Flying External Loads

[QDMQDMQDM]

Take a look at this thread on my other favourite site, and especially scroll down to the post by 'Crash':

http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104

What do you think the CAA would make of it?

:)

QDM

[englishal]

Ahh, the golden age of aviation....this is what flying in Europe lacks :)

Cheers
EA

[nonradio]

I hear someone is experimenting in this country with a piece of plastic drain pipe attached to the jury struts so that tentpoles can be carried... pretty tame really!

[treadigraph]

We were having a discussion on another forum a few weeks ago about US Army L-4 Grasshoppers that had rocket launchers "lashed" to the struts during the war... smart way to carry your tent poles in an authentic warbird!

Assume it wouldn't be soem type of self-erecting tent - one of those going off by accident would casue some drag!

[Cyclic Hotline]

We regularly fly external loads on our floatplanes.

As mentioned on the cub site, there are a couple of important details, some practical observations and lots to be learned from others who are doing the same thing.

I have flown such diverse items as helicopter main rotor blades, motorcycles and building supplies without any problem. The Beaver has a very nice (Kenmore) STC'd canoe rack which was very convenient for attaching all kinds of things!

Beyond this area of operation, I know of a King-Air that has an STC'd modification for hauling helicopter main rotor blades! :cool:

A very good friend of mine was involved in flying a bunch of building supplies into a construction site high in the Rockies one summer. He flew a variety of items, with no difficulty, until he attempted to tie a length of 36" diameter culvert, lengthwise, to the top of the 185. He did manage to get it airborne, but fortunately there was a field beyond the end of the strip, where he could electively put the aircraft down, before it went down of its own accord!:eek: He said that he had never before had so little control of any aircraft he had ever flown, plus it would barely fly!!!

It is not an inherently dangerous undertaking, just one that needs some forethought and application of common sense (both of which explain the majority of accidents related to this activity!). It is very convenient that the Anchorage FSDO provide external load guidelines. (http://www.alaska.faa.gov/ancfsdo/Ext-Load/Ext-Load.htm)

But yea, I can just imagine anyone in Europe trying to fly a fixed-wing external load.:rolleyes: Or do they?

Fly safe...

[QDMQDMQDM]

It is not an inherently dangerous undertaking, just one that needs some forethought and application of common sense (both of which explain the majority of accidents related to this activity!). It is very convenient that the Anchorage FSDO provide external load guidelines.

There's no way our CAA would ever allow this.

It's interesting, though, that you can still do this stuff in the country which is the home of the liability lawsuit. e.g. I read that the 'unofficial' weather in Alaska has had to be withdrawn for liability reasons. Still, enjoy it while it lasts! It's fantastic.

:)

QDM

[Genghis the Engineer]

I beg to differ. I'm a CAA design signatory, and am used to getting them to approve such things.

No it won't be automatic, you can't just fill in a form and ask a DER to look over it in the manner that goes on in the USA. But it's not impossible, just difficult.

Of-course, if you run a PFA or BMAA permit aircraft, it's all much less agro, you just have to convince the relevant Chief Engineer that it'll be safe....

G

[javelin]

Genghis - you try that under the present regiem - Ha :(

[Deeko01]

englishal,

jesus christ does every post you make on here have to refer to how much flying in USA is better than Europe, I got my PPL in USA but I dont sing its praises every day, sure its cheaper and all but there are good things about flying over here which is better than USA and really if you always have to tell us how much better it is then maybe you should go consentrate all your efforts on flying over there.

rant over

[Genghis the Engineer]

Javelin,

I have. I've cleared Rocket launchers for the RAF, external camera balls for the police, assorted spats, cameras, fairings, fins, external baggage carriers, doors, etc on assorted private aircraft, upgrading warbirds to public CofA, ballistic parachutes. This is what I do! I'm not saying it's quick or easy, I am saying it's possible, under the current regime, which incidentally is much easier than the one 5-10 years ago, but you could do it then as well.

If you've tried and failed, tell us the details and perhaps I can point out where things went wrong ?

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I find it really interesting to see such discussion about what is one of the most understood methods of carrying freight in Bush operations.

Before we were lucky enough to have big brother wipe our as.es before every flight we learned it was quite safe to carry external loads on float equipped airplanes.

If you were to go to Alaska or Northern Canada and ask these questions you would soon realize that we have been carrying external loads for decades.

The trick is knowing how and where to attach the load.

For instance how can cause trouble. I once tied an 18 foot aluminum boat to the spreader bars of a Beech 18 on floats with the boat upside down and the pointed end foward. Damn near killed myself when it got airborne. Turned the boat around blunt end first and no problem it flew quite nice.

I have hundreds of hours flying everything from canoes , boats lumber, refrigator's and God knows what else on everything from Cessna 180/85's Norsemans, Beavers, Beech 18's and even carried external loads on the PBY.

Hey it ain't rocket science and it ain't all that difficult as long as you know what to do and what not to do.

But then again big brother needs something to do so why not regulate something that we have been doing safely for decades.

Cat Driver:

[LowNSlow]

treadigraph, I think the rocket launchers were actually recoiles bazooka tubes mounted in pairs on each side. Apparently the AOP pilot got fed up with being shot at from the ground and having to wait for the artillery to open up to get his revenge!

LNS removes pedants hat and gets beack to the subject :D

Isn't the biggest external load when a 747 carries a spare engine monted above (?) the port wing :eek:

On a lighter note, I've seen bicycles mounted on aircraft fuselage sides at the PFA Rally. ;)

[slim_slag]

Isn't the biggest external load when a 747 carries a spare engine monted above (?) the port wing

Space Shuttle (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-013-DFRC.html) is bigger! They keep the plane at Marana Pinal (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMZJ) half way between Phoenix and Tucson, loads of large planes in storage there.

[QDMQDMQDM]

The trick is knowing how and where to attach the load.

I bet it is and that's the thing -- it's down to indivdual experience and the acceptance of risk. I cannot imagine the CAA's response if people started regularly attaching -- on a more or less ad hoc basis -- 18 foot canoes or semi-industrial quantities of wood to their aircraft, or washer-dryers to the tie down loops! That's a reflection of the different nature of flying here -- it simply isn't a utility means of transport as it is in remote bush areas.

Anyway, different place, different attitudes, different regs -- no problem with that. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about this and the CAA would tolerate it, but I just can't see it. I nearly imported an aircraft earlier this year, but thank God I didn't, as the CAA paperwork would have been horrendous, given the mods that it had. e.g. I'd have had to get the welds x-rayed and analysed chemically.

Does look fun though (to watch).

QDM

[Chuck Ellsworth]

QDM:

The message I have been trying to get across is that as the governing body expands so also must their rules, therefore as the rules become more restrictive and in a lot of cases less benificial for aviation generally we lose sight of reality.

The reality of the carrying of external loads is it is not only quite safe but benificial to the public good by doing what airplanes were designed to do...transport things.

I do not want you to get the impression that I am against rules, quite to the contrary however there comes a point when we must examine a lot of the garbage that eminates from our governing body and determine if in fact the rules are benificial or detremental to our industry.

Do you feel that the brightest and best of our brethern end up sitting in these hallowed halls of Government grinding out more and more rules, policies, lesson plans, ideas and restrictive rules???

Or is it possible that like every bureaucracy they end up doing what they are best at, expanding???

Cat Driver:
.................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[QDMQDMQDM]

Cat Driver,

No, I'm completely with you. If I had to give myself a political category it would be 'small government liberal'. Regulation is necessary to an extent, but it can easily be overdone and the more risk one tries to eliminate the more freedom one erodes. I'm all for people strapping canoes, snowmobiles or washer-dryers to their aircraft and then taking the risk of whether it will fly or not, as long as they have a few guidelines and are aware of the risk they are taking. AND as long as they don't squeal when things go tits up.

The interesting thing for me is that you can still do this kind of stuff in the USA. This is the place where light aircraft production was almost choked to death by liability issues and where even today the New Piper company is trying to stop Cubcrafters new building Super Cubs on the basis that New Piper may still get sued if someone crashes.

A land of contradictions. (And all the more interesting for that!)

QDM

[treadigraph]

Low n slow - I think you are right - bazookas were playing across my (tiny) mind, but rocket launchers won the day - incidently, what's the difference? Anyone know?

Cheers

Treadders

[Chuck Ellsworth]

QDM:

Hi, the reason we can still carry external loads on floatplanes is because it poses no great risk, I can only think of one fatal accident where the carrying of a canoe on a 185 with three passengers, full fuel and baggage resulted in the airplane stalling in a turn and augerring in.

It is noteworthy that he got it flying and high enough to spin in.

But that was unusual and of course you will always have pilots who push the envelope and crash.

Anyhow it is quite normal to carry external loads on floatplanes.

And I actually live in Canada, not the U.S.A. however there really is not that much difference in aviation between the two countries.

Cheers:
Cat Driver

[Genghis the Engineer]

A bazooka is a single shot man-portable device like this http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/bazooka.htm , whilst a rocket-launcher is multiple-shot device mounted on an aircraft or vehicle like this http://acam.ednet.ns.ca/weapons/CRV7.htm .

I should mention however, that getting either of these approved for civil aircraft use in the UK, is probably beyond even my powers of professional persuasion.

Cheers,

G