Flying long distances in T effect ( Ground effect. ).

[C.W.E.]

deleted

[C.W.E.]

Getting back to the situation here it's like most things, the current generation(s) are applying their standards to judge. The one big thing that they are missing, the lack of technology. What weather reporting or forecasts, navigation and the list goes on. Risk management, really it was taking off into the vast unknown and at the very best you had some wx reports and possibly if the HF has signals you might know wx en route at a few stations but in between it would be a crap shoot and all you can do is deal with what is served and not have the luxury of turning back. It was a different age so don't judge using what you perceive as knowledge and base your standards on, especially you have only been flying since the introduction of GPS. Respect history and learn from it. Jsssszus a pig boat had 24 hours of fuel even today how current are forecasts if you are arriving after a flight like that

Exactly, one helpful thing that was sometimes available was " intellicast.com " where we could get worldwide satelite and radar weather maps and by following that it made it easier to predict where we might run into weather problems.

. Jsssszus a pig boat had 24 hours of fuel.

And we carried close to a thousand pounds of engine oil between the two oil tanks and spare five gallon pails we kept in the airplane.

The normal oil burn in each engine averaged between one and a half to two gallons per hour.

[C.W.E.]

I'm still curious what the "T" represents/signifies in ground effect, never mind all the other if's, and's, but's, call outs and general dick slinging going on in this thread !!

It was used to describe height over water in ground effect many years ago and if you really want to know anymore about the subject why don't you let go of your dick and research the subject yourself?

[C.W.E.]

., well done. Interesting how much flying airmanship has changed and now they're flying computers. Different world now but is it safer only because the equipment is better and makes up for the lack of flying skills?

Thanks, one thing I can not understand is why some people only see my posts as bragging rather than sharing what I learned during my flying career.

As to this being a different world technology wise it definitely is, when I started navigation was done by using the radio range and before I retired I was paid by Airbus Industries and took their sim training on the A320 in Toulouse at their main training facility.

What is wrong with relating experience?

Also I note every once in a while someone brings up air show flying and the risks involved, for sure there are risks involved but there are many air show pilots who never had an accident just like every other group of pilots.

And to fly in the airshow circuit you must hold a airdisplay license which is only held after you pass the training and test flights every year.

So I had better not mention I flew in the European air show circuit for eight years should I,

[C.W.E.]

Couple years in Africa and a year in SE Asia. Actually it was the most predictable weather of my entire career.

Africa is a big continent with countries that are dry to countries that are very wet and very unpredictable weather wise, where in Africa did you fly?

[youhavecontrol]

An interesting experiment would be to see at what pressure altitude you could get the same performance as you would if you stayed in ground effect. Especially when you factor in the time to climb. I imagine the extended range from flying higher would far outweigh the performance you'd gain from ground effect... but it would be interesting to calculate exactly what altitude that would happen at (also assuming no wind, turbulence, terrain etc).

[C.W.E.]

An interesting experiment would be to see at what pressure altitude you could get the same performance as you would if you stayed in ground effect. Especially when you factor in the time to climb. I imagine the extended range from flying higher would far outweigh the performance you'd gain from ground effect... but it would be interesting to calculate exactly what altitude that would happen at (also assuming no wind, turbulence, terrain etc).

Sometimes there is the problem of a very long over water flight in high surface temperatures where you have to depart several thousand pounds over weight which means your first several hours will be at a very poor climb rate at METO power and thus a high fuel burn.

By flying in ground effect the fuel savings are significant not to mention there is less less engine stress due to high engine temperatures at METO.

A good example was the Aeropostale commemorative flight we did for French TV1 in 1998 our route included flying from Dakar Senegal to Natal Brazil which required us to depart several thousand pounds over the airplanes gross allowable weight. On that flight we stayed in round effect for around six hours before starting to climb to the best fuel burn altitude.

[photofly]

I read somewhere Lindburgh had to fly in ground effect in the Spirit of St. Louis for the first part of his transatlantic crossing.

[ruddersup?]

I've heard that during WWII, fighters low on fuel and trying to get back home would pull props back to coarse as much as they could.
Not sure if they did the ground effect thing or not but it would have been nice for them to know exactly what was the best solution for their predicament. Winds would be critical but would they have had that info?

[valleyboy]

I don't think most stop and think about wing in ground effect. I have been fascinated with it since I saw a documentary on it many years ago. If you want some interesting reading and videos google Caspian Sea Monster.

In more recent years Boeing has developed this concept. It's mind boggling. Those are the stats - google Boeing Pelican All this is possible because of ground effect. Look at the range stats - 18500 km in ground effect and 12000 km at 200 --



General characteristics

Capacity: 3,000 passengers[2]
Payload: 2,800,000 lb[21] (1,400 short tons; 1,270,000 kg; 1,270 t)
Length: 400 ft (122 m[18][23])
Wingspan: 340 ft folded; 500 ft unfolded;[21] effective wingspan of 850 ft in ground effect[12] (104 m; 152 m; 259 m)
Height: 18 ft 4 in (fuselage main deck interior)[21] (5.6 m)
Wing area: more than 43,560 sq ft[17] (4,047 m2)
Aspect ratio: 5.4 (effective AR of 15.8 in ground effect)[1]
Wetted aspect ratio: 1.56[12]
Empty weight: 2,160,000 lb[12] (980,000 kg; 1,080 short tons; 980 t)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,000,000 lb[22][12] (3,000 short tons; 2,700,000 kg; 2,700 t)
Cabin dimensions, main deck (height x width x length): 18.3 ft × 50 ft × 200 ft (5.6 m × 15.2 m × 61.0 m)[21]
Cargo area: 29,900 sq ft (2,780 m2; 0.69 acres; 0.278 ha)[21]
Cargo container capacity: 178 TEUs[23]
Fuel capacity: 2,200,000 lb (1,000,000 kg; 1,100 short tons; 1,000 t)[12]
Mean aerodynamic chord: 97 ft (29.6 m)[12]
Powerplant: eight × LM6000-GE90 hybrid[6][24] turboprops, 80,000 shp[4][33] (59,700 kW) each
Propellers: four-bladed propellers[6], one[6] per engine
Propeller diameter: 50 ft[6] (15.2 m; 600 in; 1,520 cm)
Performance

Cruise speed: 240 knots (276 mph; 444 km/h; 405 ft/s; 123 m/s) in ground effect; 400 knots (460 mph; 741 km/h; 675 ft/s; 206 m/s) at 20,000 feet[33]
Range:
At 1,400-short-ton payload (2,800,000 lb; 1,270,000 kg; 1,270 t) in ground effect: 3,000 nmi (3,400 mi; 5,500 km[23])
At 1,110-short-ton allowable cargo load (ACL) (2,220,000 lb; 1,010,000 kg; 1,010 t) in ground effect: 6,000 nmi (6,900 mi; 11,000 km)[7]
At 750-short-ton payload (1,500,000 lb; 680,000 kg; 680 t):
10,000 nmi (11,500 mi; 18,500 km) in ground effect
6,500 nmi (7,480 mi; 12,000 km) at 20,000 feet[22]
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft[34] (7,600 m)
lift-to-drag: 21 (36 in ground effect;[1] 45 in ground effect with winglets in unswept position)[33]
Armament
10 CH-47D Chinook helicopters (using only the main deck)[7]
70 heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks (HEMTTs)[7]
52 M270 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRSs)[7]
17 M-1 Abrams tanks[22]

[iflyforpie]

I've heard that during WWII, fighters low on fuel and trying to get back home would pull props back to coarse as much as they could.
Not sure if they did the ground effect thing or not but it would have been nice for them to know exactly what was the best solution for their predicament. Winds would be critical but would they have had that info?

Read up on Charles Lindbergh’s contributions to the Pacific Theatre in WWII.

They were flying P-38s over very long overwater sectors and cutting it very close on range. Lindbergh came in and found out the pilots were running high RPM to avoid stressing the engines, low boost to save fuel, and auto rich to prevent detonation in the hot tropical climate.

He suggested a very high manifold pressure, a very low RPM, and manually leaning the mixture as much as possible without it sputtering or detonating. The pilots protested, saying that would ruin the engines. Lindbergh said that the engines were built to Army specs, and would run fine under those conditions. He was right.

Another story I read.. actually, I’ll link it here. . will probably find it fascinating as will a lot of people.. was the story of an ex airline flight engineer running guns in the Biafran War. They were flying ex Lufthansa Lockheed Constellations but they were sold with runout engines. After many failures and problems over less than hospitable territory.. they came up with a system of running very high boost and low RPM, lowering it by 100 or so RPM for every hour of flight.

https://www.mercenary-wars.net/biafra/jim-townsend.html

[JeppsOnFire]

Just jumping in to say ., thanks for all your input here. Abrasive or not its always a good read.

For you other guys jeez, calm down. Let the old guy talk. This is a man who flew in a different era, within a different culture and basic flying machines. Let him speak. He’s lived situations this industry will never see again. He is a Flying Boat load of stories and information. I for one enjoy it. My grandfather had a similar aviation experience and those were the times. . is a character, let him speak and quit being so bloody offended over it.
In the past he’s accused me personally of being something like a ‘broke miserable regional pilot who hates himself’ (although he couldn’t be further from the truth insofar as what I do for a flying career) but here I am defending him. If we were sitting at the bar and he told me I’m a child of the magenta shit pilot because I never flew a tail dragger I would still keep on buying him beers.
My old man taught me something important a long time ago - ‘you have to just let people be who they are’.

[C.W.E.]

Just jumping in to say ., thanks for all your input here. Abrasive or not its always a good read.

Thanks!

For you other guys jeez, calm down. Let the old guy talk. This is a man who flew in a different era, within a different culture and basic flying machines. Let him speak. He’s lived situations this industry will never see again.

Yes, we have no control over when we were born and I just happened to get into flying in an era when aviation was just really getting started and ended up doing it for a living and had a lot of different experiences and now that I have been retired fourteen years I like to look back and remember what it was like.

My hope is to live until 2030 and I probably will because I think I will, maybe I can make 2035 and that will make me 100 years old.....so unless I get banned from this site I will probably just keep posting here because aviation was my life.

In the past he’s accused me personally of being something like a ‘broke miserable regional pilot who hates himself’ (although he couldn’t be further from the truth insofar as what I do for a flying career) but here I am defending him.

The best way to handle me when I get like that is tell me to go get fucked...that will get rid of me for a while because it is getting harder and harder to find a woman who will let me.

Anyhow this subject of ground effect may be an old subject but for sure it is interesting.