SomedayRJ

Hi all. I rode a 757-200ER the other day in the very tail end and noticed that with the boards up and flaps extended past about 5 there's a very noticeable (bordering on annoying/uncomfortable) shudder in back. My guess is that the boards disrupt airflow over the horizontal stab (there's normally a burble/rumble in back with the boards up and flaps up—with the flaps extended it seems to be much more pronounced)...my question:

How do you typically handle high-and-fast in this machine?

__________________
We're all in this together.
The Stately Beechcraft Racer - The Twin-Bonanza

Ve764

In my experience when you are high and fast in a 75,to correct that you definately use the boards, decrease your rate of descent via FLCHG or V/S to slow the jet down. Once within tolerable flap speed start configuring. This aircraft is so slippery that it takes work to exit that scenario. You'll notice boards being used exclusively arriving in LA for example. All of this is technique and familiarity with the jet. I'm sure others will chime in with their techniques....

III Corps

If you think you need the boards to slow down, you needed them earlier. If you think you need the gear to slow down, drop the gear NOW. If you know you need the gear to slow down, get ready for a go-around.

The 737, 757 and 767 as well as the A320 series do not slow down as well as the DC-9/MD-80 or the 727. In the -80 and the 727, you can throw away a lot of energy fairly easily.

So, on the Boeings, drop the gear, pull the nose UP and get lots of flaps out. Less than 15deg and you are not getting lots of drag. Greater than 15deg and the drag rise is noticeable.

__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.

DAL4EVER

In the 757, the spoilers are used all the time in the terminal area at large airports. At 250 knots, the airplane will descend around 1500 FPM clean and at 210 knots its around 1200 FPM clean. The boards will add around an extra 500 to 800 FPM. Its the only way to come down. Usually, I will leave the flaps up until a speed reduction below 210 knots is required. It conserves gas and is a good estimate for all but the heaviest of weights. Flaps 5, 180 knots and spoilers extended will yield around a 1800 FPM descent. With spoilers extended, roll control is much more pronounced so when hand flying its something you will notice.

III Corps

All true and the funny thing is trying to explain to non-fliers that the lack of good drag inducing devices is a real negative.

Seems that SAN and SFO were frequent west coast stations where you wound up high and with plenty of energy. The only solution was gear and more flaps. The speedbrakes just told the pax you were trying to slow down.

The 'boards' on the 727 and the MD-80 were quite effective plus the high extension speeds for gear/flaps on the MD-80 turned high approaches into mostly easily solved problems.

And if you really want to have fun, use half spoilers.. as you know, that will really give you some quick bank angles. The trick is not to jerk the pax or F/As around while doing it.

__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.

Phantom Flyer

Oh... please III Corps...stopping talking about the "three holer". I'm going to completely break down and cry.

Ye gads....was there ever a better aircraft to fly ? It would go high, go low, go very fast or very slow and glide like a bird or come down like an express elevator. Your choice. Yes at .85 it was noisy but with the -17R engines, it would scoot and the stories about what Chicago approach had the three holers do to plug up holes in the "parade" into ORD were legendary, and mostly true.

Thanks Boeing for the best ride ever for 9+ years.

(Sob)...

G'Day mates

III Corps

I would rank the Mighty Tri-Motor up there in my list of great machines I got to fly. I enjoyed that fat little wing on the -37 and the sheer fun of the -38. Although promised fighters after my tour in Vietnam, that didn't happen and I was exiled into the hinterlands of SAC.

I would also rank the early Lears as real fun machines, especially the -23.. a little rocket ship where we asked pax if they wanted transportation or an airplane ride. Different 'flying' but I liked the 320 also. For its time, tough to find a better cockpit.

I never flew the MT with -17 engines but did fly it with -7/-9/-15 engines and got a couple of hops in it with the re-engined -217 and -219 engine... like adding a 4th engine.

(spent a lot of time on the 737, not one of my favorites. Also the MD-80 which was an interesting machine with the high extension speeds for gear/flaps and that odd speedbrake..oh, and 'dial-a-flap'. We never used the dial-a-flap but that was/is a novel concept)

__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.

Phantom Flyer

I loved the "Triple 7" (two tours in it) and the 767-300 but I'll take a three holer with -17R engines any day simply for a "fun" airplane to fly. In my book, put it on the pedestal as a pilots' airplane !!

Sorry fellas...I'm losing it....G'Day Mates