747 "wheelie" landing???

[Zapp]

Hi, I found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciDB2DOQ7ug

is the explanation right? Is he actually getting some additional aerodynamic braking?

And just in case, would the effect be reproduced by PSX?

Tnx

Andrea

[Will]

It looks like that's what he's doing, and it's certainly been done before in a 747. But it's not recommended by Boeing and it almost certainly adds to the landing roll. So you're seeing someone having fun and showing off. (Theoretically, with total brake failure, aerodynamic braking is a way to reduce speed, but there's no emergency vehicles in this video, so it's someone having fun.)

The plane brakes best with all the weight on the wheels, so aerobraking makes the wheel brakes less effective. Adding to that, the wings are still generating some amount of lift, making the wheels even less effective. He wouldn't be getting "extra" braking, he'd be getting less. There's also the very real danger of tail strikes.

[Zapp]

Tnx Will, so there are folks out there playing the smart one with a -400 .....

As a passenger, I would not be impressed with the nosewheel up in the air that long ....

Or maybe he was experimenting with a no-nosewheel landing?

[torrence]

I'm no real 744 pilot but this looks a lot like some of the old video I've seen of Kai Tak landings in windy conditions.  I don't think nose high attitude was intentional at all.  This video clip shows lots of evidence of windy, gusty conditions and it looks to me as if the landing attitude was fairly normal until right at touch down when a wind gust caught the plane and lifted the nose - also looks like the nose was pushed right by a crosswind component too.  The wild ride I think is just the result of the pilot deciding to keep in on the ground rather than go around.  I seem to remember a Kai Tak video where it looked like the damn plane was landing crabbed 45 deg to the centerline (probably a bit of an illusion due to a big telephoto lens)

Cheers,
Torrence

[Will]

torrence, you may be right. When I first watched it, I didn't see the crab. (Small monitor, low-res streaming, that's my excuse.) Now I see the crab as the gust hits. So the delay in lowering the nose may be to get the longitudinal axis of the aircraft realigned with the runway.

That being said, PPRuNe does have stories and discussions of people doing aerodynamic braking in heavy aircraft, because, well, they can, and it's "fun" (although not officially approved). It's a known way to slow an aircraft down in case of total brake failure, but not something that airline pilots are trained to do.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I once was spotting landers at EHAM 06 and then NWA still operated 747s out there. One of these definitely did this kind of landing, clearly intentional. I vaguely remember it being SOP at that time. If you have sufficient runway then it may save you a couple of days on the brakes.


Hoppie

[Jeroen D]

I seem to recall that the big V wing Vulcan bomber used to this as well. Quite a few youtube videos out there on Vulcans as well.

As per Will's comment plane tend to brake best with all wheel firmly on the runway, maybe its slightly different for V-wing design. Certainly those Vulcan had different brakes and needed a brake chute too, so maybe it was a bit more practical.

Jeroen

[John H Watson]

As per Will's comment plane tend to brake best with all wheel firmly on the runway,

All the speedbrakes deploy at their highest setting on landing. With the wing at a high angle, you're not going to get as much benefit from them (not only as an airbrake, but a pushing down force on the airplane for better tyre grip).

I think most 744s will have been fitted with carbon brakes now, and they like to get warm (they last longer if they get up to a certain temperature).

Rgds
JHW

[Will]

For what it's worth, aerodynamic braking was necessary in some high-performance fighters and experimental aircraft. The wheel brakes could be relatively flimsy (and, importantly, lightweight), so the aircraft could land, slow down by means of parachutes and the drag of the air on the plane, and then apply the brakes after the speed had reduced a bit. If you factor that into your design, the plane can can get by with lighter brakes and smaller wheels. (Of course, you need long runways!) The Vulcan may have been designed using that philosophy.

And to the original question:

And just in case, would the effect be reproduced by PSX?

Yes, it certainly is. You can hold the nose off the runway until about 90 knots.

[Jeroen D]

Thanks Will,
That's what I thought too.

And here is how a Vulcan does a proper wheellie!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYcPJTtV1A

Jeroen

[CarlBB]

Did first4 class maybe pay more for a slightly longer flight -:)

Carl

[martin]

there's no emergency vehicles in this video, so it's someone having fun.

Is that logic valid?

I thought it goes like this:

744: "Tower, be advised we're going to have some fun."
TWR: "744, Affirmative. We'll call out the services. Do you require foam, too?"

 

Martin

[Phil Bunch]

Didn't the Concorde require quite a lot of aero braking upon landing?  I have a now very distant memory of its huge delta wing being a key part of its ability to get slowed down on landing.
--------------------

Regardless, I'm glad I got to ride the Concorde from NYC to London - BA didn't have many paying passengers and so they sometimes bumped selected business passengers from their 747, and I instantly accepted of course.  Then I found out how miserably noisy the thing was.  They should have supplied heavy duty earplugs to passengers!  I was also disappointed when nothing magical happened at either Mach 1 or Mach 2!

[Jeroen D]

Hi Phil,
Regardless your experience flying Concorde was quite an experience. We were living in Brighton, UK during the early eighties. i remember BA did some special promotional stunt.

You went to Gatwick and they would fly you by chopper (seaking) to Heathrow where you would board a Concorde, take off, fly a circuit and land. You didn't get to go supersonic of course. Cant remember what it cost at the time, but I do remember enjoying it very much. Having worked in the offshore I have flown all sorts of helicopters all over the world, but the Concorde, even for this very short hop was special. i also remember how cramped it felt.

Jeroen

[Phil Bunch]

Jeroen,

Your comments reminded me how small the seats were.

I also now recall how odd it was to touch the small windows (about 4 x 6 inches) and find that they were too hot to touch for more than a second or two, even though they were triple-paned.  Also, there was an expansion section that was open to the passenger compartment above the waiting area just outside the toilet/restroom/loo.  The naked ceiling section, created by the fuselage stretching at supersonic speeds, was quite hot from air friction on the skin, and it emitted a ton of heat onto passengers in that hallway area.  It somehow seemed unnatural and ominous, and no one would stand directly underneath it.  

Perhaps the most frustration was expressed by passengers who were unfortunately seated in the rear of the plane - several walked up to the front of the plane and demanded to be moved to a front seat since they were losing their hearing!  Even in the front where I was seated, you could not really talk to the stewardess or the passenger seated next to you due to the noise.  I think most of the noise was from the engines that were of course in the rear, but some was from supersonic air, too.  

Yet it was somehow romantic to look out the tiny windows and see some evidence that the earth is indeed a spherical object.  The sky was unnaturally dark purple-colored, too, also evidence that one was not that far from the mysteries of outer space (at least in my own mind!).

I'm glad I got to fly across the Atlantic in such a beautiful and fast airplane, but I decided that "once is enough"!

Later, I acquired a "from the cockpit" DVD showing how complicated it was to fly the thing, and this complexity made the experience even more interesting and memorable.

[Jeroen D]

Yes, it was a truly amazing plane. I've got several books, DVD and I've probably watched all the youtube video's as well. Such a shame they took her out of service. Tomorrow I'm off to Duxford. They still have one of the first Concorde's that was used for initial testing. I must have visited Duxfor at least a dozen times in the last 20-30 years but I always take a tour on the Concorde!

I remember watching a documentary on Concorde. Some BA marketing chap was talking about how they priced the seats. Lots of science and research went into it. Then somebody figured out that virtually none of the passenger on the plane made their own bookings. They all had executive PAs and such doing it.

So they asked these pax what they thought they were paying for their tickets. Which was considerable more then what they were actually paying. They just did not have a clue!

So the BA marketing chap goes: After that bit of in depth marketing research we decided to actually start charging what they thought we were charging in the first place. Seemed only fair!

Jeroen

[cagarini]

If only, one day, HH decided to build a Concorde simulator .....

[Avi]

Hi,

Last week I was at the under construction new ATC tower in TLV.
I took 2 videos of B744s landing on runway 30 (not ILS approach) from the roof of the tower.
Only at home I noticed how the 2 landings were so different one from each other.
The first was LY008 and right after it DL468 both from JFK.

I edited the 2 videos. They both start and end when the aircraft are at the same position so it will be easier to compare.
The El Al Jumbo touchdown at 13 sec (after what looked like floating above the runway) and then it kept the nose wheel in the air for another 12 sec. I never saw El Al B747 does it. They also stopped braking at a slower speed comparing the Delta Jumbo so the video is longer.
The Delta Jumbo touchdown at about the same time (at 12 sec) but put the nose wheel on the ground only 3 sec later and stopped braking earlier.

It is interesting to see the 2 videos simultaneously. 2 landings, same environment conditions, same point of view and 2 different styles.

The El Al landing
The Delta landing

Cheers,

[John H Watson]

You would think that leaving the nose in the air for so long would also run the risk of losing elevator control and the nose dropping  heavily onto the tarmac?

Rgds
JHW

[Will]

Thanks for this, Avi, it's really interesting. The Delta crew lands the airplane it what I'd call the "traditional" way, since they get the nose wheel down about as quickly as they can, consistent with safety and comfort. My airline, and every airline that I've heard of, taught this technique.

The El Al crew definitely does something different. I'd love to know what the reason was. Were they taught to hold the nose off as long as possible? (If so, why?) Was this taught as an alternative to the "traditional" way? (If so, under what circumstances is this style recommended?) Was there possibly some other reason for doing what they did?

Fascinating indeed. And these are great videos for showing that people really do use different techniques. Thanks for posting.