P-3 stalls, 5 spins, 7 G's, over Pugent Sound - Lucky!!!


#1

Fruit of the Loom moment for P-3 crew, read below;

Info and photos


#2

Holy shit!

MAD boom buckle? How do you do that? There’s little mass to the boom, it’s just a bunch of encapsulated wires! Must be a case of moment inertia overcoming structural integrity.


#3

That makes absolutely no sense…

Anytime you apply a 7G aerodynamic load on any airframe structure that is not designed to sustain it, something like that is likely to happen. It has nothing to do with mass, and I doubt you fully understand what a moment of inertia is…

Hats off to the pilots on board for bringing it back into control, and home safely.


#4

#5

Nope, not rising to the troll, sorry to disappoint you all.


#6

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/CheckM8/cry.gif Oh! MAAAaaaaaan… You’re NO fun at all!


#7

No disappointment here JHEM… This incident is bad on so many levels, as it was initiated by bad judgment. As the ole saying goes…“sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good!”


#8

That’s what Shane Osborn always says!

Besides the fact that the article never said anything about the aircraft experiencing 7 Gs of aerodynamic loading, just that the aircrew pulled 7 Gs in the pullout.


#9

I just want to know how the hell that thing was still flyable after looking at the wing panel…looks more like a spoiler.


#10

Yep, don’t need a MAD Boom to fly but that torn wing panel and the interior shot of the ripped spar are enough to give you religion.


#11

Those things are tough. They come over here from Whidbey to practice and they’re also loud but fun to watch. Remember the one that landed in China in 2001*?

*JHEM just read your wiki link.


#12


That bait doesn’t seem to be working, maybe I’ll switch to squid…


#13

Read this book (http://www.aircraftdesign.com/book.html), familiarize yourself with the dynamics of flight, and then tell me what happens to aerodynamic forces acting on a plane during a 7-G pullout Sherlock.

You might even also learn a thing or two about moments of inertia…


#14

[quote=“JHEM”]

Well whaddya know? It worked.


#15

:laughing:


#16

Ad hominem attacks are so demeaning to the instigator, don’t you think?

That’s a rhetorical question.

Ever heard the terms “area moment of inertia” or “second moment of inertia”? How about “polar moment of inertia”? That’s the problem when you only know one meaning for something, you try to apply it everywhere indiscriminately.

How’d you like the squid? I dipped them in ground up Menhaden before setting them on the outriggers.

It’s all in the choice of bait!


#17

Ever heard the terms “area moment of inertia” or “second moment of inertia”? How about “polar moment of inertia”? That’s the problem when you only know one meaning for something, you try to apply it everywhere indiscriminately.

I think my structural engineering background will prove that I most certainly know quite a bit more about area moments or inertia, second moments of inertia and polar moments of inertia than you, don’t you think ?

You’ve guessed it, that’s a rhetorical question.

Do you know exactly how these moments of inertia relate to flexural bending ? Do you know why such stresses are imposed and how the loads are distributed both spanwise and chordwise ? You see, that’s the problem when you don’t quite know what you’re talking about: you sound like a tool…

How’d you like the squid? I dipped them in ground up Menhaden before setting them on the outriggers.

I loved the squid ! Next time, I’ll take octopus marinated in white wine and grilled Portugese-style please. Thanks.

It’s all in the choice of bait!

All you have to do is throw some random stuff around and pretend like you know everything; I’ll be sure to take that bait !


#18

I don’t remember pissing in your soup, but the answers to your questions are No, yes, yes and yes.

I don’t normally “do” octopus, but I’ll be happy to make an exception for you if you’ll allow me to grill them on gas rather than charcoal.

Know everything? Nah. Know a fair amount about a relative smorgasbord of things? Yes, I’m a bit of a renaissance man. I’ve also been around the block more than a few times in my 60 years.

Now, how about dipping into your apparently bottomless well of knowledge and explain to all of us how inertia bore no causative effect in the damage sustained by the subject P3 in general and the Magnetic Anomaly Detector boom in particular.


#19

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b8/CheckM8/Popcorn.gif … WOW! This is a good show!!!


#20

Thank you for sharing.

You know, I would love to spend a couple of minutes of my time here and educate you in particular, but it’s like they say: “Never do something you’re good at for free”. I think the Joker in Batman knows that one too… but that’s besides the point. I did post a link earlier in this thread about a great book which is not so hard to read for someone with a general knowledge of mechanics and applied mathematics. All the answers you seek are in there.

I’ll tell you real quick though that part of your answer lies in the distribution of the pressure coefficient on the airframe during a high-G manoeuver and also in the flexural bending of the wing due to the increased aerodynamic loads. You said you’re familiar with inertia, so I’ll bet that M*c / I rings a bell. You also said that you were familiar with the spanwise and chordwise distribution of aerodynamic loads on the wing, so you can probably figure out the moment “M” on your own. Now with a stressed-skin design like in most modern airplanes, you can probably figure out the rest.

Cheers !