A DC-8 out of KBNA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A DC-8 out of KBNA

    Click image for larger version  Name:	dc-8.jpg Views:	0 Size:	333.0 KB ID:	16109

    Not a DC8-72CF but it's close. Includes the Civa INS that just drives me nuts.
    I Earned my Spurs in Vietnam
    48th AHC 1971-72

  • #2
    Got a pic of the FMS?

    Have you seen the Samaritan Purse DC8-72 in the news? That's one of the airplanes I used to fly at ATI. I was one of the combis that I flew on the AMC trips to all the remote locations.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Larry sreyoB View Post
      Got a pic of the FMS?

      Have you seen the Samaritan Purse DC8-72 in the news? That's one of the airplanes I used to fly at ATI. I was one of the combis that I flew on the AMC trips to all the remote locations.
      Click image for larger version  Name:	dc-8 civa.jpg Views:	1 Size:	536.0 KB ID:	16116

      Here you go.
      I Earned my Spurs in Vietnam
      48th AHC 1971-72

      Comment


      • AlBenzing
        AlBenzing commented
        Editing a comment
        Ah - The good ol days!

        Flew the 'classic' 747s with Delco 10 waypoint INS - we had triple-mix, so they worked well enough.

    • #4
      Oh, OK. I've never had to fly with one quite THAT basic.

      I was VOR/VOR/ADF for years in the DC9.

      The DC8s at ATI had Universal UNS-1B. It was a good navigator (GPS) but didn't integrate into the aircraft systems. I remember climbing out from Tokyo on the way to Singapore with the UNS-1B estimating our arrival fuel at NEGATIVE 77,000 pound! LOL

      Then it was off to the 767 with the non-GPS original Honeywell FMS (DME/DME/IRU). The 757s, which I flew for about two weeks, had the Pegasus version with GPS input. Much better.

      The CRJ FMS didn't have VNAV. It had an "advisory VNAV" but it was more like what you'd find in a G.A. navigator as it would only do fixed-angle vertical paths.

      The Smith Industries FMS on the 737 is similar to the Honeywell. Better in some ways, not so much in others.

      The only thing you can tell with all of them is that they didn't include pilots in the software design process!

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by Larry sreyoB View Post

        Oh, OK. I've never had to fly with one quite THAT basic.

        The Smith Industries FMS on the 737 is similar to the Honeywell. Better in some ways, not so much in others.

        The only thing you can tell with all of them is that they didn't include pilots in the software design process!
        The AAL B707-323C I went to Vietnam in 1971 had two Civas similar to the one above.

        I much prefer the Smith of all the FMS's that I've used. It just seems to be more intuitive.

        Does the DC-8 have inflight spoilers, specifically the 50 series?

        I Earned my Spurs in Vietnam
        48th AHC 1971-72

        Comment


        • #6
          The early ones had in-flight reversers, AKA: "stewardess launchers."

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Bill Bridges View Post
            Does the DC-8 have inflight spoilers, specifically the 50 series?
            I've only flown 60 and 70 series but I'm pretty sure that no DC8 have speed brakes that could be used in flight. It did have roll-control spoilers that worked with the ailerons in flight.

            The roll-control spoilers were activated though a series of gears, cables, and pulleys in the left wheel well. We called it the 'rocking horse' because it had some resemblance to a child's rocking horse. It took input from the aileron bus cable (aileron/yoke position), flaps position, and possibly a few other things, and would 'decide' when, and to what degree, the roll-control spoilers would deploy.

            I think it's important to remember that Douglas never built a 70-series DC8. They did have plans for a 70-series but it was never built. The 70-series DC8s that did fly all started life as a 60-series airplane. They because 70-series when the CFM upgrade was applied. A DC8-61 because a DC-71, etc.

            All of the 60-series and 70-series DC8s allowed for inflight idle-reverse on engines #2 and #3. We would demonstrate it on IOE but use of inflight reverse was otherwise quite rare on the line. On a passenger flight, I wouldn't do it without first making a P.A. to warn the passengers of the upcoming noise and vibration lest some get the wrong impression. Avoiding the need for inflight reverse wasn't difficult. Flight idle and pointing the nose down would produce a healthy rate of descent.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Larry sreyoB View Post

              The Smith Industries FMS on the 737 is similar to the Honeywell. Better in some ways, not so much in others.
              The only thing you can tell with all of them is that they didn't include pilots in the software design process!
              The Smiths Industries FMS included at least a B-24 radio operator writing the documentation. it was my late father's last job before dementia ended his career, He also did design and certification work on Boeing (forgot which models) fuel quantity sensors and their readouts.
              Hate is a self-built dungeon in which a man imprisons his own soul.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by B.Butler View Post
                The early ones had in-flight reversers, AKA: "stewardess launchers."
                I remember encountering that on a night flight into ATL, when I was belted in and it was pitch dark out, and I didn't notice the nose-down attitude. Wondered why the engine noise was so loud in the final minutes of the flight...it was years later that I learned it could use in-flight reverse. Inboards only, IIRC.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Around 1986 I rode a United DC-8 converted with the big engines from SAN to ORD and they did make a PA and use reverse on the descent.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by Larry sreyoB View Post
                    Oh, OK. I've never had to fly with one quite THAT basic.

                    I was VOR/VOR/ADF for years in the DC9.

                    The DC8s at ATI had Universal UNS-1B. It was a good navigator (GPS) but didn't integrate into the aircraft systems. I remember climbing out from Tokyo on the way to Singapore with the UNS-1B estimating our arrival fuel at NEGATIVE 77,000 pound! LOL

                    Then it was off to the 767 with the non-GPS original Honeywell FMS (DME/DME/IRU). The 757s, which I flew for about two weeks, had the Pegasus version with GPS input. Much better.

                    The CRJ FMS didn't have VNAV. It had an "advisory VNAV" but it was more like what you'd find in a G.A. navigator as it would only do fixed-angle vertical paths.

                    The Smith Industries FMS on the 737 is similar to the Honeywell. Better in some ways, not so much in others.

                    The only thing you can tell with all of them is that they didn't include pilots in the software design process!
                    One of the Captains that I flew with at Piedmont worked at Smiths as an engineer right out of college. I loved flying with him because he taught me more about that FMS (and all the shortcuts) than I ever could have learned anywhere else. I agree with Bill that it's that most intuitive of the seven FMS systems that I've flown. Universal is the worst with the early Garmins a close second.

                    The Airbus system was a completely different animal. It was a Doctoral level education.
                    Last edited by Bruce Gorrell; 04-28-2020, 17:01.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X