MiMb

ARROW AIR
DAT1: October 14, 1986 '<<\
TO: Don Swing f ~) I j f ' ^ , V;
'L
FROM: John Cce ' ^0 <j
* • &

Rl: Report on DC8-63 Simulator Tests, October 7/8, 1986

LOCATION: Sterling Training Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

PARTICIPANTS: David J. McNair
Investigator
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
Robert D. Cook
Accident Investigation & Coordination Branch
FAA j
Jeffrey L. Gorney
Air Safety Investigator
NTS3
Alfred J. Sweeney
Customer Maintenance Engineer
Pratt & Whitney
F.E. (Phil) Blum
Engineering Test Pilot
McDonnell Douglas
T. Z. Ellison
Staff Engineer - Aircraft Performance
McDonnell Douglas
John T. Coe
« DC-8 Line Captain
Arrow Air
SUMMARY OF EVENTS:
The objective was to fly the simulator with a clean wing sur-
face, doing various take-off scenarios, and then introduce
wing surface contamination and fly the same take-off profiles.
 ) ')

Page 2 (DC-8 Simulator Tests)

Prior to conducting the tests, Dave McNair developed an

outline of criteria and various take-off profiles that
he wanted to have flown. All of the flying was performed
by myself and Phil Blum of McDonnel Douglas. The take-offs
were made from the right seat. All of the take-offs were
recorded by McNair on video tape. He filmed the co-pilots
flight instruments for each test.
Before the take-off tests were conducted, Phil Blum and
I each made several normal take-offs to get the feel of
the simulator, and to determine if there were any unusual
characteristics about this simulator. We also did complete
aerodynamic stalls to establish a stall speed at 345,000.
This speed was 144 knots. We also did a couple of take-offs
with engine failure after V]_. During all of the tests
the motion part of the simulator was not used. McNair
felt this might cause a problem with so many people observing,
if the simulator were crashed. t
The simulator was set up with the following criteria: I
Ambient Conditions: Temp: -4°c
Wind: 290V04 kts
Press. Alt: 550 ft.
Altim.: 29.85
Aircraft: Engine anti-ice: On
AOW: 3 4 5,000 lbs
Flaps: 18° % MAC: 26%
Gear: Down Stab: 4.3 ANU
Engine #4: T.O. Power - 40°c (.1 EPR)
Each test exercise to be terminated at 300ft.

AGL or brake release + 2 minutes.

«
During the first simulator session, we performed the follow-
ing clean aircraft tests:
(1) Normal T.O. with the V speeds found
on the co-pilot's A.S. indicator. V^ »
129 V R = 145 V 2 - 158 V F = 183
(2) Take-off with lower V speeds and engine
#4 failure at VR.
(3) Take-off with lower V speeds and engine
#4 failure after V 1#
 \

Page 3 (DC-8 Simulator Tests)

(4) Take-off with lower V speeds and engine

#4 idle reverse at V R .

(5) All of the tests 1-4 were also performed

at the correct V speeds for 345,000 lbs;
Vi • 138 V R = 158 V 2 = 166
My impression from flying the simulator under these condi-
tions* was that the airplane was controllable. At the lower
V speed take-offs the airplane felt more sluggish and did
not climb as rapidly. We tried a couple of additional
tests that were not included in the test program outline.
A take-off was made with #4 engine failure after Vj_, without
any rudder input to control direction; only aileron input.
The first one resulted in a crash due to extreme control
wheel deflection at the lower speeds. Subsequent take-offs
were made allowing speed to build up after rotation, and
also allowing aircraft to turn into the failed engine. Under
these circumstances, the airplane was controllable.

We also attempted to pull the spoiler handle instead of

the gear, by mistake, to see if the spoiler handle would
cause 44 engine throttle to be pulled back. This test
did net affect the #4 engine throttle, and was discounted
as a possibility.
On the second simulator session, the simulator was reprogram-
med to simulate wing contamination of 1.4 4mm thickness
of wing surface contamination. Data for these changes
was provided by the University of Dayton, through lift/drag
curves, which were constructed for various conditions of
smooth and rough wing surfaces. Additional drag coefficient
curves provided by McDonnell Douglas were used to develop
the program changes.
The contaminated aircraft tests were performed under the
same conditions as listed previously, with the exception
of the addition of wing surface contamination. The various
tests performed were the same as the clean airplane tests.
The initial take-off was made by a DC-8 rated pilot from
Sterling. He was not told about the wing surface contamina-
tion. On his initial T.O. with the lower V speeds after
rotation and lift off, as the airplane accelerated to 166
kts, he increased the pitch above 10-11° and the aircraft
stalled. The result was a rapid break in pitch attitude
to a nose down 20°. There was no stick shaker, or aircraft
buffetting prior to the stall. At the higher V speed take-
off, the aircraft stalled at 170 kt when the pitch was
increased above 10° to establish V2 + 10 climb pitch attitude.
 )

page 4 (DC-8 Simulator Tests)

There were some adjustments made to the drag coefficient,

before I flew, because it was felt that what was originally
programmed was excessive. Even with less drag, above a
certain pitch attitude (12-15°), the airplane would stall.
An additional test we performed with a clean wing was a
complete hydraulic failure during take-off (llOkt), with
#4 engine failure after V. There was no real noticeable
difference in controllability, other than increased rudder
pressure.
i

My personal impression of the second session was that,

if within the parameters that we were working, the introduc-
tion of wing surface contamination had a definite deteriorat-
ing affect on aircraft performance. By themselves, the
lower V speeds, higher take-off weight, or possible surface
contamination, would not have caused the aircraft to stall.
McNair seemed to be pleased with the way the tests went.
Additionally, the other representatives present indicated j
they felt the tests were a positive input to the investiga- (
tion. McNair told us at the debriefing, which was also i
video taped, that information from these tests would be
submitted in a report to the CASB, and that a copy of it
would be made available upon request.

John T. Coe
CaDtain - DC-3