 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cloudcraft(at)aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject: N500FV NTSB preliminary report >> Load Factors << |
 |
|
Sir Barry,
Well, that link I sent for Type Certificate Data Sheets bombed.
This should work: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/If not, just go to FAA.GOV and search for "type certificate data" and you'll get a page with results and a link to their library.This begs the question: "What is a comparable aircraft?" You'll probably find that Barons and Cessna 300 and 400 series aircraft will all share the same design data: 3.8g positive -- and some may give a negative G value, some not.However, they're all driven by Part 23.337:
Sec. 23.337
Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n may not be less than--
(1) 2.1+[img]http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/b7e473a50bc6ae8d85256687006cb0ab/SectionRule/0.3F0%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif[/img] for normal category airplanes, except that n need not be more than 3.8 nor may it be less than 2.5;
(2) 4.4 for utility category airplanes; or
(3) 6.0 for acrobatic category airplanes.
(b) The negative limit maneuvering load factor may not be less than--
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal and utility categories; or
(2) 0.5 times the positive load factor for the acrobatic category.
(c) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this section may be used if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these values in flight.
A manufacturer may decide to exceed the load factor strengths but I don't know where to find that, other than their advertising because to certify they must comply with Part 23 and that's all the FAA is interested in.(An example is the Falcon 20 I fly. It's certified in the US as a Normal category turbine, Part 25 (large) airplane. However, it's an 8 G airframe and a 24 psi pressure vessel. All it needs to state as limitations for the TDC in the US is 2.5 Gs and 8.7 psi.)
Wing Commander Gordon
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: N500FV NTSB preliminary report >> Load Factors << |
|
|
Good Evening Wing Commander Gordon,
I looked in TCDSs but did not find any reference to the structural limits, just loading and speed restrictions.
Incidentally, I don't think the Cessna 300 and 400 series or the Barons are in the same class as the Aero Commander. I think the best comparison aircraft would be the Beechcraft Twin Bonanza Model 50. My personal favorite of that fleet is the D50B.
Wonder how those two (AC and T-Bone) would compare if over stressed?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/11/2010 5:45:08 P.M. Central Standard Time, cloudcraft(at)aol.com writes:
| Quote: | Sir Barry,
Well, that link I sent for Type Certificate Data Sheets bombed.
This should work: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/If not, just go to FAA.GOV and search for "type certificate data" and you'll get a page with results and a link to their library.This begs the question: "What is a comparable aircraft?" You'll probably find that Barons and Cessna 300 and 400 series aircraft will all share the same design data: 3.8g positive -- and some may give a negative G value, some not.However, they're all driven by Part 23.337:
Sec. 23.337
Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n may not be less than--
(1) 2.1+[img]http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/b7e473a50bc6ae8d85256687006cb0ab/SectionRule/0.3F0%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif[/img] for normal category airplanes, except that n need not be more than 3.8 nor may it be less than 2.5;
(2) 4.4 for utility category airplanes; or
(3) 6.0 for acrobatic category airplanes.
(b) The negative limit maneuvering load factor may not be less than--
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal and utility categories; or
(2) 0.5 times the positive load factor for the acrobatic category.
(c) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this section may be used if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these values in flight.
A manufacturer may decide to exceed the load factor strengths but I don't know where to find that, other than their advertising because to certify they must comply with Part 23 and that's all the FAA is interested in.(An example is the Falcon 20 I fly. It's certified in the US as a Normal category turbine, Part 25 (large) airplane. However, it's an 8 G airframe and a 24 psi pressure vessel. All it needs to state as limitations for the TDC in the US is 2.5 Gs and 8.7 psi.)
Wing Commander Gordon
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cloudcraft(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: N500FV NTSB preliminary report >> Load Factors << |
|
|
I looked in TCDSs but did not find any reference to the structural limits, just loading and speed restrictions.
Hello there, Old Bob,
It's very subtle. I found the load limits in the TCDS under required placards. Not all a/c have placards about the load factors, so it's a hit or miss method.
I think the AC-680 series and the T-Bones are a good side by side comparison. The original question about load factors came from the NTSB incident report about a Commander coming apart in an area of T-storms flown by a non-instrument rated pilot in IMC.
Given the weight and power of the aircraft in question, I gravitated towards the the BE-55/58 and CE300 series as being in a similar group. I probably did that because in the last millennium I was an AeroStar demo pilot and was always put to the task of selling that Ted Smith design against those Beech, Cessna and Piper products (and I just used to laugh at the Piper products until Piper bought AeroStar).
It's an old habit, I guess.
By the way, I never mentioned this to you but the first twin I never flew was Fes Parker's Excalibur T-Bone. One of the guys who bought it tossed me the keys (I was a flight instructor at Watsonville and that's where the plane parked for a time) and told me to use if for my multi engine rating.
I couldn't find an M.E.I. who knew anything about the airplane and the scant 5 page AFM in the airplane didn't inspire any of them to self check-out so they could give me dual.
Too bad I didn't know about you or Dick Ward back in 1974.
Wing Commander Gordon
Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
NBAA Access Committee
Las Vegas Airspace Users' Council, NBAA Rep
Las Vegas RNAV Optimization Work Group, NBAA Rep
Las Vegas Class B Redesign Committee, NBAA Rep
--
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: N500FV NTSB preliminary report >> Load Factors << |
|
|
HI KIDS.All STD category airplanes are certified to +3.8Gs and - 1.5, no matter who makes them. Utility category is +4.4, and aerobatic +6 -3. The first Commander certified as a utility airplane was the 500U (Utility). The gross weight of a single engine airplane is set by the structural G load for the appropriate category. You often see an airplane certified in both categories at different gross weights. (lower weight for operations in the utility category)
Multi engine airplanes gross weight is set by a combination of structural G loading
and single engine climb performance. That is why you see different gross weights for the same Commander airframe. For instance, a straight 680 has the same engines as the 680E but has a gross weight 500 pounds less than a 680E. The E has a greater wingspan giving it a better climb rate at gross weight on one engine.
When the 680s were converted to an "E" at the factory, they received the gross weight increases even though there were no structural improvements, only the increased wing span. Hope that helps. jb
--
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
