Wind damage reports??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind damage reports??
Surprised no ones started a thread reporting damage caused by yesterdays gales!!.So here goes, Rochester 172 tied down badly damaged right wing first 2 foot or so of wing leading edge bent up following ground contact.Glad my two were snuggled up indoors it amazes me how complacent owners are about leaving aircraft outside in this sort of weather .guess the insurers had a bad day tho we all pay in the end!!.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the London free morning paper there's a picture of a German-registered Cub on its back alongside an inverted Cessna, both according to the caption at the Hampton Aero Club, Hampshire.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowtimer,
Yes, I saw that photo. Bigger version of the same photo in The Sun - big enough that you can see that both aircraft are German-registered. Seems unlikely that two D-registered aircraft would be involved like that unless they were together - a couple of Germans who came across for the weekend, maybe? Hope they found a way of getting home...
FFF
---------------
Yes, I saw that photo. Bigger version of the same photo in The Sun - big enough that you can see that both aircraft are German-registered. Seems unlikely that two D-registered aircraft would be involved like that unless they were together - a couple of Germans who came across for the weekend, maybe? Hope they found a way of getting home...
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kent
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the tabloids said the German aeroplanes were of the same type, so the "fly-out" idea occured to me as well 
I think they were at Barley (may have been Furley?) Farm.
Stampe - do you know which 172 it was at EGTO? Which are "your two"?
tKF
I think they were at Barley (may have been Furley?) Farm.Stampe - do you know which 172 it was at EGTO? Which are "your two"?
tKF
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my amazement I saw a light twin heading east at a couple of thousand feet during the worst of it on Sunday morning. Not for long though - he must have had the better part of a 100kt tailwind. 
Must be very confident in your aeroplane (or mad, I guess) to head up in that weather.
Must be very confident in your aeroplane (or mad, I guess) to head up in that weather.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,644
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
The two Germans are a Maule and a Tri-Pacer - Telegraph says at Hampshire Aero Club near Winchester... neither appears to be beyond repair
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard on the grapevine, minor damage to a PA28 at Barton, due to a piece of boarding being blown into it. Thankfully, I'd cajoled the staff into hangaring my 172 on Saturday evening (usually parked outside). Phew! But all tethered a/c appeared safe at about 14:00 local yesterday when I visited.
I'm sure that damaged D-reg Maule had been advertised on www.afors.co.uk recently - I wonder if both D-reg's had been imported for sale? Hope he insured them adequately...
I'm sure that damaged D-reg Maule had been advertised on www.afors.co.uk recently - I wonder if both D-reg's had been imported for sale? Hope he insured them adequately...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only just caught up with Pprune, after 30 hours with no electricity!
Most of the piccies of inverted light aircraft, seem to be high-wing types, C152, C172, Maule, Cub etc. I seem to recall that this was so, in the last big blow, a few years ago.
So, questions for the techie anoraks, who actually understand both aerodynamics & weather:-
In very high winds, are high-wing types more likely to invert, than low-wings?
Are taildraggers at greater risk than tricycles, & should they be parked into wind or not?
Does it make any difference how they are tied down, i.e. does tying the tail down, as well as wings, stop them somersaulting?
Most of the piccies of inverted light aircraft, seem to be high-wing types, C152, C172, Maule, Cub etc. I seem to recall that this was so, in the last big blow, a few years ago.
So, questions for the techie anoraks, who actually understand both aerodynamics & weather:-
In very high winds, are high-wing types more likely to invert, than low-wings?
Are taildraggers at greater risk than tricycles, & should they be parked into wind or not?
Does it make any difference how they are tied down, i.e. does tying the tail down, as well as wings, stop them somersaulting?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, baffled by the high-wing thing. Possibly because the wind-speed is lower closer to the ground???
As for how to park your aircraft, here's what I reckon, after a little bit of thought:
Tricycles
If parked into wind, you would want to secure the elevators in the down position. Securing them in the up position would mean that the wind blowing over the elevators would raise the nose, and increase the angle of attack so that the wings would lift the aircraft off the ground.
If parked away from wind, the opposite is true - if the elevators were secured in the down position, the nose would be raised by the tail-wind. But, in this case, this wouldn't result in the wings generating any lift, because the wind would be from the wrong direction. If the elevators were secured in the up position, the wind would cause the nose to lower slightly against the pressure of the front oleo or spring. Can't see how that would cause any damage unless the wind was very strong.
Tail-draggers
In the three-point attitude, a tail-dragger's wing is at a high enough angle of attack to lift the aircraft off the ground without any further attitude change. So it seems like parking away from the wind is the only sensible option.
With the elevators in the up position, the wind would try to raise the tail. Therefore, securing the elevators in the down position seems preferable.
This is all based on thinking things through logically - no personal experience or sources to quote from. So it's entirely possible there's a flaw in my logic. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say I'm sure there's a flaw in my logic - now I just need to wait for someone to tell me what it is!
FFF
----------
As for how to park your aircraft, here's what I reckon, after a little bit of thought:
Tricycles
If parked into wind, you would want to secure the elevators in the down position. Securing them in the up position would mean that the wind blowing over the elevators would raise the nose, and increase the angle of attack so that the wings would lift the aircraft off the ground.
If parked away from wind, the opposite is true - if the elevators were secured in the down position, the nose would be raised by the tail-wind. But, in this case, this wouldn't result in the wings generating any lift, because the wind would be from the wrong direction. If the elevators were secured in the up position, the wind would cause the nose to lower slightly against the pressure of the front oleo or spring. Can't see how that would cause any damage unless the wind was very strong.
Tail-draggers
In the three-point attitude, a tail-dragger's wing is at a high enough angle of attack to lift the aircraft off the ground without any further attitude change. So it seems like parking away from the wind is the only sensible option.
With the elevators in the up position, the wind would try to raise the tail. Therefore, securing the elevators in the down position seems preferable.
This is all based on thinking things through logically - no personal experience or sources to quote from. So it's entirely possible there's a flaw in my logic. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say I'm sure there's a flaw in my logic - now I just need to wait for someone to tell me what it is!
FFF
----------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any of you guys are flying over Wales today, the Army has asked everyone to look out for a blow-up tank, that blew away from a training area (Brecon Beacons, I think), as they would like it back, please. (per BBC Radio 4)
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,644
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
I've heard elsewhere that an inflatable Ronald McDonald is also on the loose...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bright and early yesterday morning I nipped down to the airfield to check that our group AA5 I'd tied down on Saturday afternoon was still in one piece. Thankfully it was, and it seemed to be withstanding the battering quite well, so I was able to relax for the rest of the day
Although the tie-downs were holding quite securely, our Cheetah had definitely been rotated a bit into wind. Curiously, the Archer parked a few planes up in the line which was tied down by two bits of lose string didn't seem to have moved at all. While I was there some extremely strong gusts hit and although I could see the tie-downs on the AA5 straining, the Archer just sat there solid as a rock. Weird to watch.
The worst affected did indeed seem to be the high wing aircraft. It might be that the wind is stronger that little bit higher up, but another factor is that the tie-downs you need are three or four times longer, so there's a lot more give in them. Looking up the flight line at a 152 and a 172 it was obvious they can move quite a long way before the tie-downs take effect. A strong gust would stand a much better chance of lifting a wing and really getting under it.
Although the tie-downs were holding quite securely, our Cheetah had definitely been rotated a bit into wind. Curiously, the Archer parked a few planes up in the line which was tied down by two bits of lose string didn't seem to have moved at all. While I was there some extremely strong gusts hit and although I could see the tie-downs on the AA5 straining, the Archer just sat there solid as a rock. Weird to watch.
The worst affected did indeed seem to be the high wing aircraft. It might be that the wind is stronger that little bit higher up, but another factor is that the tie-downs you need are three or four times longer, so there's a lot more give in them. Looking up the flight line at a 152 and a 172 it was obvious they can move quite a long way before the tie-downs take effect. A strong gust would stand a much better chance of lifting a wing and really getting under it.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cardiff photo is from the BBC News web site here.
Are any of your club aircraft salvageable, or are they all written off?
I spent an uneasy day myself on Sunday worrying about my own aircraft, but the tie-downs seem to have held. I was concerned about the possibility of other aircraft being blown into it though, which sounds as if it might be what happened at Cardiff
Are any of your club aircraft salvageable, or are they all written off?
I spent an uneasy day myself on Sunday worrying about my own aircraft, but the tie-downs seem to have held. I was concerned about the possibility of other aircraft being blown into it though, which sounds as if it might be what happened at Cardiff