Rod Lewis adding more planes to his "Air Force"!

[warbird1]

Thank you Brad and Oscar Duck! That is exactly what I was looking for.

I agree, there is no need to redefine the operations limits which have already been proven in most cases by somebody's death. Is there anybody out there still doing aerobatics in A/B-26's?

[Oscar Duck]

bdk.

I'm glad you don't fly my aircraft. The G limits for the -26 state:


The symmetrical load factor capability is 4.4G from the minimum flying weight to 33,000 pounds, decreases linearly to 3.75G at 36,000 pounds, then is constant to the maximum gross weight. Etc. Etc.

Limits are limits

[RickH]

First off, I was not flying the plane. Second 1 G was not exceeded during the roll. It was over twenty years ago,... the pilot who did the roll was NOT the pilot who ultimately wrecked it, and that happened on takeoff with a failed engine. The empty weight of My Mary Lou was approximately 25,000 lbs with the gross at approximately 35,000 lbs.

The K limits are probably going to be different than the B,C limits due to the spar reinforcement.

The original stock B-26s were being flown in Viet Nam, overgross with partial drops and high G pullouts on aircraft that were no newer than 1945. No wonder the wings developed issues. The K reworks were the result of those accidents.

[Oscar Duck]

no argument. My point is simple, don't operate outside of the published limits. That is the domain of the test pilot who will only do it to establish the limits vs, the design criterea.

Fun stuff can kill.

You may recall that an On-Mark that was flown to England by some woman many years ago broke a spar doing a loop - they managed to get on the ground with frozen ailerons..

[warbird1]

You may recall that an On-Mark that was flown to England by some woman many years ago broke a spar doing a loop - they managed to get on the ground with frozen ailerons..

I'm not familiar with that one, Oscar Duck. Do you have a link to the accident report or a website with more information about that?

[JDK]

You may recall that an On-Mark that was flown to England by some woman many years ago broke a spar doing a loop - they managed to get on the ground with frozen ailerons..

I'm not familiar with that one, Oscar Duck. Do you have a link to the accident report or a website with more information about that?

The only one I can think of was 'Bar Bell' Abella(?) sp.

[bdk]

I'm glad you don't fly my aircraft.

So if I didn't have this opinion, you would let me fly it?

I am not condoning operating outside the limits. My point is that if you are light, the FORCES are the same on the wing, i.e. the wing spar can't tell the difference.

Keep in mind though, as an example, that the engine weight doesn't change with operating weight, so the resulting forces from 5.4 Gs on the engine mount are still significantly higher than those from 4.4 Gs.

My point is simple, don't operate outside of the published limits. That is the domain of the test pilot who will only do it to establish the limits vs, the design criterea.

Yikes! Please don't confuse strutural loading vs. flying qualities. I know of no test pilots purposely trying to cause structural failures to determine any limits. Structural limits are set by design and verified by ground static load testing. The standard in the US includes a safety factor of 1.5 and the aircraft is generally tested to that limit in a fixture on the ground. In other words, your 4.4 G limit aircraft design was likely tested to the equivalent of 6.6 Gs.

[51fixer]

I'm glad you don't fly my aircraft.

So if I didn't have this opinion, you would let me fly it?

I am not condoning operating outside the limits. My point is that if you are light, the FORCES are the same on the wing, i.e. the wing spar can't tell the difference.

Keep in mind though, as an example, that the engine weight doesn't change with operating weight, so the resulting forces from 5.4 Gs on the engine mount are still significantly higher than those from 4.4 Gs.

My point is simple, don't operate outside of the published limits. That is the domain of the test pilot who will only do it to establish the limits vs, the design criterea.

Yikes! Please don't confuse strutural loading vs. flying qualities. I know of no test pilots purposely trying to cause structural failures to determine any limits. Structural limits are set by design and verified by ground static load testing. The standard in the US includes a safety factor of 1.5 and the aircraft is generally tested to that limit in a fixture on the ground. In other words, your 4.4 G limit aircraft design was likely tested to the equivalent of 6.6 Gs.

Brandon has been known to design a part or 2 in some very large aircraft flying over your heads. I think he also has slept at a Holiday Inn.
I know him have great knowledge in this aeronautical engineering thing.
Rich

[Oscar Duck]

no argument here old boy. I'm simply saying that we mere mortal pilots should always observe the FM limits. I'm fully aware of factoring. Happens in all sorts of areas and not just engineering....

If you screw-up outside of the "limits" your margins are really diminished but that's another discussion....

I've seen a HS748 rolled off the deck twice when I was in the Air Force. Obviously could be done but again way outside of the limitations as stated in the FM. Proves nothing really..

[bdk]

Getting back on track here, Rod Lewis' Sea Fury "September Pops" has arrived at Chino for some maintenance. I understand that it will be repainted shortly.

[Lynn Allen]

Bossman is in San Antonio, Texas I was told. That 4th a/c is still in Lancaster and you know you can't break a set....

Lynn

[Chad Veich]

I understand that it will be repainted shortly.

No offense to Mike Brown but thank goodness. Neither the current nor the previous paint schemes did much for the airplane in my opinion. Look forward to seeing the new paint, whatever it might be.

[tom d. friedman]

glad to see somebody is unscathed by the economy of late. oh man, book end tigercats, i can't even imagine the thrill of owning 2, good for him!!

[Tim Adams]

I understand that it will be repainted shortly.

No offense to Mike Brown but thank goodness. Neither the current nor the previous paint schemes did much for the airplane in my opinion. Look forward to seeing the new paint, whatever it might be.

I second that. Also hope it's not going to be yellow again. For some reason the AF sensors just don't like that paint. I always have a hell of a time getting crisp flying shots of that plane.

[cluvara]

I understand that it will be repainted shortly.

No offense to Mike Brown but thank goodness. Neither the current nor the previous paint schemes did much for the airplane in my opinion. Look forward to seeing the new paint, whatever it might be.

I second that. Also hope it's not going to be yellow again. For some reason the AF sensors just don't like that paint. I always have a heck of a time getting crisp flying shots of that plane.

I never complain about paint since I don't own it, and I'm sure people don't like the color scheme on my airplane, but it's not like Rare Bear had the most eloquent of paint schemes the last couple of years either.

And Tim.. we all know that's Canon's autofocus problems.