Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:54 pm

Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:
The Jetstar is an interesting aircraft with some unique design features



One of which is the stabilizer trim system, in a conventional set up in the horizontal stabilizer is attached to the rear fuselage and pivots nose up and down.



On the Jetstar the horizontal stabilizer is part of the vertical stab and is not adjustable(although the attached elevators are)




Instead the entire vertical tail ‘tilts’
forward or back, in turn changing the angle of the horizontal stabilizer



One of the Jetstar engineers subsequently went to work for Mooney light aircraft and incorporated the same feature in their single engine aircraft line



It is still being used to this day



If you look closely at photographs of the Jetstar you can see an exposed section of
highly polished aluminum at the base of the
vertical fin’s leading edge


This shows the range of movement utilized
for fore and aft trim



There are only 2 aircraft that use this type of pitch trim system, the single engine piston Mooney’s and the Lockheed JetStar.

But actually it was the other way around, Al Mooney after he left the company he helped found, Mooney Aircraft he then went to work for Kelly Johnson’s skunk works at Lockheed. He was tasked with engineering the design for the empennage section of the JetStar so he incorporated the same design he used for his Mooney airplanes. Since Kelly Johnson was the chief engineer of the JetStar I guess he liked the design because he approved it.

I cursed Al Mooney many times, probably each time I had to service the pitch trim servo unit, once every 200 hours to check the oil level, drain any water that would leak down the jack screws and grease the mechanism. The pitch trim unit had 2 motors, one main and a standby attached to a gear box with 2 large jack screws that moved the forward edge of the vertical stabilizer up or down. To access this pitch trim unit you had to crawl through an opening about 14 inches by 12 inches and place you body between all the control cables, making sure you do not put any weight on the 2” diameter fuel jettison line and then remove the cover plates to gain access to the pitch trim mechanism. I usually brought in my coffee with me because once I was in there I stayed until I finished the job so I did not have to go through all the contortions required to get comfortable again. It took about an hour and a half to do the servicing, changing a pitch trim motor took another hour or so.

JetStar




I stand corrected Jetstar and thanks for the interesting follow up



It’s a unique configuration, not really sure
if there’s any advantage or disadvantage



You do end up moving a larger, heavier piece of metal for the same result as a conventional horizontal stabilizer


An advantage might be that you have an overall simpler system


Fascinating aircraft though, do you know if there are any still flying ?


I never really knew what was the advantages of the flying tail, one story I heard was this moved the flight stresses to a stronger point in the fuselage, this way they could make the empennage lighter. The pitch trim jackscrews were located in the lower front of the moving empennage.

If you look at a sideways picture of the JetStar’s empennage, the bare metal at the base has a slight bend towards the aft and at the base of the bend was the pivot point of the empennage where it attached to the airframe. This pivot point consisted of a large bolt mounted into bearings with grease fitting on them and had to be greased every 200 hours, access was through access plates on the outside of the empennage.

I have heard that there are some JetStars still flying, if in the US they would have to be either the re-engined or JetStar 2’s because the P&W powered ones would be banned because of noise regulations.

Of the original 162 production run of the P&W powered JetStar’s most were produced in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s, so these airframes would be hitting or past the 50 year mark, and with the JetStar’s history of wing corrosion, which required expensive repairs I doubt any of these older airframes are still flying, although I did hear of one of the conversions, a late serial number was still flying.

The second production run, of the JetStar 2 was only 40 airplanes and these had better corrosion properties and some of these are still around in the US. Outside of the US, there might be some more flying.

I believe Lockheed does not support the JetStar anymore for parts, they turned it over to an outside company and parts have become real expensive if they have to be manufactured if not available from scrapped airframes.

JetStar
 
Mayday111
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:55 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:20 pm

Why does a plane of that size require 4 engines?
 
highflier92660
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:34 pm

BravoOne wrote:
I'll stick by my story regarding the fact that there were two of these prototypes< BUT I need to get back to my office desk to check some references just to be sure.

As for the OHare Comet story, google is your friend. I know the story well , as myself and two others flew it in there many years ago. At the time the 220 was sitting on the ramp in ABQ awaiting an engine swap out to the CJ610,



BravoOne: If you were one of the flight crew that took Dick Drost's Comet from ABQ to ORD, multiple generations of pilots would love to hear your memories of that trip!!! The only information I discovered online was from someone who posted he was the F/E on that flight and the pilots were from Western Airlines. If that was so, where did you guys get the Comet sim training and type ratings? I understand that the a/c had an FAA ferry certificate, but even so there must have been some reticence. Some very notable pilots have lost their lives flying old rust buckets on ferry flights; Lockheed test pilot Herman "fish" Salmon lost his trying to takeoff in an old 1049 Super Constellation with cranky Wright 3350s.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:39 pm

Mayday111 wrote:
Why does a plane of that size require 4 engines?


I imagine it was mainly a result of a lack of options when it was designed - would have been on the drawing board in the late 1950s, not many small civilian jet engines available then.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:20 pm

highflier92660 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
I'll stick by my story regarding the fact that there were two of these prototypes< BUT I need to get back to my office desk to check some references just to be sure.

As for the OHare Comet story, google is your friend. I know the story well , as myself and two others flew it in there many years ago. At the time the 220 was sitting on the ramp in ABQ awaiting an engine swap out to the CJ610,



BravoOne: If you were one of the flight crew that took Dick Drost's Comet from ABQ to ORD, multiple generations of pilots would love to hear your memories of that trip!!! The only information I discovered online was from someone who posted he was the F/E on that flight and the pilots were from Western Airlines. If that was so, where did you guys get the Comet sim training and type ratings? I understand that the a/c had an FAA ferry certificate, but even so there must have been some reticence. Some very notable pilots have lost their lives flying old rust buckets on ferry flights; Lockheed test pilot Herman "fish" Salmon lost his trying to takeoff in an old 1049 Super Constellation with cranky Wright 3350s.


Here you go. It's a slow day...

Actually Herman (Fish0 Salmon was supposed to fly this Comet but got stuck on another ferry flight gone wrong somewhere in Africa. Probably an old Electra as both the Comet Capt. and myself were moving a few Electra’s around back in that time period and were in touch with Fish from time to time regarding “opportunities” that would come up
.
The FE was a very sharp guy that use to post over on PPrune under the name of BelArgUSA regarding various technical subjects. He had gone to ground school in Europe on the Comet 10 years earlier but had never flown it or operated the FE panel. He was however the facilitator with the FAA office in Van Nuys and got the ferry permit. I came into this a little late so I was not that familiar with the process he went through other than it was supposed to be in VMC conditions and they wanted one T.O. and a full stop landing at ABQ before proceeding to ORD. Neither myself, or the Captain, both 727 Capt. at the time at Western Airlines had ever stepped foot in the airplane and had no training other than reading the Ops Manual briefly with a scotch in one hand. The Capt. and FE had arrived the day before and started the airplane up and did a brief taxi test.
I think this occurred in October as it was brisk and clear that morning when we planned the flight to ORD. There were the 3 of us, plus the seller who had his picket pulled for flying the M220 from some PHX airport to ABQ. His daughter begged him not to go so that didn’t inspire my confidence for sure. In addition the USAF guys at the ABQ lined up with their hats over their hearts as we taxied by, another bad sign for sure!
We did the required takeoff and landing to a full stop and the only disturbing issue was the 30 knot difference between the Capt. and FO airspeed indicators at one point downwind. At one point on final there was a significant shuddering and we agreed that was probably a pre-stall shake so we decided that the FO airspeed indicator was the least likely to be accurate. Actually they both were pretty even at speeds above 200KIAS. We talked ourselves into accepting the airplane and launching for ORD.

The flight itself was pretty uneventful with the exception of the airspeed indicators which varied from 5kts to 30kts difference at times. The ferry permit specified VMC weather conditions. By the time we were in the ORD terminal airspace it had gone below 3 miles and occasional light snow. Neither the Capt. nor I were that familiar with ORD airspace so we were all ass and elbows trying to keep up with ATC. Finally they took pity on us and gave us vectors for an ILS which all came together fairly well. All is well that ends well so the saying goes. The only dark moment was during the descent to make a crossing below 10.000’ and 250 kts was when the Capt. Stowed the speed brakes and all of the sudden the airplane started to shudder as if something came off. I shouted to the seller who was in the Nav seat to go back and look out over the wings to see if anything was missing and he returned with a thumbs up, all okay. We later suspected that it was the engine compressor stalling because we were late getting the EAI on and being the engines were buried in the wing roots it was much more pronounced?

We taxied over to the Butler Aviation ramp. Since they were on strike it took some time before they came with stairs or an APU. I previously told the story regarding the buyer and Miss Nude USA so nothing there.
About 10 months later we were contacted and asked if we could fly the airplane to and airport in Indiana. The FAA intervened and said no way was that airplane going anywhere again.

Actually the plane was in pretty nice cosmetic condition when we delivered it, but time and weather took its toll. One of the sister ships is now in the Boeing restoration center at PAE. It was in SLC for maybe a year prior so someone flew it from ABQ to SLC and then again to PAE it’s painted up in BOAC colors but it is really a Mexicana Comet deep down.

The Capt. I flew with passed away about 2 years ago. Tom was a good Irishman so he and laughed about this adventure for many a years after the fact. The FE moved to Thailand I thinks and only once since that trip have we had occasion to speak. There was a great coffee table book for sale in the aviation book store just outside the Toronto airport. This book had hundreds of Comet photos including photos of the three of us leaving ABQ and of all things, the FAA letter authorizing the ferry of this most interesting airplane.

I remained a casual friend of Fish Salmon right up until his fatal accident. By chance I knew the FE on that flight as well.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:35 pm

Newark727 wrote:
Mayday111 wrote:
Why does a plane of that size require 4 engines?


I imagine it was mainly a result of a lack of options when it was designed - would have been on the drawing board in the late 1950s, not many small civilian jet engines available then.


I have heard 2 versions of why the JetStar design went from 2 engines to 4, the first is the Lockheed in order to expedite the flight testing of the airframe, instead of waiting for the P&W JT12 engines to become available, used 2 British Orpheus engines at least to get the airframe in the air for initial flight testing.

The other one was that the JetStar initially would have been a 2 engine airplane but could not meet the Air Force second segment climb requirements with the Orpheus engines and needed more power so they had to go the 4 engine route, the Orpheus engines had about 5000 pounds of thrust each and the JT-12 engines were initially rated at 3000 pounds each so they went from 10,000 to 12,000 pounds of thrust. The only other small engine available back in the late 1950’s was the Westinghouse J-34 with 2980 pounds of thrust, but since they powered the competing McDonnell 220, I don’t think Lockheed could have used them anyway.

In the past I had seen an early sales brochure from Lockheed, which was being sent to possible corporate purchasers when the JetStar was in its early design stage and it had 4 engines, so I believe that the production JetStar was indeed going to be a 4 engine airplane right from the start.

JetStar
 
highflier92660
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:17 pm

BravoOne I am tempted to print and frame your post. That is one helluva story. I recall a crusty old four-stripper who used to always say that an airplane was an airplane, they just used different numbers. Perhaps so, but it takes basketballs to kick the tires and light the fires of a Comet and then fly to O'Hare. Example: When the split needles cropped-up on the airspeed indicators there must have been a momentary look between you, the Captain and the FE as if to say "anybody got any ideas? Maybe a lousy air data computer?" Then there were the compressor stall booms when he busted the crossing restriction and lowered the boards. Finally you just knew the weather predictions of CAVU would turn into something less than a thousand and three with anti-ice bleeds-on going into O'Hare. A greaser or an arrival, all is well that ends well.

I'll bet there are a lot pilots out here who yearn for those days!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:38 am

I don't recall the split needles on the airspeed indicators, but that was a long time ago I kept a copy of the pilots ops manuals but gave it away to a group that was proposing to move and restore the airplane back in the early eighties.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:57 am

jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:


There are only 2 aircraft that use this type of pitch trim system, the single engine piston Mooney’s and the Lockheed JetStar.

But actually it was the other way around, Al Mooney after he left the company he helped found, Mooney Aircraft he then went to work for Kelly Johnson’s skunk works at Lockheed. He was tasked with engineering the design for the empennage section of the JetStar so he incorporated the same design he used for his Mooney airplanes. Since Kelly Johnson was the chief engineer of the JetStar I guess he liked the design because he approved it.

I cursed Al Mooney many times, probably each time I had to service the pitch trim servo unit, once every 200 hours to check the oil level, drain any water that would leak down the jack screws and grease the mechanism. The pitch trim unit had 2 motors, one main and a standby attached to a gear box with 2 large jack screws that moved the forward edge of the vertical stabilizer up or down. To access this pitch trim unit you had to crawl through an opening about 14 inches by 12 inches and place you body between all the control cables, making sure you do not put any weight on the 2” diameter fuel jettison line and then remove the cover plates to gain access to the pitch trim mechanism. I usually brought in my coffee with me because once I was in there I stayed until I finished the job so I did not have to go through all the contortions required to get comfortable again. It took about an hour and a half to do the servicing, changing a pitch trim motor took another hour or so.

JetStar




I stand corrected Jetstar and thanks for the interesting follow up



It’s a unique configuration, not really sure
if there’s any advantage or disadvantage



You do end up moving a larger, heavier piece of metal for the same result as a conventional horizontal stabilizer


An advantage might be that you have an overall simpler system


Fascinating aircraft though, do you know if there are any still flying ?


I never really knew what was the advantages of the flying tail, one story I heard was this moved the flight stresses to a stronger point in the fuselage, this way they could make the empennage lighter. The pitch trim jackscrews were located in the lower front of the moving empennage.

If you look at a sideways picture of the JetStar’s empennage, the bare metal at the base has a slight bend towards the aft and at the base of the bend was the pivot point of the empennage where it attached to the airframe. This pivot point consisted of a large bolt mounted into bearings with grease fitting on them and had to be greased every 200 hours, access was through access plates on the outside of the empennage.

I have heard that there are some JetStars still flying, if in the US they would have to be either the re-engined or JetStar 2’s because the P&W powered ones would be banned because of noise regulations.

Of the original 162 production run of the P&W powered JetStar’s most were produced in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s, so these airframes would be hitting or past the 50 year mark, and with the JetStar’s history of wing corrosion, which required expensive repairs I doubt any of these older airframes are still flying, although I did hear of one of the conversions, a late serial number was still flying.

The second production run, of the JetStar 2 was only 40 airplanes and these had better corrosion properties and some of these are still around in the US. Outside of the US, there might be some more flying.

I believe Lockheed does not support the JetStar anymore for parts, they turned it over to an outside company and parts have become real expensive if they have to be manufactured if not available from scrapped airframes.

JetStar




Thanks for your comprehensive and interesting reply


Another unusual aspect of the Jetstar design is the inward opening forward door


I remember this being put to good use in
a couple of movies


An early Bond film involving parachuting from one comes to mind and a
later production where a cable was rigged from the back of a DC9 to the open front
door of a Jetstar along which cases of cash
were slid !


Good stuff, don’t know how much was real
and how much was special effects but an inward opening door (once depressurized) allows you to do such things.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:09 pm

Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:



I stand corrected Jetstar and thanks for the interesting follow up



It’s a unique configuration, not really sure
if there’s any advantage or disadvantage



You do end up moving a larger, heavier piece of metal for the same result as a conventional horizontal stabilizer


An advantage might be that you have an overall simpler system


Fascinating aircraft though, do you know if there are any still flying ?


I never really knew what was the advantages of the flying tail, one story I heard was this moved the flight stresses to a stronger point in the fuselage, this way they could make the empennage lighter. The pitch trim jackscrews were located in the lower front of the moving empennage.

If you look at a sideways picture of the JetStar’s empennage, the bare metal at the base has a slight bend towards the aft and at the base of the bend was the pivot point of the empennage where it attached to the airframe. This pivot point consisted of a large bolt mounted into bearings with grease fitting on them and had to be greased every 200 hours, access was through access plates on the outside of the empennage.

I have heard that there are some JetStars still flying, if in the US they would have to be either the re-engined or JetStar 2’s because the P&W powered ones would be banned because of noise regulations.

Of the original 162 production run of the P&W powered JetStar’s most were produced in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s, so these airframes would be hitting or past the 50 year mark, and with the JetStar’s history of wing corrosion, which required expensive repairs I doubt any of these older airframes are still flying, although I did hear of one of the conversions, a late serial number was still flying.

The second production run, of the JetStar 2 was only 40 airplanes and these had better corrosion properties and some of these are still around in the US. Outside of the US, there might be some more flying.

I believe Lockheed does not support the JetStar anymore for parts, they turned it over to an outside company and parts have become real expensive if they have to be manufactured if not available from scrapped airframes.

JetStar




Thanks for your comprehensive and interesting reply


Another unusual aspect of the Jetstar design is the inward opening forward door


I remember this being put to good use in
a couple of movies


An early Bond film involving parachuting from one comes to mind and a
later production where a cable was rigged from the back of a DC9 to the open front
door of a Jetstar along which cases of cash
were slid !


Good stuff, don’t know how much was real
and how much was special effects but an inward opening door (once depressurized) allows you to do such things.


I never gave any thought to the JetStar’s inward opening door, the only other corporate jet I remember that had an inward opening main cabin door was the DH125, that door rolled up and into the entranceway ceiling and a lightweight metal frame step assembly unfolded out. Most corporate jets use an outward opening door with the steps built into the inside portion of the door

On the JetStar the main cabin door was hinged on the top part of the door so to open the door when you turned the inside handle to unlock the door the upper portion of the door tilted back and then you pulled the door up a little and the lower part of the door extended back into the cabin and then the door slid aft ward on tracks. The folding airstairs also slid back on tracks because the main cabin door was considered an emergency exit, to extend the airstairs at first you had to pull the airstairs forward until it locked and then push it out while holding onto the railing

Originally the airstairs extension and retraction was electrically powered, on the outside airframe there was 2 buttons flush with the fuselage just to the aft of the door. After manually opening the main cabin door one button would operate the airstair extension and the other the retraction. This system was no very reliable and almost all the corporate operators removed the electric motor and outside buttons and operated it manually, once the motor was removed it took very little strength to extend to retract the airstairs.

Some corporate operators, to gain more closet space got FAA approval to remove the airstair aft tracking mechanism, which them meant the airstairs stayed by the entrance door, another unlocking bar was installed on the upper portion of the door so in case of an emergency the door could still be opened and the airstairs pushed out to allow emergency egress, especially from the cockpit because the main emergency exit hatches were fairly back in the cabin.

Thanks for letting me go back to memory lane to relive my JetStar days

JetStar
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:18 am

jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:

I never really knew what was the advantages of the flying tail, one story I heard was this moved the flight stresses to a stronger point in the fuselage, this way they could make the empennage lighter. The pitch trim jackscrews were located in the lower front of the moving empennage.

If you look at a sideways picture of the JetStar’s empennage, the bare metal at the base has a slight bend towards the aft and at the base of the bend was the pivot point of the empennage where it attached to the airframe. This pivot point consisted of a large bolt mounted into bearings with grease fitting on them and had to be greased every 200 hours, access was through access plates on the outside of the empennage.

I have heard that there are some JetStars still flying, if in the US they would have to be either the re-engined or JetStar 2’s because the P&W powered ones would be banned because of noise regulations.

Of the original 162 production run of the P&W powered JetStar’s most were produced in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s, so these airframes would be hitting or past the 50 year mark, and with the JetStar’s history of wing corrosion, which required expensive repairs I doubt any of these older airframes are still flying, although I did hear of one of the conversions, a late serial number was still flying.

The second production run, of the JetStar 2 was only 40 airplanes and these had better corrosion properties and some of these are still around in the US. Outside of the US, there might be some more flying.

I believe Lockheed does not support the JetStar anymore for parts, they turned it over to an outside company and parts have become real expensive if they have to be manufactured if not available from scrapped airframes.

JetStar




Thanks for your comprehensive and interesting reply


Another unusual aspect of the Jetstar design is the inward opening forward door


I remember this being put to good use in
a couple of movies


An early Bond film involving parachuting from one comes to mind and a
later production where a cable was rigged from the back of a DC9 to the open front
door of a Jetstar along which cases of cash
were slid !


Good stuff, don’t know how much was real
and how much was special effects but an inward opening door (once depressurized) allows you to do such things.


I never gave any thought to the JetStar’s inward opening door, the only other corporate jet I remember that had an inward opening main cabin door was the DH125, that door rolled up and into the entranceway ceiling and a lightweight metal frame step assembly unfolded out. Most corporate jets use an outward opening door with the steps built into the inside portion of the door

On the JetStar the main cabin door was hinged on the top part of the door so to open the door when you turned the inside handle to unlock the door the upper portion of the door tilted back and then you pulled the door up a little and the lower part of the door extended back into the cabin and then the door slid aft ward on tracks. The folding airstairs also slid back on tracks because the main cabin door was considered an emergency exit, to extend the airstairs at first you had to pull the airstairs forward until it locked and then push it out while holding onto the railing

Originally the airstairs extension and retraction was electrically powered, on the outside airframe there was 2 buttons flush with the fuselage just to the aft of the door. After manually opening the main cabin door one button would operate the airstair extension and the other the retraction. This system was no very reliable and almost all the corporate operators removed the electric motor and outside buttons and operated it manually, once the motor was removed it took very little strength to extend to retract the airstairs.

Some corporate operators, to gain more closet space got FAA approval to remove the airstair aft tracking mechanism, which them meant the airstairs stayed by the entrance door, another unlocking bar was installed on the upper portion of the door so in case of an emergency the door could still be opened and the airstairs pushed out to allow emergency egress, especially from the cockpit because the main emergency exit hatches were fairly back in the cabin.

Thanks for letting me go back to memory lane to relive my JetStar days

JetStar



Thank you for adding more interesting facts about this unique aircraft



Lockheed, as usual went their own way
with many design features on the Jetstar


I don’t think there was another company as technically advanced in the production of civilian jet aircraft in their day


Their masterpiece of course was the superb L1011 Tristar


Another question on the Jetstar, did all four
engines have reversers installed or just
the outboards like the VC10 ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:41 pm

Speaking of different doors, how about the Challenger 600, The fist 18 or so airplanes built had a door designed for FedEX that facilitated the loading of small packages, When FedEx canceled their order the design was changed to a more passenger friendly design.
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:12 pm

Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:



Thanks for your comprehensive and interesting reply


Another unusual aspect of the Jetstar design is the inward opening forward door


I remember this being put to good use in
a couple of movies


An early Bond film involving parachuting from one comes to mind and a
later production where a cable was rigged from the back of a DC9 to the open front
door of a Jetstar along which cases of cash
were slid !


Good stuff, don’t know how much was real
and how much was special effects but an inward opening door (once depressurized) allows you to do such things.


I never gave any thought to the JetStar’s inward opening door, the only other corporate jet I remember that had an inward opening main cabin door was the DH125, that door rolled up and into the entranceway ceiling and a lightweight metal frame step assembly unfolded out. Most corporate jets use an outward opening door with the steps built into the inside portion of the door

On the JetStar the main cabin door was hinged on the top part of the door so to open the door when you turned the inside handle to unlock the door the upper portion of the door tilted back and then you pulled the door up a little and the lower part of the door extended back into the cabin and then the door slid aft ward on tracks. The folding airstairs also slid back on tracks because the main cabin door was considered an emergency exit, to extend the airstairs at first you had to pull the airstairs forward until it locked and then push it out while holding onto the railing

Originally the airstairs extension and retraction was electrically powered, on the outside airframe there was 2 buttons flush with the fuselage just to the aft of the door. After manually opening the main cabin door one button would operate the airstair extension and the other the retraction. This system was no very reliable and almost all the corporate operators removed the electric motor and outside buttons and operated it manually, once the motor was removed it took very little strength to extend to retract the airstairs.

Some corporate operators, to gain more closet space got FAA approval to remove the airstair aft tracking mechanism, which them meant the airstairs stayed by the entrance door, another unlocking bar was installed on the upper portion of the door so in case of an emergency the door could still be opened and the airstairs pushed out to allow emergency egress, especially from the cockpit because the main emergency exit hatches were fairly back in the cabin.

Thanks for letting me go back to memory lane to relive my JetStar days

JetStar



Thank you for adding more interesting facts about this unique aircraft



Lockheed, as usual went their own way
with many design features on the Jetstar


I don’t think there was another company as technically advanced in the production of civilian jet aircraft in their day


Their masterpiece of course was the superb L1011 Tristar


Another question on the Jetstar, did all four
engines have reversers installed or just
the outboards like the VC10 ?



All 4 engines had thrust reversers, there was no ground activated switch to deploy the reversers so on flaring out when landing with the throttles back in the idle detent, the reverser buckets could be extended and as soon as the wheels touch down, you would pull up on the reverser levers for reverse power. I never nor did any of the pilots I flew with did this, but I knew other pilots who did it on occasion.

Although it was not approved, because there was no ground activated switch, the reversers could be deployed in flight, Lockheed did it during the certification program to approve a procedure in case of an accidental reverser deployment.

JetStar
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:39 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Speaking of different doors, how about the Challenger 600, The fist 18 or so airplanes built had a door designed for FedEX that facilitated the loading of small packages, When FedEx canceled their order the design was changed to a more passenger friendly design.


Xerox Corporation, based at HPN (White Plains) had very early Challenger 600’s with the type of door you mention, the only other airplane that come to mind with this same type of door arrangement, the door was hinged on the top, opened upwards and the air stairs, which was attached to the fuselage then extend out was on the Convair 200/300/400 series prop liners.

The first corporate airplane to have an integral door and stairs was the Grumman Gulfstream 1 turboprop, Grumman carried this same design over to the G2 corporate jet and its predecessors and it is used on almost all medium to large corporate jets today.

On the JetStar the main cabin door opened inwards and was a plug type design, pressurization pushed the door tighter into the frame and it was very light, I easily removed it myself to change the door seal. If I remember back almost 40 years ago there were only 4 locking door pins on the main cabin door. In flight with the pressurization loads on it was impossible to open the door, even if you managed to rotate the door handle and unlock the door

JetStar
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6262
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:31 pm

Bravo One,

Funny about BelArgUSA, I’ve had a number of email conversations with him. After PAA folded, he went to Aerolineas Argentina, retired to Florianopolis, BR. I believe Paul passed away shortly after that from throat cancer. A fine gentleman and very knowledgeable, his recommendations in Paris weren’t wrong. The story of his father, mother and his birth were also a bit of history.

JetStar,

I think it was the first 20, then they converted to the airstair door on the Challenger. FDX had a large influence on the design, the door, the Lycominf engines, the fuselage diameter over the original LearStar were all FDX requirements. Then, the CAB and the 6,000# rule went away.

Grumman got the airstair right and it has been a Gulfstream selling point to this day. It’s much more stair-like than any other design. Women love it as it is easy to go down in heels. The Global and others are steeper and present both tricky and potentially embarrassing step.

GF
 
highflier92660
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:28 pm

Union Oil Company (later UNOCAL) also flew a Jetstar, a 731 with the Garrett engines out of BUR I believe. UNOCAL was a very conservative company under Fred Hartley and the Jetstar built by Lockheed fit their traditional built-like-a-bank-vault vision of a corporate aircraft. I found one photo of N7600 online, a somewhat unflattering pic taken from the six o'clock position. They flew this aircraft into the 1980s when many, if not most large Fortune 500 corporations switched to Gulfstreams.
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:41 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Bravo One,

Funny about BelArgUSA, I’ve had a number of email conversations with him. After PAA folded, he went to Aerolineas Argentina, retired to Florianopolis, BR. I believe Paul passed away shortly after that from throat cancer. A fine gentleman and very knowledgeable, his recommendations in Paris weren’t wrong. The story of his father, mother and his birth were also a bit of history.

JetStar,

I think it was the first 20, then they converted to the airstair door on the Challenger. FDX had a large influence on the design, the door, the Lycominf engines, the fuselage diameter over the original LearStar were all FDX requirements. Then, the CAB and the 6,000# rule went away.

Grumman got the airstair right and it has been a Gulfstream selling point to this day. It’s much more stair-like than any other design. Women love it as it is easy to go down in heels. The Global and others are steeper and present both tricky and potentially embarrassing step.

GF


Not only with the airstairs, but Grumman’s large oval cabin windows also featured on the G! was a big hit with the passengers, and carried over to the G2 and all it’s predecessors, and even larger on the latest Gulfstream’s coming out of Savannah.

And the worst airstair design goes to the North American Sabreliner 40/60 series, it was small door with steep steps and you had to step down from the stairs into the cabin entranceway while hunched over. I head that North American lost a few sales because some CEO’s wife’s found it very difficult entering the airplane in heels and a tight dress.

While the airstairs was acceptable in the airplanes military role as the T-39, it should have been modified for commercial use, along with enlarging the tiny teardrop cabin windows. On the smaller 40 series, there were only 4 small windows in the passenger cabin, a later service bulletin allowed the escape hatches to be modified adding another small window in each hatch, better but not good enough.

JetStar
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:33 pm

highflier92660 wrote:
Union Oil Company (later UNOCAL) also flew a Jetstar, a 731 with the Garrett engines out of BUR I believe. UNOCAL was a very conservative company under Fred Hartley and the Jetstar built by Lockheed fit their traditional built-like-a-bank-vault vision of a corporate aircraft. I found one photo of N7600 online, a somewhat unflattering pic taken from the six o'clock position. They flew this aircraft into the 1980s when many, if not most large Fortune 500 corporations switched to Gulfstreams.



Yes they were BUR fixture for many years. The CP son was killed in the crash of Potty Mercers DC6 over on the golf course that was just south of the VNY 34L approach. They also had one of the last truly corporate DC3's as well as a CV580, all pinted the same. Man I'm dating myself. :)
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6262
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:40 am

Yes, the Sabre’s airstair was awful. The G I windows, as I understand, were from the Viscount turned horizontal.
Wait til you see the G7000 windows.

Gf
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:48 am

jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:

I never gave any thought to the JetStar’s inward opening door, the only other corporate jet I remember that had an inward opening main cabin door was the DH125, that door rolled up and into the entranceway ceiling and a lightweight metal frame step assembly unfolded out. Most corporate jets use an outward opening door with the steps built into the inside portion of the door

On the JetStar the main cabin door was hinged on the top part of the door so to open the door when you turned the inside handle to unlock the door the upper portion of the door tilted back and then you pulled the door up a little and the lower part of the door extended back into the cabin and then the door slid aft ward on tracks. The folding airstairs also slid back on tracks because the main cabin door was considered an emergency exit, to extend the airstairs at first you had to pull the airstairs forward until it locked and then push it out while holding onto the railing

Originally the airstairs extension and retraction was electrically powered, on the outside airframe there was 2 buttons flush with the fuselage just to the aft of the door. After manually opening the main cabin door one button would operate the airstair extension and the other the retraction. This system was no very reliable and almost all the corporate operators removed the electric motor and outside buttons and operated it manually, once the motor was removed it took very little strength to extend to retract the airstairs.

Some corporate operators, to gain more closet space got FAA approval to remove the airstair aft tracking mechanism, which them meant the airstairs stayed by the entrance door, another unlocking bar was installed on the upper portion of the door so in case of an emergency the door could still be opened and the airstairs pushed out to allow emergency egress, especially from the cockpit because the main emergency exit hatches were fairly back in the cabin.

Thanks for letting me go back to memory lane to relive my JetStar days

JetStar



Thank you for adding more interesting facts about this unique aircraft



Lockheed, as usual went their own way
with many design features on the Jetstar


I don’t think there was another company as technically advanced in the production of civilian jet aircraft in their day


Their masterpiece of course was the superb L1011 Tristar


Another question on the Jetstar, did all four
engines have reversers installed or just
the outboards like the VC10 ?



All 4 engines had thrust reversers, there was no ground activated switch to deploy the reversers so on flaring out when landing with the throttles back in the idle detent, the reverser buckets could be extended and as soon as the wheels touch down, you would pull up on the reverser levers for reverse power. I never nor did any of the pilots I flew with did this, but I knew other pilots who did it on occasion.

Although it was not approved, because there was no ground activated switch, the reversers could be deployed in flight, Lockheed did it during the certification program to approve a procedure in case of an accidental reverser deployment.

JetStar




Interesting, there’s not that many rear mounted four engine jet aircraft, I can only
think of the Jetstar, VC10 and IL62


The VC10 initially had reverse on all four engines but the inboard pair proved problematic and were subsequently deleted, I think the IL 62 has them on
all



So another question



The slipper tanks, these were unique, can’t think of another aircraft with this configuration



There’s quite a few jets over the years with
tip tanks (although that design is nearly gone) but the Jetstar’s slipper tanks were
a completely different approach to the need for more fuel capacity



And they are massive, I imagine they hold as much fuel as the wing tanks ?



What I find curious is why not just build a slightly bigger wing that could carry more fuel ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:40 pm

The JetStar had an infamous fuel tank inspection that was commonly refere to as the "tank & plank" inspection. Even if you passed it with fly colors you were writing a big check. Also had a windshield eddy current inspection that was pricey. These aircraft were not for the faint at heart. Standard Oil had at least two JetSatr ll aircraft out of Oakland, Back in the mid eighties when these aircraft were still fairly young they were sold for small fraction of their original cost.

Beautiful aircraft one the less.
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:07 am

Max Q wrote:
jetstar wrote:
Max Q wrote:


Thank you for adding more interesting facts about this unique aircraft



Lockheed, as usual went their own way
with many design features on the Jetstar


I don’t think there was another company as technically advanced in the production of civilian jet aircraft in their day


Their masterpiece of course was the superb L1011 Tristar


Another question on the Jetstar, did all four
engines have reversers installed or just
the outboards like the VC10 ?



All 4 engines had thrust reversers, there was no ground activated switch to deploy the reversers so on flaring out when landing with the throttles back in the idle detent, the reverser buckets could be extended and as soon as the wheels touch down, you would pull up on the reverser levers for reverse power. I never nor did any of the pilots I flew with did this, but I knew other pilots who did it on occasion.

Although it was not approved, because there was no ground activated switch, the reversers could be deployed in flight, Lockheed did it during the certification program to approve a procedure in case of an accidental reverser deployment.

JetStar




Interesting, there’s not that many rear mounted four engine jet aircraft, I can only
think of the Jetstar, VC10 and IL62


The VC10 initially had reverse on all four engines but the inboard pair proved problematic and were subsequently deleted, I think the IL 62 has them on
all



So another question



The slipper tanks, these were unique, can’t think of another aircraft with this configuration



There’s quite a few jets over the years with
tip tanks (although that design is nearly gone) but the Jetstar’s slipper tanks were
a completely different approach to the need for more fuel capacity



And they are massive, I imagine they hold as much fuel as the wing tanks ?



What I find curious is why not just build a slightly bigger wing that could carry more fuel ?


The JetStar was designed to an Air Force requirement of a light transport airplane, and since it was on a competitive bidding process, the Air Force selected 2 proposals, Lockheed’s and McDonnell’s.

I don’t believe there was any Air Force money allocated for the prototypes, if that was the case then both airplanes were company financed, and I doubt Lockheed wanted to spend any more money than that was necessary to design and build the 2 prototypes. One of the prototypes flew without any slipper tanks and the other did have one, smaller than the production version.

The total fuel capacity for the JetStar is 2660 gallons of fuel, 390 gallons for each inboard main wing tank, 375 for the outboard main wing tanks and 565 gallons in each slipper. Burning an average of 660 gallons an hour the slipper tanks gave the JetStar about an hour and a half more flying time, this was on the P&W powered models, I never flew the 731 version but I could assume with the much lower fuel consumption they could get about 2 and a half hours from the slippers, or as we called them the auxiliary fuel tanks

JetStar

t
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:36 am

Hey Jetstar,
Great information, thanks for sharing it!
One question for you : regarding the USAF light transport airplane requirement that you mention above, which other companies designed proposals for it besides Lockheed (the eventual Jetstar I presume) and McDonnell (the Model 220 I presume...)?
Thanks,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:26 am

BravoOne wrote:
The JetStar had an infamous fuel tank inspection that was commonly refere to as the "tank & plank" inspection. Even if you passed it with fly colors you were writing a big check. Also had a windshield eddy current inspection that was pricey. These aircraft were not for the faint at heart. Standard Oil had at least two JetSatr ll aircraft out of Oakland, Back in the mid eighties when these aircraft were still fairly young they were sold for small fraction of their original cost.

Beautiful aircraft one the less.


I was involved in 2 wing tank inspections, and yes they were expensive and time consuming, the average inspection required about 2 weeks, and that is if no real problems were found.

Every 5 years the top of the wing, consisting of 4 wing planks, 2 on each wing which were just very large plates, each machined from one large piece of aluminum had to be removed for an internal fuel tank inspection. The top surface of the wing plank had the curvature machined on it and the undersurface had the ribs and stringers machined out, so there were no rivets on the planks and it was very strong for its weight.

The wing planks were attached to the wing by hundreds of high strength screws and had one hell of a large seal under it, if I remember way back each wing plank was about 30 feet long and 3 to 4 feet wide. There are 4 more wing planks on the bottom of the wing, but they were riveted on and were not removable.

Because the wing planks are part of the wing structure the airplane had to be jacked up and carefully shored up to prevent any warping of the remaining wing structure. With the wing planks, which is the top of main wing fuel tanks removed, the interior of the fuel tanks could be inspected for corrosion and any damage to the sealant in the fuel tanks.

Before the wing planks could be removed, the slipper tanks had to come off, they were not an integral part of the wing, the wing passed through the middle of the tank and the slipper tank was bolted to the top of the wing so to remove them the tail cone came off, all hoses and electrical connections disconnected and a wheeled cradle placed under the tank and rolled forward. The slipper tanks very rarely had any corrosion problems.

Almost the first third of the JetStars produced had severe corrosion problems because of the type of sealant used back then, nobody knew much about microbiological growth in jet fuel and on these JetStars they all had to have the old sealant removed, any corrosion found ground out and if past limits the corroded sections if really bad cut out and patches manufactured, which required Lockheed engineering for approval. I knew of one JetStar based at White Plains, an early serial number back in 1970 that needed over 200.000 dollars in repair costs just for the corrosion damage.

Needless to say, this was done by companies who specialized in this type for inspection, many JetStar operators at the same time would do interior updates and repainted the airplane because of the damage to the paint on the wing.

Another JetStar operator, based in the hangar where I worked did exactly this to their JetStar and upon return to the hanger discovered a fuel leak. The upper wing planks, and all the fairings that attached to the wing wherever there was fuel Lockheed installed dome nuts, these were nut plates with a dome over the nut plates that made the nut plate leak proof so extreme care had to be used to make sure the right screw lengths were used because if you did use a longer screw, you would pop off or loosen the dome over the nut plate and the only way to replace a leaking dome nut in the fuel tank was to remove that wing plank and rivet in a new domed nut plate. This is exactly what happened during the installation of a wing fairing and the repair company had to remove the wing plank, replace the broken dome nut and repaint the affected wing plank, plus pay for charters while they were repairing the JetStar, that was one hell of an expensive screw.

The eddy current inspection came after I left the company so I never got involved in it, there was an earlier visual inspection requirement and it required the paint be stripped about 2 inched back around the windshields so most corporate operators when they had their airplanes painted left that area bare.

The JetStar II was designed in a half assed attempt by Lockheed to sell them to the Air Force to replace the older JetStar C-140’s, but the Air Force decided to go with Gulfstream’s instead and with Lockheed’s perilous financial condition because of their massive losses from the L-1011 pulled the plug on the JetStar II after producing only 40 airframes, had they redesigned the wing and removed the drag producing slipper tanks they might have had a winner, but they had no intention to spend another dollar on the JetStar II

Thanks for letting me revisit my JetStar days

JetStar
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:33 am

bunumuring wrote:
Hey Jetstar,
Great information, thanks for sharing it!
One question for you : regarding the USAF light transport airplane requirement that you mention above, which other companies designed proposals for it besides Lockheed (the eventual Jetstar I presume) and McDonnell (the Model 220 I presume...)?
Thanks,
Bunumuring


I never heard of any other companies submitting bids, but it could have happened with Lockheed and McDonnell’s designs selected by the Air Force for prototype production

JetStar
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:09 am

Cheers Jetstar,
I'm curious if Boeing, Convair or any foreign company submitted bids.
Thanks,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:22 am

Thanks Jetstar for a fascinating look back
at a unique aircraft
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:26 pm

Max Q wrote:
Thanks Jetstar for a fascinating look back
at a unique aircraft


The Lockheed JetStar was a unique airplane and probably ahead of its time when it first went into service.

When the JetStar was introduced around 1962, large corporate flight departments consisted of DC-3’s, Lockheed Lodestars and other piston engine airplanes, including some WW2 surplus castoffs. The introduction of the Grumman Gulfstream 1 turboprop opened corporate aviation to the world of pressurization and high altitude flying.

The JetStar was the first jet powered corporate airplane designed for that purpose, but almost all of the chief pilots or flight department managers back then were WW2 pilots and some were just overwhelmed by the complexity of the JetStar with is 4 engines and 6 fuel tanks and as a result of their fear of not being able to keep up with flying the JetStar, would not recommend it to their bosses. Those with experience in high performance WW2 airplanes, like the P-51 or high altitude flying like the B-29 had an easier transition to the JetStar then those who flew the C-47 or similar slow low altitude airplanes.

The JetStar became the queen of the corporate aviation fleet until the late 1960’s when Grumman, using the G1 as a base developed the G2 and with its trans Atlantic range and much larger cabin, but with almost the same operating costs of the JetStar, soon replaced the JetStar as the queen of the corporate fleet and most corporate operators dumped their JetStar’s as soon as their G2’s were delivered.

At HPN, (White Plains NY) where I worked, had one of the largest fleet of corporate airplanes based on an airport and in the late 1960’s there were 13 JetStars based at HPN, and by 1970 or so they were almost all gone. Companies like Union Carbide, which had 3 JetStars replaced them with 3 G2’s, so did Xerox, Combustion Engineering, Mobil Oil, Ogden American and others, to the point that the JetStar fleet dwindled down to 3 based at HPN around 1975.

I feel I was fortunate in my aviation career to fly and also maintain the Lockheed JetStar, and even as today’s corporate jets, which can fly higher, faster and farther using less fuel and are much quieter and safer because of all the computerized systems reducing the workload of the crew, to me there was no better feeling than pushing a large fistful of throttles forward for takeoff.

Thanks again for letting me revisit my JetStar days.

JetStar
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4151
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:52 pm

jetstar wrote:
At HPN, (White Plains NY) where I worked, had one of the largest fleet of corporate airplanes based on an airport and in the late 1960’s there were 13 JetStars based at HPN

Does anyone have a list of all previous operators?

I completely forgot that even the Luftwaffe operated them. I never managed to see any of them, just ex-Luftwaffe Jetstars flying for ZAS Egypt...

 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6262
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:21 pm

I don’t think the TGS crash at KHPN helped the JetStar, but they were thin by then anyway. There was a JetStar II parked at Geneva a couple of years ago. A CL350 can do most everything a Jet Star or G II can do at a fraction of the cost. That fact points out that while many focus on the small increases in performance; the real engineering success has been in refinement, greater safety and cost. A “glass” cockpit has been an immeasurable improvement in safety, but invisible to many.

Texaco had an early one. My old chief pilot at Airco told me that, I believe it was Texaco’s plane that the Lockheed salesman used to fly someone in Mitt Romney’s wedding party at the last minute in the hopes of a sale to American Motors.

GF
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:33 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don’t think the TGS crash at KHPN helped the JetStar, but they were thin by then anyway. There was a JetStar II parked at Geneva a couple of years ago. A CL350 can do most everything a Jet Star or G II can do at a fraction of the cost. That fact points out that while many focus on the small increases in performance; the real engineering success has been in refinement, greater safety and cost. A “glass” cockpit has been an immeasurable improvement in safety, but invisible to many.

Texaco had an early one. My old chief pilot at Airco told me that, I believe it was Texaco’s plane that the Lockheed salesman used to fly someone in Mitt Romney’s wedding party at the last minute in the hopes of a sale to American Motors.

GF


Interesting you should mention the Texas Gulf Sulfur JetStar crash at HPN. At my first job at HPN I worked for a small repair station and worked on many small to medium sized airplanes, but also the company would often supply mechanics to some corporate operators on the field to assist them with extra manpower when they would be doing a major inspection.

I got to work on just about every type of corporate airplane in service and if the company mechanics liked you, they would request us by name whenever they needed additional maintenance help, many companies did this as it was much more economical to do the inspection inhouse then fly the airplane out to a service shop. This was a great way to network and in some cases lead to a job at that company.

I worked on the TGS’s JetStar that crashed, I knew the Chief Pilot who died and the Chief of Maintenance and really felt sad for him as he had to endure the aftermath of the crash.

This JetStar had gone through the 731 conversion and along with the engine change, upgrades were made to some of the systems. One change was to upgrade the voltage regulators from the WW2 old style carbon pile regulators to solid state units. The voltage regulators were part of the starter/generator control panel, one for each engine, while the old style regulators were slow to act, they very reliable. On the conversion they were having occasional problems with generators dropping off line in flight for no obvious reason, in most cases they were able to bring the generator back on line by resetting the generator.

The JetStar with 4 engines also had 4 300 amp generators, normal system flight load was about 600 amps, so the JetStar had an abundance of generator capacity, so much that the JetStar was certified to fly normally with only 3 working generators, have an electrical problem with a generator, electrically disconnect it from the system, trip the fields, both done from the cockpit via electrical switches and continue on your merry way. The starter/generator panel also controlled the generator paralleling system, adjusting the regulators so all the generators shared the load equally preventing undo generator brush wear if one generator had to carry more of the load.

On the TGS Jetstar, on the flight to Canada, they had a problem with the generators dropping off line and were able to get them back on line, they called their mechanic who advised them to not fly the airplane back to HPN until they could determine what happened, but the Chief Pilot made the decision to fly back to HPN anyway. That night there was a very bad storm over the New York area, so bad that my company’s pilots who had landed at Newark (EWR) about the same time the TGS JetStar crashed to drop off their passengers intending to ferry the JetStar back to HPN where their cars were parked, decided to leave the JetStar at EWR and rented a car instead for the one hour drive back to HPN, not knowing about the crash. The accident report showed the JetStar had suffered an electrical loss because ATC lost the transponder blip as it approached HPN, then it reappeared 15 or so minutes later so it seemed they got at least one generator back online. With no generators, the batteries would last about 30 minutes or so if the pilots reduced a lot of the electrical load.

My feeling was that with low batteries, the one operating generator was able to supply enough power in emergency mode, including enough power to power the rotary inverter, also a large electric drawing component which supplies AC power to the flight instruments, but not enough to charge the batteries. On the JetStar the electric auxiliary hydraulic pump, the largest electric drawing component automatically comes on when selecting gear up or flap down to assist the hydraulic system, with this pump kicking in when the pilots selected full flaps for the minimum visibility approach the generator dropped off, losing power to the inverter and with no power to the flight instruments they crashed on approach. The JetStar did not have any flight recorders so there was no factual evidence of actually what happed in the cockpit.

As I said in my previous post, most corporate Chief Pilots were WW2 veterans, and this was the case with the TGS Chief Pilot, a 25,000 hour pilot. During the war pilots had a mission to accomplish at all costs and some pilots developed a complete the mission at all costs syndrome and this appeared to me what happened to this Chief Pilot. It makes him look bad to the company when the airplane breaks down, especially out of the country and afraid of their jobs if it happens too often, so it was lets get the airplane home and deal with it there, not in Canada. What makes this really sad is the co-captain also had an A&P license and should have known better, but when the boss says lets fly what is he going to do, refuse to fly and possibly lose his job or go, which he did and paid the ultimate price.

At my first JetStar job, I worked for one of these WW2 25,000 hour pilots and he had the same problem, also he refused to do any more maintenance than was absolutely necessary, so I quit and went back to being an aircraft mechanic until another JetStar job came along. A few years after I left the company this JetStar, a single digit serial number became the first JetStar to be scrapped because of extensive wing.corrosion, it was beyond economical repair, worth more in parts than the airplane was worth whole. I could fill up a forum with just all the stupid things this idiot did in my 3 and a half years I worked for him.

Fortunately today these WW2 pilots are long since gone and the FAA has cracked down on these Chief or I always say Cheap Pilots with more intensive inspection requirements, but even with all of this, you still cannot remove stupid from the left seat in the cockpit, as it was that night in the TGS JetStar.

JetStar
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:42 pm

Jetstar - some great stories, thank you. I had a job offer once that included a Jetstar, but I had a better offer that very same week. Still, I sometimes wonder what flying the Jetstar would have been like.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:25 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
Jetstar - some great stories, thank you. I had a job offer once that included a Jetstar, but I had a better offer that very same week. Still, I sometimes wonder what flying the Jetstar would have been like.


Flying the JetStar, once you learned its idiosyncrasies and handling characteristics was like flying any other airplane in its size category, what made it more challenging was learning its systems. I saw some pilots in my JetStar ground school struggle to understand the fuel system, with its 6 fuel tanks, multiple crossfeed and fuel tank isolation valves or its electrical systems, with its multiple ways of supplying power to the electrical busses and they had to learn all of this to pass their flight simulator training sessions and ultimately their FAA type rating flight check.

JetStar
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: McDonnell 220

Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:55 pm

jetstar wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
Jetstar - some great stories, thank you. I had a job offer once that included a Jetstar, but I had a better offer that very same week. Still, I sometimes wonder what flying the Jetstar would have been like.


Flying the JetStar, once you learned its idiosyncrasies and handling characteristics was like flying any other airplane in its size category, what made it more challenging was learning its systems. I saw some pilots in my JetStar ground school struggle to understand the fuel system, with its 6 fuel tanks, multiple crossfeed and fuel tank isolation valves or its electrical systems, with its multiple ways of supplying power to the electrical busses and they had to learn all of this to pass their flight simulator training sessions and ultimately their FAA type rating flight check.

JetStar


Did you know any of the JetStar pilots at Hess?
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: McDonnell 220

Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:29 pm

BravoOne wrote:
jetstar wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
Jetstar - some great stories, thank you. I had a job offer once that included a Jetstar, but I had a better offer that very same week. Still, I sometimes wonder what flying the Jetstar would have been like.


Flying the JetStar, once you learned its idiosyncrasies and handling characteristics was like flying any other airplane in its size category, what made it more challenging was learning its systems. I saw some pilots in my JetStar ground school struggle to understand the fuel system, with its 6 fuel tanks, multiple crossfeed and fuel tank isolation valves or its electrical systems, with its multiple ways of supplying power to the electrical busses and they had to learn all of this to pass their flight simulator training sessions and ultimately their FAA type rating flight check.

JetStar


Did you know any of the JetStar pilots at Hess?


Didn’t know many JetStar pilots outside of HPN, I believe Hess was based in Linden NJ. But I am not sure.

Once the Gulfstream 2’s started selling like hotcakes, almost all the original JetStar operators sold them at whatever price they could get and the prices dropped accordingly. Smaller sized companies started to buy them up because of their low price, but after about a year or so they realized how expensive they were to operate they sold them.

One wealthy industrialist bought a JetStar and based it at HPN in the hangar where I was working as a mechanic between my 2 other JetStar jobs, they had 2 captains and a co-pilot mechanic like me and the owner often decided at the last minute he wanted to fly. The co-pilot mechanic handed his notice in and asked me if I would be interested in the job, so I flew a trip with them flying to and around Europe for 9 days. The owner was so demanding, it was his airplane that when we returned back to HPN I told the Chief Pilot I was not interested in the job. I had a sense this flight department would not last and I was right, about 6 months later he sold the airplane.

JetStar

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos