wrote:
Walt wrote:

It was very interesting just getting the C-5 into contact position, but
what was more interesting was when we'd practice a break-away. The C-5
would employ their thrust reversers and pretty much disappear.


Wow. And there evidently doesn't appear to be a maximum thrust limit
for deployment of the reversers either

Ramapriya

This from the ancient memory area of my brain, so all appropriate
cautions should be exercised . . .

I seem to remember that years ago (perhaps a few decades) that I was
reading a Pilot Report in Flying magazine. The author was on final
approach in a Turboprop Commander (690?) and placed his hands on the
throttles with his fingers in position to pull the unlocks that would
have permitted him to pull the throttles back through into reverse.
The manufacturer's rep in the right seat immediately rebuked the author
and cautioned him not to touch the unlocks while airborne. I guess the
manufacturer thought that this would be a really BAD thing.

I miss the days when Flying's pilot reports were many pages long. It
seemed they were written more by test pilots and less by the folks in
marketing. I guess one reason maybe how long the magazines can have
access to the planes. One the editors commented last month, that in
the old days they would have the plane for a week and they would fly
them long distances. I recall some months back, a pilot report on the
Flight Design CT2K, where it seemed that the author declined landing
the plane because of bad crosswinds. A safe decision that I agree
with, but I remember thinking: "Sheesh, didn't they have enough time to
fly to another field or wait for better weather the next day?" Telling
us how a plane behaves in the pattern and during landing strikes me as
a matter of prime interest.

Blue skies to all . . .

John