"Aluminum Overcast" damaged by gear collapse

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?

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

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

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

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

"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?

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.

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.

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

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