Qantas ex LAX
Brian Garrett
from the US on Qantas flight QF100 to NZ and Sydney out of LAX on Sunday
the 18th April US time.
He commented that the 747 took most of the runway to get airborne and
then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did. Climb
rate was low and the nose of the 747 was lowered and the shudder went
away. climb was re-established and the shudder returned.
Eventually the shudder disapeared and the flight was normal as far as he
could determine for the rest of the flight
Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
you 747 types like to comment.
My comment to my friend was it was a good thing there was an Aussie crew
up front if stall approach was the situation
--
Brian Garrett
John Bartels
> then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did.
Yep. Totally normal. The shudder is most likely the nose gear. Whilst most
of us don't time these things, I'd guess that the roll was in the order of
50-60 seconds.
>Climb rate was low and the nose of the 747 was lowered and the shudder went
> away. climb was re-established and the shudder returned.
> Eventually the shudder disapeared and the flight was normal as far as he
> could determine for the rest of the flight.
Whilst it appeared to your friend that the shudder and climb were related, I
would very much doubt it. Quite violent shuddering can be generated by the
nose gear, and it sometimes hangs in for quite a while after takeoff. Other
thumps and bangs from the flaps and gear doors are quite normal. The torque
tube for the flap system can give a loud noise/vibration during retraction,
and again, this can go on for 3-4 minutes (on and off).
> Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
> If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
> you 747 types like to comment.
>
Wow, what a huge leap this one is. The a/c was almost certainly at max
volumetric fuel, but, for a number of reasons, was quite likely a little
below max takeoff. In any event, even at max takeoff weight, the 744 is
nowhere near the stall. I've flown this a/c many times 'hot and heavy' and
whilst things happen slowly, there is more than adequate performance.
Remember too, that you have to be able to continue one of these on 3
engines, and if done properly (not like United), this is not a big deal
either. If you want to see things happening in slow motion, try a 747-1/200
with JT9s.
The shaker in the cockpit activates well before buffet anyway.
> My comment to my friend was it was a good thing there was an Aussie crew
> up front if stall approach was the situation
>
If they got near the stall the QAR will have dobbed them in to the company
before arrival in Sydney.
Irrespective of what the shudders may have been, I'll happily bet anything
that it wasn't pre stall buffet.
John Bartels
Gregory Bond
> Whilst most
> of us don't time these things, I'd guess that the roll was in the order of
> 50-60 seconds.
Some of us do..... under 30sec for MEL-SYD leg, then 75sec for the
SYD-LAX leg. from start of roll to rotate.
Am I a geek or what?
Brian Garrett
near stall comment it is just that in 40 years of flying in heavies as a
pax I cannot remember a situation meeting the description my friend gave
me.
Having flown in the -100 and also seeing them pop out of lower CTA when
I was instructing in the early seventies I do not envy anyone that cut
there 747 teeth on that aircraft. I rmeember DCA? revising the CTA steps
to take account of their miserable climb performance. Come to think of
about this, it took another 25 years to get that airspace back as OCTA.
John Bartels wrote:
>
> > He commented that the 747 took most of the runway to get airborne and
> > then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did.
>
> Yep. Totally normal. The shudder is most likely the nose gear. Whilst most
> of us don't time these things, I'd guess that the roll was in the order of
> 50-60 seconds.
<snip>
> > Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
> > If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
> > you 747 types like to comment.
> >
>
> Wow, what a huge leap this one is. The a/c was almost certainly at max
> volumetric fuel, but, for a number of reasons, was quite likely a little
> below max takeoff. In any event, even at max takeoff weight, the 744 is
> nowhere near the stall. I've flown this a/c many times 'hot and heavy' and
> whilst things happen slowly, there is more than adequate performance.
> Remember too, that you have to be able to continue one of these on 3
> engines, and if done properly (not like United), this is not a big deal
> either. If you want to see things happening in slow motion, try a 747-1/200
> with JT9s.
--
Brian Garrett
Sandy
Firstly, read JB's later post for the overall perspective.
Secondly, when your friend comments that he was nowhere near the nose of the
a/c, this is the answer.
The nosewheels are stopped by a rubber braking strip. Any out of balance
condition as the gear retracts causes further rumbling when it is slowing
down.
Back in the centre of the a/c [or is that "center" ex-LAX?], as the main
gear retracts, brake is applied to the wheels as part of the retraction
process before they enter the wells. If one is a little slow retracting the
main gear and one of them is out of balance [more chance with 16 vs 2!],
then there will be considerable vibration until the braking effect of
retraction takes place. This can actually worsen as the tyre slows down. We
often feel it in Base Training when we leave the gear down for cooling
following a stop on the runway for a quick crew changeover. At Max Tow
ex-LAX, the tyre speeds are very high and this further exacerbates the
situation.
If in doubt, ask the crew. Like JB, I very strongly doubt that it was even
moderately close to the stall, given the normal margins.
Cheers
Sandy
--
Sandy Howard
Sydney, Australia
Reply to: san...@NOSPAMhartingdale.com.au
John Bartels
Gregory Bond <g...@itga.com.au> wrote in message
news:86r9pe4...@hellcat.itga.com.au...
> "John Bartels" <john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Whilst most
> > of us don't time these things, I'd guess that the roll was in the order
of
> > 50-60 seconds.
>
> SYD-LAX leg. from start of roll to rotate.
>
> Am I a geek or what?
Indirectly, we time them too. The clock is started when take off power is
set, so if you happen to glance down you can see the approximate take off
roll time. The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
JB
Luke S
LHR. Again, the takeoff roll seem to go on forever, but when we finally left
the ground, that shudder came. I think it happens irrespective of the JT9's
of the 100's, because this had a set of RR RB211 D4D's, the 58,000
pounders!. I dont think it would have tickled the stall, I get that
conclusion from looking at a Power-Lift curve, we didnt seem to have a
noticeable sink rate.
Luke S
___________________________________________________
Luke Salomons BEng(Mech), BSc(App. Phys),
Mechanical Engineer
___________________________________________________
Brian Garrett wrote in message <371D2A...@ESandS.com>...
>A friend of mine with some limited aviation background just returned
>from the US on Qantas flight QF100 to NZ and Sydney out of LAX on Sunday
>the 18th April US time.
>He commented that the 747 took most of the runway to get airborne and
>then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did. Climb
>rate was low and the nose of the 747 was lowered and the shudder went
>away. climb was re-established and the shudder returned.
>Eventually the shudder disapeared and the flight was normal as far as he
>could determine for the rest of the flight
>Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
>If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
>you 747 types like to comment.
>
>My comment to my friend was it was a good thing there was an Aussie crew
>up front if stall approach was the situation
>
>
>--
>Brian Garrett
jacko
<john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>
Jacko
Frank Paterson
<john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>
Would that equate to about 3000 ft over the upwind end of 16R at SY?
Swear I saw a QF 767 do that one day, or something close to it.
Frank
James Matthew Weber
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:55:14 +1000, "John Bartels"
><john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>>
>First ever 767 Cat Shot JB? ;-)
>
>Jacko
I doubt it was cat shot, and I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
maths.
Published empty weight on a 767-300ER is 203,000 pounds
Available engine thrust on the largest CF6-80C2 for a 767-300ER is
60,800 pounds. The largest PW engine for a 767-300ER is the PW4060,
and the RR engine is RB211-524H, both of which have marginally lower
thrust the GE.
Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
19fps^2
8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
122kts.
The wind needs to be a whole lot more than 35kts, you need a tropical
cyclone to do this, and I doubt anyone is going to take off in a 767
during such an event.
The reality is a 767-300 is going to weigh more than empty weight, and
and there are somethings called drag and friction that will cause it
to accellerate at less than the 59g, so the 87kts is an upper limit on
ground speed, 70kts is more realistic.
IF it isn't an ER (and there are not many non-ER 767-300's), the
weight comes down a little (10,000 pounds) , but the engine
performance comes down a lot. The largest non-ER engine is 57,000
pounds, so acelleration on non-ER will be slower.
cow...@ram.net.au
br...@ESandS.com wrote:
> Thanks John for that answer. I wasn't trying to be provocative with that
> near stall comment it is just that in 40 years of flying in heavies as a
> pax I cannot remember a situation meeting the description my friend gave
> me.
>
> Having flown in the -100 and also seeing them pop out of lower CTA when
> I was instructing in the early seventies I do not envy anyone that cut
> there 747 teeth on that aircraft. I rmeember DCA? revising the CTA steps
> to take account of their miserable climb performance. Come to think of
> about this, it took another 25 years to get that airspace back as OCTA.
>
> John Bartels wrote:
> >
> > > then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did.
> >
> > of us don't time these things, I'd guess that the roll was in the order of
> > 50-60 seconds.
> > > Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
> > > If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
> > > you 747 types like to comment.
> > >
> >
> > volumetric fuel, but, for a number of reasons, was quite likely a little
> > below max takeoff. In any event, even at max takeoff weight, the 744 is
> > nowhere near the stall. I've flown this a/c many times 'hot and heavy' and
> > whilst things happen slowly, there is more than adequate performance.
> > Remember too, that you have to be able to continue one of these on 3
> > engines, and if done properly (not like United), this is not a big deal
> > either. If you want to see things happening in slow motion, try a 747-1/200
> > with JT9s.
>
> --
> Brian Garrett
>
To put it precisely, the rotate speed must not be less than 1.1 Vs ( 10%)
above the stall or V2 less than 1.2 Vs (20%) above the stall. As has been
stated the aeroplane must, at max auw for the conditions, be able to achieve
these figures with a critical engine failed and climb at a gross climb
gradient of 3.0%. It would be very ham fisted flying to get near the stall
even accidently and the stall warning stick shaker system activates at 1.07
Vs. cowboy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Unknown
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:02:40 GMT, jac...@my-dejanews.com (jacko)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:55:14 +1000, "John Bartels"
>><john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>>>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>>>
>>First ever 767 Cat Shot JB? ;-)
>>
>>Jacko
>I doubt it was cat shot, and I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
>maths.
>
>Published empty weight on a 767-300ER is 203,000 pounds
>Available engine thrust on the largest CF6-80C2 for a 767-300ER is
>60,800 pounds. The largest PW engine for a 767-300ER is the PW4060,
>and the RR engine is RB211-524H, both of which have marginally lower
>thrust the GE.
>
> Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
>19fps^2
>8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
>That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
>122kts.
Go out to the airport and watch! 767's take off at these speeds every
day!
Regards,
Polically Incorrect.
(Who has some 5,500 hours in 767's)
John Bartels
James Matthew Weber <jmw...@goodnet.com> wrote in message
news:371f269a...@news.goodnet.com...
> I doubt it was cat shot, and I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
> maths.
>
> Published empty weight on a 767-300ER is 203,000 pounds
> Available engine thrust on the largest CF6-80C2 for a 767-300ER is
> 60,800 pounds. The largest PW engine for a 767-300ER is the PW4060,
> and the RR engine is RB211-524H, both of which have marginally lower
> thrust the GE.
>
> Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
> 19fps^2
> 8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
> That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
> 122kts.
> cyclone to do this, and I doubt anyone is going to take off in a 767
> during such an event.
>
> The reality is a 767-300 is going to weigh more than empty weight, and
>
> and there are somethings called drag and friction that will cause it
> to accellerate at less than the 59g, so the 87kts is an upper limit on
> ground speed, 70kts is more realistic.
>
> IF it isn't an ER (and there are not many non-ER 767-300's), the
> weight comes down a little (10,000 pounds) , but the engine
> performance comes down a lot. The largest non-ER engine is 57,000
> pounds, so acelleration on non-ER will be slower.
Well Matt, I'm impressed by your maths, but as usual you have a little habit
of not actually taking in all of the factors.
It is normal for an aircraft to have a few knots already on the clock (the
IRS anyway) when the roll starts. A rolling start can give you up to 20
knots before you even stand the thrust levers up.
As for the rotate speeds....Well I suggest that you need some more
publications before you start telling me what you doubt. At 110,000 kgs the
rotate IAS is 122 knots. Whilst taking off at that weight means that we are
effectively empty, it is regularly seen at the quiet times of the day.
At the lowest weight that we can actually see (with the cabin intact), the
Vr is 118. V2 in both cases is about 12 knots faster.
John Bartels
Les Bell
Departure". Takes the active, takes off, goes to burner and climbs
vertically to 15,000' or so.
Then a 757 calls and asks for the same thing - tower replies, "You can
try!". He didn't make it, but the deck angle was impressive. . .
Best,
--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
Frank Paterson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:55:14 +1000, "John Bartels"
> <john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
> >767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
> >
John Bartels
Frank Paterson <fra...@zipworld.net.au> wrote in message
news:3720155c...@127.0.0.1...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:55:14 +1000, "John Bartels"
> <john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
> >767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
> >
> Would that equate to about 3000 ft over the upwind end of 16R at SY?
> Swear I saw a QF 767 do that one day, or something close to it.
>
> Frank
Let's do some more math here Frank. That will keep Matt Weber happy....
Liftoff at G is pretty common (again some wind and a rolling start helps).
That leaves just under 3000 metres to the end of 16R. To reach 3000 ft
(approx 1000 metres) you will need a climb angle of 18.5 degrees. The target
attitude at rotate (for a weight which will give liftoff at G) is 19-20
degrees. If the headwind increases at all after takeoff, the pitch attitude
will probably end up near 25 degrees to contain the IAS increase. Cleanup is
supposedly at 1000 ft, but by the time the nose is lowered at light weight
and windy conditions it is normally around 2000 ft. Cleanup attitude is
initially likely to be in the order of 14 degrees. So, the average pitch
attitude will be in the order of the 18 degrees that you need to make 3000
feet in the distance available.
So, the answer is that 3000 feet by the end of 16R is roughly achievable
(given the right weight and wind). And you can see why we hate being given
low level offs after takeoff.
You might care to relate that sort of performance to the departures out of
Sydney. Most of us find the STARS and SIDS to be curiously lacking in any
sort of aviation performance sense.....
On the other hand, the aircraft can be a real pig to get to descend.
John Bartels
John Visser
before he rotates. I had to read it twice too...
I liked the 59 G's figure quoted (I thing that was supposed to read .59
G's). Just think of it - 200 Pax (how many pax in a 767?) - and seats
piled into the rear bulkhead. And all those bottles of Duty Free booze...
Now what will *that* do to your CoG?
;-)
Cheers
John
"theb...@telstra.net" wrote:
> jmw...@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) wrote:
>
> >That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
> >122kts.
>
> Go out to the airport and watch! 767's take off at these speeds every
> day!
>
> Regards,
> Polically Incorrect.
> (Who has some 5,500 hours in 767's)
--
NOTE! Change of address:
j...@zipworld.com.au
ICQ 8529894
(Chat, Voice & Video)
P Jones
>>> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>>>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
>maths.
>
> Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
>19fps^2
>8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
>That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
>122kts.
Maths is all very fine, until applied to the real world.
767-300 @ 100000Kgs Rotate Speed is 114 Kts.
>The wind needs to be a whole lot more than 35kts, you need a tropical
>cyclone to do this, and I doubt anyone is going to take off in a 767
>during such an event.
>
Cyclone ? Is that what hit Sydney this week ?
>The reality is a 767-300 is going to weigh more than empty weight
Empty weight 88 - 90000kgs.
Why be so picky..the guy said he was airborne in 8secs...you weren't there !
Peter Kerwin
<john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>James Matthew Weber <jmw...@goodnet.com> wrote in message
>news:371f269a...@news.goodnet.com...
>> I doubt it was cat shot, and I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
>> maths.
>>
>> Published empty weight on a 767-300ER is 203,000 pounds
>> Available engine thrust on the largest CF6-80C2 for a 767-300ER is
>> 60,800 pounds. The largest PW engine for a 767-300ER is the PW4060,
>> and the RR engine is RB211-524H, both of which have marginally lower
>> thrust the GE.
>>
>> Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
>> 19fps^2
>> 8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
>> That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
>> 122kts.
>> The wind needs to be a whole lot more than 35kts, you need a tropical
>> cyclone to do this, and I doubt anyone is going to take off in a 767
>> during such an event.
>>
>> The reality is a 767-300 is going to weigh more than empty weight, and
>>
>> and there are somethings called drag and friction that will cause it
>> to accellerate at less than the 59g, so the 87kts is an upper limit on
>> ground speed, 70kts is more realistic.
>>
>> IF it isn't an ER (and there are not many non-ER 767-300's), the
>> weight comes down a little (10,000 pounds) , but the engine
>> performance comes down a lot. The largest non-ER engine is 57,000
>> pounds, so acelleration on non-ER will be slower.
>
>Well Matt, I'm impressed by your maths,
>John Bartels
Me too ... seems to have had a lot of time on his hands ;)
--
Pete
James Matthew Weber
wrote:
>
>>>> The shortest I have ever seen is 8 (EIGHT) seconds. Lightweight
>>>>767-300 into a 35 knot+ wind.
>
>>I doubt it was really 8 seconds. Do the
>>maths.
>>
>> Maximum accelleration is then 121,600/203,000 is .59G or
>>19fps^2
>>8 seconds gets you 152fps which is 87kts.
>>That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
>>122kts.
>
>Maths is all very fine, until applied to the real world.
>
>767-300 @ 100000Kgs Rotate Speed is 114 Kts.
With Flaps 20 in a 35kt+ winds.
And please show me a real life 767-300ER in commercial operation at
100,000kg......
P Jones
>I want to see a 767 takeoff at 122kts.
>And please show me a real life 767-300ER in commercial operation at
>100,000kg......
The weight in commercial operation is not the point. You asked to see a 767
takeoff at 122kts.
Rotate Speed @ the lowest weight published in the Boeing 767 Manual 114 Kts.
Sigh!
Frank Paterson
<john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So, the answer is that 3000 feet by the end of 16R is roughly achievable
>(given the right weight and wind).
Don't know about the weight, but the wind on the day was a stiff
southerly, no doubt increasing at the lower levels with altitude. The
mode c readout was around 3000 over the upwind end. There's normally
a lag in mode c, so the actual altitude would have been higher by a
couple of hundred of feet, I think.
In any case, it was impressive.
>And you can see why we hate being given
>low level offs after takeoff.
Sure can.
>
>You might care to relate that sort of performance to the departures out of
>Sydney. Most of us find the STARS and SIDS to be curiously lacking in any
>sort of aviation performance sense.....
Yep, due in no small part to airspace and procedural complexity
imposed by political imperatives.
Having fired that shot ... off 16, 25 and 34L to the northwest it
seems to me that aircraft *usually* get immediate climb through the
initial level provided by clearance delivery and usually get a "cancel
speed restriction". Off 34R they usually have to maintain the initial
level due to overflying arrivals on right downwind. Is that your
experience?
Cheers
Frank
John Bartels
> That would make Vr= 87+35 or 122kt. I want to see a 767 takeoff at
>122kts.
> And please show me a real life 767-300ER in commercial operation at
> 100,000kg......
Now, Matt, you were given a couple of corrects answer. No sneaky changing
the 'question' after the event...
100k, not seen, true, but 110k yes.
JB
Tony Paton
wrote:
I remember leaving LAX in a Q747-400, as it rotated, all this water
poured off the overhead compartments onto some poor passengers.
\
------------ >-==- TONY PATON to...@tpg.com.au
/
Phil C
John Bartels <
Now, Matt, you were given a couple of corrects answer. No sneaky changing
the 'question' after the event...
John If I can be sneaky and change the header ? A new Question For You and
the other FAA types.
On a carrier with an angled deck the phrase "turn into the wind is often
used."
My question is :
is it the thrust line of the ship /axis thats into the wind or the angled
deck centre line?
Also on landing how does one compute the slip and still hit the aiming mark
wings level?
Also what tricks could one use to anticipate the timeing of the fan tails
rise and fall in a swell ?
I am having trouble here reconciling how a fixed wing doing say 140 KIAS
and a ship steaming at say 18 knots into a wind with the deck rising and
falling when you turn base .
How does one set up a fast fixed wing to get the frquency of ship /wave/
touch down exact ?
Helo's are a different kettle of fish. Hover waite - dump collective- try
not to chop off own boom .
Hey John E & others shall we start a thread on Ground resonance in wheeled
Rotary wings?
sorry my keyboard is suffering retreating type stall .Bit of a long day
Bye
P
I always marveled at A4s hitting the Melbournes small deck .
Jack Hart
Could have been a potable water (drinking, galley water system) leak
if you below the upper deck.
More likely just a condensation build-up you get on the inside surface
of the fuselage skin. Usually there should little foam blocks on the attach
rods for the overhead bins to soak this up as it drips down the attach rod.
It only takes a few of these little foam blocks to be left off to cause a
problem,
or more likely Bill Boeing just didn't fit them.
Tony Paton (Tony Paton) wrote in message
<3725aae5...@goofy.unixpac.com.au>...
cow...@ram.net.au
"Tony Paton" <to...@tpg.com.au> (Tony Paton) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:33:44 +1000, Brian Garrett <br...@ESandS.com>
> wrote:
>
> I remember leaving LAX in a Q747-400, as it rotated, all this water
> poured off the overhead compartments onto some poor passengers.
>
cow...@ram.net.au
"Phil C" <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote:
>
> John Bartels <
> Now, Matt, you were given a couple of corrects answer. No sneaky changing
> the 'question' after the event...
> JB
> John If I can be sneaky and change the header ? A new Question For You and
> the other FAA types.
>
> On a carrier with an angled deck the phrase "turn into the wind is often
> used."
>
> My question is :
> is it the thrust line of the ship /axis thats into the wind or the angled
> deck centre line?
> Also on landing how does one compute the slip and still hit the aiming mark
> wings level?
cowboys comment: its the ships fore and aft axis into wind. There will/ may
not be much difference with the relative wind on the angle and wind over the
deck is more important for the cat shot than the land on.
> Also what tricks could one use to anticipate the timeing of the fan tails
> rise and fall in a swell ?
cowboy's comment: on the land on the carrier pilot must cross the wake twice,
the last time just prior to touch down. It is a curved approach to arrive at
the round down area when the round down is actually there. ( He is not aiming
to touch at the round down but well in around the third of fourth wire) He
never watches the deck or attempts to compensate for pitch , he's watching
the 'meat ball' to hold the constant approach angle, ensures he's lined up at
the final part of the approach and while maintaining power and speed
'arrives' over the deck and is plucked out of the sky. When he sees he is
stopped he will close the thrust, roll back, let the wire fall off the hook,
retract the latter and get the hell out of there so the next guy , well on
the approach, will have a clear deck. Watch top gun and similar movies, note
the steam escaping off the catapult that indicates the relative wind. See on
those big yank carriers the cat on the angle ,launches , not into wind ,but
into a relative wind... but pardon the pun, its all relative. cowboy
> I am having trouble here reconciling how a fixed wing doing say 140 KIAS
> and a ship steaming at say 18 knots into a wind with the deck rising and
> falling when you turn base .
> How does one set up a fast fixed wing to get the frquency of ship /wave/
> touch down exact ?
>
> Helo's are a different kettle of fish. Hover waite - dump collective- try
> not to chop off own boom .
Cowboy again: pitch of the ship is not the problem with helos but roll.
Marking a hover ready to land is a bit more tricky if the ground cushion
keeps rolling out one side or another. No pussy footing around with smooth
neat landings as this could set you up for ground resonance. Naval helos all
have large tyres that are only inflated very softly to cushion this effect.
Pin it onto the deck if it is rolling. All sorts of winching systems to get
onto the back end of a small frigate in heavy seas. Not a lot of fun at night
but it has to be done.
>
> Hey John E & others shall we start a thread on Ground resonance in wheeled
> Rotary wings?
cowboy; chuck in vortex ring as well ( no virginia , it is not a social
disease). Watching them land on level ground they always touch down one side
first, never level. What influences the side and why ?
You started this game Phil, lots of luck.
> sorry my keyboard is suffering retreating type stall .Bit of a long day.
alright, retreating blade stall as well,
> Bye
> P
>
> I always marveled at A4s hitting the Melbournes small deck .
However marvellous it looked in the day , try it at night.
cowboys last word.
Phil C
<cow...@ram.net.au> wrote in message news:7g1m8g$7es$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
Pc Asked -- And got sensible answers indented below.
thanks for these and the others who sent pics and procedures off group.
much appreciated .
Phil C
<cow...@ram.net.au> wrote in message news:7g1m8g$7es$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
In article <7fv522$bg3$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au>,
big snip of excellent reply.
PC Posed
>" Hey John E & others shall we start a thread on Ground resonance in
wheeled
> Rotary wings?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
cowboy; chuck in vortex ring as well ( no virginia , it is not a social
disease). Watching them land on level ground they always touch down one side
first, never level. What influences the side and why ?
You started this game Phil, lots of luck.
PC Again
True. However, these odd questions hopefully kick start enquiring minds
that may benefit a few who lurk on the group .
Not to answer this question completely ( we can have Q& A sessions via the
chat page I worked on )
Consider also Rotation of the rotor disk (hint! ) and whether or not the
Rotor head is Fully articulated or otherwise.
Also Consider the Anti Torque device (be it straight tail Rotor or
fenestron, Notar)
Tetering Hinge also is in the equation here .
The Basic principal is the same . Although the execution and response to
bad hands may be different in different machines.
NB the above Drivel contains a deliberate mistake .
Hit the Books Kids
alright, retreating blade stall as well,
Pc Again : Better than retreating Lip stall <G>
Think it prudent to leave vortex ring to later in the discussion. Thank
Goodness its better understood and taught these days.
Cheers P
Squeaks
Pitch of a ship whilst landing a helicopter is fairly important, although
roll is usually the predominant sphincter tightener. In a heavy sea you
will often get a deck rising 30-40 feet, at which stage it becomes a fairly
important bit of judgement to land on a falling deck, since a rising deck
may well compress the undercarriage through the fuselage. North Sea ops. to
the Capalonga were typical, with a 105 sliding off the back end once in a
heaving motion that saw 20 degrees nose up/12 degrees nose down when I threw
my 212 on the deck the previous landing.
Most naval helicopters don't have terribly low tyre pressures, e.g. Sea King
mainwheels 85 psi, although the modern harpoon systems (which the RAN
rejected in favour of the Canadian haul down system. Opinions vary) hold
the landed helicopter firmly on the deck these days regardless. As soon as
you're on deck, get the handlers in with tie downs, then start to relax.
Night ops were fun, especially to vessels like Engadine, where you could be
landing between the hangar doors and another helo turning and burning behind
you, with about 15 feet to spare either way. I had one night op in a Gannet
where I swear we bounced higher that flyco with no 3 wire attached, but the
Gannet was the only aircraft that slowed down after a cat launch, so it
hardly counts.
Large carriers (Eagle, Ark, Hermes, etc) were quite different since they
were very FW oriented, and you could spend ages in the port or stbd wait
whilst the stovies threw themselves off & on the deck, then half way through
a hard turn out of wind you would be invited to recover with a wind 15 kts
out of limits. Got my own back off Norfolk when I returned with 120 sacks
of mail. The ship then turned for _me_! Aft facing landings could be a
pain, there's something unnatural about waiting for the ship to (relatively)
move under you, going backwards.
Cowboy, I assume you have rotary experience? What is _very_ important not
to do on a sloping ground landing in a rigid rotor system, that is natural
in any other helicopter?
Got some top photo's of a Buccaneer night trap & F4K/Bucc launches &
recoveries, let me know if you'd like a copy,
Cheers,
John Eacott
The Helicopter Service Australia
cow...@ram.net.au wrote in message <7g1m8g$7es$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> I am having trouble here reconciling how a fixed wing doing say 140 KIAS
>> and a ship steaming at say 18 knots into a wind with the deck rising and
>> falling when you turn base .
>> How does one set up a fast fixed wing to get the frquency of ship /wave/
>> touch down exact ?
>>
>> Helo's are a different kettle of fish. Hover waite - dump collective-
try
>> not to chop off own boom .
>
>Cowboy again: pitch of the ship is not the problem with helos but roll.
>Marking a hover ready to land is a bit more tricky if the ground cushion
>keeps rolling out one side or another. No pussy footing around with smooth
>neat landings as this could set you up for ground resonance. Naval helos
all
>have large tyres that are only inflated very softly to cushion this effect.
>Pin it onto the deck if it is rolling. All sorts of winching systems to get
>onto the back end of a small frigate in heavy seas. Not a lot of fun at
night
>but it has to be done.
>cowboy; chuck in vortex ring as well ( no virginia , it is not a social
>disease). Watching them land on level ground they always touch down one
side
>first, never level. What influences the side and why ?
>You started this game Phil, lots of luck.
John Bartels
> seems to me that aircraft *usually* get immediate climb through the
> initial level provided by clearance delivery and usually get a "cancel
> speed restriction". Off 34R they usually have to maintain the initial
> level due to overflying arrivals on right downwind. Is that your
> experience?
>
> Cheers
>
> Frank
>
>
That's about how it works out, although there is normally a slight 'lag' so
that you actually have to level off (with the big power change), and then
you'll immediately be cleared to climb. A bit like lining up...the takeoff
clearance seems to come, just as you stop..
JB
John Bartels
> > I remember leaving LAX in a Q747-400, as it rotated, all this water
> > poured off the overhead compartments onto some poor passengers.
> >
It's an airconditioning fault...a perfect example of why the cabin air is
kept so dry. I would guess that the water came from moisture which would
have frozen onto the skin on the previous sector. Collects in various spots
whilst on the ground, and then runs out on takeoff. I wore it when paxing
out of HKG. Forget who it was with.
JB
Tony Paton
wrote:
>Were you up the front or back?
Over the wing. it happened up the front. Before first class.
>Could have been a potable water (drinking, galley water system) leak
>if you below the upper deck.
>More likely just a condensation build-up you get on the inside surface
>of the fuselage skin. Usually there should little foam blocks on the attach
>rods for the overhead bins to soak this up as it drips down the attach rod.
>It only takes a few of these little foam blocks to be left off to cause a
>problem,
>or more likely Bill Boeing just didn't fit them.
>
Martin Taylor
BG> A friend of mine with some limited aviation background just returned
BG> from the US on Qantas flight QF100 to NZ and Sydney out of LAX on
BG> Sunday the 18th April US time.
BG> He commented that the 747 took most of the runway to get airborne and
BG> then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did. Climb
BG> rate was low and the nose of the 747 was lowered and the shudder went
The same thing occured when I returned from the US on an ANZ flight a
couple of years ago. The shudder was quite pronounced, and I could see
the overhead lockers shaking rather significantly. However, the rate of
climb never varied and a few minutes into the climbout the shudder
finally disappeared.
.. The word of the day is "legs". Spread the word.
MJT
---------------
Change "A3" to "a1" for an email reply
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Martin Taylor
BG> Thanks John for that answer. I wasn't trying to be provocative with
BG> that near stall comment it is just that in 40 years of flying in
BG> heavies as a pax I cannot remember a situation meeting the description
BG> my friend gave me.
Like I said in another post, I experienced a similar thing ex-LAX in a
B744. The shaking was not the buffetting you get when lift is affected
by atmospheric conditions. Rather, it was a shaking, sort of a low
frequency sideways vibration. The roll seemed to take ages too.
In other flights in B744s, I've never experienced it. Then again, they
might not have been as heavily laden as this one appeared to be. No
doubt, each pax had their baggage quota max'ed out, and the flight was
chockers too.
.. Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering machines.
Peter Kerwin
<john_b...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>you'll immediately be cleared to climb. A bit like lining up...the takeoff
>clearance seems to come, just as you stop..
That's a game that seems to be played by every tower.
(Of course Frank and Speedie are going to deny it ;)
--
Pete
Sandy
tonnes under max tow. You'll be happy to know that we didn't look like
stalling, but certainly, at the rotation speed of 169kts, there's a lot of
vibration from the wheels on the runway, as well as just after takeoff. The
"test" confirms my original post.
Brian Garrett wrote:
> A friend of mine with some limited aviation background just returned
> from the US on Qantas flight QF100 to NZ and Sydney out of LAX on Sunday
> the 18th April US time.
> He commented that the 747 took most of the runway to get airborne and
> then had a pronounced shudder through the airframe when it did. Climb
> rate was low and the nose of the 747 was lowered and the shudder went
> away. climb was re-established and the shudder returned.
> Eventually the shudder disapeared and the flight was normal as far as he
> could determine for the rest of the flight
> Sounds to me like the flight was at gross weight and tickling the stall.
> If this is the case this seems to me a fairly marginal operation. Any of
> you 747 types like to comment.
I missed the "marginal operation" comment last time. As a matter of fact, it
is simply operating the aircraft in accordance with the performance manual
limitations to make a quid. It's not a lightweight, short range a/c which
makes money empty!
Cheers
Sandy
--
Sandy Howard
Sydney, Australia
Reply to: san...@NOSPAMhartingdale.com.au