Air Force Pilot Screws Up - Wrong Airport

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,698
1,140
Rome
So it's using the jet exhaust to add turbulence and lift into the ground effect?
No, not tied to ground effect. Blowing the (strenghted, I suppose) flaps delays stall and achieves a higher lift coefficient. Old technology (F104, F4) bled and piped air from engine compressor to near flap hinge

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
No, not tied to ground effect. Blowing the (strenghted, I suppose) flaps delays stall and achieves a higher lift coefficient
I watched the video, I noticed the solid flaps you described.

So lessee ... lift, gravity, thrust, drag ... the flaps extend into the path of the jet exhaust, a certain vector of that thrust then is directed downward, increases lift, but increases drag. In the video that looked to be at least 20-degrees or more of flap, is that normal for takeoff, or is it a short-runway thing?

The way they backed they reverse thrusted the plane, they only seemed to move it back a short distance. Is that common for takeoff or a flex of the ability?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Lada

Super Anarchist
19,803
5,402
Poland
The way they backed they reverse thrusted the plane, they only seemed to move it back a short distance. Is that common for takeoff or a flex of the ability?
I'm going to guess since they could back up , they did so to get the max runway length.  

They already fucked up once, why not take advantage of every bit of runway they could easily get.  

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
I'm going to guess since they could back up , they did so to get the max runway length.  

They already fucked up once, why not take advantage of every bit of runway they could easily get.  
It's hard to tell, but in the video it looked like they only backed up a bit, and had a good bit of runway behind them, and a good bit in front of them when they lifted. An airplane that big, I would have backed its tail was over the rhubarb ... it's just something in my head that screams at me that it's too big and heavy to take off in anything shorter than one of the runways at Denver International, let alone a runway at Centennial.

That takeoff, couldn't have been a better promotional piece for the folks at Boeing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Lada

Super Anarchist
19,803
5,402
Poland
It's hard to tell, but in the video it looked like they only backed up a bit, and had a good bit of runway behind them, and a good bit in front of them when they lifted. An airplane that big, I would have backed its tail was over the rhubarb ... it's just something in my head that screams at me that it's too big and heavy to take off in anything shorter than one of the runways at Denver International, let alone a runway at Centennial.

That takeoff, couldn't have been a better promotional piece for the folks at Boeing.
They certainly only needed a portion of the 5,000' runway.  They only need 3,500' to take off.  

 

RedTuna

Super Anarchist
4,837
1,243
Texas
I thought the C-5M program addressed most of the reliability issues, but I could be wrong.
FRED is still FRED.  I monitored the fleet of C-5As, Bs, Cs and Ms on a daily basis for years looking for engine issues, and there were days when not one of the first dozen or so C-5Ms were mission capable.  The aircraft System Program Office, now Life Cycle Management, at Warner-Robins didn't understand the first fucking thing about Reliability Centered Maintenance.  Maybe it's gotten better since 2014.

 

Charlie Foxtrot

Super Anarchist
4,952
794
Floriduh
So it's using the jet exhaust to add turbulence and lift into the ground effect?

Cripes, whoever thought of that at Boeing was a mad genius.
McDonnell Douglas.  And, yes. 
 

Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  

 

Charlie Foxtrot

Super Anarchist
4,952
794
Floriduh
The 17s three piece flap system. 

C-17A_96-0006_19821.jpg

 

 

RedTuna

Super Anarchist
4,837
1,243
Texas
Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  
The Coandă Effect, since there appear to be other nerds here.

And hey, have a Weird Al ear worm while we're at it:

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Can't you see I'm white and nerdy?
Look at me, I'm white and nerdy.


 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
McDonnell Douglas.  And, yes. 
 

Boeing had the Powered Lift concept, which was very good very slow, but sucked rock at cruise.  
The one in the OP was made by McDD?

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
My uncle used to flight engineer these for the Air National Guard, it's the C-130?

He once told me that flight engineering a jet was a bore, little to do other than monitor temperatures. He preferred the reciprocating engines ... 20190331_001744.jpg

20181122_132016.jpg

 

Ed Lada

Super Anarchist
19,803
5,402
Poland
My uncle used to flight engineer these for the Air National Guard, it's the C-130?

He once told me that flight engineering a jet was a bore, little to do other than monitor temperatures. He preferred the reciprocating engines ... View attachment 437074
That's a C 137 Stratoliner made by Boeing.

This is a C 130 Hercules made by Lockheed.

69689main_C130J_fig1.gif
     
c-130_J_40.jpg


 

Charlie Foxtrot

Super Anarchist
4,952
794
Floriduh
The one in the OP was made by McDD?

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?
Let’s unpack this, shall we?

The one in the OP was made by McDD?

McDonnell Douglas designed and built the C-17 (the plane in the first photo), based largely on the YC-15 flying prototype, which was developed by Douglas Aircraft. The C-17’s first flight was in September, 1991. Boeing <spit> bought McDonnell Douglas at the end of 1996.  By that time we had the program under control and were pumping out money. 

Do you know how the system works? Is it that the jet engine hits the flap in its way, then makes the billowy cushion of ground-effect turbulence? I assume the need to contain the ground effect turbulence is why the plane has such a strong negative dihedral?

Ground effect has very little to do with the 17’s performance; the wing is set far too high to have any significant benefit from the very short time the plane is in ground effect. The plane’s short field capabilities arise from the Blown Flaps. (Got the shirt “It’s Better Being Blown” before uppah management had a stroke.)  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm is a high level discussion of the externally blown flaps of the C-17 and the 17 in general.  If you really want to get in the weeds, try https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm. We put together a really outstanding webpage (for 1996 or 97) on the Blown Flaps, but I guess Boeing killed that too.          

Any issue with that dihedral and the wingtip vortices with paratroops?

The anhedral wing was chosen for maneuverability (all the cargo weight well below the wing would otherwise make the plane too stable) and to direct the apparent wind toward the wing root and the flaps. The 17 did have problems with paratroopers getting too close when using both paratroop doors. Even though the 17 is basically a flying knockwurst, it is also a very cleverly designed aerodynamic one. The slipstream recombined underneath the tail, dragging the port and starboard paratrooper sticks together. In a test, one troopie hit and collapsed the chute of another, who had to ditch his main and ride down under his reserve chute. Another time there were collisions, that I seem to remember resulted in bruises, a broken arm, maybe a short period of unconsciousness, and much heavy drinking. That issue was resolved by much larger airstream deflectors ahead of both paratroop doors and a maybe a change in speed and deck angle.  

IMNSHO, the C-17 is the best airlifter ever, by a huge amount. It is a crying shame that Boeing, ‘Boma, and Airbus combined to kill the program. Talking to a friend that was still on the remnant of the program several years ago, all the Air Force can complain about is that there are just too damn few of the C-17s.    

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Ground effect has very little to do with the 17’s performance; the wing is set far too high to have any significant benefit from the very short time the plane is in ground effect. The plane’s short field capabilities arise from the Blown Flaps. (Got the shirt “It’s Better Being Blown” before uppah management had a stroke.)  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm is a high level discussion of the externally blown flaps of the C-17 and the 17 in general.  If you really want to get in the weeds, try https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm. We put together a really outstanding webpage (for 1996 or 97) on the Blown Flaps, but I guess Boeing killed that too.    
Okay, so it's more complicated than just vectoring the jet exhaust downward from the flaps for extra lift, because that would make the plane harder to land?

In your links, it seems that the blown flaps are made of the flaps plus a controllable diverter of some kind in the jet exhaust.  In the videos, it's odd to see such aggressive flap position on takeoff, but the effect is undeniable, that enormous bitch seems to just float off the runway.

With the negative dihedral, why did they mount the wings so high if it's too stable?

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top