Victor Airborne (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... problem is as I see it, the CAA will now probably (over-)react and ban all such fast runs to prevent it from ocurring again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the basis they regulate civil airspace and for however briefly the Victor was in that I should think they might have something to say about it. I'm guessing the rap sheet could be extensive if anyone put their mind to it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew,
Exactly that. During a x-wind takeoff you are effectively taking off with crossed controls to prevent the into wind wing lifting. If you watch a x-wind landing on youtube, during the flair you will see the pilot kick the drift off with the rudder and simultaneously apply into wind aileron, again crossed controls, exactly the same as during the takeoff. That is why on x-wind landing, you'll often find the into wind wheel touches down first.
I just had a look on youtube to try and find an example of it but it's all landings, not many x-wind takeoffs. This is the best I can find. You'll see that the whole through the takeoff there is left rudder input...
YouTube - C-17 Globemaster III Short Crosswind takeoff.
Exactly that. During a x-wind takeoff you are effectively taking off with crossed controls to prevent the into wind wing lifting. If you watch a x-wind landing on youtube, during the flair you will see the pilot kick the drift off with the rudder and simultaneously apply into wind aileron, again crossed controls, exactly the same as during the takeoff. That is why on x-wind landing, you'll often find the into wind wheel touches down first.
I just had a look on youtube to try and find an example of it but it's all landings, not many x-wind takeoffs. This is the best I can find. You'll see that the whole through the takeoff there is left rudder input...
YouTube - C-17 Globemaster III Short Crosswind takeoff.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossed wires me thinks. I understand that but without any control input it will drift with the wind. I always enjoyed x-wind landings but I learned at HUY and IIRC the layout was two out of three old WWII runways still in op so didn't get much chane to practice.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not the best at trying to explain this sort of thing but it is down to an aircrafts tendancy to 'weather-vane'. For example, a cross-wind like yesterdays was blowing right to left across the runway. By blowing against the fin of the aircraft, it causes the tail to move downwind around the pivot point (the gear) which in turn causes the nose of the aircraft to turn into wind (i.e to the right). In that example you would apply left rudder to keep the nose straight, and right aileron to prevent the into-wind wing from being lifted by the wind.
A quick search on google threw these up if it explains it any better:
Section 13.5
Takeoff [Ch. 13 of See How It Flies]
and section 8.11
Yaw-Wise Torque Budget [Ch. 8 of See How It Flies]
Hope that explains it
A quick search on google threw these up if it explains it any better:
Section 13.5
Takeoff [Ch. 13 of See How It Flies]
and section 8.11
Yaw-Wise Torque Budget [Ch. 8 of See How It Flies]
Hope that explains it
Last edited by coldplayer; 4th May 2009 at 20:47.
Andrew, regarding the aircraft weathervaning into wind and drifting with the wind, these are two very different things.
On the ground the aircraft cannot drift, just weathercock into wind, while in the air the aircraft drifts with the wind.
The reason for weathercocking into wind is quite simple - the wind blows on the side of the aircraft, but the tail presents a much greater surface than the nose, so there is a far greater moment acting behind the main wheels (the pivot point), which means that there is a tendency to turn into wind - unless counteracted by nose-wheel steering or rudder input (whichever has authority for the phase of take-off or landing).
Hope this is clear
FBW
On the ground the aircraft cannot drift, just weathercock into wind, while in the air the aircraft drifts with the wind.
The reason for weathercocking into wind is quite simple - the wind blows on the side of the aircraft, but the tail presents a much greater surface than the nose, so there is a far greater moment acting behind the main wheels (the pivot point), which means that there is a tendency to turn into wind - unless counteracted by nose-wheel steering or rudder input (whichever has authority for the phase of take-off or landing).
Hope this is clear
FBW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newcastle
Age: 54
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, I misread the remark and was talking about wind drift not weather vaning. Unfortunately one misread remark and aerodynamics lessons and sarcasm instantly issued.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you never know, someone might find it useful.
Anyway, back to the original point. The above information when combined with any unforeseen circumstance such as a tyre burst or an engine failure is why you couldn't do these runs with locked controls.
Anyway, back to the original point. The above information when combined with any unforeseen circumstance such as a tyre burst or an engine failure is why you couldn't do these runs with locked controls.
Last edited by coldplayer; 6th May 2009 at 08:21.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Peterborough
Age: 59
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to understand why the announcement at the event requested any photographs or video should not be posted. I can only presume it was a badly thought out "KNEE JERK" reaction to an event that should never have happened.
There is rumoured to be a meeting at Bruntingthorpe which the CAA are due to attend tomorrow, I wonder what the hot topic will be?
Let's hope the responsible unflyable heritage jets are allowed to carry on with their impressive work!
There is rumoured to be a meeting at Bruntingthorpe which the CAA are due to attend tomorrow, I wonder what the hot topic will be?
Let's hope the responsible unflyable heritage jets are allowed to carry on with their impressive work!
Last edited by VULCANCHASER; 4th May 2009 at 21:59.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 47
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought you guys were indulging in too many conspiracy theories until I posted about the incident on the TVOC forum. I was amazed I couldn't find it already but realised why soon enough. My post, with links to pictures, was hastily removed and I gather others have been too. I got it off a car forum I frequent so the genie's out of the bottle anyway. 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut their fahooking wings off....that should do the trick.
I never could just see the point in trundling the damned things up and down runways anyway. They once were aeroplanes but they sure as hell aren't now.
I never could just see the point in trundling the damned things up and down runways anyway. They once were aeroplanes but they sure as hell aren't now.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive the directness of the simile, but
Surely this is the aviation equivalent of promising a girl you'll "stop before we get there", promising you don't need a condom because you "know what you're doing", nonetheless slip in anyway, and then lose self control before you can pull out? Fortunately it was only happenstance prevented a permanent and ineraseable conclusion...
Utterly inexcusable. Utterly indefensible. Utterly shameful. Totally avoidable. Stupid.
Bloody dangerous.
End of.
And to those who I've pissed off, No, this is not aeromodelling or reggie spotting, this is full-on bloody dangerous full-scale jet aviation, and if people are going to treat it with such a lack of care and Professionalism as is evident here than measures need to be taken.
If I behaved like that at my base on a ground-run in a (no C of A) 150 seat passenger jet I'd be grounded for life, and be lucky to escape prison for much the same afterwards I daresay, and rightly so. What's the difference?
Surely this is the aviation equivalent of promising a girl you'll "stop before we get there", promising you don't need a condom because you "know what you're doing", nonetheless slip in anyway, and then lose self control before you can pull out? Fortunately it was only happenstance prevented a permanent and ineraseable conclusion...
Utterly inexcusable. Utterly indefensible. Utterly shameful. Totally avoidable. Stupid.
Bloody dangerous.
End of.
And to those who I've pissed off, No, this is not aeromodelling or reggie spotting, this is full-on bloody dangerous full-scale jet aviation, and if people are going to treat it with such a lack of care and Professionalism as is evident here than measures need to be taken.
If I behaved like that at my base on a ground-run in a (no C of A) 150 seat passenger jet I'd be grounded for life, and be lucky to escape prison for much the same afterwards I daresay, and rightly so. What's the difference?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid to say that you've most likely hit the nail on the head.
There are a couple of questions i'd be very interested to know the answers to and hopefully answers to those questions will come out in the fullness of time. Starters for ten: what were the qualifications and currency of BOTH people in the pilots seats? Do they fly jet aircraft regularly? Do they have valid flying licences of any sort and inclusive in that, do they have medicals? Were any performance calculations done? Was there a proper brief and any discussion of what happens in the event of the 'pilot' becoming incapacitated? I would suggest that this is the sort of thing the CAA will be asking.
Ain't that the truth! The point which seems to eluding some is that a Victor is not a Jet Provost. As is pointed out very succinctly above, it is grown up, full scale, dangerous jet aviation in a very large and heavy aircraft. You don't just 'hop' them down a runway to provide a spectacle, nor do you ever get them into the situation that this one found itself in on Sunday.
There are a couple of questions i'd be very interested to know the answers to and hopefully answers to those questions will come out in the fullness of time. Starters for ten: what were the qualifications and currency of BOTH people in the pilots seats? Do they fly jet aircraft regularly? Do they have valid flying licences of any sort and inclusive in that, do they have medicals? Were any performance calculations done? Was there a proper brief and any discussion of what happens in the event of the 'pilot' becoming incapacitated? I would suggest that this is the sort of thing the CAA will be asking.
If I behaved like that in my (no C of A) 150 seat passenger jet I'd be grounded for life, and probably in prison for much the same afterwards, and rightly so. What's the difference?
Last edited by coldplayer; 6th May 2009 at 08:21.
I find the whole thing amazingly irresponsible. Sure, taxy the things around, fast run them down the runway. But getting them to a speed where they can get airborne? having seen the photos, I'm very thankful the incident didn't end in a fireball. I don't know who was at the controls or if he was once properly qualified on the Victor. What he did was just stupid. If I were at the controls, I would have felt very uncomfortable going much above 80 knots bearing in mind the Victor's stopping performance. And without the brakechute!
The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.
And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.
Ref the ailerons: The ailerons were uprigged by about ten degrees as part of a fatigue management program sometime in the early eighties. This had the effect of moving the centre of pressure forward thus changing the stress points on the wing. To counter this, the elevator was downrigged a few degrees. This had the effect of increasing the low speed buffet speeds and making the handling noticeably worse. But extended the life of the aircraft from about 115 to 125 FI (IIRC).
As for the yaw effects close to the ground. The rudder has a massive secondary roll effect on a swept wing aircraft. Far more so than on a straight wing aircraft - and the on the Victor, it was more pronounced than any other swept wing aircraft I have flown. Use of the rudder required prompt roll inputs to keep the wings level. This was particularly important in the Victor K2 where in the landing attitude with full flap and the oleos compressed, the refuelling pods were only 30 inches of the ground. This is why it had a relatively low crosswind limit of 25 knots.
The CAA will get involved. Expect regulation and expect restrictions in the future.
And before anyone has a go, I would like to point out I used to fly Victors and they used to give me enough missed heatbeats when they were properly maintained.
Ref the ailerons: The ailerons were uprigged by about ten degrees as part of a fatigue management program sometime in the early eighties. This had the effect of moving the centre of pressure forward thus changing the stress points on the wing. To counter this, the elevator was downrigged a few degrees. This had the effect of increasing the low speed buffet speeds and making the handling noticeably worse. But extended the life of the aircraft from about 115 to 125 FI (IIRC).
As for the yaw effects close to the ground. The rudder has a massive secondary roll effect on a swept wing aircraft. Far more so than on a straight wing aircraft - and the on the Victor, it was more pronounced than any other swept wing aircraft I have flown. Use of the rudder required prompt roll inputs to keep the wings level. This was particularly important in the Victor K2 where in the landing attitude with full flap and the oleos compressed, the refuelling pods were only 30 inches of the ground. This is why it had a relatively low crosswind limit of 25 knots.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, it strongly appears that this was a totally avoidable incident, and there is only one person to blame.
What I don't understand is why the guy in (presumably) the right hand seat wasn't pushing the stick well forward during the whole run, thus allowing the pilot to concentrate on the throttles, ASI monitoring, Ts and Ps etc. etc.
The forecast was a significant wind with strong gusts and I would have expected any pilot worth his salt to have done the most basic of calculations to see what the rotate speed was. I wonder if this was even done at all?
I sincerely hope this does not impact on the boys and girls at Bruntingthorpe and that the CAA take a sympathetic view to what was
(I hope) just a momentary lack of concentration. The crowd at Bruntingthorpe are a great bunch, and it would be sad and wrong to see their efforts and hard work go down the pan and be wasted because of this.
Agaricus bisporus
I don't disagree with you too much in what you say. You are factually correct and there can be little defence of what happened.
However, maybe we can use it as a timely reminder to us all that aircraft, especially old, 4 jet-engined, ex V Bombers bite 'Big Time' when you get them wrong, and need treating with a great deal of care but also a huge amount of respect. Thank goodness it wasn't worse!
The Winco
What I don't understand is why the guy in (presumably) the right hand seat wasn't pushing the stick well forward during the whole run, thus allowing the pilot to concentrate on the throttles, ASI monitoring, Ts and Ps etc. etc.
The forecast was a significant wind with strong gusts and I would have expected any pilot worth his salt to have done the most basic of calculations to see what the rotate speed was. I wonder if this was even done at all?
I sincerely hope this does not impact on the boys and girls at Bruntingthorpe and that the CAA take a sympathetic view to what was
(I hope) just a momentary lack of concentration. The crowd at Bruntingthorpe are a great bunch, and it would be sad and wrong to see their efforts and hard work go down the pan and be wasted because of this.
Agaricus bisporus
I don't disagree with you too much in what you say. You are factually correct and there can be little defence of what happened.
However, maybe we can use it as a timely reminder to us all that aircraft, especially old, 4 jet-engined, ex V Bombers bite 'Big Time' when you get them wrong, and need treating with a great deal of care but also a huge amount of respect. Thank goodness it wasn't worse!
The Winco
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re locking of controls - that was what caused a Caribou crash a few years back. There could be enough lift to get airborne and then no way to get back down. Does the Victor have lift dumpers? You could have those permanently out so as to prevent the wing getting enough lift in the first place?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder when the Victor's ASI was last calibrated? Aiming to lift a nosewheel with an under-reading ASI would have all the makings for an embarrassing day, and even with the nosewheel firmly on the ground would make a nonsense of the V1 (i.e. V stop) calculation.