurred at 10 000 ft, and although I feathered the correct prop, I couldn't continue my flight, at any altitude and had to put her down.
On the remaining engine the mixtures were perfect for the altitude, I was making full power, at high revs and I still couldn't maintain altitude. Take-off weight was 26000 lbs and we were about 45 minutes into the flight.
What is the correct procedure for 1-engined flight for the DC-3?
regards
Thomas
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Nov 9, 2011 16:55:44 GMT -5
Usually you can start by putting the remaining engine into METO power, and work from there. Too high an RPM can be trouble.
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Nov 9, 2011 17:57:13 GMT -5
Typically, with an engine failure in a twin, you find the nearest place to land anyway. On the DC-3/C-47, the procedure described to me was that you feather the bad engine, set the other to METO & 2300 RPM, then start looking for a place to land. You only get one shot to land though, so flaps and gear are held up until the last possible moment as once they're out, you are committed to land. Especially with passengers, the DC-3 is underpowered on one engine. If you're light on pax and fuel, you might be able to maintain altitude, but most of the time, you'll be descending, no matter what you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Nov 9, 2011 18:44:10 GMT -5
Remember, the DC-3 is significantly heavier than the DC-1, which was used in a TWA test (taking off on one engine at Albuquerque, their highest airport). So its single engine performance may be worse...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Nov 9, 2011 18:56:56 GMT -5
Should still be possible at low altitudes, of course. From: www.psa-history.org/hangar/dc3.php"In the early days, PSA received approval to operate the DC-3 to 27,500 lbs weight. Leo Leonard and Joe Plosser ended up flying the airplane. To operate the DC-3, they had to compute single-engine performance figures. After loading the airplane to the maximum weight with unsecured lead weights, they took off from Lindbergh. The two ended up climbing at about 150 feet/minute on only one engine...over Mission Bay!" |
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Nov 9, 2011 19:51:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ozbeowulf on Nov 9, 2011 20:56:15 GMT -5
Well, since I've been there in the real world, I guess I'd better weigh in to this thread.
I had five engine failures or precautionary shut-downs in DC-3s. None of them occurred at full gross weight. None of them required high power settings. While any engine failure certainly gets your attention, only one of my failures could be called even slightly exciting or hazardous.
Warning: War stories follow...
My first engine failure happened on my first take-off in a DC-3, before I had a type rating. It was a test flight after an annual inspection. Three POB; no cargo. Oil pressure in the left engine dropped well into the red on takeoff. Herb, my friend and mentor in the right seat had worked for Pratt & Whitney for years, so when I started to feather it, he said, "It's ruined now. Leave it on for the landing," that sounded good to me. The patttern and my first DC-3 landing were routine. As Herb had realized, the main bearing was destroyed.
Later, during a final flight check for two of us who were about to be new captains, the right engine starting banging and farting on approach at Stockton. I called for it to be feathered, which we did and I intended to land. The chief pilot was aboard and he wanted to get the bird back to Oakland to our maintenance outfit, so we did. There were only four of us aboard, so normal power settings with slightly reduced airspeed worked well.
Later yet, I shut down an engine about 10 minutes after takeoff from Launceston, Tasmania, because of oil smoke coming out from the cowl. Two POB and a very light load of freight. Again, normal power settings and procedures took us to an uneventful landing. One sparkplug had spit its core out. The hot combustion gases exiting the hollowed-out sparkplug had burned a hole in the oil return hose on the cylinder head, causing the smoke.
On another Tasmania to Melbourne flight, the right engine of a moderately loaded freighter began to run rough. Fiddled with mixture and heat for a few minutes, but shut it down when it started banging and coughing. I might have used a very slightly increased power on the good engine but I can't remember for sure. About 30 minutes later, we landed with no fuss at Smithton, Tasmania. The camshaft had broken between the two rows of cylinders, so the cylinders on the back row were firing erratically.
A late night takeoff at Melbourne Essendon was my only semi-exciting engine failure. That time, I had a good load of freight and a very new F/O. Right engine backfired, chugged and coughed on take-off at 800 feet or so. Shut it down and continued around the pattern. No drama; no sweat. I even got some training time in for the new F/O. Abeam the threshold, we were sweet. Right on speed. Called for gear down and began to descend. Called for 1/4 flap and all hell broke loose. Big pitch down and losing altitude. Called for flaps up, got things sorted and said "Tony, just ease a little bit of flap down each time I ask for it." That worked well and we landed normally. (With a DC-3, landing with engine is much easier than taxiiing with only one. The flap problem was that the link from the flaps to the indicator had broken. Tony was holding the flap handle down waiting for an indication that never showed. Not his fault.
After all that, my points about DC-3s are that 1: The -3 is an honest bird that wll look after you if you let it and 2: At high weights and/or high altitudes or temperatures, you might need extra power on a single engine, but I'd prefer to accept a lower airspeed and be gentle with the working engine. An engine failure on takeoff is differerent, of course. Big handfuls of grunt until you get some sky under you.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Nov 9, 2011 21:08:45 GMT -5
Glenn, thanks for the post. I've only been around the R4D-6 and they've always told me that in their experience you have to be light for the plane to keep flying on a single engine. Normal airline weights - good luck, especially shortly after takeoff with the gear down.
We had a similar problem with the CV-240. On one engine with the gear and flaps out, good luck doing anything but landing. If you can get them up you're okay, but the gear and flaps create so much drag that the single good engine can't overcome it and get you going at least level, even when fairly light.
Tom, you said they loaded the DC-3 to max weight with lead. As the MZFW of the DC-3 is significantly lighter than MTOW, how much fuel did they have onboard? If they only had a couple hundred gallons of fuel onboard, then they were still pretty light overall since the plane can carry almost twice its payload weight in fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Nov 9, 2011 21:46:23 GMT -5
Should still be possible at low altitudes, of course. From: www.psa-history.org/hangar/dc3.php"In the early days, PSA received approval to operate the DC-3 to 27,500 lbs weight. Leo Leonard and Joe Plosser ended up flying the airplane. To operate the DC-3, they had to compute single-engine performance figures. After loading the airplane to the maximum weight with unsecured lead weights, they took off from Lindbergh. The two ended up climbing at about 150 feet/minute on only one engine...over Mission Bay!" Looks to me that they loaded to their approved MTOW. In which case the fuel on board does matter only in the equation of MLW. Empty weight is somewhere around 18000 lbs as I recall but I do not have any figures for MLW. I would think that they had a reasonable amount of fuel on board to achieve a useful flight test result. But if the aircraft can demonstrate single engine performance with only the bare minimum of fuel on board and the rest of the difference taken up by the weights they would have an even better margin if in line flight they had a problem later in a flight or at an airport with higher elevation than San Diego. Cheers Stefan P.s. Does 26,400 lbs sound right for MZFW ?? That is the only number I have come across in a short search. Meaning to reach their MTOW they would have had 1100 lbs of fuel on board or a little under 190 gallons. |
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Nov 9, 2011 23:53:00 GMT -5
I just tried the scenario with both the default DC3 on which I think Manfred's C-47 is based as far as the FDE is concerned and with the MAAM DC-3.
I also use the MAAM FDE for the C-47 that's why I can't test apples to apples.
The default airplane was indeed unable to maintain 10000ft at 26000lbs on just one engine even if I did go to METO.
The MAAM DC-3 could do it at METO but not at cruise power settings.
Of course your Wx settings would also have an effect on this. I tested it at standard day settings.
Cheers
Stefan
|
|
|
|
Post by ozbeowulf on Nov 10, 2011 0:27:36 GMT -5
Capflyer...
A DC-3 with gear and flaps down isn't going to climb worth a darn, either. Getting rid of the drag is paramount, I agree. The -3 has one thing going for it, though, because flaps are almost never used for takeoff because of the split flap configuration. Gear up is the only clean-up action required.
The only exception would be for a soft and short field takeoff where you use 1/4 flap or less and get airborne as soon as the wings will lift you up out of the muck (about 60 knots or so, apparently). That's way below Vmc, so if either engine even coughs, you snatch off all the power and land straight ahead. Assuming both engines are OK, you lift off and accelerate in ground effect to Vmc at 81 knots, then let her climb away. I have never had to use this method, but it sounds quite logical. The -3 is honest at low airspeeds.
This procedure was standard for military aircraft in WWII. It's shown in many flight manuals from that era. I've read that high powered aircraft like the P-38 had so much power available that if an engine died on takeoff, you had to REDUCE power on the other side to keep going straight while you accelerated to Vmc. I believe the Mosquito was similar.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by volkerboehme on Nov 10, 2011 5:32:48 GMT -5
... This procedure was standard for military aircraft in WWII. It's shown in many flight manuals from that era. I've read that high powered aircraft like the P-38 had so much power available that if an engine died on takeoff, you had to REDUCE power on the other side to keep going straight while you accelerated to Vmc. I believe the Mosquito was similar. Cheers, Glenn Hi, and it seems like pilots routinely added power when an engine failed on what then became their last flight. Of course, that would only happen during engine failures during approach - hardly anything to add to take-off power. But a shutdown in flight will become critical if you forget Vmc as you approach home. The Vulcan bomber had some problems with slow engine spool up which apparently caused similar problems. Best regards, Volker |
|
|
|
Post by stansdds on Nov 10, 2011 6:11:32 GMT -5
This is great information from the real world, but real world procedures don't always work in MS FlightSim. In FS9 I did experience an engine failure (starboard) with a DC-3. This occurred on a long final and with judicious use of power, rudder and ailerons I was able to keep the ship aligned with the runway and make a nice landing. This was not with the stock MS DC-3, but was with the freeware add-on DC-3C. This add-on does not use the stock flight model and includes all sorts of system failures. I don't know what the one engine out handling characteristics are with the stock or any other add-on DC-3/C-47 are like, I'd guess the stock version isn't the best.
This particular flight started out with a generator that operated intermittently. As it turned out, it was the starboard generator. After that incident I decided that if something didn't work right during pre-flight warm up I'd just cancel that flight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johan Dees on Nov 10, 2011 11:02:05 GMT -5
Can we then conclude that the FDE needs a bit more power then?
|
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Nov 10, 2011 12:05:12 GMT -5
FDE tweaks are usually not quite that easy. If you simply add more power you end up with other unwanted side effects, such as higher cruise speeds at known power settings, incorrect climb performance etc.
For example aerodynamic drag could be calculated incorrectly, lift could be wrong or the effect of CG location vs lift and drag could be wrong.
Thankfully Luis knew just how to figure that mess out for us when we were working on the Connies ... I lost a good portion of my hair just trying to follow his explanations ;D
Cheers
Stefan
|
|
