Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Flight Load Factors
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Thanks, Bob. I was aware  of the phenomenon but now it has a name. In light GA flying the bubble hanging  off the wings (or sitting on top of it) is usually too light to make much  difference. 

 Nico

  



   From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  BobsV35B(at)aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:45 AM

To:  commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Re: Flight  Load Factors

 

 Good Morning Nico,

  

 That refers to the additional load applied to a wing when an aileron is  input. One wing gets a bigger load and the other wing gets less. That is why it  rolls. If the airplane is rolled while pulling any appreciable G load, the  additional load that is impressed by the application of aileron can easily  exceed the design limit which is only calculated for the straight ahead no roll  condition.

  

 I hear the big boys say:  Yank then bank. - Don't yank and  bank. Or:  Unload then yank!

  

 Happy  Skies,



Old Bob

AKA

Bob Siegfried

Ancient Aviator

628 West  86th Street

Downers Grove, IL 60516

630 985-8502 

Stearman  N3977A

Brookeridge Air Park LL22

  

  In a message dated 5/6/2008 7:16:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Rolling G?

   Is that a kind of torque motion on the fuselage? Never heard of    it (which shouldn't be surprising).

   Nico

    

	






   Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Darn, failure to proofread correctly!!

  

 Should be: Yank, then bank. - Don't yank and bank.  Or:  Unload, then bank!

  

 Happy  Skies,



Old Bob

AKA

Bob Siegfried

Ancient Aviator

628 West  86th Street

Downers Grove, IL 60516

630 985-8502 

Stearman  N3977A

Brookeridge Air Park LL22

  

  In a message dated 5/6/2008 7:48:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Good Morning Nico,

    

   That refers to the additional load applied to a wing when an aileron is    input. One wing gets a bigger load and the other wing gets less. That is why    it rolls. If the airplane is rolled while pulling any appreciable G load, the    additional load that is impressed by the application of aileron can    easily exceed the design limit which is only calculated for the straight ahead    no roll condition.

    

   I hear the big boys say:  Yank then bank. - Don't yank and    bank. Or:  Unload then yank!

    

   Happy    Skies,



Old  Bob



	






Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

  [quote][b]

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Good Morning Nico,

  

 It is true that we GA types rarely have a need for pulling many Gs, but our  airplanes are not required to be built to sustain much of a load so we could get  very close to a limit if we make heavy aileron inputs in turbulence. 

  

 It is good practice to avoid using any appreciable roll input while the  airplane is being tossed about by Mother Nature.

  

 As Always, It All Depends!

  

 Happy  Skies,



Old Bob

AKA

Bob Siegfried

Ancient Aviator

628 West  86th Street

Downers Grove, IL 60516

630 985-8502 

Stearman  N3977A

Brookeridge Air Park LL22

  

  In a message dated 5/6/2008 8:06:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Thanks, Bob. I was    aware of the phenomenon but now it has a name. In light GA flying the bubble    hanging off the wings (or sitting on top of it) is usually too light to make    much difference. 

   Nico

	






Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

  [quote][b]

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Hi Barry,

  

 Thank you  very much for this.  The  manual goes into great detail about how to make new side windows and install  them,  however, there is nary a mention about the window contour.  As  usual Morris had the best advice based on 45 years of experience, whereas the  manual was actually written the year before my plane was even built. According  to the manual some 680Fp models had double side windows.

  

 Regards,

  

 Moe

  

  



  From: Barry Collman (barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk) 

 Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:35 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com (commander-list(at)matronics.com)  

 Subject: Re: Flight Load Factors

 



 Hi Moe,

  

 My Aero Commander Engineering 'guru' has just  replied to your question regarding the glass in your rear door  window.

 Here's what he has to say:

  

 "Here is  the only thing I can think of regarding a contoured window being found on a  Model 689F(P).  As part of a later interior noise  reduction effort we slightly bulged the cabin windows to reduce the 'drum  head' effect resulting from the  windows being energized by outside  vibrations.

 This was done by placing the  plexiglass blank into a forming fixture, bringing it to forming temperature  and inflating it slightly with air pressure.

 The formed pane was then cooled while  still under pressure.

 This resulting outward bulge in the center  of the window panes would measure about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in height.

 [Of course the edges of the pane were  restrained in a flat plane to match the side of the fuselage which was flat  between Z -10.0 and 

 Z -28.0.]

 After the 680FP was out of production for  a prescribed period of time it is doubtful that the  Spares Department would have had the factory retain the 680FP  production window tooling since any future spares orders would have been very  few and far between.

 If a spares order was received for a 680FP cabin  door window it is possible that the order was filled by fabricating and forming  the glass on the existing 500S tooling.

 Since the 500S was unpressurized, the windows  were held in place with clips and there would have been no  peripheral screw hole pattern through the pane to contend  with.

 This would allow the existing hole pattern in the  680FP door to be transferred to the replacement glass.

 [It is likely that the 680FP windows would have  been formed from a stronger "stretched" type acrylic sheet material while the  500S windows would be formed from the standard "as cast" acrylic  sheet.]"

  

 Hopefully, that will be the reason.

 It will be interesting to learn whether any other  680F(P) owners have the same glass in their door window, or indeed, in any other  cabin windows.

  

 Very Best Regards,

 Barry



 [quote]   ---

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Hi Moe,

  

 I'm fairly sure that some Commanders did indeed  have double windows.

 I seem to recall this item being on the Work  Release Order paperwork that is in the Warranty Files for quite a number of  examples.

 I cannot check that though, as it's something I  don't track in my database.

  

 Presumably, it was to help reduce the noise  levels.

  

 Very Best Regards,

 Barry

 [quote]   ---

wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.c
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Nico, 

Spot on re. the effect of turbulence, see my other post.

For FAR 25 transports, the normal design negative G for any degree of flap

extension is 0, nought, nil.

A serious consideration for a 747-400 at 397,000 or 415,000 (ER) taking off

in windy weather or otherwise generated turbulence, I have registered -0.7

on the QAR on takeoff, off the coast at KLAX, we did a serious exceedence

look (took about 60 man hours) back at base.

Cheers,

Bill Hamilton

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------

--

tfisher(at)commandergroup
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:15 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

My 1965 680FLP had contoured double  windows.

 Tom.

 C-GISS

 [quote]   ---

steve2(at)sover.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Bob,

  

 Isn't this what was found to be responsible for a lot of the troubles  T-34's experienced with catastrophic airframe failures when flying with the  pretend fighter pilot schools? Not necessarily pulling too many G's, but  maneuvering while pulling some.

  

 I seem to remember some well written stuff written about this effect a  couple years ago. Deakin maybe?

  

 Maybe I'm making this one up, but I thought one of our fighters was having  some of the same problem, leading to fatigue in the structure.

  

 Steve

  

  

 [quote]   ---

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Good Afternoon Steve,

  

 Your memory is just the same as mine. 

  

 When I was briefed before flying the T-38 at Edwards, they told us the same  thing.  Before you rack it over, unload the wing. You could yank and  you could bank, but not both at the same time!

  

 Happy  Skies,



Old Bob

AKA

Bob Siegfried

Ancient Aviator

628 West  86th Street

Downers Grove, IL 60516

630 985-8502 

Stearman  N3977A

Brookeridge Air Park LL22

  

  In a message dated 5/6/2008 1:35:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  steve2(at)sover.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Bob,

    

   Isn't this what was found to be responsible for a lot of the troubles    T-34's experienced with catastrophic airframe failures when flying with    the pretend fighter pilot schools? Not necessarily pulling too many G's, but    maneuvering while pulling some.

    

   I seem to remember some well written stuff written about this effect a    couple years ago. Deakin maybe?

    

   Maybe I'm making this one up, but I thought one of our fighters was    having some of the same problem, leading to fatigue in the structure.

    

   Steve

	






Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

  [quote][b]

moe-rosspistons(at)hotmai
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Hi Barry,

  

 Thank you  very much for this.  The  manual goes into great detail about how to make new side windows and install  them,  however, there is nary a mention about the window contour.  As  usual Morris had the best advice based on 45 years of experience, whereas the  manual was actually written the year before my plane was even built. According  to the manual some 680Fp models had double side windows.

  

 Regards,

  

 Moe

  

  



  From: Barry Collman (barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk) 

 Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:35 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com (commander-list(at)matronics.com)  

 Subject: Re: Flight Load Factors

 



 Hi Moe,

  

 My Aero Commander Engineering 'guru' has just  replied to your question regarding the glass in your rear door  window.

 Here's what he has to say:

  

 "Here is  the only thing I can think of regarding a contoured window being found on a  Model 689F(P).  As part of a later interior noise  reduction effort we slightly bulged the cabin windows to reduce the 'drum  head' effect resulting from the  windows being energized by outside  vibrations.

 This was done by placing the  plexiglass blank into a forming fixture, bringing it to forming temperature  and inflating it slightly with air pressure.

 The formed pane was then cooled while  still under pressure.

 This resulting outward bulge in the center  of the window panes would measure about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in height.

 [Of course the edges of the pane were  restrained in a flat plane to match the side of the fuselage which was flat  between Z -10.0 and 

 Z -28.0.]

 After the 680FP was out of production for  a prescribed period of time it is doubtful that the  Spares Department would have had the factory retain the 680FP  production window tooling since any future spares orders would have been very  few and far between.

 If a spares order was received for a 680FP cabin  door window it is possible that the order was filled by fabricating and forming  the glass on the existing 500S tooling.

 Since the 500S was unpressurized, the windows  were held in place with clips and there would have been no  peripheral screw hole pattern through the pane to contend  with.

 This would allow the existing hole pattern in the  680FP door to be transferred to the replacement glass.

 [It is likely that the 680FP windows would have  been formed from a stronger "stretched" type acrylic sheet material while the  500S windows would be formed from the standard "as cast" acrylic  sheet.]"

  

 Hopefully, that will be the reason.

 It will be interesting to learn whether any other  680F(P) owners have the same glass in their door window, or indeed, in any other  cabin windows.

  

 Very Best Regards,

 Barry



 [quote]   ---

amg3636(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Flight Load Factors

I have double pane windows in my straight 500.

  

 Roland Gilliam

 [quote]  From: barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Flight Load Factors

Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:29:26 +0100



   (at)page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;} .ExternalClass P.EC_MsoNormal {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass LI.EC_MsoNormal {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass DIV.EC_MsoNormal {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass A:link {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass SPAN.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass A:visited {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass SPAN.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass P {font-size:12pt;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass PRE {font-size:10pt;font-family:'Courier New';} .ExternalClass P.EC_NormalWeb1 {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass LI.EC_NormalWeb1 {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass DIV.EC_NormalWeb1 {font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass SPAN.EC_EmailStyle20 {color:navy;font-family:Arial;} .ExternalClass DIV.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;}   Hi Moe,

  

 I'm fairly sure that some Commanders did indeed have double windows.

 I seem to recall this item being on the Work Release Order paperwork that is in the Warranty Files for quite a number of examples.

 I cannot check that though, as it's something I don't track in my database.

  

 Presumably, it was to help reduce the noise levels.

  

 Very Best Regards,

 Barry

 [quote] ---

craigk391(at)sbcglobal.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Flight Load Factors

I had them in my 560A as well



2764B



Craig

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



--

jtaddington(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Flight Load Factors

My 500A I think has double pane and they are all bulged. I thought it was just to give more head room.  

Jim Addington  

N444BD  

         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Gilliam

 Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:22 PM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Commander-List: Flight Load Factors  

  

   

I have double pane windows in my straight 500.

  

 Roland Gilliam

 

       

  

From: barry.collman(at)air-britain.co.uk

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Flight Load Factors

 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:29:26 +0100    

Hi Moe,  

    

   

    

I'm fairly sure that some Commanders did indeed have double windows.  

    

I seem to recall this item being on the Work Release Order paperwork that is in the Warranty Files for quite a number of examples.  

    

I cannot check that though, as it's something I don't track in my database.  

    

   

    

Presumably, it was to help reduce the noise levels.  

    

   

    

Very Best Regards,  

    

Barry  

  [quote]    

---

rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

G'day Barry,

I nearly purchased one...



The original (amended 27 January 1960) 560E Manual states:

Flight Load Factor



The positive limit load factor is 3.8 G's.



NOTE: A minimum  of 300 feet of altitude is required to recover from power 

off stalls with 6500 lbs. at both forward and aft center of gravity.

Cheers from Oz



Russell



PS (Not retired yet... just struggling to find the time to get my first 

Commander deal 'crunched'!

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Flight Load Factors

Hi Russell,



Good on yer mate!



Very Best Regards,

Barry



---

Cate Chagnot

Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Ohio

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: Re: Flight Load Factors

My 680E operator's manual only says; "Positive limit load factor +3.5 G"



Wouldn't it have been certified in the 'Normal' category which should be +3.8 and -1.52?



Why the difference?



Cate

680E 

N4278S

_________________
Cate

N4278S 680E
Skywagon N180PK

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum