The A2A Simulations Community

I've got about 500 hours in C97...Kc-97 aircraft from back in 1954-1957. Most of it in the F or G models. It was a nice aircraft to fly. Much lighter on the controls than the B-29 although you still had to work at it. Alot depended on the gross weight at the time. At the heavy (170-175K) weights, it was hard work but at the lighter weights 155K or thereabouts it flew fine. The F model seemed to be lighter on the ailerons due to the lack of external wing tanks. They all flew a little differently, eg #377 would roll easily to the left but took alot of persuasion to roll right which makes for interesting flying on instruments only. "G" model roll rate was slower when the external tanks were full. During Air Refueling, it was the common practice for the co-pilot to fly the airplane since he had a larger and more sensitive horizon and a large N-1 compass readout. A/R required very small and smooth control movements to avoid unnecessary disconnects from the reciever aircraft..... followed by unkind words from the reciever! Some of the B-47 refueling IP's actually tried to instruct us on how to fly the tanker from his 'vantage point in the back seat of the B-47'. Like telling us to use the autopilot instead of hand-flying the aircraft! That was a no-no... period. The $0.49 autopilot we had was basically a wing leveler and pitch holder and was useless for anything precise.

As the reciever approached the tanker to start the hook up, a bow wave from the nose of the B-47 would gently push the tail of the 97 upward. This had to be anticipated to make for smooth hookups. Any turns had to be announced and very gentle bank angles were the rule.

Engine out flight, again, depended on how heavy you were. As far as coordination goes, all turns in those piston engine days were coordinated unlike today's jets when the only time you use the rudder is during engine out operations. The 97 had a hydraulically boosted rudder which helped alot on engine out operations. One thing the 97 had going for it was the 59B model of the R-4360. In the 3 years I was involved, I never heard of any power loss on take-off but after the first power reduction, all bets were off. If the engine produced predicted torque pressure at the beginning of takeoff, it was a good one.

FLYING SAFETY BRIEFING 12 NOV 69 “ONE YEAR AFTER” 12 NOV 69
RICHARD J. ELLIOTT MAJ GROUP FLYING SAFETY OFFICER

KC97L #53291
Pilot: L/C Robert W. McDonald
Co-Pilot: Capt Dick Curtis
FE: Msgt Jim White
BO: Msgt Frank Hutchinson
DAWN MISSION 1 NOV 68 - NAS DALLAS TO COMOX C.F.B., BRITISH COLUMBIA

TAKEOFF ROLL AT S1 (LAST POINT THAT A/C CAN STOP ON RUNWAY) PILOT OBSERVED A LONE BIRD RISING FROM RUNWAY. AT S2 (AIRBORNE) HUNDREDS OF SEAGULLS CAME OFF THE RUNWAY. PILOT “BIRDS WE ARE GOING TO HIT THEM, CONTINUE TAKEOFF”.
AIRCRAFT IMPACTED HUNDREDS OF BIRDS AT ABOUT 4 FEET OFF THE GROUND. YAWED TO THE RIGHT. PILOT “JETS, JETS WATCH THE JETS, THEY ARE GOING APE. BOOM OPERATER “J-2 IS ON FIRE”. CO-PILOT “TAILPIPE TEMPERTURE PEGGED”. PILOT “STOPCOCK J-2, GEAR UP, ENGINEER WHICH ENGINES ARE BACKFIRING”
ENGINEER “2,3&4, I’LL TAKE THE THROTTLES YOU FLY THE AIRCRAFT”. PILOT “ROGER, POWER, POWER WE HAVE TO GO”. WITH AIRSPEED 130KTS, LEFT RUDDER BOTTOMED YOKE 90 DEGREES LEFT THE AIRCRAFT WAS BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL. PILOT “GET ALL THE POWER YOU CAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE EVERTHING YOU GOT”. ENGINEER “#4 IS GOING TO FAIL IF I DON’T BACK OFF”. PILOT “OK BUT KEEP ALL YOU CAN”.
DUMPED 45,000# OF JP4. A/C ACCELERATED TO 170 KTS CHECKED FLIGHT CONTROLS AND TURNED TO RIGHT DOWNWIND. A/C WAS VIBRATING LIKE A STALL, BUT WHEN #3 THROTTLE REDUCED THE VIBRATION WAS LESS.
#2 ENGINE QUIT BACKFIRING, #3 BACKFIRED EVERY 10 SECONDS AND #4 CONTINUEIOUSLY. REVERSED #1,2&3 ON LANDING. ROLLOUT WAS NORMAL UNTIL AREA OF BIRD STRIKE. A/C HYDROPLANED LIKE ICE OR SNOW OVER HUNDREDS OF DEAD SEAGULLS. THE AIRCRAFT WAS TAXIED TO THE RAMP AND SHUT DOWN. THE ODOR OF SEAGULLS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE AIRCRAFT WAS OVERPOWERING.

THE MAJOR EXTENT OF DAMAGE WAS TO RIGHT WING AREA AND THE J-2 ENGINE WHICH INCURRED SEVERE COMPRESSOR DAMAGE. NO. 4 ENGINE TURBO SUPERCHARGER WAS PACKED WITH BIRD REMAINS AND COULD NOT BE ROTATED. ALL AREAS SUCH AS OIL COOLERS, AIR ENTRY SCOOPS, ENGINE CYLINDER AREAS, HEATER INLETS AND LEFT PITOT TUBE WERE OBSTRUCTED WITH BIRDS. A PILE OF DEAD BIRDS TWO FEET HIGH AND FOUR FEET ACROSS WERE RECOVERED FROM THE RUNWAY ALONE AND A RUNWAY SWEEPER PICKED UP MANY MORE. HUNDREDS WERE OFF THE SIDES OF THE RUNWAY.

WATCH FOR BIRDS

First, we understand that the prevailing wisdom of the era was the "Rule of Squares" and most manuals mention this, but we're finding the flightsim model tending to be slick and having a hard time first slowing the aircraft to landing configuration while adhering to the rule of squares even in level flight. So we have several questions relating to engine handling and finding speeds during approach.

1) Was there a trick to getting the plane to slow down for approach?

There was no problem getting the KC97L down to approach speeds. An average pilot could nail it.

2) Did you find that you had to go below square on approach to maintain speeds when following a standard instrument approach or did you not follow a standard approach glidepath?

A standard Approach was normal. There was no serious yaw effects that a n average pilot couldn't handle.

Additionally, before discovering an error in the flight model and its handling of yaw moment, we are wondering about how much adverse yaw and engine out yaw the B377/C-97 experiences. None of the manuals we have access to seem to really speak much of this, so we don't know if it was because they weren't "abnormal" compared to other aircraft or if we're just missing some manual parts.

3) When performing turns, how much rudder was required (not specific, just generally- i.e. did it take a liberal application or just a slight one?)

The rudder control was normal or average but not as much as a T-6. No problem. (NOTE: In my ~2 hours in a T-6, it takes about 1/4-1/2 deflection on roll-in to coordinate, then about 1/4 deflection to maintain in cruise. It gets progressively more as you slow down to approach speeds where you need about 1/2-3/4 deflection on roll in and about 1/2 to hold.)

4) When landing with a crosswind, was the rudder effective in "kicking out" during the flare or was it hard to realign the aircraft to the runway heading just before landing (i.e. the rudder was ineffective to some extent)?

X-Wind landings were somewhat difficult. They could be handled with up to 25 Kts. 90 Degree if you stayed on top of it. Above that it was hairy but possible. The rudder was very effective up to the 25 Kts. but sometimes it was bottomed, especially if it was gusty.

5) When flying with an outboard engine out (or worse, both on one side out) how hard was it to control the yaw with the rudder in general? Was there a general weight or flight condition in which the rudder was unable to handle the adverse yaw from the loss of power?

We were able to hold the aircraft under control with two engines out on one side but we had two jets. I flew the C-97 and landed with two out and reversed the inboard engine and stayed on the runway. I think I could have reversed both and controlled it.