Tow Plane Upsets......
I have posted what follows on a previous occasion but, given the posts in
this thread, I think it bears repeating.
Whilst I was Chief Instructor at Booker Gliding Club, we conducted two
series of test on the phenomenon variously referred to as “Kiting”,
“Winch Launching behind the Tow-Plane” and “Sling-Shot Accident”,
one in 1978 and one in 1982; my memory of them is quite vivid.
*
Airplanes used were, for the first series, a Beagle Terrier (a side by
side, two place, high wing, tail-dragger), fitted with an Ottfur Glider
hook for towing (very similar to the Tost hook, dissimilar to the Schweizer
hook) with a 160 hp Lycoming engine; for the second series of tests a
PA18-180 with a Schweitzer hook was used. Gliders used were a Schleicher
Ka 8b and ASK 13. Tow rope initially used was a heavy (4000 lb breaking
strain) rope with a thinner rope weak link at the glider end (nominally 900
lb, but a well worn specimen could break at as little as 200 – 300 lbs
– laboratory tests, not opinion), the second series of test used the same
heavy duty rope with “Mity” links at each end, 1100 lbs at the
Tow-Plane end and 900 lbs at the Glider end – these links use metal shear
pins, one under load and a second unloaded, which takes over if the first
one fails. This eliminates failure due to fatigue and means that the links
always fail at close to their nominal load even after some time in service
– again laboratory tested, not just subjective opinion. Rope length was
around 180 feet in all cases.
*
I was the Glider Pilot on all tests; Tow-Plane Pilot was Verdun Luck (then
my deputy Chief Instructor) for the first series of tests and Brian
Spreckley (then Manager of Booker GC) for the second. The object of the
tests was to try to reproduce the “Kiting” under controlled
circumstances, with a view to developing a Tow-Plane release mechanism that
would automatically release the glider if it got dangerously high above the
Tow-Plane. All tests were conducted at about 4000 feet agl.
*
First test: Terrier Tow-Plane and ASK 13 on nose-hook. At about 4000 feet
I took the glider progressively higher above the tow-plane, eventually
reached about 100 feet above tow-plane (i.e. rope angle more than 45
degrees above horizontal). At about this point, the tow pilot, who had
been using progressively more back stick, ran out of back stick and the
Tow-Plane began to pitch nose down but not excessively violently. I
released at that point. It took a very positive control input on my part
to achieve the displacement, we both felt it was something unlikely to
occur accidentally, even with an inexperienced glider pilot, and there was
plenty of time for either party to release if it did occur.
*
Second test: Terrier Tow-Plane and ASK 13 on C of G hook. I pitched the
glider about 25 – 30 degrees nose up – the weak link broke immediately!
Tow pilot reported a sharp jerk, but no significant change to flight
path.
*
Third test: Terrier Tow-Plane, K 8b on C of G hook. I pitched the glider
about 25 degrees nose up. The glider continued to pitch up fairly rapidly
(as at the start of a winch launch) and substantial forward movement of the
stick only slightly slowed the rate of pitch. The glider achieved about 45
degrees nose up, speed increased rapidly from 55 knots to about 75 knots
and the glider was pulled back towards level flight (again as at the top of
a winch launch). I released at that point. The entire sequence of events
occupied a VERY short period of time (subsequently measured as 2 - 3
seconds). The Tow Pilot reported a marked deceleration and start of
pitching down which he attempted to contain by moving the stick back; this
was followed immediately by a very rapid pitch down accompanied by
significant negative “G”. The tow-plane finished up about 70 degrees
nose down and took about 400 feet to recover to level flight. We both
found the experience alarming, even undertaken deliberately at 4000 feet.
Our conclusion was that the combination of the initial pitch down and the
upward deflection of the elevator caused the horizontal stabilizer/elevator
combination to stall and the abrupt removal of the down-force it provided
caused the subsequent very rapid pitch-down and negative “G”.
*
Our first conclusion was that, in the event of this sequence occurring
accidentally as a result of an inadvertent pitch up by the glider pilot,
there was effectively no chance that either the glider pilot or tow-pilot
would recognise the problem and pull the release in the available time.
*
Attempts to produce a tow-plane hook that would release automatically were
unsuccessful for reasons that became apparent later.
*
These tests were repeated a few years later with a PA18 – 180 as the
tow-plane, Brian Spreckley flying it. The third test described above was
repeated and photographed from a chase plane using a 35 mm motor drive
camera on automatic (this took a frame every half second – video
camcorders of small size were not readily available then). The photo
sequence started with the glider in a slightly low normal tow position and
starting to pitch up, the second frame has the glider about 30 degrees nose
up and about 20 feet higher than previously in the third frame it is about
45 degrees nose up and has gained another 30 feet or so, the tow-plane is
already starting to pitch down, in the fourth frame the glider is about 100
feet higher than its original position and the climb is starting to
shallow, the tow-plane is about 50 degrees nose down, the final frame shows
the tow-plane about 70 degrees nose down and the glider almost back in
level flight , almost directly above it (that was about the point that I
pulled the release).
*
Sufficiently alarmed by events, Brian Spreckley had been trying to pull the
release in the tow-plane earlier and found that it would not operate until
my releasing at the glider end removed the tension from the rope.
Subsequent tests on the ground showed that the Schweizer hook fitted to the
tow-plane, whilst perfectly satisfactory under normal loads, was jammed
solid by the frictional loads when subject to a pull of around 700 lbs with
a slight upwards component – not something that a normal pre-flight check
would reveal.
*
We solved that problem on our tow-planes by replacing the bolt that the
hook latches onto with a small roller bearing. So far as I know, no one in
the UK has tested the Schweizer hook as fitted to a glider, but I would not
be surprised if it exhibited the same characteristics at high loads.
*
The photo sequence also showed that at no time was the glider at an angle
greater than 30 degrees above the tow-plane’s centre-line. However, of
course once the glider has pitched up, the wings generate considerable
extra lift and that extra lift provides extra load on the rope. With a
large, heavy glider it is easy to exceed weak link breaking strains and
with a lightweight machine the tension can easily rise to 700 lbs or so.
With that much load on the rope, quite a small upward angle provides enough
of a vertical component to produce the results described.
*
That of course is the reason that attempts to produce a hook that released
if a certain angle was exceeded were unsuccessful. The, quite small, angle
between the rope and the fuselage centreline needed to trigger the
“Kiting” when the glider is pitched significantly nose-up is not much
greater than the amount of out of position commonly experienced in
turbulent conditions. We did build an experimental hook and tried it, but,
set to an angle that prevented “Kiting” it occasionally dumped an
innocent glider in turbulence, and set to an angle that prevented that, it
didn’t prevent the “Kiting”. What was needed was a hook that
responded to the vertical component of the load, not the angle at which it
was applied, and that problem we decided was beyond us (at least in a form
robust and fool-proof enough to be attached to the rear end of a
tow-plane).
*
Our conclusions for preventing “Kiting” we
*
Don’t aerotow gliders, especially lightweight, low wing-loading gliders,
on C of G hooks intended for winch launching (I think the JAR 22
requirement for nose hooks to be fitted to new gliders for aerotowing was
at least in part a result of these tests).
*
Don’t use short ropes. The speed at which things happen varies directly
with the length of the rope.
*
Don’t let inexperienced pilots fly at anywhere near aft C of G.
*
Don’t let inexperienced pilots fly solo in turbulent conditions.
*
Replace or modify all Schweizer hooks fitted to tow planes. (So far as I
know there are none on gliders in the UK, so that question never arose).
*
We did also modify our PA18’s so that instead of the release cable ending
at a floor-mounted lever, it went round a pulley where that lever used to
be, and then all the way up the side of the cockpit, anchored at the roof.
This meant that grabbing any point on the wire and pulling it in any
direction could operate the release; considerably easier than finding a
floor mounted lever when being subject to about minus two “G”. We
never regarded this modification as being likely to prevent a worst-case
scenario, because, as stated earlier, it was the opinion of all involved,
that in a real “Kiting” incident, there was no realistic hope that
either pilot would respond in time.
At 10:06 24 April 2017, Peter Whitehead wrote:
A manual release system will never be suitable to stop the rapid pitch up
c=
aused in this situation. It happens too fast for a manual (actually a
senso=
ry-brain-muscle-manual) system, however good the manual system on the
tug.
Glider CofG winch hooks are not really suitable for aero-towing, are
they?
=
Some of these gliders can't be controlled in pitch once the kiting
starts.
=
I have seen people leave their shoulder starts loose on areotowing, and
tha=
t means the pilot can slide backwards - with hand held on the stick, so
tha=
t moves too - on pitch-up. (Always use tight shoulder straps on
launching,
=
please).=20
I have lost two acquaintances, both gliding "greats" in such tug upsets.
I
=
would say banning the use of aero-towing using a CofG winch hook would be
t=
he safest bet to save lives, until an automatic system is available.I
suspe=
ct this is something EASA and the FAA would sort very quickly ( the
banning=
bit, not the automatic system). Sensors to measure pitch, rate rate of
the=
tug, and also tug/rope angle and angular rate,suitably processed and
actio=
ned automatically could allow immediate release BEFORE the critical
situati=
on is reached - if we feel that we must continue to launch by aero-tow
usin=
g CofG hooks.=20
A rule of nose hooks or "compromise" hooks only, meanwhile, would
probably
=
reduce the risk towards zero.
|