canadairQuote:
I just wish owners would stop polishing bare aluminium to a mirror finish.
I completely agree, this is a disgrace! 😀
canadairI am amazed!! someone not only has an RB211-22B bolted down in his back yard, but he is having a go at starting it!! wow.
In 4 years of flying Tristars, back in the 90`s, I had 3 failures and 4 shutdowns on the 22B, (never the tail engine of course) as far as I am concerned his backyard is a GREAT place for that 3 spool, overly complex, vibration intolerent, reverser failing engine,
that said, starting them was always a magical experience, the “rumble” as they accelerate is fantastic, and starting 3 would always turn LGW IFR with the smoke, (weeping seals they would tell me) still…loved it!
I am not sure he would be wise to get it up to full chat, but the start sequence alone is most of the fun.
Well done!!
canadairpatiently waiting for the
“we will make it clear we know, but will still not tell you anything” crowd to weigh in, 🙂
seriously though, I would be very interested to hear as well, while no doubt expensive, the damage did not look overly complex to repair, so hopefully it is well underway.
and aside, anyone know what the actual mechanical cause of the gear failing to come down was?
canadairslightly (well maybe more so) off topic, but…
Delmar did not ground the Gee Bee because of any flight issues, or for that matter a “scare” he had almost 1000 hours on it when he parked it.
Simply an opportunity to sell it and realise a good price came up, (Kermit Weeks)
A Gee Bee is not an airplane which one sells in a day, or even a year, the number of serious buyers can probably be counted on one hand, and when you find one, you sell. Simple.
(Since the sale Kermit Weeks has chosen not to fly the aircraft for personal reasons, the aircraft was fully airworthy on delivery)
To segway back to topic the same could be said of the Comet, while we would all love to see it fly, and for that matter give it a go, how many would want to own one?
canadairslightly (well maybe more so) off topic, but…
Delmar did not ground the Gee Bee because of any flight issues, or for that matter a “scare” he had almost 1000 hours on it when he parked it.
Simply an opportunity to sell it and realise a good price came up, (Kermit Weeks)
A Gee Bee is not an airplane which one sells in a day, or even a year, the number of serious buyers can probably be counted on one hand, and when you find one, you sell. Simple.
(Since the sale Kermit Weeks has chosen not to fly the aircraft for personal reasons, the aircraft was fully airworthy on delivery)
To segway back to topic the same could be said of the Comet, while we would all love to see it fly, and for that matter give it a go, how many would want to own one?
canadairI would say that any engine with vertical cylinders will give greater prop clearance when mounted inverted, yet not sacrifice visibility.
So even when mounted on the wing, the main benefit would seem to be prop clearance.
Although most V bank engines will not gain the same relative advantage.
There may well be other reasons, specific to oil, fuel, etc.
canadairBruce,
can we count new build projects?
How about Roy Rehm building the new Boeing Model 100`s?
(some are dataplate rebuilds)
no site just yet, but what an incredible project
Tim O`conner building 2 incredibly accurate Boeing P26 Peashooters?
http://www.peashooter.net
not to confine this to Boeing,
Jim Moss building a Gee Bee QED
no site but lots of photos if anyone is keen
TVAL turning out an amazing amount of WW1 replicas?
thevintageaviator.co.nz/
and Nick Cauldwell building the world`s most accurate Sopwith Snipe.
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/replica-aircraft/36007-sopwith-snipe-project.html
A new Lockheed Orion underway on floats.
2 new build Ryan STA`s, with a progress blog in progress.
there are others.
But if you meant this to focus only on restoration as opposed to recreation, then please disregard the above.
canadairBruce,
can we count new build projects?
How about Roy Rehm building the new Boeing Model 100`s?
(some are dataplate rebuilds)
no site just yet, but what an incredible project
Tim O`conner building 2 incredibly accurate Boeing P26 Peashooters?
http://www.peashooter.net
not to confine this to Boeing,
Jim Moss building a Gee Bee QED
no site but lots of photos if anyone is keen
TVAL turning out an amazing amount of WW1 replicas?
thevintageaviator.co.nz/
and Nick Cauldwell building the world`s most accurate Sopwith Snipe.
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/replica-aircraft/36007-sopwith-snipe-project.html
A new Lockheed Orion underway on floats.
2 new build Ryan STA`s, with a progress blog in progress.
there are others.
But if you meant this to focus only on restoration as opposed to recreation, then please disregard the above.
canadairStorage???
Bruce, do you mean not on public display storage? if so will or has the aircraft be flown?
What an amazing site to see two Mystery Ships in the UK, this original, and the new Seeley, Souch replica.
It would be such a shame if this one is not able to be viewed.
(don`t suppose you have some photos of it all done do you..)
canadairGood point malcom
I am far more interested in what it does, than how it does it 🙂
canadairTrim (and CG)
“surely nose down trim and not nose up then as per Canadairs post? or am i miss reading his post on the techno side?”
Sorry, not meaning this to be confusing, the difference is the way I described trim tab position vs what effect the trim tab is meant to produce.
The intent on the course is to use trim to induce a nose down effect, increasing with speed, ie the trim works harder to push the nose down the faster it goes.
But then as mentioned, the loss of the trim, which is pushing nose down, the nose will dramatically and rapidly rise.
So the tab position is UP, the Elevator TE position is DOWN, which pushes the nose DOWN. if the tab lets go, the Elevator TE goes UP, the nose goes UP.
This is much easier to explain with my hands and an imaginary stick, than via words!
On the subject of CG, basic aerodynamics says that the further aft the CG the faster the aircraft will go and the more manueverable it will be, (to aft CG limits vs weight) but this speed is gained at a price, as the further aft the CG, the less pressure required on the elevator for a given result.
So more simply put, it would be very easy to exceed the design limits of the surface with an Aft CG, and near VNE speeds.
This may be a factor regards this accident, as the elevator without trim would have a free float angle which is relative to the speed, with trim it is forced to an angle, but take the trim away and it will return to this angle, but with an aft CG it will induce as perhaps seen, a massive G as a result of rapidly returning to this point, as well inducing a large accompanying “stick force”
As mentioned, the only way to change CG in flight is to consume some weight, in most cases just fuel, but as GG had a boil off cooling system water would also be consumed. Both would affect CG, and I have no doubt they would have biased CG to move aft as both are consumed, as this would have a dual effect, the weight reduction and CG moving aft would essentially increase the speed with each lap.
They were in lap 3 when the accident occurred, so less than 1/2 way, and I would guess that they still planned to burn and boil off quite a bit more, so the CG was not as far aft as it may have been planned to end up.
The ethos of GG was to use aerodynamics to go fast as opposed to MP. While Strega, etc would be running over 100″ to get to 490+ speeds, the theory of no radiator scoop, and the other clean up items was that GG could match or exceed those speeds but on 60-70″, which has the add on benefit of not working the engine as hard, less fuel required, lower temperatures, etc, all good stuff and certainly excellent thinking.
I think GG was the best designed, best performing, most efficient Unlimited ever developed, it was such an incredible machine, and all involved should be commended for its development, and operation. Its last lap was showing just what it could do, and I bet the telemtry will show it did it at less than 70″
Oh, as also mentioned, I would assume that any telemetry gained or qouted was real time feed already saved, I would not think any useful data will come from the aircraft parts salvaged, but again that is the domain of the NTSB, not me.
I certainly do not want this to in any way take away from the obvious focus, the human tragedy, like everyone else I am just trying to make sense of what may have happened. None of this means a thing to anyone personally affected by this.
canadairTrim
Just to add a comment regards trim and the effects on the course:
The racers are all trimmed prior to entering the course with a large nose up trim bias, the idea being as they approach the race speeds they can relax the push, as the trim will be correct for the speeds, 400 plus, so one less item to think about, in what would be a pretty intense environment.
The in flight speed range of GG would be about 140 kts to 500+ kts, so it is acceptable to preset a high speed trim, while still accelerating, compensating for the required push until on the course.
in racing, as opposed to most normal flying, the combination of the angle of bank and the need to fly a line with increasing speed means you are using bottom, not top rudder in turns, and you are pushing the nose down in a turn with rudder, and when straight with trim, (elevator) this is opposite to normal input but required for the course.
The downside is exactly what has now probably happened twice, if the trim lets go at speed, the now untrimmed elevator will bias due speed to where it would go if the trim was not applied, full TE up, (nose up effect), and this then creates a situation of “see what wins”, with the options being, Flutter, control system structural failure, high speed stall, or full deflection, with resultant effect,
in this case it appears the elevator was powerful enough and mounted securely enough to force a rapid change of angle of attack, with the following effect,
1: 10+ G immediate pull, pilot goes to sleep
2: Tailwheel uplock failed (main gear hangs in there, stronger uplocks)
3: deformation of the rear fuselage
4: rapid climb uncontrolled with a slight angle of bank still induced (he was still in a slight LH turn)
5: its a laminar flow wing, so it describes a parabolic arc, comes over the top, and due the still applied bank, comes down the other side, as lift once again increases, it starts to pull out of its dive, but not enough and hits at about a 75 degree down line.
6: He may well have woken up during this, as there would have been at most 3-4 G at the top of the arc, but by then he was probably well below the canopy rails, definately confused, and since he does not appear to come back up, maybe his seat had broken, which would mean he could not really get back up to see where he was.
I am not in any way playing NTSB here, this is merely my thoughts, and just commenting on the evidence, both written and video shown to date.
I have I never flown an unlimited on the course at Reno.
(However I have raced at Reno in the Biplane class, so I have a small insight into the various factors on the course)
This is mainly intended to expand on the trim issue a little, as some have asked.
canadairwell, I am no aerodynamicist,
(not even sure I can spell it)
but I have done a fair bit of formation flying, and I think that while it would be fairly straight forward to “disconnect” reconnecting would be a completely different scenario.
I would not like to try and place that little Cri Cri in the tracks on the top of the Broussard mid air 3 feet behind that R985. No thanks!
Just watch some video on car/truck – aircraft recoveries, even then its not 100%, with plenty of go arounds, and thats with one of the two participants firmly attached to a runway,
with both in a three dimensional environment I think it would be extremely difficult, and potentially disasterous.
canadairI could not agree with you more Moggy!
I think the mistake many make when they envision an operation is the potential of making money, when in reality the vast majority of operations, make very little if any real profit.
The correct way to look at any operation, and this is usually only learned the hard way, is as a means of asset aquisition, and cash flow, which can be used for other things.
An established operation will hopefully be able to pay for a number of assets, and the nature of the operation will determine just how valuable the assets are, but this translates into wealth accumulation in the long term.
The cash flow can also be useful, as it can allow outside investment via finace, based on the cashflow.
But cashflow will only come after the setup, and initial operation phases, and as a result it may never reach this point.
Even if you make it through the negative revenue phases, you are probably still a long way from the positive cashflow scenario required to support the description above.
Most operators run pretty close to a break even point, if they are lucky, so there is just not enough room for large profit in small operations, and of course as the value and complexity of the equipment goes up, so do the potential risks.
So, in my opinion if you cannot afford to self fund the start up and initial operational expenses you are not going to get off the ground, let alone survive the initial set up phase.
and yes, as much as I love old airplanes, this is a subject near and dear my heart!
canadairTo be honest I am not sure,
I am only basing my thoughts on standard JAA/ CAA regs.
No doubt there may be some room for exemption.
I was merely trying to suggest that there are many considerations beyond the obvious when it comes to starting up an operation.
In the case of the mentioned Dutch Dakota flight, it would be interesting to see which OC they operate under, as both KLM and Martinair are shown in the branding, I would assume that one or the other is also providing support.
This is very different from a stand alone operation.
LIke I said, I am certainly not trying to suggest it cannot be done, and I would not discourage anyone from trying. I was just pointing out that there are a substantial list of issues which must be resolved in todays commercial world before the first revenue flight leaves the ground.
Sign In
