Missing light aircraft in the NT
Moderator
this film from the CSIRO
How on earth did you track this stuff down ? Re the wing - if the spar cap breaks, you end up with a hinge which doesn't work as well. At least it all happens quickly enough and violently enough for the occupants to have little recognition of what is going on .. other than for a feeling that it might not end all that well.
How on earth did you track this stuff down ? Re the wing - if the spar cap breaks, you end up with a hinge which doesn't work as well. At least it all happens quickly enough and violently enough for the occupants to have little recognition of what is going on .. other than for a feeling that it might not end all that well.
The section of video with the Hudson losing its wing I'd assume is the event at Bairnsdale.
Details from ADF Serials
A16-38 had seen damage to the mainplanes in combat twice and repaired. The second was being shot up by three Zeros (one shot down) at Lae resulting in repairs including main shear booms of both wings. With 915 hours on airframe (and during a filming of it in the air diving and leveling near the ground for a Cinesound film unit (Fox Movietone), disaster struck at 1500hrs on the 27/10/42 on circuit of Bairnsdale Aerodrome during a test flight following its 80 hrs service. When pulling out of high speed shallow dive at 80 feet and some 200 yards down from the camera, the starboard wing failed at wing station # 144, causing part of the outer wing (3 feet from engine) and spar to separate from the aircraft, with the aircraft then rolling inverted, causing a further failure of the tail plane, with the aircraft then crashing into the ground and exploding. The crew, Sqn Ldr P C Tampion Serv#349, Cpl H P Smith Serv#17024, LAC A P Thomas Serv#13975 and LAC N L Cheshire Serv#49572 all killed instantly. The starboard wing panel was sent to the CSIR for metallurgy inspection. The finding was that the mainplanes had been repaired per then accepted practices, but had failed in flight where numerous patched repairs were made during its overhaul at 5AD. The report stated that many Hudsons withdrawn from operational service and used in 1 OTU had been flown to the limits with resultant heavy loadings on their wings on operational service. All similar houred Hudsons were inspected some found to have similar problems, which would result in their replacement by GAF Beauforts in the near future in operational squadrons.
Details from ADF Serials
A16-38 had seen damage to the mainplanes in combat twice and repaired. The second was being shot up by three Zeros (one shot down) at Lae resulting in repairs including main shear booms of both wings. With 915 hours on airframe (and during a filming of it in the air diving and leveling near the ground for a Cinesound film unit (Fox Movietone), disaster struck at 1500hrs on the 27/10/42 on circuit of Bairnsdale Aerodrome during a test flight following its 80 hrs service. When pulling out of high speed shallow dive at 80 feet and some 200 yards down from the camera, the starboard wing failed at wing station # 144, causing part of the outer wing (3 feet from engine) and spar to separate from the aircraft, with the aircraft then rolling inverted, causing a further failure of the tail plane, with the aircraft then crashing into the ground and exploding. The crew, Sqn Ldr P C Tampion Serv#349, Cpl H P Smith Serv#17024, LAC A P Thomas Serv#13975 and LAC N L Cheshire Serv#49572 all killed instantly. The starboard wing panel was sent to the CSIR for metallurgy inspection. The finding was that the mainplanes had been repaired per then accepted practices, but had failed in flight where numerous patched repairs were made during its overhaul at 5AD. The report stated that many Hudsons withdrawn from operational service and used in 1 OTU had been flown to the limits with resultant heavy loadings on their wings on operational service. All similar houred Hudsons were inspected some found to have similar problems, which would result in their replacement by GAF Beauforts in the near future in operational squadrons.
https://aviationmuseumwa.org.au/afcr...-james-413850/
Not an Anson Justin, twin fins. Losing a wing in a beat up is not that unusual, there is video of a Mosquito losing its wing doing the same, don't know where I saw it decades ago and repeated searches of the net over the years can't find it. Note my post says Cinesound film unit (Fox Movietone) filmed the Hudson crash and the wing went to CSIR for inspection, the film above was produced by C.S.I.R.’s Division of Aeronautics. I'm sure you will join the dots.
There's still a lot of old films around, hard to find many that have been converted to digital to post unfortunately. There seems to be a lot of accidents filmed around Australia, whether staged for what was about to be attempted (and went wrong) or they just recorded a lot of aviation activity in the 40s/50s. Lots of reels of Boomerangs and Beauforts.
Just catching up with this thread. Would be interested in some expansion on JT’s comment in response to the passage I quoted from FAA SAIB CE-11-17, so I have a better understanding of the intersecting variables. For convenience, here’s the SAIB passage I quoted, followed by a quote of JT’s comment:
[Bolding in SAIB CE-11-17.]
When you say: “if Va is above Va min”, are you talking about cases in which the designer has chosen to nominate a Va above Vs*sqrt(n)?
Is your point that because of what Va is actually only about – design of the empennage and ailerons – there are cases in which full deflection of a single flight control (particularly for pitch) may not be a problem for the empennage or ailerons in isolation if that happens at or below Va, but may still be a problem from the limit load factor of the ‘main airframe structure’? (That’s presumably why AC 23-19A says, among other things: “Va should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed.”) Thus: “without risk of damage to the airplane” is an overstatement in the passage quoted from SAIB CE-11-17?
The design maneuvering speed (VA) is the speed below which you can move a single flight control, one time, to its full deflection, for one axis of airplane rotation only (pitch, roll or yaw), in smooth air, without risk of damage to the airplane.
I'd take issue with that statement, unless qualified. Especially for pitch, if Va is above Va min, there is the presumption of a checked manoeuvre to avoid exceeding the limit load factor. We need to keep in mind that Va is thinking about the controls, not the main airframe structure.
Is your point that because of what Va is actually only about – design of the empennage and ailerons – there are cases in which full deflection of a single flight control (particularly for pitch) may not be a problem for the empennage or ailerons in isolation if that happens at or below Va, but may still be a problem from the limit load factor of the ‘main airframe structure’? (That’s presumably why AC 23-19A says, among other things: “Va should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed.”) Thus: “without risk of damage to the airplane” is an overstatement in the passage quoted from SAIB CE-11-17?
The following users liked this post:
Moderator
are you talking about cases
That's my take on reading the FARs. Pitching loads need to be cognizant of limit load factor potential to cause raised eyebrows.
That's my take on reading the FARs. Pitching loads need to be cognizant of limit load factor potential to cause raised eyebrows.
The following users liked this post:
It therefore seems to me that this statement from AC 23-19A is a good 'takeaway' for us gumbies with hands on the controls:
Va should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed.
Moderator
is a good 'takeaway'
djpil's observations in #160 are pertinent. See, also, Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 23.349 - Rolling conditions. (risingup.com).
I'm quite happy, for strong turbulence and/or manoeuvring, to sit around a reasonable amount under Va min. Sure I might get into a stall problem, but I get to have another go at living. Do have another look at the old video linked at 43inches's #179. The boys didn't get anything beyond a few more seconds prior to their unfortunate demise.
djpil's observations in #160 are pertinent. See, also, Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 23.349 - Rolling conditions. (risingup.com).
I'm quite happy, for strong turbulence and/or manoeuvring, to sit around a reasonable amount under Va min. Sure I might get into a stall problem, but I get to have another go at living. Do have another look at the old video linked at 43inches's #179. The boys didn't get anything beyond a few more seconds prior to their unfortunate demise.
What is "Va min" and where do I find that in a POH?
Moderator
What is "Va min"
Just my relaxed terminology for the lowest Va available to the OEM, viz, Vs√n.
The problem is that Va is an engineering design requirement, where it is limited to a minimum of Vs√n. Due to a disconnect between certification and operations, years ago, pilots have come to believe that Va is this minimum value which is not necessarily the case. The minimum value is nice because it provides some measure of protection against exceeding the limit load factor used in the aircraft's structural design by stalling - albeit only for simple pitching manoeuvres and for MTOW.
Some years ago, the FAA introduced a more useful (to pilots) speed, Vo. Progressively, Vo will come into general usage. Vo is a maximum of Vs√n and of much more relevance to pilots than Va.
So you won't see Va min anywhere other than here. I don't know how many aircraft have Vo specified as yet but it will be comparatively few. As new designs come into the marketplace, we will see Vo included in their POH information.
Just my relaxed terminology for the lowest Va available to the OEM, viz, Vs√n.
The problem is that Va is an engineering design requirement, where it is limited to a minimum of Vs√n. Due to a disconnect between certification and operations, years ago, pilots have come to believe that Va is this minimum value which is not necessarily the case. The minimum value is nice because it provides some measure of protection against exceeding the limit load factor used in the aircraft's structural design by stalling - albeit only for simple pitching manoeuvres and for MTOW.
Some years ago, the FAA introduced a more useful (to pilots) speed, Vo. Progressively, Vo will come into general usage. Vo is a maximum of Vs√n and of much more relevance to pilots than Va.
So you won't see Va min anywhere other than here. I don't know how many aircraft have Vo specified as yet but it will be comparatively few. As new designs come into the marketplace, we will see Vo included in their POH information.
Makes it a bit tough for us gumbies with our hands on the controls...
Moderator
Makes it a bit tough for us gumbies with our hands on the controls...
Not really. The discussion earlier with djpil provides a clue.
For the normal category aircraft, the limit load factor, typically, but not always, is 3.8g.
Vo is going to be near to 1.95 x Vs.
If you want to give yourself a bit for mum and the kids in turbulence or manoeuvring, perhaps aim for something closer to 1.6 x Vs.
The only caveat is that you need to apply the PEC to the Vs numbers so that the sums are in KCAS and then convert the answers back to KIAS via the PEC. Use the Vs values for whatever gross weight might be of interest and it all should work out fine and dandy.
Not really. The discussion earlier with djpil provides a clue.
For the normal category aircraft, the limit load factor, typically, but not always, is 3.8g.
Vo is going to be near to 1.95 x Vs.
If you want to give yourself a bit for mum and the kids in turbulence or manoeuvring, perhaps aim for something closer to 1.6 x Vs.
The only caveat is that you need to apply the PEC to the Vs numbers so that the sums are in KCAS and then convert the answers back to KIAS via the PEC. Use the Vs values for whatever gross weight might be of interest and it all should work out fine and dandy.
So simple!
One wonders why anyone could ever be confused...
One wonders why anyone could ever be confused...
Moderator
The problem is that the standard of theory instruction is pretty average in many areas, this being one. That, also, has to do with the syllabus, the exams, and the fact that many students are endeavouring to get through their exams with the absolute minimum level and standard of theoretical knowledge. Flight instructors beget like theory knowledge impoverished flight instructors. In many cases, the only theory instruction up and coming pilots get is from those instructors so the cycle remains viciously feeding upon itself.
I have some background in theory instruction and, I have to say, there are some documents out there which claim to be texts which are, themselves, a bit average.
At least, those of us with an engineering background and who are involved in the theory side of things can pass on this sort of stuff to our students.
It is nice to have a bit of an idea what the rules are, where they are, and what might be involved. At the end of the day, it is nicer to have useful bits of take away stuff to note in the shirt pocket notebook. I can recall my first training captain in the airlines taking out his voluminous pocket notebook on day one. It had all sorts of useful stuff in it that he had laboured to acquire and he periodically pulled it out to check if he wasn't sure that his memory was spot on for any particular item.
I learnt a lot from my training captains and checkies. Also, I was fortunate that all my PPL and CPL instructors were rather experienced and knowledgeable A grade instructors who knew their stuff pretty well.
That was back in the day when political correctness didn't come into it at all and the student was expected to learn. If he didn't, the pressure ramped up appropriately to get the message across. My first PPL instructor took along a rolled up newspaper. First time mistakes were addressed patiently and gently. Do it again and the student error correction newspaper would be applied, patiently and gently, to the back of the skull. I don't recall that anyone made all that many mistakes along the way. My group all soloed in short order (4-8 hours) and PPL tests all came up pretty much on minimum times (scratching the memory here - 35 hours to unrestricted ?)
Dreadful ? Of course, by current standards. Effective ? You bet.
I have some background in theory instruction and, I have to say, there are some documents out there which claim to be texts which are, themselves, a bit average.
At least, those of us with an engineering background and who are involved in the theory side of things can pass on this sort of stuff to our students.
It is nice to have a bit of an idea what the rules are, where they are, and what might be involved. At the end of the day, it is nicer to have useful bits of take away stuff to note in the shirt pocket notebook. I can recall my first training captain in the airlines taking out his voluminous pocket notebook on day one. It had all sorts of useful stuff in it that he had laboured to acquire and he periodically pulled it out to check if he wasn't sure that his memory was spot on for any particular item.
I learnt a lot from my training captains and checkies. Also, I was fortunate that all my PPL and CPL instructors were rather experienced and knowledgeable A grade instructors who knew their stuff pretty well.
That was back in the day when political correctness didn't come into it at all and the student was expected to learn. If he didn't, the pressure ramped up appropriately to get the message across. My first PPL instructor took along a rolled up newspaper. First time mistakes were addressed patiently and gently. Do it again and the student error correction newspaper would be applied, patiently and gently, to the back of the skull. I don't recall that anyone made all that many mistakes along the way. My group all soloed in short order (4-8 hours) and PPL tests all came up pretty much on minimum times (scratching the memory here - 35 hours to unrestricted ?)
Dreadful ? Of course, by current standards. Effective ? You bet.
The following users liked this post:
One basic stat that highlights the issue is average solo times. When I started 5-8 hours was normal, if you took more than 10 the CFI got involved, now it seems 15+ is normal. A lot is the distractions from basics in the syllabus, lack of practical knowledge by the instructors and so on. Sometimes I think of the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", which sums up the regulations that have been implemented to improve standards, but has had the opposite effect in that it over complicates something that is very basic.
Aviation is something that has simple rules of survival but over complicated regulation, the two don't match. The problem is getting back to understanding those basics again in the early stages. Faulty foundations and the whole thing eventually fails, no different in teaching techniques to building a tower.
Aviation is something that has simple rules of survival but over complicated regulation, the two don't match. The problem is getting back to understanding those basics again in the early stages. Faulty foundations and the whole thing eventually fails, no different in teaching techniques to building a tower.
The following 4 users liked this post by 43Inches:
"Best Before " is listed in the SID's program.
So not 1 (ONE) single example of a wing clap given (up or down) from the beast you all say has a history of wing failure.
Mine was a simple question for you all to show the "problem" with the C210 wing. "FAILURES"
Not even JT will show an example - yet you all still believe in the tooth fairy.
Mine was a simple question for you all to show the "problem" with the C210 wing. "FAILURES"
Not even JT will show an example - yet you all still believe in the tooth fairy.
The following users liked this post:
Makes it a bit tough for us gumbies with our hands on the controls...
Not really. The discussion earlier with djpil provides a clue.
For the normal category aircraft, the limit load factor, typically, but not always, is 3.8g.
Vo is going to be near to 1.95 x Vs.
If you want to give yourself a bit for mum and the kids in turbulence or manoeuvring, perhaps aim for something closer to 1.6 x Vs.
The only caveat is that you need to apply the PEC to the Vs numbers so that the sums are in KCAS and then convert the answers back to KIAS via the PEC. Use the Vs values for whatever gross weight might be of interest and it all should work out fine and dandy.
Not really. The discussion earlier with djpil provides a clue.
For the normal category aircraft, the limit load factor, typically, but not always, is 3.8g.
Vo is going to be near to 1.95 x Vs.
If you want to give yourself a bit for mum and the kids in turbulence or manoeuvring, perhaps aim for something closer to 1.6 x Vs.
The only caveat is that you need to apply the PEC to the Vs numbers so that the sums are in KCAS and then convert the answers back to KIAS via the PEC. Use the Vs values for whatever gross weight might be of interest and it all should work out fine and dandy.
"should work out fine and dandy"?
"convert the answers back to KIAS via the PEC"?
Meanwhile, if any of this discussion is going to translate into something halfway useful in the world of a young pilot/student pilot in the cockpit of an 'average GA aircraft', there must be a quick 'rule of thumb' calculation of IAS Vo for the range of weights of the aircraft.