Pushing the limit

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:10:40 +0100, Mycroft wrote:

Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.

Myc
Well, there are certainly instances of P-51s coming back with a few more
degrees of dihedral in the wings and maybe missing a bolt or two from
pulling out of dives that went way over the redline. Probably other
fighters as well.

During the evacuation of Burma in 1942, aircraft routinely carried
civilian passengers far beyond their rated capacity. DC-3s carried 50
or more people. Two-man Lysanders carried five and six people.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too?

Several B-52s were over G'd during Linebacker II, including one D model that
did a inadvertant barrel roll. During Desert Storm, several crew members recall
seeing well over 400 KIAS when flying low levels the first week. The BUFF max
IAS is 390 KIAS.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Mycroft" wrote in message
...
Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded
the
AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.

I had a P51D all the way out to .75 once after an O2 failure at altitude. I
had some "guest" engineers from North American as well as my personal crew
chief look the bird over pretty well afterward. Things were REALLY hum'in in
the pit there for a while for me:-)))
Although we estimated the tip rotational velocities went through the roof,
the airplane came through it ok. I did have a walking stick for awhile as
the airplane went into compressibility, but once down into denser air it
recovered ok with gentle back pressure to keep the g in limits.
No biggie really...tough airplane!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too?

From "Air Force" magazine V83 N4:

"At Da Nang, a civilian airlift began, presaging the later confusion and terror
at Saigon. Edward J. Daly, president of World Airways, defied US Ambassador
Graham A. Martin and dispatched two Boeing 727s to Da Nang, flying on the first
one himself. After landing, his airplane was mobbed by thousands of people,
some 270 of whom were finally jammed on board. (All but a handful of these were
armed soldiers-not the civilians that Daly had intended to evacuate.) The 727
took off amid gunfire and a grenade explosion that damaged the flaps. It hit a
fence and a vehicle before staggering into the air. People had crowded into the
wheel well, and one man was crushed as the gear came up and jammed.

"Somehow the 727 made it back to Saigon, gear down and with split flaps,
managing to land safely. The dreadful photos of the dead man's feet hanging
from the gear doors told the miserable story. Ironically the one man's death
saved four others who had also climbed into the wheel well, for his crushed
body had prevented the gear from retracting all the way. Later, when the
details of the overweight and damage-laden takeoff were sent to Boeing for
analysis, the response was that the 727 should not have been able to fly."


Chris Mark

In article , David Lesher
writes
"Mycroft" writes:

I thought I would pose the limit question as it make a change from best this
that or the other questions. Another story comes to mind from the Berlin
airlift when a C47 was given a load of coal really meant for an Avro York so
ended up with double it's max load; The pilot commented "I thought she was a
bit sluggish".


I recall the Airlift story the C47 misloaded with n sheets of
not the ordered perforated aluminium planking for runways, but n of
perforated STEEL planking...

According to a caption on a documentary on TV the other night, the C-
47's payload was 60000 lb; so what's the problem? ;-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In message - "Mycroft" writes:

Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.

Myc



In the most general sense, any military equipment often used beyond
it's limits or in a way it wasn't designed to - after all, how can you
fight without improvising?

I think an IAF F-15 landing having slightly more than one wing is quite
beyond what MD engineers designed it for.

An F-4E being able to land one piece after doing 14G was also remarkable
(although turned into static display and technitians training).




************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

(Arie Kazachin) wrote:

In message - "Mycroft" writes:

Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.

Myc


I wonder where people get these ideas?...Lancaster engines (at
least the Merlin 224/225 models) cannot be over=revved (they have
'Constant speed controls' on the props and they cannot be
over-boosted either, they have ABC units installed (Automatic
Boost Controls). So where do these stories come from?...or were
they fitted with some other types of engine?.
--

-Gord.

Pushing an airplane beyond its flight manual, FAA-mandated or design
limits is no rarity. Sometimes it happens because of emergency
conditions. Sometimes it's operational priority. Sometimes it's
because of a (pick the ones that match the situation)
dumb/unthinking/ignorant/'high-spirited' operator.
BTW a 60000 C47 is about the twice the normal operating weight. but
there's no difficulty about taking off overweight as long as nothing
breaks. All oen needs is lots of long smooth hard-surface runway. A
stiiff headwind is nice, too. Taking off at twice normal weight
requires 143% of normal lift-off speed. (Lift is proportional of
square of speed). As long as the tires don't blow, the wings bend and
break or an engine quits . . . I personally know a man who flew a C47
with 74 people aboard on an emergency wartime evac in Burma. FWIW the
106 that was at the AFA went out to about 2.45M, .45 over its red line
(ISTR). The J75 was cranked up about 30% over rated thrust, too. I
also know the guy who took a 104A out so far it scorched the paint on
his Sidewinders. He never owned up how fast that was except to say it
was well past the SLOW light (121C). As for the Lanc engines -
adjustments can be tweaked, as was done on the 106 above. I heard N1
on that bird was upped to about 97.5% vice a normal 93. And who here
has never exceeded a red line on his personal automobile?
Walt BJ

On 11 Sep 2003 20:25:43 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

Pushing an airplane beyond its flight manual, FAA-mandated or design
limits is no rarity. Sometimes it happens because of emergency
conditions. Sometimes it's operational priority. Sometimes it's
because of a (pick the ones that match the situation)
dumb/unthinking/ignorant/'high-spirited' operator.
BTW a 60000 C47 is about the twice the normal operating weight. but
there's no difficulty about taking off overweight as long as nothing
breaks. All oen needs is lots of long smooth hard-surface runway. A
stiiff headwind is nice, too. Taking off at twice normal weight
requires 143% of normal lift-off speed. (Lift is proportional of
square of speed). As long as the tires don't blow, the wings bend and
break or an engine quits . . . I personally know a man who flew a C47
with 74 people aboard on an emergency wartime evac in Burma. FWIW the
106 that was at the AFA went out to about 2.45M, .45 over its red line
(ISTR). The J75 was cranked up about 30% over rated thrust, too. I
also know the guy who took a 104A out so far it scorched the paint on
his Sidewinders. He never owned up how fast that was except to say it
was well past the SLOW light (121C). As for the Lanc engines -
adjustments can be tweaked, as was done on the 106 above. I heard N1
on that bird was upped to about 97.5% vice a normal 93. And who here
has never exceeded a red line on his personal automobile?
Walt BJ

Of course you want to be *really* sure that you don't load a 47 tail
heavy. That makes for a very short, very interesting flight :-)

Al Minyard