If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:25:22 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: "Stealth Pilot" wrote this diagnosis didnt make sense to me. how could an aircraft that has just shed it's load fail? with the shedding of the load the airframe gets relatively stronger. the locheed reports indicate that the aircraft had an undetected crack in the root of the mainspar that had grown to such an extent that the structure was compromised. the events that you see on the video are coincidental and not the cause of the crash. the crack grew to the point that it broke up in flight. that was the cause. It shed its load of water, by dropping it on a fire. If you keep your control surfaces in the same position, you will suddenly pull more G's when the plane is much, much lighter. Those G's were more than a plane with an already compromised wing could stand, so it broke up. Does that make more sense? yes but I'm still not convinced. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Stealth Pilot" wrote this diagnosis didnt make sense to me. how could an aircraft that has just shed it's load fail? with the shedding of the load the airframe gets relatively stronger. the locheed reports indicate that the aircraft had an undetected crack in the root of the mainspar that had grown to such an extent that the structure was compromised. the events that you see on the video are coincidental and not the cause of the crash. the crack grew to the point that it broke up in flight. that was the cause. It shed its load of water, by dropping it on a fire. If you keep your control surfaces in the same position, you will suddenly pull more G's when the plane is much, much lighter. Those G's were more than a plane with an already compromised wing could stand, so it broke up. Does that make more sense? Not really. You're pulling more gees because you're lighter. The wings are exerting the same force as before, thus the spar is under the same load as before. The reason you have G limits as well as loading limits is because of fixed-weight components in the structure. For example, it's my understanding that the engine attachments in light singles are a major factor in having G limits instead of just loading limits. Your wings don't care if you're pulling 3 Gs at max gross or 6 Gs at half max gross, but in the 6 G case your engine mounts have to bear twice the load. In a case like this, where it's the wings that failed, it can't be due to attachments holding fixed-weight items. My totally uninformed guess, since there was a crack, is that suddenly shedding this load caused the wings to flex DOWN, and this flexing was the final straw that caused the crack to fail catastrophically. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sep 12, 11:58*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article , *"Morgans" wrote: "Stealth Pilot" wrote this diagnosis didnt make sense to me. how could an aircraft that has just shed it's load fail? with the shedding of the load the airframe gets relatively stronger. the locheed reports indicate that the aircraft had an undetected crack in the root of the mainspar that had grown to such an extent that the structure was compromised. the events that you see on the video are coincidental and not the cause of the crash. the crack grew to the point that it broke up in flight. that was the cause. It shed its load of water, by dropping it on a fire. *If you keep your control surfaces in the same position, you will suddenly pull more G's when the plane is much, much lighter. *Those G's were more than a plane with an already compromised wing could stand, so it broke up. Does that make more sense? Not really. You're pulling more gees because you're lighter. The wings are exerting the same force as before, thus the spar is under the same load as before. The reason you have G limits as well as loading limits is because of fixed-weight components in the structure. For example, it's my understanding that the engine attachments in light singles are a major factor in having G limits instead of just loading limits. Your wings don't care if you're pulling 3 Gs at max gross or 6 Gs at half max gross, but in the 6 G case your engine mounts have to bear twice the load. In a case like this, where it's the wings that failed, it can't be due to attachments holding fixed-weight items. My totally uninformed guess, since there was a crack, is that suddenly shedding this load caused the wings to flex DOWN, and this flexing was the final straw that caused the crack to fail catastrophically. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I think this 'model' makes sense. The C130 was in coordinated flight with a heavy load of water. that means it had to be trimmed for a lot of nose up to carry that load. Now, drop the load. the airplane will pitch nose up because of the trim setting, but its momentum will want it to continue straight ahead. The wings now have a much greater angle of attack, much more lift than was needed before. If you were flying straight and level then yanked back on the yoke which I think is pretty much the same thing aerodynamically, you might expect the wings to fail upward. That's my take on explaining what I've seen in the video. Give me enough speed and enough elevator authority and I might be able to fail the wings of any airplane. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article
, a wrote: I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I think this 'model' makes sense. The C130 was in coordinated flight with a heavy load of water. that means it had to be trimmed for a lot of nose up to carry that load. Now, drop the load. the airplane will pitch nose up because of the trim setting, but its momentum will want it to continue straight ahead. The wings now have a much greater angle of attack, much more lift than was needed before. If you were flying straight and level then yanked back on the yoke which I think is pretty much the same thing aerodynamically, you might expect the wings to fail upward. That's my take on explaining what I've seen in the video. Give me enough speed and enough elevator authority and I might be able to fail the wings of any airplane. Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sep 12, 2:42*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article , *a wrote: I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I think this 'model' makes sense. The C130 was in coordinated flight with a heavy load of water. that means it had to be trimmed for a lot of nose up to carry that load. *Now, drop the load. the airplane will pitch nose up because of the trim setting, but its momentum will want it to continue straight ahead. The wings now have a much greater angle of attack, much more lift than was needed before. *If you were flying straight and level then yanked back on the yoke which I think is pretty much the same thing aerodynamically, you might expect the wings to fail upward. That's my take on explaining what I've seen in the video. Give me enough speed and enough elevator authority and I might be able to fail the wings of any airplane. Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon Mike, if you look closely at the video I think you'll see the change of pitch occur when the water is dropped. Of course if the airplane stayed straight and level the reduced weight would reduce the wing loading, but my theory is related to the dynamics, not the steady state. We have all been taught to be gentle with the contols, this is an argument that we have to be gentle with pseudo control changes too. It would be like flying into a sharp edged updraft -- that can take one's wings off too. There are lots of theories here, but my bias is showing! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
"Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. It does seem counter-intuitive. I had problems with the concept when it came to explaining max maneuvering speed. I had it explained to me, something like this: You are cruising along at low weight, and hit a strong upward air column, suddenly. With a light wing loading, the strength of the updraft will make the machine move upward rapidly, which will cause a G to register on your G meter. Now, you take the same plane, loaded to max weight and going the same speed as before. You hit the same updraft, but the plane has a higher wing loading, and higher mass, but the same wing area, so it will accelerate upwards more slowly. That will register a lower G on your meter. Same force applied to the higher mass is equal to less acceleration, as shown in F=MA. In thinking about max maneuvering speed, the more gradually you move into an updraft, the less force will suddenly be applied, and I think another factor comes into play in this. The same wing with a higher wing loading will not be as efficient at creating more lift. It will slip, or "mush" through the air more at higher wing loading. I believe the same factor took place in the fire fighting airplane that pulled the wing off. With the lighter load, the wing slipped less, and created more lift at the lighter weight. It changed direction much more quickly, which converts to higher G's, which broke it's wing. I don't know. I hope to always (usually?) explain things in the least technical way possible. That is the teacher side of me trying to make things make sense to people who are not experts in the subject that I am attempting to explain. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm all wet. Something must make it true, because that is what people say who know how to make fancy math work as related to aeroplanes. -- Jim in NC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
"Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. What causes something to break more easily; a steady pull, or a sharp impact (or pull)? A steady bend is the result of more weight carried by the airplane. A sudden G load causes the wing to flex rapidly. At least that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! g -- Jim in NC |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. What causes something to break more easily; a steady pull, or a sharp impact (or pull)? A steady bend is the result of more weight carried by the airplane. A sudden G load causes the wing to flex rapidly. At least that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! g In the case of the firefighting plane, if it was flying level and dropped a large weight (slurry), the wings would have the same load, either with or without the dropped weight. Other airframe components, such as engine mounts, fixed equipment, crew, however, would experience a sudden increase in G loading. If the plane was flying at too high speed, sudden updrafts/gusts could overload the wings. IIRC, the aircraft in question was an older C-130 and did not have the proper, mandatory inspections performed on the wing spar box sections. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote In the case of the firefighting plane, if it was flying level and dropped a large weight (slurry), the wings would have the same load, either with or without the dropped weight. Other airframe components, such as engine mounts, fixed equipment, crew, however, would experience a sudden increase in G loading. If the plane was flying at too high speed, sudden updrafts/gusts could overload the wings. My point is that the plane had a load and probably had substantial up trim in, and full power, so when it's load was released with the power kept the same, it probably zoomed into a climb, mostly on its own. The pilot also very well could have pulled back on the yolk after the load was released as is normal practice, to gain altitude. They have to drop very close to the ground, so gaining altitude after a drop is S. O. P. IIRC, the aircraft in question was an older C-130 and did not have the proper, mandatory inspections performed on the wing spar box sections. Sadly, also true. The fact remains that the wing was overloaded (for it's condition) soon after release, though some combination of plane's aerodynamic characteristics and pilot actions. -- Jim in NC |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
Orval Fairbairn wrote
In the case of the firefighting plane, if it was flying level and dropped a large weight (slurry), the wings would have the same load, either with or without the dropped weight. Other airframe components, such as engine mounts, fixed equipment, crew, however, would experience a sudden increase in G loading. If the plane was flying at too high speed, sudden updrafts/gusts could overload the wings. Say What!! You may know what you are trying to say, but it sure didn't come out making sense. From Wikipedia: The g-force experienced by an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall. The term g-force is considered a misnomer, as g-force is not a force but an acceleration. You probably meant to say "wings would have the same LOAD FACTOR". Clearly, the load supported by the wing of a loaded aircraft is more than the wing loading of an empty aircraft even though both are experiencing only 1g. If the pilot doesn't reduce the angle of attack (amount of lift produced by the wing)as the load is dropped, the wing root will experience an increase in g-force. G-force is equal to the actual lift being produced by the wing (at that angle of attack and airspeed) divided by the weight being lifted. From a aerodynamic viewpoint, the smart thing to do would be to push- over (reduce the angle of attack) just as the fire retardant is released, thereby reducing the g-force on the wing root. This, however, tends to prevent the retardant from exiting the aircraft. What the pilots seem to be doing is pulling up AND turning at the point of drop and thereby making a bad situation even worse. Bob Moore |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Come lift a cup with Joe Rasymas! | Fred | Soaring | 5 | October 24th 06 08:42 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |