Re: Pushing the limit

[Dan Shackelford]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:10:40 +0100, Mycroft wrote:

> Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
> has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
> recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
> engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
> AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.
>
> Myc
Well, there are certainly instances of P-51s coming back with a few more
degrees of dihedral in the wings and maybe missing a bolt or two from
pulling out of dives that went way over the redline. Probably other
fighters as well.

[Cub Driver]

During the evacuation of Burma in 1942, aircraft routinely carried
civilian passengers far beyond their rated capacity. DC-3s carried 50
or more people. Two-man Lysanders carried five and six people.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[william cogswell]

"Chris Mark" wrote in message > >During the evacuation of Burma in 1942,
aircraft routinely carried
> >civilian passengers far beyond their rated capacity. DC-3s carried 50
> >or more people. Two-man Lysanders carried five and six people.
>
> you don't have to go back that far. Recall the fall of South Vietnam.
> Probably the all-time record for the fixed wing and/or helicopter cramming
the
> most people on board belongs to that episode
>
>
> Chris Mark

You can get even more recent, i read a story that during the annual fishing
season in Alaska the fish haulers can with faa blessing (or at least their
professed ignorace) can exceed max gross weight by 10-15%

[BUFDRVR]

>Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
>has done things it was never supposed too?

Several B-52s were over G'd during Linebacker II, including one D model that
did a inadvertant barrel roll. During Desert Storm, several crew members recall
seeing well over 400 KIAS when flying low levels the first week. The BUFF max
IAS is 390 KIAS.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mycroft" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
> has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
> recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
> engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded
the
> AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.

I had a P51D all the way out to .75 once after an O2 failure at altitude. I
had some "guest" engineers from North American as well as my personal crew
chief look the bird over pretty well afterward. Things were REALLY hum'in in
the pit there for a while for me:-)))
Although we estimated the tip rotational velocities went through the roof,
the airplane came through it ok. I did have a walking stick for awhile as
the airplane went into compressibility, but once down into denser air it
recovered ok with gentle back pressure to keep the g in limits.
No biggie really...tough airplane!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

[Chris Mark]

>Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
>has done things it was never supposed too?

From "Air Force" magazine V83 N4:

"At Da Nang, a civilian airlift began, presaging the later confusion and terror
at Saigon. Edward J. Daly, president of World Airways, defied US Ambassador
Graham A. Martin and dispatched two Boeing 727s to Da Nang, flying on the first
one himself. After landing, his airplane was mobbed by thousands of people,
some 270 of whom were finally jammed on board. (All but a handful of these were
armed soldiers-not the civilians that Daly had intended to evacuate.) The 727
took off amid gunfire and a grenade explosion that damaged the flaps. It hit a
fence and a vehicle before staggering into the air. People had crowded into the
wheel well, and one man was crushed as the gear came up and jammed.

"Somehow the 727 made it back to Saigon, gear down and with split flaps,
managing to land safely. The dreadful photos of the dead man's feet hanging
from the gear doors told the miserable story. Ironically the one man's death
saved four others who had also climbed into the wheel well, for his crushed
body had prevented the gear from retracting all the way. Later, when the
details of the overweight and damage-laden takeoff were sent to Boeing for
analysis, the response was that the 727 should not have been able to fly."


Chris Mark

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, David Lesher
> writes
>"Mycroft" > writes:
>
>>I thought I would pose the limit question as it make a change from best this
>>that or the other questions. Another story comes to mind from the Berlin
>>airlift when a C47 was given a load of coal really meant for an Avro York so
>>ended up with double it's max load; The pilot commented "I thought she was a
>>bit sluggish".
>
>
>I recall the Airlift story re: the C47 misloaded with n sheets of
>not the ordered perforated aluminium planking for runways, but n of
>perforated STEEL planking...

According to a caption on a documentary on TV the other night, the C-
47's payload was 60000 lb; so what's the problem? ;-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > - "Mycroft" > writes:
>
>Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
>has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
>recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
>engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
>AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.
>
>Myc
>
>

In the most general sense, any military equipment often used beyond
it's limits or in a way it wasn't designed to - after all, how can you
fight without improvising?

I think an IAF F-15 landing having slightly more than one wing is quite
beyond what MD engineers designed it for.

An F-4E being able to land one piece after doing 14G was also remarkable
(although turned into static display and technitians training).




************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[[email protected]]

(Arie Kazachin) wrote:

>In message > - "Mycroft" > writes:
>>
>>Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
>>has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
>>recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
>>engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
>>AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.
>>
>>Myc
>>
>>
I wonder where people get these ideas?...Lancaster engines (at
least the Merlin 224/225 models) cannot be over=revved (they have
'Constant speed controls' on the props and they cannot be
over-boosted either, they have ABC units installed (Automatic
Boost Controls). So where do these stories come from?...or were
they fitted with some other types of engine?.
--

-Gord.

[Les Matheson]

IIRC all the MC-130's and EC-130's that departed Massirah Island for Desert
One in 1980 were over gross weight at take off and were pretty severely
stressed on landing in the Iranian desert. There were some pretty hairy
takeoffs from that site, too.

Sounds like the MH-53's that are working in Afghanistan are being "ridden
hard and put up wet", also.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

[[email protected]]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
>> (Arie Kazachin) wrote:
>>
>>>In message > - "Mycroft" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone think instances when an AC has been push beyond it's limits or
>>>>has done things it was never supposed too? The reason I ask is that I
>>>>recently read that when Lancasters were carrying Grandslams during WW2 the
>>>>engines were seriously over reved at take off because the bomb exceeded the
>>>>AC max payload weight by aprox 9000lbs.
>>>>
>>>>Myc
>>>>
>>>>
>> I wonder where people get these ideas?...Lancaster engines (at
>> least the Merlin 224/225 models) cannot be over=revved (they have
>> 'Constant speed controls' on the props and they cannot be
>> over-boosted either, they have ABC units installed (Automatic
>> Boost Controls). So where do these stories come from?...or were
>> they fitted with some other types of engine?.
>
>Well, with a Lanc, if it wasn't a Merlin 24/224/225, it would have
>been a Merlin XX or 22. The only differnece being that the Emergency
>adn Takeoff ratings were a bit lower. (Takeoff 3000R/+12 for the
>Merlin XX, 3000R/+14 for the 23, and Emergency ratings of 3000R/+14 in
>Low Blower and 3000R/+16 in high) They still had the boost controls,
>and, of course, the COnstant Speed props.
>
>As for wher the storys come from, they pop up all the time. Somebody
>hears something that they think they understand, get it a bit wrong,
>and as they repeat it, it grows.

Yes they do don't they?.

As to your power limits for the 224/225 some aspects don't look
as I remember them. (Now take note that this was nearly 50 years
ago so cut me some slack) I thought that the max RPM was 2900
(remember that I have some 16 years on R-3350's with 2900 RPM
limits so this might be the reason that I think that). Also I
know that the max boost was 18 in low blower. I don't remember
what the boost limits were in high blower but it seems odd that
they'd be _higher_ than in low. So as not to mislead you about
those power limits I have two old F/E friends here in town who
flew Lancs so I asked both of them just now. One isn't sure of
the max RPM but 'thinks' that it's 2900 and the other is 'sure'
that it's 2900 and they both agree with me about the boost limits
which were 9 pounds (at the 'gate'), 14 pounds at full throttle
and with the 'boost over-ride' pulled (which cut out the
Automatic Boost Control - known as 'pulling the tit') gave ~18
pounds.

I realize that you're a damned fine researcher and have a lot of
facts at hand and I feel a little timid about 'instructing' you
but I'm very sure of my facts about these a/c. I logged 575 hours
as F/E on them.

They were Lancaster X (MR) with Merlin 224/225 engines as used by
the RCAF in Canada for ASW work in the early to mid fifties and
replaced in (I think '55) with Neptune P2V-7's (with no jets
installed until later).
--

-Gord.

[Big Dave]

Actually I got the info from a filmed interview of a Grandslam mission pilot
who stated that both he and the flight engineer had the throttle levers
pushed hard against the stops to get a few extra revs out of the engines as
"The cow was bloody overloaded & did not want get off the damm ground".

B D aka Mycroft

[[email protected]]

"Big Dave" <david > wrote:

>Actually I got the info from a filmed interview of a Grandslam mission pilot
>who stated that both he and the flight engineer had the throttle levers
>pushed hard against the stops to get a few extra revs out of the engines as
>"The cow was bloody overloaded & did not want get off the damm ground".
>
>B D aka Mycroft
>
Thank you Mycroft, and yes, it sure was overloaded, what did
those Grandslams weigh..something around 22,000 pounds?...and
with an AUW of around 40,000 that weight was well over HALF of
what the aircraft weighed itself...amazing indeed.

I guess we can cut him some artistic slack for his remarks, must
not have been wonderful fun doing that job.
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Well, with a Lanc, if it wasn't a Merlin 24/224/225, it would have
>>been a Merlin XX or 22. The only differnece being that the Emergency
>>adn Takeoff ratings were a bit lower. (Takeoff 3000R/+12 for the
>>Merlin XX, 3000R/+14 for the 23, and Emergency ratings of 3000R/+14 in
>>Low Blower and 3000R/+16 in high) They still had the boost controls,
>>and, of course, the COnstant Speed props.
>>
>>As for wher the storys come from, they pop up all the time. Somebody
>>hears something that they think they understand, get it a bit wrong,
>>and as they repeat it, it grows.
>
> Yes they do don't they?.
>
> As to your power limits for the 224/225 some aspects don't look
> as I remember them. (Now take note that this was nearly 50 years
> ago so cut me some slack) I thought that the max RPM was 2900
> (remember that I have some 16 years on R-3350's with 2900 RPM
> limits so this might be the reason that I think that). Also I
> know that the max boost was 18 in low blower. I don't remember
> what the boost limits were in high blower but it seems odd that
> they'd be _higher_ than in low. So as not to mislead you about
> those power limits I have two old F/E friends here in town who
> flew Lancs so I asked both of them just now. One isn't sure of
> the max RPM but 'thinks' that it's 2900 and the other is 'sure'
> that it's 2900 and they both agree with me about the boost limits
> which were 9 pounds (at the 'gate'), 14 pounds at full throttle
> and with the 'boost over-ride' pulled (which cut out the
> Automatic Boost Control - known as 'pulling the tit') gave ~18
> pounds.

It seems that I wasn't explaining myself too well last night. (I _told_
the wife that all that yard work would screw up my brain)

You are, oc course, absolutely correct about the Merlin 24/224/225
power settings. In my own muddy way, I was referring to the engines
used in most of the earlier wartime RAF Lancs, which were, of course,
the earlier models, which weren't rated at such high boosts.
According to my Lanc III Pilot's notes (I finally managed to get a
copy, Hooray!), your quorum of FEs is quite correct aabout the gate
settings.

The whole question of power settings on Brit engines puzzles me
somewhat, to tell you the truth. To take an example, I've been
working on some engineering analysis of the Mosquito, so I've got a
pretty good handle on what the engine performance and airplane
performance numbers are. The only catch is, most of the published
airplane performance numbers don't bear any relationship to what I've
calculated from the info I have. The published numbers for the 20
series Merlins give, if you're lucky enough to find something other
than takeoff power, the Max Power, which I've described above, The
Climb Power, which was 2850R/+9 boost, and Max Continuous, which is
2650R/+7. That's all well & good, and normally things can be doped
out from this by applying a bit of science. But it appears that the
actual trials were flown at the 3000R/+9 gate, which is throwing
everything off. I'm not really complaining, mind you. It's turning
out to be an interesting study, and should be the basis for an
advisory article for other researchers about the importance of knowing
the context of what's being tossed around.

AS for why the earlier 2-Speed single-stage Merlins had that
asymmetrical power setting, with reference to Low & High blower Max
Power, what I can figure is that it's due to the lower ambient air
temperature at altitude allowing more compression without raising the
non-intercooled carburetor inlet temperature beyond some threshold.
The engine was certainly capable of producing more - the differences
between a Merlin 22 and 24 are more small details and calibration than
anything else.

> I realize that you're a damned fine researcher and have a lot of
> facts at hand and I feel a little timid about 'instructing' you
> but I'm very sure of my facts about these a/c. I logged 575 hours
> as F/E on them.

Gord, please do not _ever_ feel shy about correcting or instructing
me! I'm not going to learn, otherwise. Barring an unbelievable
piece of fortune, you've been able to Be There and Do things that I
can only read about. I'd like to think I outgrew the Know-it-all Snot
stage about 20 years ago. My research, and the stuff that depends
from it, can let me tell what, and how, and, at least in the case of
the machines, why, but it can't ever take the place of the people who
actually were in the hot seat. Research all I might, it's no
substitute for experience. Despite the advancing years, and the
thinning numbers, there's still an incredible group of people with
real experience that spans more than 60 years, all on tap. Not cold,
impersonal mathematics, or stories passed from hand to hand so much
that all the edges are worn smooth, but people who were really there,
and made it through. (I was going to make a list of the folks here
who's opinions and experiences I value, but it started running too
long, and I was afraid that I'd leave somebody out, (which would be
unfair), so I won't name names.)

Let's just say that if I'm talking through my hat, please do call ne
on it.

> They were Lancaster X (MR) with Merlin 224/225 engines as used by
> the RCAF in Canada for ASW work in the early to mid fifties and
> replaced in (I think '55) with Neptune P2V-7's (with no jets
> installed until later).

You mentioned that you were going to be attending a gathering of your
RCAF/CanForce fellows this fall. I've managed to dig up a beautiful
color photo of an RCAF Argus and a USN Neptune formating on each other
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can swing acanning it, and
shooting off a large-scale (B or C size) print of it, if you'd like.
Oh, yeah - on the Pinetree Line website there's a rather good quality
color image of an ASW Lancaster that suffered a maingear collapse at
Stephenville/ Ernest Harmon AB, in the mid '50s. While it's not the
most dignifies shot, it's a good study of a workhorse late in its
life. Like every other Canadian Military airplane I've seen, it
looked to be in remarkable shape - did you guys have people specially
detailed to polish 'em?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Big Dave" <david > writes:
> Actually I got the info from a filmed interview of a Grandslam mission pilot
> who stated that both he and the flight engineer had the throttle levers
> pushed hard against the stops to get a few extra revs out of the engines as
> "The cow was bloody overloaded & did not want get off the damm ground".

Thanks. I'm not surprised that that's the action they took. On the
unfortunately too few DC-3 flights that I've flown copilot on, one of
my jobs was to back up the pilot on the throttles (Hold 'em forward,
basically) to keep the power up incase somebody'd hand or the friction
nut slips. That'll help make sure that you're keeping all the
Manifold Pressure that you've laid on until you're safely
flying. (Another copilot job is raising the gear - it helps to have
long arms) A very sensible thing, especially in something as marginal
as a 36 ton Lancaster. A lost engine with that load would have meant
a climb rate of around 50 ft/minute, give or take 75 ft/minute.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>Let's just say that if I'm talking through my hat, please do call ne
>on it.
>

Ok...yer on...we'll keep yer on the straight 'n narrow!...


>> They were Lancaster X (MR) with Merlin 224/225 engines as used by
>> the RCAF in Canada for ASW work in the early to mid fifties and
>> replaced in (I think '55) with Neptune P2V-7's (with no jets
>> installed until later).
>
>You mentioned that you were going to be attending a gathering of your
>RCAF/CanForce fellows this fall.

Yes, it starts this Thursday, runs for 4 days.

>I've managed to dig up a beautiful
>color photo of an RCAF Argus and a USN Neptune formating on each other
>during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can swing acanning it, and
>shooting off a large-scale (B or C size) print of it, if you'd like.

Hell, yes!...but you could just email it and we can print it
here. Thanks, )

>Oh, yeah - on the Pinetree Line website there's a rather good quality
>color image of an ASW Lancaster that suffered a maingear collapse at
>Stephenville/ Ernest Harmon AB, in the mid '50s. While it's not the
>most dignifies shot, it's a good study of a workhorse late in its
>life. Like every other Canadian Military airplane I've seen, it
>looked to be in remarkable shape - did you guys have people specially
>detailed to polish 'em?

Cripes yes!...a favourite punishment for young airmen 'who were
feeling their oats' was 'polish detail'. I'll never forget the
smell of 'Never-dull', that polish soaked
'cotton-batting-in-a-can' that we used. :) did a great job on
bare aluminum too.

Can't find the Lanc on the Pine tree Line site, that's a
humongous site, really big.
--

-Gord.

[David Lesher]

"Les Matheson" > writes:

>IIRC all the MC-130's and EC-130's that departed Massirah Island for Desert
>One in 1980 were over gross weight at take off and were pretty severely
>stressed on landing in the Iranian desert. There were some pretty hairy
>takeoffs from that site, too.

Would it not have been better to takeoff with minimum fuel and
then refuel?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Les Matheson]

I believe it was all the fuel in the bladders that was going to be used to
refuel the helos. The bladders couldn't be filled inflight. The aircraft
themselves were light on fuel and did tank airborne.

Les

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "Les Matheson" > writes:
>
> >IIRC all the MC-130's and EC-130's that departed Massirah Island for
Desert
> >One in 1980 were over gross weight at take off and were pretty severely
> >stressed on landing in the Iranian desert. There were some pretty hairy
> >takeoffs from that site, too.
>
> Would it not have been better to takeoff with minimum fuel and
> then refuel?
> --
> A host is a host from coast to
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Walt BJ]

Pushing an airplane beyond its flight manual, FAA-mandated or design
limits is no rarity. Sometimes it happens because of emergency
conditions. Sometimes it's operational priority. Sometimes it's
because of a (pick the ones that match the situation)
dumb/unthinking/ignorant/'high-spirited' operator.
BTW a 60000 C47 is about the twice the normal operating weight. but
there's no difficulty about taking off overweight as long as nothing
breaks. All oen needs is lots of long smooth hard-surface runway. A
stiiff headwind is nice, too. Taking off at twice normal weight
requires 143% of normal lift-off speed. (Lift is proportional of
square of speed). As long as the tires don't blow, the wings bend and
break or an engine quits . . . I personally know a man who flew a C47
with 74 people aboard on an emergency wartime evac in Burma. FWIW the
106 that was at the AFA went out to about 2.45M, .45 over its red line
(ISTR). The J75 was cranked up about 30% over rated thrust, too. I
also know the guy who took a 104A out so far it scorched the paint on
his Sidewinders. He never owned up how fast that was except to say it
was well past the SLOW light (121C). As for the Lanc engines -
adjustments can be tweaked, as was done on the 106 above. I heard N1
on that bird was upped to about 97.5% vice a normal 93. And who here
has never exceeded a red line on his personal automobile?
Walt BJ

[Alan Minyard]

On 11 Sep 2003 20:25:43 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

>Pushing an airplane beyond its flight manual, FAA-mandated or design
>limits is no rarity. Sometimes it happens because of emergency
>conditions. Sometimes it's operational priority. Sometimes it's
>because of a (pick the ones that match the situation)
>dumb/unthinking/ignorant/'high-spirited' operator.
>BTW a 60000 C47 is about the twice the normal operating weight. but
>there's no difficulty about taking off overweight as long as nothing
>breaks. All oen needs is lots of long smooth hard-surface runway. A
>stiiff headwind is nice, too. Taking off at twice normal weight
>requires 143% of normal lift-off speed. (Lift is proportional of
>square of speed). As long as the tires don't blow, the wings bend and
>break or an engine quits . . . I personally know a man who flew a C47
>with 74 people aboard on an emergency wartime evac in Burma. FWIW the
>106 that was at the AFA went out to about 2.45M, .45 over its red line
>(ISTR). The J75 was cranked up about 30% over rated thrust, too. I
>also know the guy who took a 104A out so far it scorched the paint on
>his Sidewinders. He never owned up how fast that was except to say it
>was well past the SLOW light (121C). As for the Lanc engines -
>adjustments can be tweaked, as was done on the 106 above. I heard N1
>on that bird was upped to about 97.5% vice a normal 93. And who here
>has never exceeded a red line on his personal automobile?
>Walt BJ

Of course you want to be *really* sure that you don't load a 47 tail
heavy. That makes for a very short, very interesting flight :-)

Al Minyard

[Walt BJ]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>SNIP:
> Of course you want to be *really* sure that you don't load a 47 tail
> heavy. That makes for a very short, very interesting flight :-)
>
> Al Minyard

While I was working at Miami IAP there were two 'CG' crashes - one was
a D18 loaded tail heavy - nosed up on reaching flying speed, stalled
and nosed down (fatally) shortly there after. Another was a DC8
freighter full of blooded cattle headed for South America. CG so far
forward it couldn't rotate; too far down to stop on pavement, ended up
in a big wide drainage ditch. Killed a couple of the crew; all the
cattle had to be killed because of injuries. Just two out of a long
long sad list of such events.
Walt BJ