BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2017, 05:54

No doubt many of those contract pilots were hired by UPS and the movement through the seats and out the door stopped, the level of experience then began to grow.

Three engine ferry? Who knows, but I think it’s unlikely as Stapleton was a active maintenance base for many airlines.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2017, 12:43

Username Protected wrote:

No doubt many of those contract pilots were hired by UPS and the movement through the seats and out the door stopped, the level of experience then began to grow.

Three engine ferry? Who knows, but I think it’s unlikely as Stapleton was a active maintenance base for many airlines.

If it was one of the contractor airlines, none of them had a maintenance base at Stapleton. They may have had a couple of mechanics there but not a base where engine changes were made when a plane could be ferried.

UPS seems to be a good place to work now, but in the early days because of their management we called them the "Freight Nazis." :eek:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2017, 22:24

To return to the topic at hand, I can't see why someone would use that takeoff technique in any multi-engine plane on a hard surfaced runway. Although VMCG is calculated using the rudder alone, the extra margin of having the nose wheel on the ground is lost.

The same thing is true on landing, but in reverse. Applying full reverse thrust while the nose wheel is still in the air is inviting an excursion into the weeds should an engine fail, but it looks and sounds cool. :eek:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2017, 22:50

One possibility- Bad shimmy dampener - once flew a 500 Shrike that developed a severe shimmy at about 50/60 kts took a while to sort out - crews quickly found out to hold nose off early in T/O roll and quickly get on brakes on landing. If I recall it was worst on take off than landing. The Hydraulic nose wheel steering can be a bit of a pain sometimes. The AC1000 I flew later didn’t have nose wheel gremlins but had to change Hyd pump and MLG side brace soon after we acquired it.

Regards,
Nigel

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Dec 2017, 23:49

When I was a line boy (1964) at CDW, then Caldwell Wright, I watched a Commander land, nose wheel shimmied and the tire blew, collapsed the nose gear. My boss told me to fly them back to TEB in a 172, I had a student license...he said it's OK he's an examiner... :eek:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Dec 2017, 12:59

Username Protected wrote:

One possibility- Bad shimmy dampener - once flew a 500 Shrike that developed a severe shimmy at about 50/60 kts took a while to sort out - crews quickly found out to hold nose off early in T/O roll and quickly get on brakes on landing. If I recall it was worst on take off than landing. The Hydraulic nose wheel steering can be a bit of a pain sometimes. The AC1000 I flew later didn’t have nose wheel gremlins but had to change Hyd pump and MLG side brace soon after we acquired it.

Regards,
Nigel

That could explain it. It seemed to take a lot of runway, and I noticed it looked like a zero flap takeoff to me. Normal?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Dec 2017, 21:58

Username Protected wrote:

One possibility- Bad shimmy dampener - once flew a 500 Shrike that developed a severe shimmy at about 50/60 kts took a while to sort out - crews quickly found out to hold nose off early in T/O roll and quickly get on brakes on landing. If I recall it was worst on take off than landing. The Hydraulic nose wheel steering can be a bit of a pain sometimes. The AC1000 I flew later didn’t have nose wheel gremlins but had to change Hyd pump and MLG side brace soon after we acquired it.

Regards,
Nigel

That could explain it. It seemed to take a lot of runway, and I noticed it looked like a zero flap takeoff to me. Normal?

How not to takeoff in a Turbo Commander