Fly 320's, Was This You?

[sumpnz]

In regards to the original posting, clearly the crew had advance knowledge of the problem.  The question is, how did they know?

There's warning systems to tell them of problems like that.  The plane would have told them the training wheel's gear was down and locked but that the wheel itself was not properly rotated.

[Fly320s]

why they decide no fuel.jettison?

damn phone

Designed in the '70s in France. Who knows why, but it probably doesn't need to dump fuel since the fuel weight isn't that much relative to the total weight.

[Fly320s]

In regards to the original posting, clearly the crew had advance knowledge of the problem.  The question is, how did they know?

Nose gear wouldn't retract after takeoff. Plus an ECAM warning in the cockpit telling the pilots that something was amiss.

[Scout26]

Designed in the '70s in France. Who knows why, but it probably doesn't need to dump fuel since the fuel weight isn't that much relative to the total weight.

Be that as it may, but IIRC, less fuel = less fire. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Be that as it may, but IIRC, less fuel = less fire. 

Yeah, but less fuel = more fuel vapors = more asplodey  :D

[BobR]

The real reason I suspect is purely monetary.

No fuel dump means less pumps, piping, valves and weight.

More room for paying weight, which over the course of the airframes lifespan could almost pay for a tire or two.

The FAA dropped the fuel dump requirements if certain performance standards could be met, which with modern engines, was not hard to achieve. So, if it is not required by regulations, why waste the money. Planes are built tough enough to take an overweight landing, depending on how overweight dictates the follow up inspections.

With the P3, we could make a total of 10 landings between certain weights (103,880 - 114,000) before having to do an overweight landing inspection, or one very heavy landing (>114,000) which would invoke the inspection.

I have spent many hours in the pattern @ 1200 feet above Moffett Field burning fuel down so we could make a landing. This would usually be on a 12 hr mission when we had full crew, fuel and sonobouy loadout and we had a malfunction soon after takeoff that required a RTB.

bob

[Sergeant Bob]

Designed in the '70s in France. Who knows why, but it probably doesn't need to dump fuel since the fuel weight isn't that much relative to the total weight.

I'm used to planes that hold 150,000 to 307,000 lbs of fuel.

[geronimotwo]

the a320 must hold 10000lbs of fuel or so, no?  it would seem that the extra weight of the landing gear and airframe needed for a full gvw landing would overshadow the extra weight of the dump valves.  they already have fuel pumps on board, they just need a an extra valve and a couple extra feet of pipe.

Yeah, but less fuel = more fuel vapors = more asplodey  :D

the danger of massive amounts of fuel burning on the tarmac may outweigh the slight chance of 'splodiness.

[Gewehr98]

I'm used to planes that hold 150,000 to 307,000 lbs of fuel.

Ditto.

BTW, dumping fuel overboard at our advised altitude of 10K feet or higher results in no fuel hitting the ground.   

[Sergeant Bob]

the a320 must hold 10000lbs of fuel or so, no?  it would seem that the extra weight of the landing gear and airframe needed for a full gvw landing would overshadow the extra weight of the dump valves.  they already have fuel pumps on board, they just need a an extra valve and a couple extra feet of pipe.

the danger of massive amounts of fuel burning on the tarmac may outweigh the slight chance of 'splodiness.

According to the specs, it holds about 41,000 lbs of fuel (@6.4 lbs per gal)

[Fly320s]

According to the specs, it holds about 41,000 lbs of fuel (@6.4 lbs per gal)

42,200 lbs max.

[BobR]

Quote from: Sergeant Bob on Today at 10:17:20 AM
According to the specs, it holds about 41,000 lbs of fuel (@6.4 lbs per gal)

42,200 lbs max.

For some reason I would have expected more, but it is a medium range jet, right?

On a cold day, and with JP4 I could squeeze about 60000 pounds into the P3, most missions with full tanks would end up between 58k and 60k of JP8 or JP5, depending on where we were flying from and our zero fuel weight. AF was JP4, Navy was JP5, nearly all foreign places was Jet A1.

bob

[Fly320s]

For some reason I would have expected more, but it is a medium range jet, right?

On a cold day, and with JP4 I could squeeze about 60000 pounds into the P3, most missions with full tanks would end up between 58k and 60k of JP8 or JP5, depending on where we were flying from and our zero fuel weight. AF was JP4, Navy was JP5, nearly all foreign places was Jet A1.

bob

For the A320, 42.2 of fuel for a MTOW of 170k.  What is the max takeoff weight for a P3.

[Sergeant Bob]

Ditto.

BTW, dumping fuel overboard at our advised altitude of 10K feet or higher results in no fuel hitting the ground.   

What model 135 did you fly, and what was the fuel capacity? KC's (mine was 62-3551) had a 202,000 (and change) capacity.
Did you have the same crew entry door system as the KC's, (with the door grate) and are you a wafflehead (dayum that hurts!)? We had a guy who flung the grate open as he was going up the ladder and it didn't latch, hitting him in the head and sending him down to the ramp. Got a concussion, but was lucky he didn't break a knee or something when he hit the concrete.

[Gewehr98]

WC-135B.  Like a KC, no tail boom, pods on fuselage, TF-33 engines with thrust reversers wired shut.   

[BobR]

For the A320, 42.2 of fuel for a MTOW of 170k.  What is the max takeoff weight for a P3.

Our normal operating MTOW was 135K, but with CO permission we could go to 139,760. We rarely did over 135 (on paper).

bob

[Tallpine]

Our normal operating MTOW was 135K, but with CO permission we could go to 139,760. We rarely did over 135 (on paper).

bob

I wonder what they carry with a load of retardant ...?

I do know that once they take off, they have to dump the retardant before landing.  So if you call for a tanker to a fire, unless they can divert to another incident, you have bought that load whether you end up really needing it or not.

On one fire they dropped in a wooded coulee while all the fire crew staged on the ridge.  Got a nice look right into the cockpit windows as they flew by 

[Sergeant Bob]

WC-135B.  Like a KC, no tail boom, pods on fuselage, TF-33 engines with thrust reversers wired shut.   

TR's wired shut? And, when they upgraded the KC135's to CFM-56 engines they spec'd them with no TR's (and reportedly paid extra). Weird I think.

I'd think with the big engines (that thing is a rocket!) and extension of capabilities (greater fuel efficiency and offload capacity, much shorter take-off roll) they could afford the extra weight. In my experience with TR equipped acft (C141A and B, C9), FOD was no greater with them. Although with C9's, there was little FOD hazard from TR's.

[BobR]

I have no idea what the weight of the P3 fire tankers were, but they could carry 3000 gallons of fire retardant which weighed appx 9 lbs per gallon.

If I had to take a SWAG, I would say they had to dump before landing more because of the location of the tank (in the bomb bay) and the limitations of its structural integrity.

When they grounded the Aero Union P3s, they lost some very good fire fighting assets. 

bob

[Gewehr98]

They were a headache. The anti-skid brakes were considered much more dependable and reliable.

We had too many instances of the TRs not opening on landing roll, or not opening on all 4 engines when needed, causing non-symmetrical braking on wet runways, etc.

There was even an instance or three of them opening in flight, so the 1C-135(W) Technical Order called for wiring them shut.

The WC family of 135 airframes never got budgeted for big engines.  (There are a whopping two Constant Phoenix airplanes remaining, one original WC-135B, and a former EC-135C Looking Glass converted by L-3 Communications under Big Safari)

Air Staff said there were plenty of TF-33 spares in the boneyard, and since we sampled at low altitude, the CFM-56 engines weren't operating in their favorite environment.  

[Gewehr98]

Not a wafflehead - we got smart and put a cushioned pad on the bottom side of the swinging grate in the crew entry chute.   

[MillCreek]

There was even an instance or three of them opening in flight, so the 1C-135(W) Technical Order called for wiring them shut.

   That sounds somewhat sporty!

[BobR]

There was even an instance or three of them opening in flight, so the 1C-135(W) Technical Order called for wiring them shut.

I bet that dropped the airspeed a little bit, along with weird skewing feeling. 

Reminds me of the P3 that had 3 engines flame out at the same time. At least they were at altitude and had plenty of time to restart them. I talked to the crew after that, they were pretty animated. 

bob

[Gewehr98]

That sounds somewhat sporty!

Yeah, it will definitely keep your colon from depressurizing, because the outflow valve is slammed shut pretty darned hard!   

[Hawkmoon]

Yeah, but less fuel = more fuel vapors = more asplodey  :D

Jet fuel = kerosene. Vapors aren't all that 'splodey.