How to fly a C-54/DC-4

WallyB · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:14 am

Jollygreenslugg wrote:

I'm guessing the rules have changed since 1990, when the video was made?

Cheers,
Matt

The display parameters were tightened in Europe and the US (and elsewhere) following the Ramstein disaster in 1988. I don't know if S.Africa did the same or whether this particular pilot flaunted the rules.

There are other videos of questionable displays in large aircraft; the Portuguese A310 and some 727 in Africa come to mind. Suffice it to say there are very few parts of the world where that sort of thing would be allowed today.

Speedy · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:42 pm

I guess my only observation, having most of my time in 4-engine prop planes is that as a pilot you have to know your own limitations.

"I" certainly would not have been comfortable doing what the guys in the video did. But that's just me. And maybe it's just the mentality you're raised in. Hacker and I get into this debate all the time. I was Maritime Patrol and he was yank-and-bank. Two very different environments and philosophies.

Bud Holland was brought up again. The subject has been debated back and forth for almost 20 years now. He's certainly not the only one who thought he was better than he really was, but....my thought on all that is it is up to the COMMAND to set the tone of it's members. If the squadron or the wing tolerates that kind of behavior--and the behavior leading up to Bud's crash was well documented--but nothing is done to change it, then its the same as burrying your head in the sand and essentially 'blessing' the behavior. We had a similarly-skilled pilot in the VP community who killed a bunch of people in Pago Pago many years back by doing pretty much the same thing.

You can blame the child for throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of the supermarket...OR you can look at the parents and go "Really?"

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:28 pm

...or the next video that cues up 'T-6 aileron roll, crash' or 'Bud' Holland & the B-52 @ Fairchild AFB 6/24/94, i know, I know, Tex Johnston and the dash 80

mazdaP5 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:18 pm

As I said elsewhere, I'm fine to see the video, would hate to have seen it in person.

CoastieJohn · **Joined:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm **Posts:** 1380

In my USCG aviation time I've been part of the flt crew for maybe 4 or 5 demo's...not really alot I suppose by airshow standards. Some were single aircraft, others with multiple. Some multi-helo, others were helo and F/W jet formation flts. In all of these, every person in all the aircrews plus the air show "Ops Boss" and other need to have players would sit down and go over manuever by manuever who was doing what and when. Also knew the "break away" procedures in case one of the aircraft or pilots had an issue. In my very short experience, I felt the helo to helo flt demo's were the most riskiest because the rotor blade tip paths were so close and the helos had a tendency to bounce around. Bad stuff in tight formation.

Kyleb · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:30 pm

I have a different opinion than most. IMO, the routine looks well rehearsed and seems to have the same dynamics as the routine Bob Hoover flew for so many years in a Shrike. I don't see that the display was necessarily dangerous and presume it wasn't unless there is data to show otherwise.

The energy pointed at the crowd issue is a separate issue from the dynamics of the performance. With long lenses, it is hard to tell exactly what the spatial relationships are between the aircraft and the crowd, but there is no question that any time an aircraft is pointed towards a crowd, it needs to be in a very controlled state (e.g. normal rate turns, engines operating, etc.).

Airlift48 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:01 pm **Posts:** 744

AEROBATIC MANEUVERS PROHIBITED! (C-54 Flight Manual, page 1)

Absolutely crazy flying.

No, the PIC can not do the gear drop, retracion, work the flaps, feathering, unfeathering, and all of the extreme maneuvering required by his lonesome. He would ideally need a 3 man crew who've practiced that before. I try to imagine the goings on in the cockpit as that maneuvering was being performed and I can only imagine that each crewmember was extremely busy. Too busy.

We would under NO circumstances subject ourselves and the "Spirit" to those kinds of risks. NO WAY.

However, I am impressed nonetheless.. :wink:

KK

Speedy · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:50 pm

Kyleb wrote:

I have a different opinion than most. IMO, the routine looks well rehearsed and seems to have the same dynamics as the routine Bob Hoover flew for so many years in a Shrike. I don't see that the display was necessarily dangerous and presume it wasn't unless there is data to show otherwise.

The energy pointed at the crowd issue is a separate issue from the dynamics of the performance. With long lenses, it is hard to tell exactly what the spatial relationships are between the aircraft and the crowd, but there is no question that any time an aircraft is pointed towards a crowd, it needs to be in a very controlled state (e.g. normal rate turns, engines operating, etc.).

I don't know what your background is, and I can only speak for myself. But as a four-engine guy, I look at that and just shake my head. Well rehearsed doesn't necessarily mean safe...or within design limits. And while big aircraft can be operated in the 'one g' arena impressively (see Tex Johnston and the Dash 80), they can also be well rehearsed and yet way outside the limits (see Bud Holland).

As I said earlier, impressive display. But something that I would never have attempted in a big airplane that low to the ground. Period. A two-engine-out wave-off? Woof. And my airplane had a sh*t-load more power to play with. I may as well have just turned in my wings on the spot. Just my humble opinion, however.

Pogmusic · **Posted:** Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:38 am

Just my $.02 worth. Back in the 60's, the USAF had a display team from MAC or TAC or MAATS that was comprised of 4 C-130s. The Four Horsemen was their name. They would do a routine similar to that of the SAAF C-54 -- ONLY IN FORMATION! They'd feather 1, 2, 3, engines. All this to showcase the C-130

Here is a tame video
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/cpasley/5046/

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:19 am

lmritger wrote:

I am impressed at how agile that huge airplane is... I never would have guessed that.

I am appalled that the pilot (or pilots) engaged in such a display at an airshow.

You know who else really knew how to fly a big airplane to it's limits? Bud Holland. Know what happened to him? He killed himself and three others by letting his ego write one last check his a$$ couldn't cash. I don't give a rat's behind HOW good a pilot is or how many tens of thousands of hours he or she has... when it comes to public demonstrations, the absolute first priority is crowd safety. The second priority is maintaining aircraft integrity, i.e. not smearing it all over the active runway in a shower of flaming debris. I reckon there were at least three instances where the pilot was treading on a VERY ragged edge between success and failure in adhering to those two priorities.

Yes, he or she is extremely skilled, there is no question. But I have to question their judgment in engaging in those maneuvers at an airshow in the first place.

Lynn

On the Holland issue;
Your point is well made. I would respectfully amend your observation to reflect that in the display community, we view the Holland crash a bit differently when presenting it in the safety format.
Holland, rather than "really knowing how to fly a big airplane to it's limits", actually proved by his own action that he in fact DIDN'T know how to fly his big airplane to it's limits. He in fact, exceeded those limits and paid the price.

It's all in how one chooses to view flight safety issues.

Dudley Henriques

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1672

One thing... any airliner has a huge reserve of power and performance when flown empty of pax and freight. (Short ferry flights in a jet are fun -- usually a big grin of the PF's face as the rate-of-climb indicator buries at 6000'/min +. Gigantic reserve of thrust.)

We get used to seeing them -- and flying them -- with as big a load as possible inside (gotta pay the bills), and those are the profiles we're accustomed to, but when empty they have a much different power-to-weight ratio, and very low wing loading. Capable of a surprising display.

I watched the video and I noticed a couple of things: he turned into the good engines when he made the pass with 2 feathered -- very good thing. And his "commit" turns, when rolls and pulls down to the display line, do not appear to be all that steep, or high G. In other words he still has options.

As for projecting into the crowd, I can't tell from the video. Not enough scope to get a feel for the angles and distance.

I thought he might have oversped the gear on one pass...

Neil Williams (Aerobatics --Crowood Press (UK); Reprint edition (April 2005)) made a remark which went something like -- "Make the easy look spectacular, the difficult look easy, and never attempt the impossible." I've always thought that pretty much summed it up.

However if I was displaying in a multi-engine aircraft, my one golden rule would be "Don't get below VMC". Because in the display box, if you lose one, you need airspeed or altitude to keep flying. And the nature of a display is such that you sure don't have much altitude.

Dave

jet1 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:02 am

between SKILL and LUCK is sometimes so small it cannot be measured.

lmritger · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:16 am

Dudley Henriques wrote:

lmritger wrote:

I am impressed at how agile that huge airplane is... I never would have guessed that.

I am appalled that the pilot (or pilots) engaged in such a display at an airshow.

You know who else really knew how to fly a big airplane to it's limits? Bud Holland. Know what happened to him? He killed himself and three others by letting his ego write one last check his a$$ couldn't cash. I don't give a rat's behind HOW good a pilot is or how many tens of thousands of hours he or she has... when it comes to public demonstrations, the absolute first priority is crowd safety. The second priority is maintaining aircraft integrity, i.e. not smearing it all over the active runway in a shower of flaming debris. I reckon there were at least three instances where the pilot was treading on a VERY ragged edge between success and failure in adhering to those two priorities.

Yes, he or she is extremely skilled, there is no question. But I have to question their judgment in engaging in those maneuvers at an airshow in the first place.

Lynn

On the Holland issue;
Your point is well made. I would respectfully amend your observation to reflect that in the display community, we view the Holland crash a bit differently when presenting it in the safety format.
Holland, rather than "really knowing how to fly a big airplane to it's limits", actually proved by his own action that he in fact DIDN'T know how to fly his big airplane to it's limits. He in fact, exceeded those limits and paid the price.

It's all in how one chooses to view flight safety issues.

Dudley Henriques

Amendment enthusiastically accepted, Dudley... one might also say Holland mistakenly believed the limits did not apply to him, due to having "gotten away with it" for so long. For those unfamiliar with this individual, this report will prove to be equally eye-opening, jaw-dropping, and gut-wrenching.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

Thanks,

Lynn

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

lmritger wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

lmritger wrote:

I am impressed at how agile that huge airplane is... I never would have guessed that.

I am appalled that the pilot (or pilots) engaged in such a display at an airshow.

You know who else really knew how to fly a big airplane to it's limits? Bud Holland. Know what happened to him? He killed himself and three others by letting his ego write one last check his a$$ couldn't cash. I don't give a rat's behind HOW good a pilot is or how many tens of thousands of hours he or she has... when it comes to public demonstrations, the absolute first priority is crowd safety. The second priority is maintaining aircraft integrity, i.e. not smearing it all over the active runway in a shower of flaming debris. I reckon there were at least three instances where the pilot was treading on a VERY ragged edge between success and failure in adhering to those two priorities.

Yes, he or she is extremely skilled, there is no question. But I have to question their judgment in engaging in those maneuvers at an airshow in the first place.

Lynn

On the Holland issue;
Your point is well made. I would respectfully amend your observation to reflect that in the display community, we view the Holland crash a bit differently when presenting it in the safety format.
Holland, rather than "really knowing how to fly a big airplane to it's limits", actually proved by his own action that he in fact DIDN'T know how to fly his big airplane to it's limits. He in fact, exceeded those limits and paid the price.

It's all in how one chooses to view flight safety issues.

Dudley Henriques

Amendment enthusiastically accepted, Dudley... one might also say Holland mistakenly believed the limits did not apply to him, due to having "gotten away with it" for so long. For those unfamiliar with this individual, this report will prove to be equally eye-opening, jaw-dropping, and gut-wrenching.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

Thanks,

Lynn

At the time of the Fairchild crash we studied the tapes closely. What happened to Holland was apparent right away.
He initiated his final level turn from a pass that was below his max gear speed. He accelerated linearly before initiating the left bank input but not nearly enough energy rise to counter the drag for a level turn initiated that low.
As the aircraft proceeded in the turn it suffered large amounts of drag rise requiring increasing pitch input to compensate and add to the length of his radial lift vector.
The turn was at that point doomed. The aircraft was suffering from increasing bank, increasing angle of attack, entering over bank tendency, and increasing stall speed.
Once these factors came together, there was no way to save the aircraft.
A classic failure of situational awareness AND cockpit over task!

The AF report was right on target. The failures involved in this accident began long before the actual crash occurred.
Lessons learned in the display arena are seldom at low cost. This one was expensive.
Dudley Henriques

Speedy · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:54 pm

Dudley Henriques wrote:

lmritger wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

On the Holland issue;
Your point is well made. I would respectfully amend your observation to reflect that in the display community, we view the Holland crash a bit differently when presenting it in the safety format.
Holland, rather than "really knowing how to fly a big airplane to it's limits", actually proved by his own action that he in fact DIDN'T know how to fly his big airplane to it's limits. He in fact, exceeded those limits and paid the price.

It's all in how one chooses to view flight safety issues.

Dudley Henriques

Amendment enthusiastically accepted, Dudley... one might also say Holland mistakenly believed the limits did not apply to him, due to having "gotten away with it" for so long. For those unfamiliar with this individual, this report will prove to be equally eye-opening, jaw-dropping, and gut-wrenching.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

Thanks,

Lynn

At the time of the Fairchild crash we studied the tapes closely. What happened to Holland was apparent right away.
He initiated his final level turn from a pass that was below his max gear speed. He accelerated linearly before initiating the left bank input but not nearly enough energy rise to counter the drag for a level turn initiated that low.
As the aircraft proceeded in the turn it suffered large amounts of drag rise requiring increasing pitch input to compensate and add to the length of his radial lift vector.
The turn was at that point doomed. The aircraft was suffering from increasing bank, increasing angle of attack, entering over bank tendency, and increasing stall speed.
Once these factors came together, there was no way to save the aircraft.
A classic failure of situational awareness AND cockpit over task!

The AF report was right on target. The failures involved in this accident began long before the actual crash occurred.
Lessons learned in the display arena are seldom at low cost. This one was expensive.
Dudley Henriques

Also what happens when you have so much time you get complacent and lose respect for the aircraft itself.

There is a great line out of the movie Threshold: The Blue Angels Experience. Skip Umstead says 'I try not to scare myself every flight....maybe one in five.' That always spoke to me about keeping a healthy respect for what you were doing no matter how often you did it.

Warbird Information Exchange

How to fly a C-54/DC-4

Who is online