Bent Albert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Pub
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bent Albert
Heard a rumour that, in preparation for today's farce at Lyneham, one of Her Majesty's finest Fat Alberts was put in the undershoot at Lyneham buy a fair margin, somewhat reducing the serviceability of the airfield lighting not to mention the ac.
Anyone care to correct me/ shed further light on this one??
Anyone care to correct me/ shed further light on this one??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: my own little world
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Work it out old boy, it isn't hard really is it?
Oh by the way, it appears that someone tried to blame the groundcrew for getting the 700 out late. If that makes you rush a landing then what hope have we got.
Work it out old boy, it isn't hard really is it?
Oh by the way, it appears that someone tried to blame the groundcrew for getting the 700 out late. If that makes you rush a landing then what hope have we got.
Sorry Monkeybumhead, you haven't been here long, so there's no reason for you to know that I'm really not very bright, and do need some spoon feeding. I know what UNDERSHOOT means, but as to which variant....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard rumour it was a very heavy landing ... 4g was quoted...
In flight, it measures where it sits, not the centre of the wings (which "feels" approx .2g more than indicated up front), so is inaccurate.
During landing, it is nothing more than "bounced" deflection of the needle & movement within that is "recorded" on the gauge itself...
Albert is rated for max descent rate of 9ft/sec which equates to 540ft/min - if you impact that hard, you'll likely turn on every emergency exit light in the acft!!
I'm not implying that rumoured landing discussed above was not hard/heavy/out of limits, merely that you cannot discern such from the g-meter in the cockpit.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn, as I am unfamiliar with Hercs, but how does the fact that the cockpit accelerometer reads 0.2g less than the Airframe accelerometer mean that it is inaccurate??
Surely if this is the case there would not be one fitted?
On the Tornado, there are 3 banks of readings, each from a different area of the fuselage which each give a different reading. Which one is the accurate one?????
Tornados, Harriers, Jaguars all have seperate Cockpit and Airframe 'g' meters, and the readings from both are recorded by the groundcrew, and entered into the F700 for fatigue monitoring purposes, and there is rarely a discernible difference between the two.
As for your explanation that this is merely the needles "Jumping about", what a load of horsecr4p. If this were the case, according to Newtons laws of gravity, upon sustaining a heavy landing, the needles would be deflected downward under their own weight, thus showing a NEGATIVE reading, as opposed to a 4g positive reading.
Had a heavy landing and tried bullsh1t your way out of it before US Herk?
Surely if this is the case there would not be one fitted?
On the Tornado, there are 3 banks of readings, each from a different area of the fuselage which each give a different reading. Which one is the accurate one?????
Tornados, Harriers, Jaguars all have seperate Cockpit and Airframe 'g' meters, and the readings from both are recorded by the groundcrew, and entered into the F700 for fatigue monitoring purposes, and there is rarely a discernible difference between the two.
As for your explanation that this is merely the needles "Jumping about", what a load of horsecr4p. If this were the case, according to Newtons laws of gravity, upon sustaining a heavy landing, the needles would be deflected downward under their own weight, thus showing a NEGATIVE reading, as opposed to a 4g positive reading.
Had a heavy landing and tried bullsh1t your way out of it before US Herk?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just to clarify for logistics loader, the 540ft/min rate of descent relates to the actual point of touchdown. the descent prior to this can be much steeper (as in the khe sanh technique), but you must arrest the rate of descent at the last minute or bad things will happen. our rb 199 friend certainly seems to know a lot about albert. the flight deck g meter is an indicator only, giving the captain an instantaneous heads up of a potential overstress. all fatigue readings on the herc are taken from the airframe fatigue meter. the reason that this is different from a tornado is that, believe it or not, they are different aeroplanes.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Nellis of course...
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Khe Sahn descent profile >540ft/min ???
damn, beaten by a minute....
Must learn to type quicker!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaniels ears
ROFL..... if the captain can see it behind his knee whilst attempting a tricky manoevere and scanning the primary instruments mhmmmmmmm
For those that don't know its not placed in the best position for monitoring.
giving the captain an instantaneous heads up of a potential overstress
For those that don't know its not placed in the best position for monitoring.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gilligans Island
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To further clarify for you rb199man the reason there are three banks on the flying flick knife are the sweepy wings. And that is why on the GR version the most readings are on the middle bank equating to 45 degrees of sweep, where most of the flying is done.
The guage as opposed to the meter on Albert is up front and having been fitted in the mid 60s and never serviced since is quite possibly wildly inaccurate. The meter shuts off at less than 150 knots so thats no good either
As far as I remeber having spent 18 years on Tornado there has never been anywhere to record the cockpit reading.
As for your Newton theory its the weight inside the instrument which drives the needles against a spring. Weight heaver than needles, so thats how it records positive.
I think apologies should be winging there way across the pond round about........now
The guage as opposed to the meter on Albert is up front and having been fitted in the mid 60s and never serviced since is quite possibly wildly inaccurate. The meter shuts off at less than 150 knots so thats no good either
As far as I remeber having spent 18 years on Tornado there has never been anywhere to record the cockpit reading.
As for your Newton theory its the weight inside the instrument which drives the needles against a spring. Weight heaver than needles, so thats how it records positive.
I think apologies should be winging there way across the pond round about........now
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Spaniels Ears.
As your RB199 friend states, he clearly does not know much about Albert, as he states.
However, as an experienced engineer, I have a very good understanding of how the accelerometer system works. Yes, the cockpit gauge is an indicator to the aircrew of the airframe 'g' loading, as it is on ALL aircraft, but are you suggesting that the 'g' loading differential between the cockpit and main accelerometer is going to be sufficiently different as to say the landing was within limits? No, of course not. If US Herk's stats are correct, there is a 0.2'g' differential between the cockpit gauge and airframe accelerometer.
Is 3.8'g' enormously different to 4'g'?
If it is, please excuse my ignorance and put it down to the fact that I am obviously getting confused with the fact that a Hercules is a completely different aircraft to the Tornado.
Country Calls,
Are you absolutely convinced that the accelerometer fitted to Albert has been fitted since the 60's and never serviced? Only that strikes me as being a somewhat unquantified statement. I personally have been seen numerous 'g' meter/accelerometer changes due to unserviceability over my years in the RAF, which would mean I have clearly wasted a lot of time over the years on jobs that obviously did not need doing?
I refer to the cockpit gauge being recorded, as that is the first indication groundcrew have of any overstress, and the starting point of a more detailed investigation. After 18 years on Tornado, I defy you to take the fatigues, and know at a glance that there is amything amiss.
Thank you for your explanation of the 3 banks
I was merely trying to show how there are minute differences all across the airframe, but these are nowhere near in the range of 2-3'g'. Nor would the cockpit gauge ever jump about in the region of 2-3'g' during a heavy landing, or this would happen every time the A/C pulled any 'g' whatsoever.
and breathe out.............
Edited to answer Country calls
As your RB199 friend states, he clearly does not know much about Albert, as he states.
Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn, as I am unfamiliar with Hercs,
Is 3.8'g' enormously different to 4'g'?
If it is, please excuse my ignorance and put it down to the fact that I am obviously getting confused with the fact that a Hercules is a completely different aircraft to the Tornado.
Country Calls,
Are you absolutely convinced that the accelerometer fitted to Albert has been fitted since the 60's and never serviced? Only that strikes me as being a somewhat unquantified statement. I personally have been seen numerous 'g' meter/accelerometer changes due to unserviceability over my years in the RAF, which would mean I have clearly wasted a lot of time over the years on jobs that obviously did not need doing?
I refer to the cockpit gauge being recorded, as that is the first indication groundcrew have of any overstress, and the starting point of a more detailed investigation. After 18 years on Tornado, I defy you to take the fatigues, and know at a glance that there is amything amiss.
Thank you for your explanation of the 3 banks
I was merely trying to show how there are minute differences all across the airframe, but these are nowhere near in the range of 2-3'g'. Nor would the cockpit gauge ever jump about in the region of 2-3'g' during a heavy landing, or this would happen every time the A/C pulled any 'g' whatsoever.and breathe out.............
Edited to answer Country calls
Last edited by flipflopman RB199; 13th Oct 2005 at 22:38.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple cockpit mounted 'G' meters in most British military aircraft are designed to indicate relatively steady state forces. In the event of an impact, cockpit readings will not be an accurate reflection of aircraft structural loads. Strain gauges and/or Fatigue Meters installed near the aircraft CoG are designed to record these forces (strain gauges measure actual deflection of the structure).
'Fast Jet' combat aircraft are usually better instrumented for vertical 'G' forces to ensure crew awareness of wing loading (lower stall speed at high G) and the 'G' force they themselves are experiencing. They still have fatigue meters though.
'Fast Jet' combat aircraft are usually better instrumented for vertical 'G' forces to ensure crew awareness of wing loading (lower stall speed at high G) and the 'G' force they themselves are experiencing. They still have fatigue meters though.
'Fast Jet' combat aircraft are usually better instrumented for vertical 'G' forces to ensure crew awareness of wing loading (lower stall speed at high G) and the 'G' force they themselves are experiencing.
Huh?
The cockpit 'g' meter is there to assist the pilot in staying within the 'g' limits. They are normally very simple devices and very reliable. The meters, that is...
But 'lower stall speed at high G'? Not so! The stalling speed of any aeroplane increases with the square root of the load factor. So, if it stalls at 100 kts in 1g flight, it will stall at 141 kts in 2g flight, 200 kts at 4g......, 268kts at 7.2g etc.
FJ pilots should be aware of the IAS which allows them to pull to the pre-stall buffet nibble without overstress - but they certainly won't be looking in at a cockpit accelerometer when doing this!
Huh?
The cockpit 'g' meter is there to assist the pilot in staying within the 'g' limits. They are normally very simple devices and very reliable. The meters, that is...
But 'lower stall speed at high G'? Not so! The stalling speed of any aeroplane increases with the square root of the load factor. So, if it stalls at 100 kts in 1g flight, it will stall at 141 kts in 2g flight, 200 kts at 4g......, 268kts at 7.2g etc.
FJ pilots should be aware of the IAS which allows them to pull to the pre-stall buffet nibble without overstress - but they certainly won't be looking in at a cockpit accelerometer when doing this!
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Oct 2005 at 11:55.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for the reply on descent rates, as a glider pilot, i have done steep descents, but am always impressed by the Khe Sahn approach...
Might have to try the simulator to see what its like
Might have to try the simulator to see what its like
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you lot are showing off discussing g-meters, fatigue meters, and the square root of the load factor...
Take it from me.
Its much better to use the wheels when landing aircraft.
Take it from me.
Its much better to use the wheels when landing aircraft.