Lancaster fire
Discussion
1st, I expect that they would say no as it is peace time so it is not worth the risk to air crew or people on the ground that it might crash onto. 2nd would you want to risk that a/c. 3rd, what caused the engine to catch fire. The fault could be on all 3 others. I expect that she will transported on tarmac.
Ledaig said:
If the RAF assess it as safe to do so in its current condition, can it not be flown over on 3 engines?
Three engine ferry take off?Re-arrange this well worn phrase: 'Off, F***!'
Three engine ferry take offs have a very nasty habit of killing people!
They are so dangerous that, on Albert, we required 38 Group Authority to do it and even then the Captain had the right of refusal.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Three engine ferry take off?
Re-arrange this well worn phrase: 'Off, F***!'
Three engine ferry take offs have a very nasty habit of killing people!
They are so dangerous that, on Albert, we required 38 Group Authority to do it and even then the Captain had the right of refusal.
I'll take that as a no then Re-arrange this well worn phrase: 'Off, F***!'
Three engine ferry take offs have a very nasty habit of killing people!
They are so dangerous that, on Albert, we required 38 Group Authority to do it and even then the Captain had the right of refusal.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Ledaig said:
If the RAF assess it as safe to do so in its current condition, can it not be flown over on 3 engines?
Three engine ferry take off?Re-arrange this well worn phrase: 'Off, F***!'
Three engine ferry take offs have a very nasty habit of killing people!
They are so dangerous that, on Albert, we required 38 Group Authority to do it and even then the Captain had the right of refusal.
Anyway, I'm just very glad that she was able to land at a proper airport with fire equipment to hand - I can't help but draw a comparison to the tragic fate of the B-17 Liberty Belle, which also had a minor engine fire in flight a few years ago. The pilot did a superb job of putting her down immediately in a large prarie field, but the location was so remote that the crew could only stand and watch heartbroken as fire spread and the entire aircraft burnt to the ground before any fire crews could reach the scene
ChemicalChaos said:
Presumably this is due to the thrust/torque imbalance trying to make the plane veer off sideways?
Anyway, I'm just very glad that she was able to land at a proper airport with fire equipment to hand - I can't help but draw a comparison to the tragic fate of the B-17 Liberty Belle, which also had a minor engine fire in flight a few years ago. The pilot did a superb job of putting her down immediately in a large prarie field, but the location was so remote that the crew could only stand and watch heartbroken as fire spread and the entire aircraft burnt to the ground before any fire crews could reach the scene
My recollection is that the fire crews reached the edge of the field and couldn't or wouldn't proceed any further because the ground was too soft.Anyway, I'm just very glad that she was able to land at a proper airport with fire equipment to hand - I can't help but draw a comparison to the tragic fate of the B-17 Liberty Belle, which also had a minor engine fire in flight a few years ago. The pilot did a superb job of putting her down immediately in a large prarie field, but the location was so remote that the crew could only stand and watch heartbroken as fire spread and the entire aircraft burnt to the ground before any fire crews could reach the scene
Thanks Ledaig and Eric for the snide responses, that was really grown up of you.
Three Engined Ferry take offs are extremely dangerous for a number of reasons (especially in propellor a/c).
Firstly there is the fact that you now have assymmetric thrust which means you may well be getting towards the limits of rudder authority. This is not a good place to be in should you lose an engine on the same side as the one already shut down. Even were that not to be the case, doing a 3 engined take off with an outboard shut down is getting towards worst case scenario. I don't know what the Vmcg1 and Vmca1 (Velocity Minimum Control Ground 1 engine inoperative, Velocity Minimum Control Airborne 1 engine inoperative) are for a Lancaster, but I would imagine they are pretty high. I do know that PA474 is fitted with Lincoln rudders so presumably has better safety speeds owing to better rudder authority.
Fortunately it was the No4 engine that was affected, had it been the No1 it would have been worse owing to the way the Merlin rotates and how the slipstream impacts upon the tail surfaces. No1 being the 'Most Critical Engine'.
Secondly, when you get airborne in a multi-engined a/c you always consider the 'what if I lose a donk' situation because, aside from controllability issues, you now have performance issues (can you actually climb for eg). In the Three Engined Ferry case you are now having to consider the two engined performance. Will a Lancaster climb on 2? I don't know. What is the 2 engined stabilising height for a Lancaster, and does that give you sufficient terrain clearance?
Thirdly you have to consider the weather. Aside from things like cloud and Safety Altitude considerations, crosswind becomes a major player because it can exacerbate the handling problems you already have. Note this will affect both the take off, but also importantly the landing (because the a/c will also try to swing as the power is reduced post touch down). The BBMF Lancaster already has a very low crosswind limit for normal operations (in order to lessen the risk of a problem on take off or landing); I would suggest that for a Three Engined Ferry then there would have to be zero crosswind component.
So, as you can see, Three Engined Ferry is not something to be undertaken lightly hence my previous comment.
Three Engined Ferry take offs are extremely dangerous for a number of reasons (especially in propellor a/c).
Firstly there is the fact that you now have assymmetric thrust which means you may well be getting towards the limits of rudder authority. This is not a good place to be in should you lose an engine on the same side as the one already shut down. Even were that not to be the case, doing a 3 engined take off with an outboard shut down is getting towards worst case scenario. I don't know what the Vmcg1 and Vmca1 (Velocity Minimum Control Ground 1 engine inoperative, Velocity Minimum Control Airborne 1 engine inoperative) are for a Lancaster, but I would imagine they are pretty high. I do know that PA474 is fitted with Lincoln rudders so presumably has better safety speeds owing to better rudder authority.
Fortunately it was the No4 engine that was affected, had it been the No1 it would have been worse owing to the way the Merlin rotates and how the slipstream impacts upon the tail surfaces. No1 being the 'Most Critical Engine'.
Secondly, when you get airborne in a multi-engined a/c you always consider the 'what if I lose a donk' situation because, aside from controllability issues, you now have performance issues (can you actually climb for eg). In the Three Engined Ferry case you are now having to consider the two engined performance. Will a Lancaster climb on 2? I don't know. What is the 2 engined stabilising height for a Lancaster, and does that give you sufficient terrain clearance?
Thirdly you have to consider the weather. Aside from things like cloud and Safety Altitude considerations, crosswind becomes a major player because it can exacerbate the handling problems you already have. Note this will affect both the take off, but also importantly the landing (because the a/c will also try to swing as the power is reduced post touch down). The BBMF Lancaster already has a very low crosswind limit for normal operations (in order to lessen the risk of a problem on take off or landing); I would suggest that for a Three Engined Ferry then there would have to be zero crosswind component.
So, as you can see, Three Engined Ferry is not something to be undertaken lightly hence my previous comment.
Eric Mc said:
And he probably has at least 20 erks helping him. There is this famous picture of how many people it took to keep a Lancaster flying -
Out of interest, how many of those people would be exclusively for armaments? For example to fly it as my billionaire private plane (for example), I wouldn't need the bombs in the picture...or the tractor. Just thinking of the efficiency of my workforce!
Vocal Minority said:
Out of interest, how many of those people would be exclusively for armaments? For example to fly it as my billionaire private plane (for example), I wouldn't need the bombs in the picture...or the tractor.
Just thinking of the efficiency of my workforce!
You would need the tractor Just thinking of the efficiency of my workforce!
G15,
Interesting, thanks.
Another rather famous pic.
Equally unadvisable, or safer, given high entry speed?
Pic from here http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tab...
VM, large staff only needed to support short turn around between nightly flights over the Ruhr, which I assume isn't your plan?
David
Interesting, thanks.
Another rather famous pic.
Equally unadvisable, or safer, given high entry speed?
Pic from here http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tab...
VM, large staff only needed to support short turn around between nightly flights over the Ruhr, which I assume isn't your plan?
David
Probably depends on how heavy it was and how fast it was travelling at the time. I've seen film of Viscounts doing single engined flypasts at Farnborough.
And my comments aren't snide - they are accurate based on how you seem to fly off into four letter word territory whenever you don't agree with someone's posting.
I value your technical knowledge but I think the way you react to others' postings is indicative of a very short fuse and poor inter personal skills.
And my comments aren't snide - they are accurate based on how you seem to fly off into four letter word territory whenever you don't agree with someone's posting.
I value your technical knowledge but I think the way you react to others' postings is indicative of a very short fuse and poor inter personal skills.
Thanks for the explanation GGG, as I thought then.
Re. flying on one engine - I gather B17 can do it, and that weighs only 200lb less with the same power in each engine. Of course, if that picture was at the bottom of a dive, I imagine they could convert speed to height and give themselves time to restart the other engines (this is assuming it is a staged photo and not an imminent emergency landing with a failed U/C)
Re. flying on one engine - I gather B17 can do it, and that weighs only 200lb less with the same power in each engine. Of course, if that picture was at the bottom of a dive, I imagine they could convert speed to height and give themselves time to restart the other engines (this is assuming it is a staged photo and not an imminent emergency landing with a failed U/C)
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Thanks Ledaig and Eric for the snide responses, that was really grown up of you.
Just like your very grown up reply to Ledaig!Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Ledaig said:
If the RAF assess it as safe to do so in its current condition, can it not be flown over on 3 engines?
Three engine ferry take offs have a very nasty habit of killing people, as they are extremely dangerous. Due to XYZThey are so dangerous that, on Albert (C130 Hercules), we required 38 Group Authority (engineering command) to do it and even then as with any flight the Captain had the right of refusal.
This isn't just a forum for experts in the field of aviation but also for people who may share an interest so your response comes across quite rude that we all should know how dangerous it is. Whilst the vast majority of your posts are extremely informative and help those understand the theory of flight the rest of your posts are just rude.
Eric I suggest you re-read my original post.
If you think that was attacking someone with whom I disagree you are very, very, wrong. It was more an indication of the response you would get from the average a/c Captain if asked to do a Three Engined Ferry.
Notwithstanding that, your response is quite delicious in its irony.
We can debate all day whether an aircraft can 'fly' without power (I would say no, its not 'flying' but gliding) however whichever way you slice it, it will be a descent leading to an inevitable contact with terra firma.
WRT the Lancaster photo', he may well have got away with it if the speed was high enough to trade for altitude and time to unfeather at least one engine, however it's a bloody silly thing to do. Aside from the fact that the propellor might fail to unfeather, the process itself causes an increase in drag (and hence exacerbates any handling problem).
If it didn't all end in tears, I would warrant that the Captain got a 'hats on' interview with no coffee.
Edit: And you Robin are just being condescending and, to be fair, pretty bloody rude as well, which is somewhat hypocritical.
If you think that was attacking someone with whom I disagree you are very, very, wrong. It was more an indication of the response you would get from the average a/c Captain if asked to do a Three Engined Ferry.
Notwithstanding that, your response is quite delicious in its irony.
We can debate all day whether an aircraft can 'fly' without power (I would say no, its not 'flying' but gliding) however whichever way you slice it, it will be a descent leading to an inevitable contact with terra firma.
WRT the Lancaster photo', he may well have got away with it if the speed was high enough to trade for altitude and time to unfeather at least one engine, however it's a bloody silly thing to do. Aside from the fact that the propellor might fail to unfeather, the process itself causes an increase in drag (and hence exacerbates any handling problem).
If it didn't all end in tears, I would warrant that the Captain got a 'hats on' interview with no coffee.
Edit: And you Robin are just being condescending and, to be fair, pretty bloody rude as well, which is somewhat hypocritical.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 19th May 14:03
From what I've read, I think a Fort can actually fly, as in maintain altitude/speed, on just one engine as there were stories of them limping home from raids over Germany like that.
WRT the Lanc photo, what's the possibility of it in fact being a crash landing about to happen rather than a photo stunt?
WRT the Lanc photo, what's the possibility of it in fact being a crash landing about to happen rather than a photo stunt?
I remember watching a Britten Norman Islander perform a display on one engine at Greenham Common in 1976.
And Bob Hoover used to do a brilliant one engine (and no engine) routine in a Rockwell Commander. It was all down to energy management.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rSXkvymcY
Admittedly not quite on the same scale as a Lancaster or a B-17 but it shows what can be done with at least half your power out.
And Bob Hoover used to do a brilliant one engine (and no engine) routine in a Rockwell Commander. It was all down to energy management.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2rSXkvymcY
Admittedly not quite on the same scale as a Lancaster or a B-17 but it shows what can be done with at least half your power out.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff