Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:12 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 1911
Location: Pacific Northwest USA, via North Florida
Just curious was this one of the C47s that was going to go to the huge airborne drop in Normandy next year?

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Minnesota
Yes, it was among the participants listed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:55 pm
Posts: 491
Glad No One died, too bad for the Plane. I've seen it before, Was Very Nice :(
FWIW, there's a DC-3/C-47 sitting at the Laredo Air Port, (?) maybe a future B.B.B.II (?) :?
( thanks again, p-51 )

_________________
WWI & WWII Warbird Fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 717
The NTSB preliminary report for this accident is out:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=FA

There is a lot of info in there that answers many questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 357
OD/NG wrote:
There is a lot of info in there that answers many questions.

And raises some others. Very strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:35 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2628
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
I'm going to with hold most of my comments for a bit. The main thing is that the "Pilot Flying" lost it and the "Pilot NOt Flying" PNF grabbed it but couldn't get it back on the runway and tracking straight because of the stall entry. this explains why he didn't dare retard the throttles , he was fighting to save the airplane, no abrupt control changes or anything. They should be commended for getting everyone out of the airplane quickly regardless of their ages or health and there wasn't any loss of life. Sounds like it caught fire in a matter of seconds.
While withholding my comments as an ATP pilot that flies Transport Category crew served aircraft I will say one thing. As a flight instructor I have had a few experiences where the student or "Pilot Flying" did something so wrong so close to the ground that it was a miracle I saved it and the aircraft didn't strike the ground. Second, the FAA will dissect what was gong on in the cockpit and flight training process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 1524
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Thanks for posting the NTSB link... that was a curious read. With all controls free and the tailwheel locked, is it possible that a tire deflated partway through the takeoff run? That could cause a drift as described in the document, and if it happened close to V1, the crew would find themselves in a quandry very quickly.

What's the health status of those who suffered serious injuries - is everyone out of the hospital now?

Lynn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 717
lmritger wrote:
What's the health status of those who suffered serious injuries - is everyone out of the hospital now?

Lynn


I would like to know this as well. Early reports suggested that someone received extensive burns. Anyone know how that person is doing, and if that report was accurate?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 936
Location: Deer Park, NY
marine air wrote:
I'm going to with hold most of my comments for a bit. The main thing is that the "Pilot Flying" lost it and the "Pilot NOt Flying" PNF grabbed it but couldn't get it back on the runway and tracking straight because of the stall entry..


No we don't know the PF "lost it". It's quite possible the PNF just made things worse by trying to salvage the take-off. The PNF apparently didn't notice the right swerve reported by the PF, which was corrected with left rudder, to which the PNF did notice that and called on the PF to correct with right rudder. Both the initial right swerve and the left yaw are seen in the video. Probably would have been a better outcome if the PNF, as soon as the co-pilot didn't respond to the command to correct the left swerve, would have aborted and chopped the power at that point. This will be one that'll be discussed at CRM seminars in the near future I'm sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:51 am
Posts: 46
First, I am relieved everyone made it out and wishing a speedy recovery for those that were injured.



For those that haven’t read it here is an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary report

Quote:
“The co-pilot, who was the flying pilot (FP) reported that prior to the flight, it was briefed that he would perform the takeoff. He stated that the captain taxied the airplane to the runup area, where all pre-takeoff checks were completed; the captain then taxied the airplane onto runway 19. The co-pilot further stated that he then took control of the airplane, provided a pre-takeoff brief, and initiated the takeoff sequence. About 10 seconds into the takeoff roll, the airplane drifted right, at which time he applied left rudder input. This was followed shortly by the captain saying that he had the airplane.

The captain, who was the non-flying pilot (NFP), reported that during the initial stages of the takeoff roll, he didn't recall the airplane swerving to the right, however, recalled telling the co-pilot not to push the tail up because it was heavy; he also remembered the airplane swerving to the left shortly thereafter. The captain stated that he yelled "right rudder" three times before taking control of the airplane. He said that as he put his hands on the control yoke, he noticed that either the tail started to come down or the main wheels were either light or were just coming off the ground as it exited the left side of the runway. The captain said that he knew the airplane was slow as he tried to ease it [the airplane] over [to the runway] and set it back down. Subsequently, he felt the 'shutter of a stall," and the airplane turned to the left and impacted the ground. After the airplane came to a stop, a postimpact fire ensued, during which all the occupants of the airplane egressed through the aft left door.

Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane came to rest upright on a heading of about 113° magnetic, about 145 ft east of the left side, and 2,638 ft from the approach end of runway 19. The postimpact fire consumed the fuselage from the nose cone aft to about 3 ft forward of the left side cargo door along with a majority of the wing center section. No evidence of any flight control locks was found installed. The tailwheel locking pin was found in place and was sheered into multiple pieces. Vegetation (grass) within about 200 ft of the main wreckage was burnt from the postimpact fire. The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination.”


I by no means know what happened, but as a pilot certified to fly the DC3 I might be able to add a little insight to the discussion on procedures and aerodynamics for large multi engine tailwheel aircraft.

First once the Captain becomes the NFP in the initial stage of the takeoff run he is most likely heads down ensuring the takeoff power is set and engines are operating normally. You cannot just firewall a DC3, you will over-boost it and if power is added to quickly a propeller over speed is a real possibility. So the NFP’s head will be down looking at gauges in the early part of the takeoff run.

It can be difficult to rig the cable linkages so power comes up evenly on both engines simultaneously with throttle advancement. One can lag behind the other and that can cause directional issues early in the takeoff roll. A small slug of water can momentarily cause the engine to hesitate and also induce a momentary asymmetric power condition. IMHO most pilots are trained well enough to abort a takeoff if there are issues with a power plant, however we are less inclined to abort a takeoff for what starts out as a small loss of directional control (we think we can save it)

It was very warm 84F and the Captain stated it was tail heavy. The aircraft is going to be slow to accelerate. In the 3 point configuration at slow speeds the fuselage can block out a good portion of the rudder which makes rudder input ineffective early in the takeoff roll. The tail ideally should be firmly on the ground until some significant airspeed (40 mph) is attained, then raised or up in the air so the fuselage is approximately level. If the transition is slow or the tail Is left in between the three point and the level attitude the rudder effectiveness will be decreased. My first few flights in the DC3, we were empty and the CG was near the FWD limit. The tail nearly raises itself after the application of power and the rudder is fairly effective. After my training and check ride was completed, we had a flight that put us at max gross weight and the CG just forward of the aft limit. It was a totally different feel. The acceleration was slow, it took considerable nose down elevator to raise the tail and the rudder was much less effective.

The lockable tailwheel works well in helping keep the airplane straight. However if directional control is lost and the tail remains on the ground or is put back to the ground the lockable tailwheel will make it more difficult to correct the deviation in the event the takeoff is continued.

The ailerons on the DC3 are are over 48 feet in length with a lot of travel on 95 foot wingspan. The adverse yaw created is huge. The Captain that taught me how to fly the DC3 showed me very early on that with the tail wheel unlocked you could “steer”the airplane on the ground at taxi speed. The setup was calm winds and maybe 5 to 8 knots of taxi speed, a big clear section of taxiway and run up area, tail wheel unlocked with no rudder input to keep the airplane tracking straight. He then instructed me to turn the yoke to the right and the airplane almost immediately started to turn to the left. After that demonstration he told me one of the most important phrases I learned in the DC3 and that was to “steer for the ditch.” The adverse yaw created by the down aileron creates so much drag the airplane will turn on the ground but it will go opposite the direction you turn the yoke. If a pilot has a bad habit of trying to steer the airplane like a car and as the airplane drifts left makes a control input of turning the yoke to to the right , the left yaw will be exacerbated greatly. If right rudder was added at the same time it might not be effective as the aileron input cancels out the rudder correction. A pilot has to be very cognizant of any aileron input made as it will result in forces that change the direction the airplane is headed.

Once again, I am glad all made it out safely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 717
Superb information r1830, appreciate your insight!

Question for you since you fly the DC-3. Is there a big difference in controllability when the C.G. is at or near it’s limits- either fore or aft - with everything else being equal? Also, can you not use asymmetrical power on the engines to help mitigate some of those directional control issues you mention in your explanation? Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:51 am
Posts: 46
Quote:
Question for you since you fly the DC-3. Is there a big difference in controllability when the C.G. is at or near it’s limits- either fore or aft - with everything else being equal?


You most certainly can tell the differences in controllability with a forward CG or an aft CG. The DC3 is a much more stable airplane with a forward CG. It is more difficult for me to assess if all things being equal (weight) except for CG what the exact differences would be. That is because when we loaded the airplane we tried to keep the CG as forward as practical. If the CG was towards the aft limit no matter the weight, it took more control force to get the tail airborne. The rudder was less effective because the moment arm which it acted about was effectively creating less force to make a directional change for a given airspeed and full rudder deflection. I will use one of Newton’s Laws to try and explain.

F=MA Force = Mass x Accleration or F/M=A or F/A=M

If I increase the weight (Mass) of the aircraft and the Force the rudder applies is constant then the Acceleration (rate of change) will decrease for a given CG (aircraft slower to respond to control input)

If I decrease the weight (Mass) of the aircraft and the Force the rudder applies is constant then the Acceleration (rate of change) will increase for a given CG (aircraft faster to respond to control input)

Aerodynamically speaking;
Forward CG = a greater distance to the rudder= greater moment arm = less rudder required

Aft CG = less distance to the rudder = less moment arm = more rudder required

Less weight = less mass = easier to accelerate for a given force

More weight = more mass = slower to accelerate for a given force.

Best case controllability for rudder effectiveness is fwd CG and light weight.

Worst case controllability for rudder effectiveness is aft CG and heavy weight.

So in conclusion, the DC3 handles much differently depending on weight and CG and It was easier to fly at a lighter weight with a forward CG.


Quote:
Also, can you not use asymmetrical power on the engines to help mitigate some of those directional control issues you mention in your explanation?


Asymmetrical power can be and is used for directional stability.

The best case is to preplan for it. For example in a strong crosswind I might use more power on the upwind engine to help counter balance the tendency of the airplane to weather vane in the wind.

Where things get complicated is if a pilot is making multiple inputs simultaneously. Moving the rudder and ailerons can create a change in direction. Asymmetrical braking will create a change in direction. Pushing the nose forward will created a change in direction (gyroscopic turning force). Using asymmetric power will create a change in direction and a rapid one at that if the difference was too much. If these actions aren’t coordinated for a specific purpose(sloppy or poor airmanship), the result could exacerbate the situation. In a strong crosswind, I turned the aileron into the wind, set the power asymmetrically and then used rudder to maintain directional control. Once airborne I matched the throttles. In theory the goal was to proactively set the all but one of the controls where I needed them and make corrections with just one (rudder). Sometimes much easier said than done.

Plus on the old radials I tried to limit power changes, especially rapid ones (not good for engine life)

I hope that answers your questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:14 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7557
Quote:
First, I am relieved everyone made it out and wishing a speedy recovery for those that were injured.

This ....

Quote:
Once again, I am glad all made it out safely.

And This .....

Thanks r1830 very thoughtful of you. Sad loss of BB as well.

_________________
[Thread title is ridiculous btw]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 717
r1830 wrote:
Quote:
Question for you since you fly the DC-3. Is there a big difference in controllability when the C.G. is at or near it’s limits- either fore or aft - with everything else being equal?


You most certainly can tell the differences in controllability with a forward CG or an aft CG. The DC3 is a much more.............

Thanks for the detailed explanation and write up. That was really good info and easy to understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:44 am
Posts: 3274
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Just as an aside, a few years ago my current airline employer changed the terminology from "Pilot Not Flying" to "Pilot Monitoring" to emphasize the actual purpose of that role vis-a-vis the Pilot Flying.

_________________
ellice_island_kid wrote:
I am only in my 20s but someday I will fly it at airshows. I am getting rich really fast writing software and so I can afford to do really stupid things like put all my money into warbirds.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 153 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group