FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1983
1983 - 0016.PDF
are kept under a positive differential. It all works on air. A hand reached up and switched off two generators—no ill effect—and then two out of three air bleeds. I could see no apparent movement of the cabin from its 8,000ft altitude under a 8-81b/in2 max differ ential. By now there were numerous captions illuminated on the 38-item master warn ing panel: no attention-getters were fitted. I was not sure about this, even in a small cokpit; red alert and amber caution flash ing is surely better for arousal. All systems restored to normal, we checked the fuel. Three gauges showed wing and centre contents, with a switch to hold for display of the three fuselage com partments. Fuel consumption was within the book figure; the manufacturer's philosophy is said to be a discounting of performance by two per cent. Up to Mach -86; at 29,0001b MMO was just above the l-3g buffet onset speed. A 45° bank induced a rumble—but no more; light pull at 30° induced vibration. Down hill now to MnF, Mach -91; even with air brakes out there was little disturbance and no apparent pitch tendency. Did I imagine that the ailerons felt a little lighter? Back up to -86, I saw my forgotten Coca Cola—unspilt in the pedestal holder since top of climb. Mach trim off seemed inconsequential. With yaw-damper off I could not induce dutch-roll—there is no flight limitation. Wing-engine back—a gentle roll; then all back and descent at Mach -80 from 42,000ft. The HP air bleeds now operated, but even switching two off seemed not to affect the cabin descent rate. I pushed forward, aiming for MMO; 20° nose down, airbrakes fully out—lmin 45sec from 45,000ft to 5,000ft, did they say? At —15° pitch the Mach number . came back. I reckoned an average of 17,000ft/min as a firm pull levelled us off in 1,000ft at the MMo/VMO cross-over level—FL250. I pulled turns with half and full airbrake then, freezing the Q-feel, I brought the speed off. Mach 0 • 7 brings up the warning, while at Mach 0-6 roll and pitch was detectably firmer; I doubt that more than modest effort would be needed at approach speeds. Slat out at 5 per cent above the limits of 20,000ft and 200kt; I felt a slight aero dynamic growl and little pitch effect. Slats in at V.s clean plus 15—unnoticeable. buf fet started at 120kt and was quite violent by 113kt (no stick-shaker is fitted). The outer slats extended automatically in response to the angle of attack and stall was on cue at 108kt for 28,5001b. Edging in and out of buffet, I lost 500ft in the recovery. Number three engine was now shut down. To simulate handling on one hydraulic system I dissipated the wind- milling pressure by lowering 20° of flap. Number two system pressure near zero, control was unaltered in climbing and descending turns at circuit speed. Manual reversion is possible with servo control jacks free under zero pressure; control will be heavy, with rudder recommended to assist turn and a flare from 300ft/min. Number three was re-lit with starter assist. Windmill air-start minimum air speed is, I recall, 30-40kt higher for num ber two engine. Descending to 10,000ft gave time to check the aileron emergency drive, operated by two buttons below the normal rocker switch. Normal trim operated, and is indicated from the feel unit; trim now was from a wing-tip motor with no indication except a mistrim warn ing light off neutral—which is identified by pressure on the wheel only. Three more stalls were carried out: slat with full airbrake; 20° flap, gear up; 48° Falcon 50 shows off its double-swept wing planform; there are two-section flaps, outer slotted, and three-section airbrakes FLIGHT International, 1 January* 1983 >
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
