View Full Version : North Carolina Aircraft Owners
Marco Leon
September 17th 03, 09:53 PM
If any are reading, what are you all doing with your aircraft to make it
ready for the storm?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Maule Driver
September 18th 03, 02:27 AM
"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net>
> If any are reading, what are you all doing with your aircraft to make it
> ready for the storm?
>
Interesting question. Nothing here in Durham. The Maule is in the hangar.
I expect to lose power for a few days so that puts the Maule out of
commission since I have no other way of raising the electric door. We're
leaving town - it's thrilling but not fun to sit thru that stuff.
Talked to the airport manager. They are policing the tiedowns for loose
materials. I assume a few people have flown out but can't tell.
We expect up to 50 knot winds...
I was hear during Fran and "the other one". Fran ran dead center thru the
RDU triangle area. You never forget the roar of the train. It was real bad
but I don't remember any a/c loses here at 8NC8 (was W65). The "other one"
that ran thru here to the east caused extensive freshwater flooding that did
more damage than the winds of Fran. I flew over a few days later to an
airport using the GPS (either ETC or MCZ). Couldn't spot it until I
realized the underwater rectangles were wings of tiedowned aircraft. There
was a runway shaped oil slick on the water which appeared to be over 8 feet
deep. Everything east of I-95 seemed submerged.
Marco Leon
September 18th 03, 03:27 PM
How sturdy is the hangar? Stories from this newsgroup indicate that there's
a certain level of risk with the structure collapsing on top of the plane.
Are there any building codes that hangars can follow?
The manuevering speed on my Warrior is 111 kts which translates to about 128
mph. Theoretically, as long as there's no foreign object damage and the
winds are below that number, it should do fine in a secure tiedown. Someone
comment if they think I am wrong in my assumption (won't be the first time).
I'm in NY and we're anticipating on 50 mph winds though.
Good luck with your Maule!
Marco
"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> >
> Interesting question. Nothing here in Durham. The Maule is in the
hangar.
> I expect to lose power for a few days so that puts the Maule out of
> commission since I have no other way of raising the electric door. We're
> leaving town - it's thrilling but not fun to sit thru that stuff.
>
> Talked to the airport manager. They are policing the tiedowns for loose
> materials. I assume a few people have flown out but can't tell.
>
> We expect up to 50 knot winds...
>
> I was hear during Fran and "the other one". Fran ran dead center thru the
> RDU triangle area. You never forget the roar of the train. It was real
bad
> but I don't remember any a/c loses here at 8NC8 (was W65). The "other
one"
> that ran thru here to the east caused extensive freshwater flooding that
did
> more damage than the winds of Fran. I flew over a few days later to an
> airport using the GPS (either ETC or MCZ). Couldn't spot it until I
> realized the underwater rectangles were wings of tiedowned aircraft.
There
> was a runway shaped oil slick on the water which appeared to be over 8
feet
> deep. Everything east of I-95 seemed submerged.
>
>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Russell Kent
September 18th 03, 03:39 PM
Marco Leon wrote:
> The manuevering speed on my Warrior is 111 kts which translates to about 128
> mph. Theoretically, as long as there's no foreign object damage and the
> winds are below that number, it should do fine in a secure tiedown. Someone
> comment if they think I am wrong in my assumption (won't be the first time).
> I'm in NY and we're anticipating on 50 mph winds though.
I believe the manuevering speed is predicated on the assumption that the
relative wind is coming from within a few degrees of straight ahead. I don't
think a 128 MPH 90 degree crosswind would be "fine in a secure tiedown."
Russell Kent
Ron Natalie
September 18th 03, 03:58 PM
"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message ...
> The manuevering speed on my Warrior is 111 kts which translates to about 128
> mph.
Manouvering speed isn't a reasonable number to use here. What manouvering
speed does is say that you a full control input will stall you before you exceed
the loading limits (also note that the stall comes at higher speeds when you are
not at the gross weight so the manouvering speed is lower than the 111 knots
indicated above). This is not an issue of control deflection. Your plane is
not stalled, and not going to stall as it's attitude is artificially constrained.
The question is whether the tiedowns and what they are connected to on your
plane can take the aerodynamic forces. Also note that you're not necessarily
going to have the wind coming head on to the nose.
Marco Leon
September 18th 03, 06:44 PM
Your points make total sense. Points well taken. I will not use that number
anymore. It does beg the question though of WHAT it can really take. I don't
believe any tests are required or have been done for most aircraft so we
really can't be sure. Maybe I should start worrying about the 50 kt winds
after all...
Marco
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
>
> > The manuevering speed on my Warrior is 111 kts which translates to about
128
> > mph.
>
> Manouvering speed isn't a reasonable number to use here. What
manouvering
> speed does is say that you a full control input will stall you before you
exceed
> the loading limits (also note that the stall comes at higher speeds when
you are
> not at the gross weight so the manouvering speed is lower than the 111
knots
> indicated above). This is not an issue of control deflection. Your
plane is
> not stalled, and not going to stall as it's attitude is artificially
constrained.
>
> The question is whether the tiedowns and what they are connected to on
your
> plane can take the aerodynamic forces. Also note that you're not
necessarily
> going to have the wind coming head on to the nose.
>
>
>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ron Natalie
September 18th 03, 07:31 PM
"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message ...
> Your points make total sense. Points well taken. I will not use that number
> anymore. It does beg the question though of WHAT it can really take. I don't
> believe any tests are required or have been done for most aircraft so we
> really can't be sure. Maybe I should start worrying about the 50 kt winds
> after all...
>
Last time there was a major landfall of a huricane in Florida, almost all
of the schemes including putting spoiners on the wings were found to
be largely ineffective. Evacuation is the best suggestion (a little
late for that now).
G.R. Patterson III
September 18th 03, 08:25 PM
Marco Leon wrote:
>
> The manuevering speed on my Warrior is 111 kts which translates to about 128
> mph. Theoretically, as long as there's no foreign object damage and the
> winds are below that number, it should do fine in a secure tiedown.
Dunno about the logic - that's intended to prevent damage due to turbulence
and may have nothing to do with the strength of the tie-down rings. In any
case, my Maule has gone through one storm with 90 mph winds on tiedown at 47N
and I expect it to get through this one ok (I went out this morning and made
sure it was secure).
Prior to that, I owned a Cessna 150 that made it through two nasty storms on
tiedown. Winds of one of those storms were measured at 120 knots in NYC.
My standard procedure is to run extra tiedown ropes to the wing struts (you
might want to tie off to the gear?). I also make sure that any loose strap ends,
such as those on my covers and the "remove before flight" tag on my pitot cover,
are secured so they won't whip in the wind. Still, there are a lot of planes
at Kupper that didn't take any special precautions and came through those storms
just as well as my planes did.
George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens
G.R. Patterson III
September 18th 03, 08:35 PM
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Evacuation is the best suggestion (a little late for that now).
Not for Marco, if he hurries. He's in New York, and the weather is still VFR
here in New Jersey. In fact, it looks like the winds would make it a fast run
if you headed west, though taking off would be interesting - winds in the area
are reported to be in the teens with gusts in the mid 20s at the moment.
George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens
Ron Natalie
September 18th 03, 08:41 PM
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > Evacuation is the best suggestion (a little late for that now).
>
> Not for Marco, if he hurries. He's in New York,
Oh, I was paying attention to the subject line (NC).
Henry Kisor
September 18th 03, 11:38 PM
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> winds in the area
> are reported to be in the teens with gusts in the mid 20s at the moment.
>
Us hairy-chested Midwesterners consider that a mere zephyr. Right, Jay? :-)
Henry
G.R. Patterson III
September 19th 03, 02:32 AM
Henry Kisor wrote:
>
> Us hairy-chested Midwesterners consider that a mere zephyr. Right, Jay? :-)
But visibility less than 25 miles is IMC, right?
George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens
Henry Kisor
September 19th 03, 11:33 AM
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Henry Kisor wrote:
> >
> > Us hairy-chested Midwesterners consider that a mere zephyr. Right, Jay?
:-)
>
> But visibility less than 25 miles is IMC, right?
>
Why, George, in such conditions we non-hearing pilots just fly Deaf
IFR--that is, we shut our eyes and hope for the best. :-)
Trent Moorehead
September 19th 03, 03:32 PM
"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> We expect up to 50 knot winds...
>
> I was hear during Fran and "the other one". Fran ran dead center thru the
> RDU triangle area. You never forget the roar of the train. It was real
bad
> but I don't remember any a/c loses here at 8NC8 (was W65). The "other
one"
> that ran thru here to the
That was "Floyd". Who could forget the pictures of pigs on the barn roofs?
Whole houses and coffins floating down the street. I was here for Fran too.
The roar was incredible, but the silence of the eye was downright eerie.
Here in NC, it's usually not the speed of the wind that causes problems,
it's the falling trees/branches. People were killed when trees landed on
their cars while they drove. Whole houses were destroyed when multiple trees
crashed through the roof. A rescue worker was killed yesterday when he drove
into a fallen tree. I was nearly taken out by a fallen tree that came
through my windshield during TS Josephine, missed my forehead by an inch.
So at the airport, as long as there are no trees nearby, I would be more
afraid of flying roof materials and flying debris. A piece of corrugated
steel zipping along at 60 mph could do real damage. Also, low-lying airports
get flooded out. My old airport (5W5) always got flooded out during storms,
so Fran and Floyd really did a number on the planes that were unfortunately
left there. I think even some of the hangared planes had water damage. The
best option is to get your plane the heck out of Dodge.
-Trent
PP-ASEL
Tony
September 19th 03, 05:58 PM
I have seen the winds at Lake Havasu (HII) up to 67 mph and all the
planes did fine. Out here in the Apple Valley, Hesperia (APV-L26) area
the wind are in the teens-40s all the time.
*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
Dave Butler
September 19th 03, 06:30 PM
Trent Moorehead wrote:
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We expect up to 50 knot winds...
>>
>>I was hear during Fran and "the other one". Fran ran dead center thru the
>>RDU triangle area. You never forget the roar of the train. It was real
>
> bad
>
>>but I don't remember any a/c loses here at 8NC8 (was W65).
My PA28-180 was tied down at RDU and survived Fran just fine. Ditto for Floyd.
This time (Isabel) the Mooney went into Southern Jet's brand new maintenance
hangar, along with as many other aircraft as could be shoehorned in there. The
sight of all those airplanes crammed in there with a hurricane on the way must
have given the insurance companies shivers.
The "other
>
> one"
>
>>that ran thru here to the
>
>
> That was "Floyd". Who could forget the pictures of pigs on the barn roofs?
> Whole houses and coffins floating down the street. I was here for Fran too.
> The roar was incredible, but the silence of the eye was downright eerie.
>
> Here in NC, it's usually not the speed of the wind that causes problems,
> it's the falling trees/branches. People were killed when trees landed on
> their cars while they drove. Whole houses were destroyed when multiple trees
> crashed through the roof. A rescue worker was killed yesterday when he drove
> into a fallen tree. I was nearly taken out by a fallen tree that came
> through my windshield during TS Josephine, missed my forehead by an inch.
Bingo. It's all about the trees.
>
> So at the airport, as long as there are no trees nearby, I would be more
> afraid of flying roof materials and flying debris. A piece of corrugated
> steel zipping along at 60 mph could do real damage. Also, low-lying airports
> get flooded out. My old airport (5W5) always got flooded out during storms,
I remember well the pix of the flooding at 5W5. Really sad to see all those
perfectly good airplanes underwater. I wonder what happened to all of them. Were
they totalled by the insurers? Restored? Scrapped? There were plenty of flood -
damaged cars on the market here in NC after Floyd. I guess there's no record for
airplanes like there is for cars that would warn you that you are buying a flood
damaged airplane.
> so Fran and Floyd really did a number on the planes that were unfortunately
> left there. I think even some of the hangared planes had water damage. The
> best option is to get your plane the heck out of Dodge.
Maybe. I remember the (apocryphal?) story of the guy that flew his 172 up to
Raleigh from Wilmington to get it out of the way of Fran. Unfortunately for him,
Fran pretty much skipped Wilmington and went right over Raleigh. His airplane
was one of 2 or three that were damaged at RDU.
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave
Ron Natalie
September 19th 03, 07:06 PM
"Dave Butler" > wrote in message ...
,
>
> I remember well the pix of the flooding at 5W5. Really sad to see all those
> perfectly good airplanes underwater. I wonder what happened to all of them. Were
> they totalled by the insurers?
The government got a lot of fuselages to do crash testing with when Piper got flooded
a couple of decades ago.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.