Ground loop?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for that Sleeve Wing,
I think the temptation here is to start a new topic on the Kestrel/Harrier, but somehow I don't know where to post it so lets let it ramble on here...all in favour, good.
(edit for spelink)
[This message has been edited by New Bloke (edited 18 October 2000).]
I think the temptation here is to start a new topic on the Kestrel/Harrier, but somehow I don't know where to post it so lets let it ramble on here...all in favour, good.
(edit for spelink)
[This message has been edited by New Bloke (edited 18 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sleeve Wing
You ask if I remember the Leicestershire Aero Club sticker that I took back with me
Its on my managers fridge door as a reminder to her of the hospitality she had that day
If you can tell me how to put a pic on this board I will send proof
JF
You ask if I remember the Leicestershire Aero Club sticker that I took back with me
Its on my managers fridge door as a reminder to her of the hospitality she had that day
If you can tell me how to put a pic on this board I will send proof
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
John F.
Sorry but I'm still a learner on all this fancy kit - haven't a clue how you'd put up the picture!!
Great to know that you remember your reception at LAC. The Club really tried hard to look after visiting crews and were really appreciative of the efforts that all the guys(and gals) put in to their displays.
I'm not connected now - moved away - but they were a super bunch and I'm sure the attitude still continues.
Think you're right ,New Bloke. Not the right thread to continue this. Perhaps a fresh one if anyone is interested ?
Sail Army.
Sorry but I'm still a learner on all this fancy kit - haven't a clue how you'd put up the picture!!
Great to know that you remember your reception at LAC. The Club really tried hard to look after visiting crews and were really appreciative of the efforts that all the guys(and gals) put in to their displays.
I'm not connected now - moved away - but they were a super bunch and I'm sure the attitude still continues.
Think you're right ,New Bloke. Not the right thread to continue this. Perhaps a fresh one if anyone is interested ?
Sail Army.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I chug about in a Cub and really appreciated JF's and other's explanations of groundloops. I knew about the CofG behind the main wheels but had completely forgotten the drag acting at 180 from the direction of travel.
The first time it happens is always extremely interesting isn't it! Oh, look at that staionary piston Provost rushing at me!
Regarding JF's comments on the various projects that were axed in the 60's; did the opposition have any aircraft that culd have caught up with the TSR2 and require it to deviate from a straight line? Surely it would have been better that the FB-111 that was supposed to have filled the requirement?
The first time it happens is always extremely interesting isn't it! Oh, look at that staionary piston Provost rushing at me!
Regarding JF's comments on the various projects that were axed in the 60's; did the opposition have any aircraft that culd have caught up with the TSR2 and require it to deviate from a straight line? Surely it would have been better that the FB-111 that was supposed to have filled the requirement?
Guest
Posts: n/a
LowNSlow
Your raise interesting questions over the relative merits of the TSR2/F-111/opposition various
I guess we will never know as the TSR2 was not developed. A few comments can be made about the fundamentals (not the details) which are unlikely to have been changed. I guess the aircraft would have come into service circa 1975 and so would probably still have been around. (Remember the Harrier went into service in 1969) The Olympus was not designed as economic low level donk, so with the limited fuel of the relatively small aeroplane (compared to the large contents of the Vulcan when that started to be operated low level and off design at the later part of its career) I would not have been very sanguine about the range. As for being caught, interceptors have the advantage of operating relatively close to base compared to a penetrator approaching its target. Super cruise was not feasible in those days, so you cruised at high subsonic with a supersonic dash using reheat. That would have had you looking at your return range requirements from the moment you lit the burners. On the other hand the F-111 was renowned as the one to beat for low level legs – largely because of its particularly efficient (for those days) bypass engines.
Sometimes the dream of supersonic operation really fades when you look at reheated fuel consumption. I remember being in the crew room at Macair the day (in the mid 70s) that one of their F-15 test pilots managed to raise the record for the maximum time at Mach 2 to 7 mins and still get to base without refuelling. 7 mins at 20 miles a minute is still only 140 miles however you look at it. The same aeroplane (a very good one too remember) would go over ten times that at high subsonic. Supersonic operation (not dash) really is a bit of a myth. A myth which IMHO will not become a reality until F-22 is in service. Remember even supersonic dash may not be available when carrying external weapons as the older ones would not cope with kinetic heating effects – without thinking about drag issues. Although I full appreciate that the TSR2 concept recognised this with its internal carriage.
But like I said we will never really know because its many fans never had a chance to prove their concept. However, as a final point (to keep this post legal) I am certain the TSR2 would not have had a ground loop problem.
JF
Your raise interesting questions over the relative merits of the TSR2/F-111/opposition various
I guess we will never know as the TSR2 was not developed. A few comments can be made about the fundamentals (not the details) which are unlikely to have been changed. I guess the aircraft would have come into service circa 1975 and so would probably still have been around. (Remember the Harrier went into service in 1969) The Olympus was not designed as economic low level donk, so with the limited fuel of the relatively small aeroplane (compared to the large contents of the Vulcan when that started to be operated low level and off design at the later part of its career) I would not have been very sanguine about the range. As for being caught, interceptors have the advantage of operating relatively close to base compared to a penetrator approaching its target. Super cruise was not feasible in those days, so you cruised at high subsonic with a supersonic dash using reheat. That would have had you looking at your return range requirements from the moment you lit the burners. On the other hand the F-111 was renowned as the one to beat for low level legs – largely because of its particularly efficient (for those days) bypass engines.
Sometimes the dream of supersonic operation really fades when you look at reheated fuel consumption. I remember being in the crew room at Macair the day (in the mid 70s) that one of their F-15 test pilots managed to raise the record for the maximum time at Mach 2 to 7 mins and still get to base without refuelling. 7 mins at 20 miles a minute is still only 140 miles however you look at it. The same aeroplane (a very good one too remember) would go over ten times that at high subsonic. Supersonic operation (not dash) really is a bit of a myth. A myth which IMHO will not become a reality until F-22 is in service. Remember even supersonic dash may not be available when carrying external weapons as the older ones would not cope with kinetic heating effects – without thinking about drag issues. Although I full appreciate that the TSR2 concept recognised this with its internal carriage.
But like I said we will never really know because its many fans never had a chance to prove their concept. However, as a final point (to keep this post legal) I am certain the TSR2 would not have had a ground loop problem.
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
I haven't had my ground loop yet, but recognise that it is, as they say, a matter of time. I trained on taildraggers and flew a couple of thousand hours on a 20 tonne one as well as a 40 tonne type and sported about in Austers and Tigers.
Instructor chaps who teach these days might like to consider an item of advice I only ever heard once but always stayed with me.
Right or wrong most pilots who find a wing drop in a tight situation will jack on a spot of rudder with the aileron. If the aircraft is airborne the desired effect will probably occur, but if a wheel, or wheels, of a tail wheel aircraft are on the ground, inertia plus wheel drag will turn on the ground loop.
If on the ground a wing drop occurs that must be corrected, then a tweak into the downgoing direction will allow inertia to produce a levelling force. (Obviously the path of the aircraft becomes of interest, but it depends on whether you want to continue on the centreline but rotating longitudinally, or to use up a little real estate and not have the undercart come off.)
I believe that a failure to recognise this reversal of reaction can lead to ground loops.
BTW loved the info from JF and look forward to more, where ever it can be posted.
Instructor chaps who teach these days might like to consider an item of advice I only ever heard once but always stayed with me.
Right or wrong most pilots who find a wing drop in a tight situation will jack on a spot of rudder with the aileron. If the aircraft is airborne the desired effect will probably occur, but if a wheel, or wheels, of a tail wheel aircraft are on the ground, inertia plus wheel drag will turn on the ground loop.
If on the ground a wing drop occurs that must be corrected, then a tweak into the downgoing direction will allow inertia to produce a levelling force. (Obviously the path of the aircraft becomes of interest, but it depends on whether you want to continue on the centreline but rotating longitudinally, or to use up a little real estate and not have the undercart come off.)
I believe that a failure to recognise this reversal of reaction can lead to ground loops.
BTW loved the info from JF and look forward to more, where ever it can be posted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Watched a friend of mine on our Pilots cse (Mil Rotary) ground loop??? a Gazelle..well after flying Chipmunks only the week prior he glanced inside whilst taxining back to dispersal saw the ball was out of alignment...Yes he did try to put it back. 360 Deg later and with one very frightened old EX RAF Chappie now at the controls he was told rather sternley that he was doing that ride again!!
Sorry to add from the "outside" but enjoyed reading your pages. Dont hold a grudge on anyone......while your holding it, the other guy is having a party.
PS. Could I teach Rotary at weekends for fun to Civis? What would I need to do? Have 1000hrs+.
Thanks Guys.
Sorry to add from the "outside" but enjoyed reading your pages. Dont hold a grudge on anyone......while your holding it, the other guy is having a party.
PS. Could I teach Rotary at weekends for fun to Civis? What would I need to do? Have 1000hrs+.
Thanks Guys.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's another ground loop - they don't all have happy endings! http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/MIA/01A020.htm
