If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Jay
In military if you hit a prop at idle you coudl put a new prop on and check tracking, etc and then do an oil change and fly (over field) for several hours (5 maybe) and land and chck the screens. If nothing in screens they would release the engine back in service. Forget the rpm that if you exceeded then it was an engine change (maybe 1200????). You of course ran the engine some on ground before flying it to determine it's condition for test flight.. So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with just prop repairs???? and sheet metal. Long time ago in a land far away. Big John On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:49:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Are you really worried about a catastrophic failure when you've got 3 other engines? Are you saying that they won't have to tear down those engines? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
mlenoch
Should have read all the posts before I posted but you are 100% correct. Big John On 09 May 2004 16:04:15 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote: I'm no mechanic, but looking at the video I would think that the weight of the plane coming down on those prop blades, imparting such a bending force on the prop hubs, would require a tear down. Being radial engines, the situation is different. They may indeed not require an overhaul, but rather only an inspection. Because the engines 'hit' at low r.p.m., there may not be any damage. This has happened before on similar nose-overs stoppage of T-6/SNJ aircraft engines. The engine shops call the shots on the requirements usually. VL |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with
just prop repairs???? and sheet metal. Long time ago in a land far away. Big John John, not so far away. This is still done today. Hopefully this will be the case for this B-17. VL |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
mlenoch
Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical' inadvertent retraction. Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving was a invitation to disaster. Big John On 11 May 2004 00:11:32 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote: So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with just prop repairs???? and sheet metal. Long time ago in a land far away. Big John John, not so far away. This is still done today. Hopefully this will be the case for this B-17. VL |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Big John wrote: Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical' inadvertent retraction. Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving was a invitation to disaster. On the Fortress I was flying the gear and flap switches were both simply toggle switches...with the gear switch being a "guarded" switch. Procedure was at least two crew had to confirm your finger was on the flap switch before activating. Knowing the gear system I can't think of a reason/way for both to fail together. Sad, but these things do happen. Luckily they are tough old birds...the only limit to getting her in the air will be money. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Dale" wrote in message ... In article , Big John wrote: Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical' inadvertent retraction. Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving was a invitation to disaster. On the Fortress I was flying the gear and flap switches were both simply toggle switches...with the gear switch being a "guarded" switch. Procedure was at least two crew had to confirm your finger was on the flap switch before activating. Knowing the gear system I can't think of a reason/way for both to fail together. Sad, but these things do happen. Luckily they are tough old birds...the only limit to getting her in the air will be money. Are there not "squat" switches that prevent the gear from being raised if the plan is on the ground? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Durden wrote: George, CAF is already saying the copilot pulled the gear up when he went for the flaps, despite being told to keep his hands off the flap switch until off the runway. It's interesting then that as of this morning, the EAA's position is still "We are using that new video to help us understand exactly what happened. Our emphasis, naturally, is on the landing gear and discovering why it malfunctioned". They seem to be a little slow getting the word. Thanks, George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Kyle Boatright wrote: 1) Isn't the screw jack "sized" for air loads, with some sort of over center mechanism to handle the ground loads? Thinking about it some more, you're probably right in a way. Although there isn't any over-center mechanism, there would normally be little pressure on the screw mechanism once that knee joint section straightens out. It's probably sized to keep the joint straight and can't take the load when the joint begins to fold. George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article t74oc.69315$0H1.6524917@attbi_s54,
"William W. Plummer" wrote: Are there not "squat" switches that prevent the gear from being raised if the plan is on the ground? Originally no, but on the 909 a squat switch had been added. It sets low on the left gear leg, soaked in Wright radial oil G and I wouldn't trust it for a second. -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .
In article , James Robinson wrote: It is more likely that the screw jacks failed as a result of an inadvertant throwing of the retraction switch. It isn't the first time that has happened, and probably not the last! The 172 drivers may snicker but those of us that drive retracts will never make comments about gear ups. (knocking on any piece of wood I can find). -Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EAA's B-17 "Aluminum Overcast" Gear collapse at Van Nuys airport | BlakeleyTB | Home Built | 4 | May 8th 04 06:15 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |