Hey guys.

Is there a procedure that tells which specific engine to start first on a Twin-Engine? In Prepar3d, FS2Crew always tells me to start engine 2 and then 1. Is it always like that on every flight?

Cheers!

Ricardo

NearMiss wrote:

Hey guys.

Is there a procedure that tells which specific engine to start first on a Twin-Engine? In Prepar3d, FS2Crew always tells me to start engine 2 and then 1. Is it always like that on every flight?

Cheers!

Ricardo

At WN it’s always 2 and then 1 unless an air start is required and then they start 1 first.

At Endeavor on the CRJ-200 it was always start number 2 then 1, except on first flight of the day you started with 1. At JetBlue on the E190, we start 1 and then 2.

737MAX7 wrote:

NearMiss wrote:

Hey guys.

Is there a procedure that tells which specific engine to start first on a Twin-Engine? In Prepar3d, FS2Crew always tells me to start engine 2 and then 1. Is it always like that on every flight?

Cheers!

Ricardo

At WN it’s always 2 and then 1 unless an air start is required and then they start 1 first.

For a 737, that makes sense as once the #2 engine is started, the Isolation Valve can be closed and the right pack turned on to provide air to the cabin, then the #1 can be started. On other planes, the order can be different or sometimes not particularly relevant.

CRJ200flyer wrote:

At Endeavor on the CRJ-200 it was always start number 2 then 1, except on first flight of the day you started with 1. At JetBlue on the E190, we start 1 and then 2.

CR7/9 is same as the CR2 procedure shown here. Check the fuel check valve on first flight of the day.

NearMiss wrote:

Hey guys.

Is there a procedure that tells which specific engine to start first on a Twin-Engine? In Prepar3d, FS2Crew always tells me to start engine 2 and then 1. Is it always like that on every flight?

Cheers!

Ricardo

In some cases, it's that way in the procedure for fuel balance reasons. In a 737 for example, the APU pulls fuel from the left side, so by starting 2 first, you burn a bit extra on the right.

NearMiss wrote:

Hey guys.

Is there a procedure that tells which specific engine to start first on a Twin-Engine? In Prepar3d, FS2Crew always tells me to start engine 2 and then 1. Is it always like that on every flight?

Cheers!

Ricardo

It tends to depend on the systems that each engine drives.

For example, on the A330 you always start number one first because it drives the blue system hydraulic pump, and the blue system runs alternate braking and the parking brake. Nice things to have ASAP. For the same reason, when you do single-engine taxi in, you always shut down number two.

On the A350, on the other hand, the hydraulic architecture is symmetrical, with both engines driving both hydraulic systems, so it doesn't really matter which one you start first. However, you still always start number one first for procedures commonality. For single-engine taxi you can shut down either engine, but unless you are expecting several tight left turns you typically shut down two to keep things "common".

The Saab 340s and Q200s, Q300s and Q400s are #2 first where I work, however very rarely they'll request #1 first which often throws off ground crew starting the plane! When the Q400s do single engine taxis it is always the #1 engine that is shutdown.

I remember watching a 737 startup tutorial and the narrator said that the reason for the engine 2 startup first is because the APU is taking fuel from the left tank, so they try to even it out a bit. Sounded good to me.

787 - you start both at The same time

thepinkmachine wrote:

787 - you start both at The same time

And on the 747 they do 2 at a time

ERJ-145: we spun #2 first and then #1.
ERJ-175: engine 1, then 2
A-320: engine 1, then 2
B-737: spin number 2, then 1.

As per a lot of these posts it varies by the plane.

I would like to make some comments about the 747, so anyone more experienced please correct me. Only experience I have with the queen is in FS2020 which is not fully realistic yet. However, I have some familiarity with the cockpit at least in game.

I think for real life startup we start engine 4 first and then engine 1. We taxi in these 2 engines and start the other ones. Of course all under the assistance of the APU bleed. It varies though, some people said they have seen engine 2 and 3 started before 4 and 1.

Boeing757100 wrote:

As per a lot of these posts it varies by the plane.

I would like to make some comments about the 747, so anyone more experienced please correct me. Only experience I have with the queen is in FS2020 which is not fully realistic yet. However, I have some familiarity with the cockpit at least in game.

I think for real life startup we start engine 4 first and then engine 1. We taxi in these 2 engines and start the other ones. Of course all under the assistance of the APU bleed. It varies though, some people said they have seen engine 2 and 3 started before 4 and 1.

#4 is started first because primary brakes or powered by the #4 hydraulic system. #1 hydraulics powers the alternate brakes.

I’ve worked for 3 B747 operators and the sequence was always 4, 1, 2, 3.

We start the right engine B757/B767 first for the same reason, primary brakes on the RT hydraulic system.

fr8mech wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

As per a lot of these posts it varies by the plane.

I would like to make some comments about the 747, so anyone more experienced please correct me. Only experience I have with the queen is in FS2020 which is not fully realistic yet. However, I have some familiarity with the cockpit at least in game.

I think for real life startup we start engine 4 first and then engine 1. We taxi in these 2 engines and start the other ones. Of course all under the assistance of the APU bleed. It varies though, some people said they have seen engine 2 and 3 started before 4 and 1.

#4 is started first because primary brakes or powered by the #4 hydraulic system. #1 hydraulics powers the alternate brakes.

I’ve worked for 3 B747 operators and the sequence was always 4, 1, 2, 3.

We start the right engine B757/B767 first for the same reason, primary brakes on the RT hydraulic system.

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

RetiredWeasel wrote:

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but wouldn’t starting 3 and 4 create asymmetric thrust? Because there is thrust on one side and nothing on the other? Wouldn’t that be a bad way to taxi?

Boeing757100 wrote:

RetiredWeasel wrote:

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but wouldn’t starting 3 and 4 create asymmetric thrust? Because there is thrust on one side and nothing on the other? Wouldn’t that be a bad way to taxi?

Starting engines was done stationary with the parking brakes set. The only exception to this was in a delayed engine start which was only one engine to start. The asymmetrical idle thrust on 2 engines running on one side with brakes set was never a problem. Edit: I have to correct this a little. Starting the engines while being pushed back hooked to the tug was also approved but the sequence was the same.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

As far as starting two at a time, does that also depend on if the aircraft has auto-start capability. I've always heard that without auto-start, the engines were started one at a time because the crews were only monitoring one engine at a time.

Boeing757100 wrote:

RetiredWeasel wrote:

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but wouldn’t starting 3 and 4 create asymmetric thrust? Because there is thrust on one side and nothing on the other? Wouldn’t that be a bad way to taxi?

You wouldn't taxi before you started all four engines anyway, so that point is moot. If you're at maximum take-off weight, you'd be too heavy to taxi on just two engines.

Air Kevin: I've read that in previous discussions regarding this subject..However we didn't have the auto start function and we definitely started 2 at a time. Not too hard to monitor 2 side my side engine tapes at the same time. Also made and edit to my previous post.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

I’m not current on our newer aircraft, with auto start, but I believe that we start onside. So, 3&4 then 1&2.

As noted, the APU on the -100/200 just didn’t have the capacity for 2 engine. Also, monitoring 2 JT9D engine starts may have been a little much. Though, when pressed for time, we would do what I called, as did my instructors, a cascade start. When the starter cutout on #4, the guy riding 3rd seat would engage the #1 starter. At stable idle, the guy driving would take over the start #1, and so on. It cut, maybe 2 minutes out of the sequence, probably a little less.

77west wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

787 - you start both at The same time

And on the 747 they do 2 at a time

Unless they are PWs which required to be started 1 at a time with all packs off. (4,1,2, then 3).

GE 74s can start two at a time with 1 pack running (4 & 1 then 2 & 3)

Genx 74s can start two at a time all packs off. (4 & 1 then 2 & 3).

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Boeing757100 wrote:

As per a lot of these posts it varies by the plane.

I would like to make some comments about the 747, so anyone more experienced please correct me. Only experience I have with the queen is in FS2020 which is not fully realistic yet. However, I have some familiarity with the cockpit at least in game.

I think for real life startup we start engine 4 first and then engine 1. We taxi in these 2 engines and start the other ones. Of course all under the assistance of the APU bleed. It varies though, some people said they have seen engine 2 and 3 started before 4 and 1.

After engine start, it’s not very common to to 2 or 3 engine taxi before departure due to the amount of thrust required to move a heavy bird. But after landing at lighter we weights I will bring down either 2 or 3 depending the turns I need to make to enter the parking stand. If i am light enough, I can go down to 2 & 3.

AirKevin wrote:

RetiredWeasel wrote:

77west wrote:

Is it accurate to say you could start 1 and 4 at the same time but some operators prefer one at a time to lower the demands on the APU bleed? I am fairly certain I have seen a cockpit video where 1 and 4 were spun up at the same time.

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

As far as starting two at a time, does that also depend on if the aircraft has auto-start capability. I've always heard that without auto-start, the engines were started one at a time because the crews were only monitoring one engine at a time.

Boeing757100 wrote:

RetiredWeasel wrote:

On the red tail airlines I worked at we started 2 engines simultaneously on the 744 normally. 3 and 4 then 1 and 2. On the 200's, one at a time. The APU didn't have quite the output as the 400. Normally it's starting sequence was 4-1-2-3. Things could change for cross bleed starts and delayed engine starts for fuel conservation or MEL's

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but wouldn’t starting 3 and 4 create asymmetric thrust? Because there is thrust on one side and nothing on the other? Wouldn’t that be a bad way to taxi?

You wouldn't taxi before you started all four engines anyway, so that point is moot. If you're at maximum take-off weight, you'd be too heavy to taxi on just two engines.

Usually when manual start is required on the 747, yes it is procedure to start 1 at a time because there is more to monitor during the engine start because you are no longer just watching oil pressure and N1 rotation and relying on auto start to handle (hot, hung, no light off) abnormalities, you have to watch for those issues as well during Manual start. Sequence then becomes 4, 1, 2, 3.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Air Kevin: I've read that in previous discussions regarding this subject..However we didn't have the auto start function and we definitely started 2 at a time. Not too hard to monitor 2 side my side engine tapes at the same time. Also made and edit to my previous post.

Incidentally, your previous post wasn't even there at the time of my post, as we were both typing at the same time.

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that.

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that? Thank you.

WesternDC6B wrote:

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that? Thank you.

Something about checking a fuel valve

77west wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that? Thank you.

Something about checking a fuel valve

It’s been a long while, but I have a copy of my iold company’s CRJ sops and looked it up. Yes, it was to do the Fuel Check Valve check.

bigb wrote:

77west wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Why is that? Thank you.

Something about checking a fuel valve

It’s been a long while, but I have a copy of my iold company’s CRJ sops and looked it up. Yes, it was to do the Fuel Check Valve check.

Correct, fuel check valve check. However, with some common sense, if you forgot it, you could still check the fuel valve. Half the test was done pre-flight, and half the test post flight. Basically, you have to check the system with each engine running by itself. So you start 1, do the test, then start 2. On shutdown, you shutdown 1, do the test, and shutdown 2. With any common sense, you can figure out the test if you do start the wrong engine in the wrong order.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

bigb wrote:

77west wrote:

Something about checking a fuel valve

It’s been a long while, but I have a copy of my iold company’s CRJ sops and looked it up. Yes, it was to do the Fuel Check Valve check.

Correct, fuel check valve check. However, with some common sense, if you forgot it, you could still check the fuel valve. Half the test was done pre-flight, and half the test post flight. Basically, you have to check the system with each engine running by itself. So you start 1, do the test, then start 2. On shutdown, you shutdown 1, do the test, and shutdown 2. With any common sense, you can figure out the test if you do start the wrong engine in the wrong order.

This was common at my old shop to do if we forgot.

My original ME instructor said to start the one closest to the battery.

HAWKXP wrote:

My original ME instructor said to start the one closest to the battery.

Starting up a Tristar in the Middle East could be the same. The Tristar APU had very poor air delivery when it was hot outside.
We normally started Nbr 3 first, then closed the isolation valve to get Nbr 3 pack on line., then started nbr 1.
But, sometimes this was a struggle, and the engine would hang. So the alternative plan was to close the aft isolation valve, and start Nbr 2 from the APU. But you had to ready to open this valve and select a start on nbr 3 just before starter cut out on nbr 2, or the APU would surge and shut down. With a flight engineer starting the engines these tricks became normal.

WesternDC6B wrote:

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that? Thank you.

CRJs start the right engine first (and single engine taxi on the right engine) because the outboard the brakes run off Hydraulic system 2 (driven by the right engine). The inboard brakes are powered by system 3 (2 electric hydraulic pumps). If taxing single engine on the Left engine, the procedure was to manually turn on the standby electric pump for system 2 to ensure adequate pressure for the outboard brakes without the the right engine running. Of course, all the electric pumps would automatically turn on with the flaps out of 0.

The start sequence on the MD-11 is 3 - 1 - 2. The APU is rubbish. Engine start has to be performed with packs off. Once eng #3 is running the pneumatic system #3 can be isolated and pack #3 be operated again. Same for system #1.
System handling (packs off/on, isolating the systems, APU shut down, etc.) is done automatically though.
There are 2 pneumatic Isolation valves 1-2 and 1-3. You cannot power pneumatic system #3 without also pressurizing pneumatic system #1 unless engine #3 is running.

For engine shut down it's always wings off first. This makes the aircraft safe for the ground crew and the tail engine can run until external power is provided.

Web500sjc wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

bigb wrote:

CRJs always number 2 unless it’s the first flight of the day then it’s Engine number 1

Why is that? Thank you.

CRJs start the right engine first (and single engine taxi on the right engine) because the outboard the brakes run off Hydraulic system 2 (driven by the right engine). The inboard brakes are powered by system 3 (2 electric hydraulic pumps). If taxing single engine on the Left engine, the procedure was to manually turn on the standby electric pump for system 2 to ensure adequate pressure for the outboard brakes without the the right engine running. Of course, all the electric pumps would automatically turn on with the flaps out of 0.

Now I remember, that is exactly it. I had a bad habit of leaving that pump on after starting number 1 up and notice it after blocking in.

Damn, I really data dumped my CRJ knowledge hard core.

Challenger fuel system was a mess, worse on the bizjet with tanks stuffed everywhere. No synoptic and 22 abnormals or emergency procedures. Trying to get a full load was art and science. The Global fixed it.

Hopefully the various answers illustrate for the OP that the order of start can vary by aircraft due system design and even system test requirements. Then there are also abnormal procedures.

For example, on the A320 family the typical procedure is to start engine 1 first, but if the APU was deferred we would start engine 2 first due to the location of the connection for the air start hose being rather close to engine 1. After the start was complete on engine 2 we’d complete pushback and if necessary reposition to a location where we could perform a crossbleed start for engine 1.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Challenger fuel system was a mess, worse on the bizjet with tanks stuffed everywhere. No synoptic and 22 abnormals or emergency procedures. Trying to get a full load was art and science. The Global fixed it.

The high level sensors in the fuel tanks were always causing problems in the CRJ. Did the other Challengers have the same issue?

On the 727 it was "engine start sequence, 3, 2, 1...make it so" and it was done as I requested.

Alias1024 wrote:

Hopefully the various answers illustrate for the OP that the order of start can vary by aircraft due system design and even system test requirements. Then there are also abnormal procedures.

For example, on the A320 family the typical procedure is to start engine 1 first, but if the APU was deferred we would start engine 2 first due to the location of the connection for the air start hose being rather close to engine 1. After the start was complete on engine 2 we’d complete pushback and if necessary reposition to a location where we could perform a crossbleed start for engine 1.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Challenger fuel system was a mess, worse on the bizjet with tanks stuffed everywhere. No synoptic and 22 abnormals or emergency procedures. Trying to get a full load was art and science. The Global fixed it.

The high level sensors in the fuel tanks were always causing problems in the CRJ. Did the other Challengers have the same issue?

Yes, but we probably were trying to top the tanks more often and we didn’t have maintenance issues—it was always a full up plane. What’s an MEL? The fuselage tanks were the problem, tucked in the keel, you had to make sure fueling never was interrupted or you couldn’t fill them. Wings could be an issue trying to top them with fuel going out the vents. The three (!) tail tanks sometimes would give a momentary feeding nuisance warning, if slightly off schedule. I’ve done more than a few 8+ legs—KBGR-ULLI, KBDL-LIPZ, PANC-UHHH, EGGW-KIAD for starters. I was taxiing out at Delhi once, full and needed it all for Rome. Long waits, one engine, it was mess trying to keep it in balance with one running. The Global made it easy until passengers then wanted to go 100 nautical further than was comfortable then it started all over again.

thepinkmachine wrote:

787 - you start both at The same time

Even more astonishing when you hook up a maintenance laptop and watch the electric maintenance page, when starting both engines at the same time - all 4 CMSC loading over 105%....

celestar345 wrote:

thepinkmachine wrote:

787 - you start both at The same time

Even more astonishing when you hook up a maintenance laptop and watch the electric maintenance page, when starting both engines at the same time - all 4 CMSC loading over 105%....

Even without a laptop, you can almost feel the cables frying…

The B-52 has cartridges at each engine so all 8 can be started. On manual start, there is one engine that is always started first, I recall the #3 but I could be wrong. It was plumbed for the cart start, then the others start using the bleed air.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The B-52 has cartridges at each engine so all 8 can be started. On manual start, there is one engine that is always started first, I recall the #3 but I could be wrong. It was plumbed for the cart start, then the others start using the bleed air.

On a still morning, the BUFF could probably taxi in 20 minutes when the smoke cleared.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The B-52 has cartridges at each engine so all 8 can be started. On manual start, there is one engine that is always started first, I recall the #3 but I could be wrong. It was plumbed for the cart start, then the others start using the bleed air.

On a still morning, the BUFF could probably taxi in 20 minutes when the smoke cleared.

What smoke? Well maybe a little

Haven't read all the responses above so am confident most questions have already been answered. From my years of twin engine turboprop ops in passenger situations, the #2 was started first if not left running while passengers were up/down loaded (which was done perfectly safely especially in northern Canada airfields or off-strip Twin Otter ops). During our Dash 7 years, the normal sequence for starting was 3, 4, 2 then 1. We had to modify that sequence with the -150 IR model (a one-off, s/n 102) due to the relocation of the APU to the #4 nacelle. We used the APU for electrical power on the ground (also had bleed air capability for the air conditioning packs) however it was prohibited to be used while the #4 engine was running. (The normal APU location on the Dash 7 was in the tail - close to the fueling connection!). Our start sequence was 3, 2, 1, APU OFF, 4. The only time we would change that sequence was when we used external ground power (connected to the aft section of the #3 nacelle) when we would start 2, 1, DISCONNECT external power, 3 then 4.

A little bit of trivia to add to former posts!

What was the -7 like to operate? A good friend from the Reserves flew them for Ransome Airways. Actually, merged into PAA’s list, flew the A310 and finished at DL.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What was the -7 like to operate? A good friend from the Reserves flew them for Ransome Airways. Actually, merged into PAA’s list, flew the A310 and finished at DL.

First "airliner" developed by then deHavilland Canada. They asked Boeing to design the flight deck. It's very "old school" - at least the s/n we used. The US Army has quite a few, to my knowledge, the largest single operator of the few remaining DH7's. It had two really limiting qualities - 4 engines vice 2, and slow, slow, slow.. Most DH7 operators that did not require its STOL capabilities traded them in for the relatively high efficient DH8-100's in the early 1980's.

For our purposes in the Canadian National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP: https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/nation ... ce-program ), the Dash 7 with its long range fuel gave us over 8 hours of endurance. In Canada's arctic archipelago, alternates were few and far between. We needed the range to be able to cover our sovereign territories while exercising our northern program out of Iqaluit, NU.

The airplane itself, although STOL cabable, was rarely used in that capability. But at the time (~1983) when a platform was being considered to replace the L-188 Electras operated by then Nordair, the Dash 7 was the logical choice. Our s/n was a one-off build with a higher gross weight and a re-purposed APU (as stated in an earlier post). It had state of the art sensors (for the mid 1980's) and its initial dedicated task was sea ice formation and classification for communication to arctic shipping in almost real time.

But I digress! It was a very easy aircraft to fly with very few "gotchas". But only one flight simulator was ever developed by Flight Safety International at Downsview (Toronto). Highly used but not upgraded to industry standard due to fewer and fewer operators. The US Army upgraded their fleet (don't know the numbers, but less than a dozen airframes) to glass cockpits. Our NASP machine was old school in that regard but, and a HUGE but, had the best maintenance team in the business since its beginnings with Bradley Air Services in 1986. It was also a launch customer for the Universal Navigation System UNS-1A which used scanning DME, RHO-RHO, LORAN-C, VLF/Omega and dual INS as navigation inputs.

Easy airplane to fly. Fun job to exercise - no passengers, no fixed schedule, no cargo, no flight attendants (a sore point!!!) and most importantly, NO HAT!

Hope that answers your Q's, GF - I have really enjoyed your posts over the years - a true voice of competence and experience

Fly safe.

Thanks very much for the complements and information, Yikes. Very nice. I remember seeing them in-out of LGA in Henson and Ransome colors. My father’s cousin was a stateless refugee after WW II who the British settled in Canada. He eventually worked as a flight mechanic working new deliveries at Downsview. He retired when BBD bought it, offered a very nice package to retire.

I have my good days and bad days here!