|
Ola posted:Unembeddable video of King Air landing with stuck nosegear, very nicely done. Applauding himself at the end. 
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Ola posted:Unembeddable video of King Air landing with stuck nosegear, very nicely done. He couldn't move all of his pax and baggage to the back and try to save the engines and props? He never even tried much up elevator after landing. Maybe I'm biased since most of my hours are in taildraggers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:He couldn't move all of his pax and baggage to the back and try to save the engines and props? He never even tried much up elevator after landing. Maybe I'm biased since most of my hours are in taildraggers. 1. The bags are already in the back, and and so are the pax (except for the lav seat), if it's a normal King Air 100/200 seating config. 2. He does apply full up elevator prior to nosewheel touchdown. But none of that matters, because 3.Moving the CG so the plane sits on its tail would put it outside of the allowable envelope and would be the most idiotic (and criminally negligent) thing he could possibly do. His job at that point is to do the most normal (or otherwise conducive to occupant safety) landing possible, not try to pull off gee-whiz heroics to try to save the engines and props.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:He couldn't move all of his pax and baggage to the back and try to save the engines and props? He never even tried much up elevator after landing. Maybe I'm biased since most of my hours are in taildraggers. Turboprops don't just stop turning when you shut the engines down. There was no way to save the engines or the props.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Turboprops don't just stop turning when you shut the engines down. There was no way to save the engines or the props. I'm not suggesting a dead stick landing. He's got a perfectly good airplane minus nose gear and he could easily approach with more power and the plane trimmed down on a long fast shallow approach and float it along a long runway of his choosing. If it's completely impossible to make a King Air want to stand on it tail by shifting internal weight, then so be it. As for pax safety what's the difference between plowing the nose in on rollout versus another method that might save the expensive parts of the plane at best and at worst winds up the same way? You could at least try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I'm not suggesting a dead stick landing. He's got a perfectly good airplane minus nose gear and he could easily approach with more power and the plane trimmed down on a long fast shallow approach and float it along a long runway of his choosing. You made a reference to "most of my hours." Are you a licensed pilot? Do you understand the adverse effects of an aft center of gravity (especially if it's outside the limit) on longitudinal stability and therefore safety?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Also the rear gear is kind of by definition behind the aft center of gravity limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
vessbot posted:You made a reference to "most of my hours." Are you a licensed pilot? Do you understand the adverse effects of an aft center of gravity (especially if it's outside the limit) on longitudinal stability and therefore safety? Yes. Yes. I land airplanes all the time either three on the ground all at once, or using the elevator to manipulate the craft and touch down on the mains and hold the tail off the ground until way below the speed that on takeoff that the tail would come up, for better visibility. If I can keep the tail off the ground below stall speed on rollout in an airplane that desperately wants to sit on its rear end, CG-wise, I don't think it's a particularly stupid hypothetical to wonder why a trike couldn't do the opposite. So far you've misread my original question and answered an irrelevant problem about turbines, and now you come back for another crack by acting like 'most of my hours' could mean anything other than as pilot. If it is flat impossible to make a King Air, which I freely admit to never flying, shift the CG behind the mains, then ok, what I wondered is irrelevant. Otherwise, i can't imagine what makes that curiosity so offensive that it can't be answered directly. Apologies, it wasn't you that brought up turbines. Sorry for the hostile tone. tactlessbastard fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Otherwise, i can't imagine what makes that curiosity so offensive that it can't be answered directly. Childhood abuse
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
who cares about saving the engines and props? That's what insurance is for. Dude did it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Nickelsack posted:who cares about saving the engines and props? That's what insurance is for. I mostly fly a personally restored from bare frame and crated engine 1939 Aeronca. You can't even realistically insure it enough to make up for all the time and love put in it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Did page 1081 just turn into the YouTube comments section? Sure feels like it. Here have a jet. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Yes. I did answer it simply and directly when I said that "moving the CG so the plane sits on its tail would put it outside of the allowable envelope." After that, you continued to entertain the thought of the pilot sitting the plane on its tail by shifting the CG, which legitimately brought into question whether you have the background understanding to interpret that terse statement. A licensed pilot should, whereas an enthusiast or student pilot with only a few hours might not, and would need a longer explanation. In this last post you continue to do that again ("If it is flat impossible to make a King Air, which I freely admit to never flying, shift the CG behind the mains..."). The important question isn't whether it's possible to shift the CG that far back (it probably is, by having everyone get out of their seats and bunch up in the tail), but whether it's wise or desirable. And the answer to that is a flat out no, because 1) The aft CG limit is set by a minimum standard of stability, i.e., controllability, and therefore should not be exceeded. 2) A tricycle airplane's aft CG limit is in front of the main gear. We know this since if it was loaded behind the main gear, it would sit on its tail on the ground (I nearly did this once while loading cargo). From 1 and 2, we can deduce that if you load the plane so the tail sits on the ground, you will exceed the aft CG limit. You also suggest sitting it on its tail by use of the elevator instead of a CG shift. Indeed you can keep the tail of a taildragger up at lower-than-stall speeds by adding a pitching moment with the elevator. If you add prop blast into the mix, you can do this all the way down to zero speed. You see airshow and bush pilots do this, which they can since the pitch-down is aided by the braking. This won't work in a King Air because the tail isn't behind the props, and it won't work in any tricycle gear airplane because braking will pitch the airplane down. And even if you did somehow manage to apply enough brake to stop the airplane without pitching it down while at the same time applying enough thrust to prevent the pitch-down all the way to a standstill, you'd have to keep the power up until someone gets under the nose with a jack, right in front of the spinning props. Again, gee-whiz heroics that put lives in danger instead of a set of props and engines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
That plane sure does have a lot of nipples.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Yes. OK so let's run the scenario through. You get everyone onboard to squeeze against the rear bulkhead. You get the CG behind the main gear. You then fight like hell and pray you've got enough trim to keep the nose down and not stall/loop it on approach. You probably don't, but let's say you do. You touch it down, on the mains and hover the nose using pure elevator to keep the props off the ground. And now, you're rolling out, feathering the props, geeeently braking to eaaaaase the nose...... Down? No, dumbass, all your weight is behind the mains. Now that pig sits heavily on its rear end, which wasn't designed to take that load, and collapses with everyone squished back there, causing untold damage to and probably writing off the airframe, not to mention probably more than a few injuries to the pax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
This poor C5 must have had the Fajita Explosion Salad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
No matter how much it begs, this is why you don't give your airplane Chipotle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
hay guys let's just move the CG to the back what could possibly go wron http://i.imgur.com/0gVLaKp.mp4
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ what have I just read here. No in a King Air B200 it is not possible to load it up in such a way to make it sit on its rear end. By my back of the envelope calculation you'd need 3200 pounds of poo poo in the aft cabin to do so. Now let's assume that you have an airplane full of sumo wrestlers and enough Vaseline to jam all eight of them out back - good luck actually controlling it in the air, and GOOD loving LUCK trying to keep the fucker straight on roll-out if you somehow manage to land it. No, your little bush plane with a stall speed under 40 knots and an elevator that is over half the total area of the horizontal stabiliser is not equivalent to a B200 that stalls at very nearly 100 knots clean and has a tiny-rear end elevator and no prop wash over it. And further to the point with PT6 engines prop strikes aren't really that big of a deal (at least compared to other turboprops). New props, hubs and power section (which includes the gearbox) as necessary, along with a gas generator inspection and you'll be good to go. Also tactlessbastard posted:He couldn't move all of his pax and baggage to the back and try to save the engines and props? He never even tried much up elevator after landing. Maybe I'm biased since most of my hours are in taildraggers. Is the kind of attitude that kills people in this business.  "But I thought if I did/didn't do this thing I could avoid having this happen/not happen!"If your airplane is on fire, has total propulsion failure, a critical control failure or a major structural failure (basically anything needing a MAYDAY call), as far as I'm concerned the insurance company already owns it - if it can be used again after I get it back on the ground that's just a bonus for everyone involved. None of this idiotic "hurf durf gotta save the engines" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I saw it in the movies though
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Obviously the solution is to equip every plane with two redundant sets of landing gear, one taildragger and one tricycle. Safety!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
maybe we could just put a parachute on the plane 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Two men are sitting in the waiting room at a high-profile legal firm. "So what are you here for?" "Oh I got my back hosed up in an airplane landing because the nose wheel got stuck and the crew made us go to the back of the airplane to try and do some Loony Tunes bullshit to tilt the airplane onto it's tail."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Obviously the solution is to equip every plane with two redundant sets of landing gear, one taildragger and one tricycle. Safety! If the plane had an airframe parachute, this wouldn’t have happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
While you can't turn it in to a tailsitter and hope to remain in control, you can feather the props. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjFg5uEIszA I don't know if saving money was part of his thinking, but you avoid flying prop shrapnel and the risk that the prop strike knocks something loose in the engine compartment and starts a fire. Added risk is perhaps less control in the flare, which would be a bigger thing with the main gear deployed compared to this gear up landing. Alternatively, they could run a treadmill under the aircraft so it lands with zero groundspeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Ola posted:Alternatively, they could run a treadmill under the aircraft so it lands with zero groundspeed. I'm thinking a pile of mattresses might work better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McECUtM8fw "what's that beeping noise?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
my kinda ape posted:Tickets for a flight from NYC(JFK) to Sydney this week are over $22,000 EACH WAY for this. I would have thought anyone spending that kind of dough on flying would have their own jet, or at least own a share of one. Wonder how much a Global Express or Gulfstream would cost to rent for that trip?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:I would have thought anyone spending that kind of dough on flying would have their own jet, or at least own a share of one. $6k+ per hour adds up fast on a trip that long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:I would have thought anyone spending that kind of dough on flying would have their own jet, or at least own a share of one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't even consider that you couldn't even get the passengers to cooperate. Sorry for the derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Private jets don't always have the best legs, and the passenger experience will be infinitely better in a larger cabin. You trade ground comfort for cabin experience, basically. Worth it on long flights. This is what the bizjets owners at my local field tend to do for longer trips. Fly the bizjet into FRA, CDG or LHR, do security / check-in at the GA / executive terminal, hop on board the airliner. Supposedly gives most of the comfort for a fraction of the hassle and price of actually flying a bizjet intercontinentally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
lol if you don’t take a helicopter to and from the airfield
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:I would have thought anyone spending that kind of dough on flying would have their own jet, or at least own a share of one. Much more comfortable to bang your trophy wife/high class escort on a bed than on the floor or seat of a gulfstream and take a shower afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Yeah, I didn't even consider that you couldn't even get the passengers to cooperate. Sorry for the derail. You're still not getting it. The crux of this issue has nothing to do with the feasibility of moving the CG aft of the limit. Not with how easy it is to convince the pax to cram in the tail, not with whether they can physically fit back there, not with whether fitting them all there will move the CG enough, not any of that. What's actually important, what you need to understand, is the ramification of actually accomplishing that CG shift. And the ramification is that by exceeding the aft CG limit, you are exceeding the flight tested design limit for how much you can reduce stability. The further back the CG is, the more unstable a plane is. All aerodynamic surfaces always wants to be behind the CG. The tailfeathers of a dart, an arrow, or an airplane? They want to be in the back, which is why they're there. They keep the tail in the back after any disturbane (whether it's pilot-induced, turbulence, etc.) and, thereby, the nose forward. If, instead, they were in the front, they'd still want to immediately flop to the back, and the aircraft would be extremely unstable. Any microscopic disturbance from nose-straight-ahead flight would keep exacerbating in a feedback loop until the aircraft flips around and the surfaces are where they want to be, in the back. And this isn't either-or, but rather a sliding scale. The more you move a CG aft, there more, relative to that, the tail feathers move forward, and thereby stability is decreased. With decreased (or, worse, reversed) stability, when the nose bobbles off the side (or up or down) due to a gust or control input, instead of passively returnig to where it was, it will continue going off that way, quite possibly without enough authority from your controls to straighten out. Like Mr. Chips said, either a loop or a nosedive. Of all the aicraft limitations not to exceed, this is one of the most important. You know how everyone's always harping not to fly overweight? Well in a forced choice, I'd easily rather fly overweight 100% of the time before flying aft of the CG limit. This is an extremely important topic (and safety precaution) that should have been made clear in pilot training. I'm not harping on it now to spike the football in your face about how wrong you are on a forum. It's to make you aware now, to fill in a vital gap from your training, and I hope you take it as such. All the other flight instructors ITT will back me up on it. (Well, this is AI thread. I was thinking more about the other one) I'd be happy to explain any other details. vessbot fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
My "probably yes" was an off the cuff estimate that is apparently wrong. But if you can't do it with people, you can definitely do it with cargo. One time before a full flight, I had calculated the CG would be right at the aft limit, in the flight condition, so everything is good to go, right? Well late in the loading process, I see the plane in an uncomfortably nose high attitude, and a whooole hell of a lot of nose strut showing. Then I realize the plane is not at the aft CG limit, but rather that minus 2 pilots in the cockpit and plus 2 loaders in the tail! As I run to go prop the tail up with my shoulder, "Oh poo poo stop stop stop, you go get in the cockpit right now, and you go start putting boxes in the nose!!" (This was a Beech 99)  A more impressive VC10 in a similar situation, that did not get caught. vessbot fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
vessbot posted:My "probably yes" was an off the cuff estimate that is apparently wrong. But if you can't do it with people, you can definitely do it with cargo. One time before a full flight, I had calculated the CG would be right at the aft limit, in the flight condition, so everything is good to go, right? Well late in the loading process, I see the plane in an uncomfortably nose high attitude, and a whooole hell of a lot of nose strut showing. Then I realize the plane is not at the aft CG limit, but rather that minus 2 pilots in the cockpit and plus 2 loaders in the tail! As I run to go prop the tail up with my shoulder, "Oh poo poo stop stop stop, you go get in the cockpit right now, and you go start putting boxes in the nose!!" (This was a Beech 99) Rear engines make for super sensitive aft CofG. I remember the CRJ200 jack points being on the wing roots, and a non-load bearing tail stand. loving weird looking with two people in the flight deck, gear up, jacks only on the wings nose just floating out in the front, and you still couldn't allow anyone in the cabin at the back because it would start to tip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Rear engines make for super sensitive aft CofG. I remember the CRJ200 jack points being on the wing roots, and a non-load bearing tail stand. loving weird looking with two people in the flight deck, gear up, jacks only on the wings nose just floating out in the front, and you still couldn't allow anyone in the cabin at the back because it would start to tip. I don't see what rear engines have to do with CG sensitivity. Of course the CG is further back relative to the fuselage, but in the end the CG is where the CG is, and the main gear and wing are placed accordingly. I guess it would actually make a difference if there's a CG shift late in the design process of a plane, once the major structural components are in place and moving them would be too much trouble; then hodge podge solutions are enacted instead. Like the wing sweep of the DC-3. There's no aerodynamic reason for it on a 200 knot piston plane. The CG was too far back (I dunno if they made the fuselage longer, or simply mis-estimated where it would originally be, or what) and instead of moving the wing root back to match the CG, which would take too much redesign, they kept it where it is and swept the wing instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
food-rf posted:This is what the bizjets owners at my local field tend to do for longer trips. Fly the bizjet into FRA, CDG or LHR, do security / check-in at the GA / executive terminal, hop on board the airliner. It's not even a cost thing. The pj just isn't the best solution if you're actually trying get sleep in a flat bed or want any sort of services beyond what can be kept on ice for a few hours. The only reason to do it across an ocean is scheduling or absolute privacy. Also pretty sure they aren't flying into LHR in a private jet, last time I had someone do it I think they got a slot at Northolt
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
In RC aircraft modelling the saying goes "a nose heavy plane flies poorly, a tail heavy one flies once".
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 16:15
|
|
