Aircraft takes off with no pilot...because of wind.

[Jeremy Keeling]

A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing but
a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/16/2013 1:03 PM, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing but
> a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>
> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd

One lesson might be "don't park it with full up elevator". It's strange
to me a camera would be focused on such a small area, unless it was an
intentional event.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Sean F (F2)]

Thats hilarious! thanks for sharing!

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:03:02 +0000, Jeremy Keeling
> wrote:

>A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing but
>a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>
>http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd
>
>
Wouldn't have happened if he had a treadmill.

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:14:55 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>On 3/16/2013 1:03 PM, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing but
>> a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>>
>> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd
>
>One lesson might be "don't park it with full up elevator". It's strange
>to me a camera would be focused on such a small area, unless it was an
>intentional event.

Intentional indeed. I'd say it's a model.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:54:55 -0600, Ralph Jones wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:14:55 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>>On 3/16/2013 1:03 PM, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>>> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing
>>> but a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>>>
>>> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd
>>
>>One lesson might be "don't park it with full up elevator". It's strange
>>to me a camera would be focused on such a small area, unless it was an
>>intentional event.
>
> Intentional indeed. I'd say it's a model.

Agreed. It doesn't look windy enough, judging from the way the scenery
isn't waving (much), to lift even quite a light GA aircraft. Nothing is
really moving apart from a bit of dust. And what about that wing being
picked up just after it lifted off: natural stability or a crafty twitch
on the sticks?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Jeremy Keeling]

At 00:54 17 March 2013, Ralph Jones wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:14:55 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>
>>On 3/16/2013 1:03 PM, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>>> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing
>but
>>> a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>>>
>>> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd
>>
>>One lesson might be "don't park it with full up elevator". It's strange
>>to me a camera would be focused on such a small area, unless it was an
>>intentional event.
>
>Intentional indeed. I'd say it's a model.
>

Actually this business about parking with full elevator is a good one.
Some clubs I know are very good, in my opinion, in that they do up the
pilots harness around the joystick after landing in order to hold it in a
back position (full up elevator) so that as the glider is being towed back
to the launch point the control surfaces don't 'clunk around' etc. I think
this is a good idea, but typically what happened as the aircraft got back
to the launch point is that they would be lined up for launch, into wind
ofcourse, with full elevator still on. It seems to me to be a good point
about not leaving aircraft parked with full elevator, particularly into
wind.
Definetly a lesson to be learned there...

I don't think the aircraft is a model haha, look at the relative size of
everything around it.
It seems to me that the CCTV camera would be looking towards an aircraft
parking area maybe? Or perhaps the other aircraft that were there had
already been tossed over and the person fetched his camera to catch the
last one...I dunno.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:03:02 PM UTC-7, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of nothing but
>
> a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>
>
>
> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd

Hence, the importance of tying down.

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

At 02:25 17 March 2013, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>At 00:54 17 March 2013, Ralph Jones wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:14:55 -0700, Eric Greenwell
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/16/2013 1:03 PM, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>>>> A stationary aircraft with no pilot inside took off because of
nothing
>>but
>>>> a stiff breeze...lessons to be learned...
>>>>
>>>> http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/wind-assisted-takeoff/886gu2cd
>>>
>>>One lesson might be "don't park it with full up elevator". It's strange

>>>to me a camera would be focused on such a small area, unless it was an
>>>intentional event.
>>
>>Intentional indeed. I'd say it's a model.
>>
>
> Actually this business about parking with full elevator is a good one.
> Some clubs I know are very good, in my opinion, in that they do up the
>pilots harness around the joystick after landing in order to hold it in a
>back position (full up elevator) so that as the glider is being towed
back
>to the launch point the control surfaces don't 'clunk around' etc. I
think
>this is a good idea, but typically what happened as the aircraft got back
>to the launch point is that they would be lined up for launch, into wind
>ofcourse, with full elevator still on. It seems to me to be a good point
>about not leaving aircraft parked with full elevator, particularly into
>wind.
> Definetly a lesson to be learned there...
>
> I don't think the aircraft is a model haha, look at the relative size of
>everything around it.
> It seems to me that the CCTV camera would be looking towards an aircraft
>parking area maybe? Or perhaps the other aircraft that were there had
>already been tossed over and the person fetched his camera to catch the
>last one...I dunno.

Up elevator only matters on a nose-wheel aircraft. Most empty gliders sit
with the tail-wheel or skid on the ground so elevator position is almost
irrelevant.
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/16/2013 11:42 PM, Chris Rollings wrote:
> At 02:25 17 March 2013, Jeremy Keeling wrote:

>>
>> I don't think the aircraft is a model haha, look at the relative size of
>> everything around it.
>> It seems to me that the CCTV camera would be looking towards an aircraft
>> parking area maybe? Or perhaps the other aircraft that were there had
>> already been tossed over and the person fetched his camera to catch the
>> last one...I dunno.
>
> Up elevator only matters on a nose-wheel aircraft. Most empty gliders sit
> with the tail-wheel or skid on the ground so elevator position is almost
> irrelevant.

The comparable glider errors I see are leaving the tail dolly attached
to an unattended, unsecured glider; not putting the flaps into full
negative; and not turning the glider perpendicular to the wind.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Morgan[_2_]]

There was the wind event at Mojave in CA last year that had a 747 giving flight another go. Only enough wind to get the nosewheel off the ground thanks to the engines not being on the airframe any longer. I guess tying down that heavy of a ship doesn't seem necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhZwvdRR5c

[[email protected]]

Nah, this looks like the real thing to me. Most every model will not have the protrusions like pitot and antenna you see here underneath unless they are the very top end scale ($$$) jobs which are rare. ARF manufacturers wont supply these details since they'll break off right away when you remove the wings for transport.

[waremark]

On Sunday, 17 March 2013 18:17:17 UTC, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 3/16/2013 11:42 PM, Chris Rollings wrote:
>
> > At 02:25 17 March 2013, Jeremy Keeling wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't think the aircraft is a model haha, look at the relative size of
>
> >> everything around it.
>
> >> It seems to me that the CCTV camera would be looking towards an aircraft
>
> >> parking area maybe? Or perhaps the other aircraft that were there had
>
> >> already been tossed over and the person fetched his camera to catch the
>
> >> last one...I dunno.
>
> >
>
> > Up elevator only matters on a nose-wheel aircraft. Most empty gliders sit
>
> > with the tail-wheel or skid on the ground so elevator position is almost
>
> > irrelevant.
>
>
>
> The comparable glider errors I see are leaving the tail dolly attached
>
> to an unattended, unsecured glider; not putting the flaps into full
>
> negative; and not turning the glider perpendicular to the wind.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

Re parking with the flaps in full negative - the ASH 26 manual tells you to put the flaps in neutral if leaving for a while. I wonder what the reason is - protecting the seals? I always do what I am told!

Mark Burton

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/19/2013 4:22 AM, waremark wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 March 2013 18:17:17 UTC, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 3/16/2013 11:42 PM, Chris Rollings wrote:

>>
>>> Up elevator only matters on a nose-wheel aircraft. Most empty
>>> gliders sit
>>
>>> with the tail-wheel or skid on the ground so elevator position is
>>> almost
>>
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> The comparable glider errors I see are leaving the tail dolly
>> attached
>>
>> to an unattended, unsecured glider; not putting the flaps into
>> full
>>
>> negative; and not turning the glider perpendicular to the wind.

>
> Re parking with the flaps in full negative - the ASH 26 manual tells
> you to put the flaps in neutral if leaving for a while. I wonder what
> the reason is - protecting the seals? I always do what I am told!
>
> Mark Burton

If wind isn't a factor, then flap 3 (neutral) is a good choice to
preserve the camber of the Mylar fairings. Still, I keep my glider in
it's trailer most of the time, using a bungey to hold the flaps and
ailerons in full negative so they don't flop around when towing the
trailer. The top Mylar lasted about 10 years before it needed replacement.

I don't think leaving it in negative (flap 1 or 2) during the occasions
it's sitting outside will significantly affect the lifespan of the
Mylar. If you put covers on it while it's outside, flap position
probably doesn't make any difference in the wind, so flap 3 could be
safely used.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:42:43 AM UTC-5, Chris Rollings wrote:
> Up elevator only matters on a nose-wheel aircraft. Most empty gliders sit
> with the tail-wheel or skid on the ground so elevator position is almost
> irrelevant.

Oh, how not true, Chris! Elevator position ALWAYS matters. And in fact, nose down is where the elevator should be when the glider is unattended. Why? Wind comes up from the nose, the elevator will raise the tail if the wind is high enough, reducing the angle of attack and making it less likely that the plane will blow away. Wind comes up from behind, it will keep the tail pinned to the ground. Same applies to both nose dragger and tail dragger planes. How many have seen single engine Cessnas blown over by a wind from behind because the tail was not secured and the control wheel was held back? I have seen quite a number.

And depending on the tail wheel, nose up elevator can help compress a tailwheel leaf spring increasing the angle of attack and make the plane more likely to blow away. Think 2-33s and the long, slender single leaf springs.

Steve Leonard

[Tony V]

> Oh, how not true, Chris! Elevator position ALWAYS matters. And in fact, nose down is where the elevator should be when the glider is unattended. Why? Wind comes up from the nose, the elevator will raise the tail if the wind is high enough, reducing the angle of attack and making it less likely that the plane will blow away. Wind comes up from behind, it will keep the tail pinned to the ground. Same applies to both nose dragger and tail dragger planes. How many have seen single engine Cessnas blown over by a wind from behind because the tail was not secured and the control wheel was held back? I have seen quite a number.
>
> And depending on the tail wheel, nose up elevator can help compress a tailwheel leaf spring increasing the angle of attack and make the plane more likely to blow away. Think 2-33s and the long, slender single leaf springs.


Ah, but on a 2-33 the elevator drain holes are near the hinge. Tie the
stick "nose up", and any water that collects won't drain.

Tony V.

[Tony V]

On 3/19/2013 9:34 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
>> Oh, how not true, Chris! Elevator position ALWAYS matters. And in
>> fact, nose down is where the elevator should be when the glider is
>> unattended. Why? Wind comes up from the nose, the elevator will
>> raise the tail if the wind is high enough, reducing the angle of
>> attack and making it less likely that the plane will blow away. Wind
>> comes up from behind, it will keep the tail pinned to the ground.
>> Same applies to both nose dragger and tail dragger planes. How many
>> have seen single engine Cessnas blown over by a wind from behind
>> because the tail was not secured and the control wheel was held back?
>> I have seen quite a number.
>>
>> And depending on the tail wheel, nose up elevator can help compress a
>> tailwheel leaf spring increasing the angle of attack and make the
>> plane more likely to blow away. Think 2-33s and the long, slender
>> single leaf springs.
>
>
> Ah, but on a 2-33 the elevator drain holes are near the hinge. Tie the
> stick "nose up", and any water that collects won't drain.

I meant "nose down" elevator.
>
> Tony V.
>