Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

'G' Limits - Wings or Engine??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Oct 2004, 22:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question 'G' Limits - Wings or Engine??

Hey

Quick question for everyone...

If the 'g' limits of a single engine piston aircratf (C152) are exceeded, what will fall off first? The wings or the engine?

There's a beer on it, so lets get this sorted..

Cheers, HSVROX
hsvrox is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2004, 23:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,166
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
With a beer as prize this is indeed a serious contest so I'd like to clarify the rules:
an Aerobat or not?
positive or negative g limits?
rolling g limits?
flaps up or down?
limit or ultimate "g" limits? i.e. fatigue damage or static overload considerations?
djpil is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 03:29
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
-Non Aerobat
-Positive G Limits
-No Flaps
-G limits around +3.8 or so i believe
hsvrox is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 05:02
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why don't you get airborne and try it, and I'll stay on the ground drinking several beers and watch you!
Captain Sand Dune is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 06:54
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 90 Likes on 33 Posts
Yeah that would be a good laugh, except I like Aerobats. I was flying one this morning.

What about the wing ejector (red) button under the ammeter?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 07:33
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 56
Posts: 2,600
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not an engineer so I’m no expert, but I remember some test pilot in the US about 10 – 15 years ago pushing a Partinavia to its limit in front of an air show crowd with his wife doing the commentary. The poor sole parted both wings from the airframe just outboard of the engine nacelles. Both engines seemed to be intact and running until impact in a 45° nose down attitude, wings level and his wife in hysterics.
404 Titan is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 07:41
  #7 (permalink)  
Safety First!
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The engine!

You have to take into account the weight at which the aircraft is being operated.

If the aeroplane is stressed to take 6'G', for example at a MAUW of 2000lbs, then the wings are designed to take 12,000lbs of force, and the engine mounts the weight of your 1,000lbs engine (6,000lbs). If on the other hand you fly at half that weight and you take the aeroplane (stupidly) to 12'G' then your wings will still only be producing 12,000lbs of force so wont be as likely to fail structurally. The engine mounts on the other hand, have double the designed maximum load factor on them (12,000lbs as opposed to the original 6,000lbs limit) and will no doubt fail in some horrific manner.

My money's on the engine.

Cheers,
Kerms
Kermit 180 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2004, 10:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,166
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Good point, Kermit.
It is not an Aerobat but we know it has the same engine mount as an Aerobat so it is good for at least 6 g limit at any weight. (I've seen a bent engine mount from a hard landing though.) The rest of the airframe is good for at least 4.4 g limit at 1600 lb.
djpil is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2004, 05:12
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Classified
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tricky.

My beer is on the engine.
Formally Known As is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2004, 00:24
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ultimate Design Strength.

The aircraft designer starts with a target design strength for a particular weight.

All of the strengths should be consistent. If any structure is too strong then it will be too heavy. If any structure is too weak then this is a design fault and the most likely source of failure.

A wing or engine doesn't fall off. The wings or the engine mounts fail under excessive load.

For safety the ultimate design strength is usually 50% greater than maximum specified for normal operations.
A 3g aircraft should break at 4.5g or a 9g fighter should break at 13.5g.

But beware of the rolling pull out! An up going wing will be loaded up much more than what you feel or what the g meter registers in the fuselage.

Beers all round!
Milt is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2004, 10:29
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You might notice most if not all normal category aircraft have a g limit of 3.8g. Its a regulatory requirement. Some are designed to take more than this, but you only know for sure up to 3.8. Nothing will break off until 150% of this limit at the earliest.
avguy1 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2004, 15:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 496
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
in a C152.....

my beer is on the engine.

Can any engineers out there tell me the loading factor for the"jesus bolts"?

The mount may bend so that you could have a really intereting lesson of EofC and for the first time in a C152 apply power and the nose pitches down

But i wonder if a jesus bolt would fail before the mount...

any takers?
Bula is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2004, 07:24
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neither!

The tailplane, or perhaps aft fuselage stiffeners...
Oktas8 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2004, 11:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 496
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
very true. Just check any C152's that are continually flown overweight.. .generally the ones with long range tanks used in training

now give that tail spar a shake


you'll be shocked by the sound ... crack crack
Bula is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.