Last flight into preservation of DC-6 ZS-MUL

I know I’m late to the game here, but I just wanted to relate some R2800 experience first hand. After watching the video a couple of times, what happened is definitely a “choke out” of the #1 and #4 engine when the crew held the engines in reverse too long and allowed the aircraft to almost stop while in reverse. R2800’s are very sturdy engines, but they are also fickle about running in “dirty” air. I don’t know if this DC-6 was equipped with dust filters or not, but if it wasn’t, then it’s not hard to cause this problem. It is also interesting to note that the #2 engine “sticks” in reverse (happens sometimes with the Hamilton prop, never got a good explanation for why) and the crew probably had to cycle the feather pump a couple of times to “bump it over” and get it going the right way. My first-hand experience is with the CV-240, but the reversing method/mechanism is the same between the two aircraft, and it was always interesting to do ground reverse tests because the airflow was so badly disrupted when the aircraft was not moving as to cause the engine to be seriously starved of air during the “flat” portion of the transition and would occasionally cause pretty spectacular backfires (and occasionally cause the engine to quit completely). It occasionally happened during landing too if you had a slight tailwind (definitely a pucker factor if you were on a short runway and heavily loaded like it was the time it happened to the crew I was flying with). As you’re landing anyway, it was never a “major” problem, but it definitely wasn’t something you planned to do, it’s just the physics of reversing the big fan that’s feeding the engine air. 🙂

No 4 definatley stops the engine next to it [No3?] seems to speed up and down a few times yet No4 does not move.Surley if the film speed affected the other engine it would have made some difference to No4.At 4.23 No4 starts again and produces white smoke just after start. At 4.06 white smoke can be seen coming from the port wing indicating an engine start on that side.
I am certanly no expert but IMHO at least two engines were restarted.

guys you can see at least number 4 IS stopped and feathered, then re-started. I’d say number 1 too. It’s not an illusion caused by poor film IMHO…

Yep absolutely agree! Just watched it on a big srcreen for first time and it looks like both engines chopped and restarted again to taxi up the gradient.
That’s the last time I listen to MoL:D

Great video link – thanks. What is about these old propbirds which is so appealing? My flights in Strats, Connies and DC4s and 6s are some of the most enjoyable ever and I just wish we had some in the UK to see flying……

Apologies – you are right. I was watching the wrong video. Definitely one and four shut down with four feathered after the landing roll completed. Both re-started for final taxi.

Magnificent!

Sorry Pagen but I disagree mate.
Methinks…
2.56-no.4 stops and feathers
3.16-no.1 stops (can see blade under fuselage)
4.03-no.1 restarts
4.24-no.4 spins
4.29-starting smoke, no.4

bear in mind the engine’s still plenty warm, so it’ll restart nicely!

Anyway, no matter, its a cracking film.
🙂

No, No.4 was quite clearly stopped, and is restarted at about 4.20 in on the film. It was feathered prior to the restart. There is start up smoke!

It appears as if the other three were running all the time.

Bruce

I think MoL is right on this and knows what he is talking about here Blue, the speed effects of film can cause odd results especially if the prop is turning at the same speed as it. The prop would appear feathered before going into/out of reverse pitch and power applied.
If you notice there is no start up smoke, or the prop whizzing over and pausing etc, just looks a bit too smooth for a piston restart to me.

guys you can see at least number 4 IS stopped and feathered, then re-started. I’d say number 1 too. It’s not an illusion caused by poor film IMHO…

This very airframe was once Atlantic Air Transport / Air Atlantique’s G-SIXB.

Tim
AACF Volunteer

I would be interested to know the lengths they went to to reduce weight – I bet the pilot had no breakfast and they took the valve caps off the wheels!

Never having flown a plane I am ashamed to ask, but is an unladen DC6 a bit of a “gti”? The AA ones always looked good low and fast at Baginton.

I enjoyed the video very much, thank you for posting. Has anyone else noticed the telephone wires across his flight path just before the touchdown?
Also while the plane is landing, on the left there is a boy with a grandstand view perched in the bucket of a digger. don’t try this at home kids.
The approach the flyby and the landing etc. all looked very professional and considered. I loved it.

Under no circumstances would they shut down any engines until the landing roll has been completed in this case. The video is low quality so it appears as if the propellers are stopped when they are in fact still turning. Remember that on a DC-6, it’s the flight engineer’s job to lift the reverse gate, watch for the lights and bring the throttles back once its confirmed they all work. The Six would, in this case have taxied to its final resting place with all four turning. The pilots were also pretty experienced. One of them did the initial type ratings for the Red Bull pilots.

Marvellous stuff! Well done for daring to do something that little bit different. It would have been a shame to see it cut up for a road move.

It did occur to me that he touched down short, it really does look like he was trying (and succeeding!) to be stopped by the turn off

I wonder if any of you have considered the element of luck in touching down prior to the threshold or was this a plan!!:confused:

G’day 😉

This seems to be an abusive way to treat this airplane.

It looked to me like he had enough runway left (and uphill) to stop in time without being so aggressive.

I can’t agree with that negative post, surely if you are landing something like a large four engined airliner into a tight and rough strip you want to be stopped as quickly as you can, it also looks like it stopped in time to make a turn off into the parking area without having to back track at all.
Looks like a great job to me especially with the approach over the trees immediately ahead of the landing area.
The aircraft won’t fly again so any damage caused (doubtful) isn’t critical, and the treatment it had was certainly better than being cut up and road transported in.

Does it have reversing propellers?
I suspect that the outer engine(s) were stopped to keep the landing distance short.

Yes some can, my guess was that he just shut down the outers early on the runway, this is fairly routine with some four engined turbo-props and that he realised that there wasn’t enough remaining power to taxi forward up the incline so started them up again (as Hunter says).
Or could be what MoL has said and it’s an illusion caused by the footage speed, but I thought I had seen reference to eye witnesses asking the same thing.
It does look a bit straightforward for a strop and restart of two old piston engines.

This seems to be an abusive way to treat this airplane.
If you noticed, he kept the props in reverse too long, causing the dirt to
snuff out engines # 1 and 4…dirt obviously got sucked into all 4 engines
which will cause damage, not to mention the damage to the flaps and other
parts of the plane.
It looked to me like he had enough runway left (and uphill) to stop in time without being so aggressive.

Nice one Tim K :rolleyes:! But try to understand this aeroplane has spent its last money earning years in and out of dirt strips being abused one way or another; I read they managed to save the aircraft from having its wings and tail chopped off to move it to its present location. I also read the DC-6 was near dereliction when they started work on it. The runway was only 850 metres and 900 was needed according to the book. If I were the pilot I would also drop it on as early as possible. None of the engines stopped either. They all continued to run – just a low quality video.

Sounded like reverse and you could seee the dust blown forward..

Does it have reversing propellers?

I suspect that the outer engine(s) were stopped to keep the landing distance short.

Bruce