OK, odd/unique question of the day...
OK, odd/unique question of the day...
(OP)
Confused in the Midwest...
I was on the freeway driving-along at 80-MPH as usual... when I came upon a PU truck hauling a long trailer with an AG plane [Piper Pawnee?] doing roughly 70-MPH. That day we had gusting quartering-cross winds from the RT-Front up to ~25-MPH and it was uncomfortable. Obviously... for a flyable aircraft... trailering a few hundred miles seems stupid... so I assumed the aircraft was non-flyable and/or needed to travel a really long distance.
The fuselage was on its main landing gear with the tail wheel elevated ~4-ft [~level attitude], which allowed the wings to be stacked under the aft fuselage... with supports, tiedowns and visible padding. Also, the prop had been removed [not visible]. Otherwise the fuselage had the horizontal stabs and elevators/rudder installed.
What struck me as very odd was that I was NOT expecting the fuselage to be loaded backwards on the trailer... opposite to the rolling direction... for a bunch of reasons.
IF the fuselage had been pointed forward the aerodynamics would have been optimized to the 'normal' flight-neutral orientation. Also the heavy engine forward would benefit trailering center-of-gravity. AND the V-Stab/rudder might tend to be stabilizing in normal trailering. HENCE... fuselage-forward seemed more logical for trailering stability and minimizing air-loads on the stabs and elevator/rudder, than the 'backwards' loading. Right??? Also, as it was oriented, I noted that the trailing edges of the elevators/rudders [which had mechanical/external gust-locks in place] were visibly shaking/buffeting... which REALLY bugged me.
The only logical reasons for loading the aircraft backwards on the trailer seemed to be quick on-off loading: wings first; then lift the tailwheel over the wings while rolling the fuselage backwards into position. AND reverse the process for off-loading.
But the forward orientation [NOT DONE], still seems to be a safer over-all loading... with lower potential for damage, less drag, less buffet, etc... for a long trip. I really wanted to ask the driver... WHY??? but I just gawked passing-by.
Since I've rarely trailered GA Acft, this all seemed wrong. Any comments/observations/humor???
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
I was on the freeway driving-along at 80-MPH as usual... when I came upon a PU truck hauling a long trailer with an AG plane [Piper Pawnee?] doing roughly 70-MPH. That day we had gusting quartering-cross winds from the RT-Front up to ~25-MPH and it was uncomfortable. Obviously... for a flyable aircraft... trailering a few hundred miles seems stupid... so I assumed the aircraft was non-flyable and/or needed to travel a really long distance.
The fuselage was on its main landing gear with the tail wheel elevated ~4-ft [~level attitude], which allowed the wings to be stacked under the aft fuselage... with supports, tiedowns and visible padding. Also, the prop had been removed [not visible]. Otherwise the fuselage had the horizontal stabs and elevators/rudder installed.
What struck me as very odd was that I was NOT expecting the fuselage to be loaded backwards on the trailer... opposite to the rolling direction... for a bunch of reasons.
IF the fuselage had been pointed forward the aerodynamics would have been optimized to the 'normal' flight-neutral orientation. Also the heavy engine forward would benefit trailering center-of-gravity. AND the V-Stab/rudder might tend to be stabilizing in normal trailering. HENCE... fuselage-forward seemed more logical for trailering stability and minimizing air-loads on the stabs and elevator/rudder, than the 'backwards' loading. Right??? Also, as it was oriented, I noted that the trailing edges of the elevators/rudders [which had mechanical/external gust-locks in place] were visibly shaking/buffeting... which REALLY bugged me.
The only logical reasons for loading the aircraft backwards on the trailer seemed to be quick on-off loading: wings first; then lift the tailwheel over the wings while rolling the fuselage backwards into position. AND reverse the process for off-loading.
But the forward orientation [NOT DONE], still seems to be a safer over-all loading... with lower potential for damage, less drag, less buffet, etc... for a long trip. I really wanted to ask the driver... WHY??? but I just gawked passing-by.
Since I've rarely trailered GA Acft, this all seemed wrong. Any comments/observations/humor???
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
Talk To Other Members
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
Most likely I suspect that was just the way it ended up on the trailer without too much thought going into it.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
Anyone know of FAA [AC, etc], MIL, etc document for trailering hauling a disassembled/partially-disassembled GA Acft?
For all MIL Acft, there is [usually] 'adequate' technical data for crash recovery and ground-transportation of [every specific-type] recovered Acft/major-Assys.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
Trailers with the CG forward of the wheels [closer to the towing pintle], is typically a more stable rolling configuration.
The engine + the heavily reinforced forward fuselage and cockpit and spray hopper/tank [AG Acft, crashworthy] are concentrated forward.
Come to think about it, the trailer seemed pretty stable.
Still it bothers me thinking of an aircraft being towed backwards at high speeds.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
But I feel it is unlikely that any OEM would have considered long-haul trailer transport spectra in their analysis.
Still, the first step for them should have been to contact the OEM and ask how to do it. There might be a specific manual. I hope they did that.
Keep em' Flying
//Fight Corrosion!
RE: OK, odd/unique question of the day...
The tail feathers are welded steel fabric, these in practice will typically die due to corrosion from what its spraying / spreading or water ingress from the tail wheel if it fly's off grass strips. I was told a story about the chemicals being sprayed on palm oil plantations being able to eat though the top of a 4130 oleo leg overnight (it wasn't Pawnee).