Grief One

[oldtimer]

Looking at Avcanada's photo site I see a Gulfstream ! on it's tail. Does anyone know the circunstances on that oops. I used to fly a G1 and I did exactly the same thing loading the airplane in Seattle. The FAA were not concerned, the manufacturer's rep said to not worry about the ding but our beloved TC made a major case out of the repairs. Talk about reinventing the wheel.

[GARRETT]

That was A i r S aSk. It happened in the mid 90's up in Stoney Rapids Sask. I guess they landed very tail heavy ( Obviously! ), and as they slowed down the elevator became ineffective and this was the result. Not too sure how much damage was done but it was repaired and returned to service.

[J31]

That was the infamous Uranium City incident in about 94 . The Air S long body G1 had landed and turned around with a slight uphill taxi when the tail came crashing to the runway . It seems that a lot of bags/cargo in the aft cargo bay had a made her very tail heavy after burning off some fuel. No problem though as they wheeled the cargo truck up and off loaded a bunch of cargo. Then with all the passengers moved forward in the cabin the engines were started and the nose came crashing down. They then taxied the a/c to the apron and finished unloading. The story goes on that even though there was damage they flew home to La Ronge and found the rear pressure bulkhead had damage .

I have been told that the long body G1 is very easy to get too tail heavy and there is a marked shift as you burn off fuel.

[Flybabe]

Oldtimer - for whom did you fly a G1??

[GARRETT]

Sorry, I stand corrected, it was U-City.

[oldtimer]

Now that you mention it, I remember the incident. The airplane was a G1C, a streched G1 and yes that one can get too tail heavy. When it crashes down, it either bends a stringer and bulkhead that also forms the main spar for the vertical fin or dings the pressure bulkhead. I bent the bulkhead for the vertical fin. In my case, we were still loading and if I was able to finish, a couple of loaders would be out of the tail and another 2500 lbs put in forward so it would have been within limits. No pogo stick.
Flybabe, I used to fly G1 serial 154, registered C GNAK for North American Airlines out of Calgary. Did a freight run between Calgary, Edmonton and Seattle with it. The company is now defunct and the airplane was sold to Airwave Transport in Toronto, where the owner unfortunatly crashed the airplane in Maine, flying from Moncton to Montreal, killing himself and his co-pilot. Very sad.

[Angelking]

I know this thread is several years old. I discovered it looking up info on G-1's.

I currently fly a G-1 and run a website devoted to the history of them.

In the pic that was referenced of the aircraft sitting on its tail, does anyone here remember the serial number of it or the registration?

It is said it was a C model (long body), but of the 5 C models built, the only one I can find that spent any time in Canada was CN.088 that also flew with Ptarmigen and Pal Air. If it is the same one, that aircraft is still actively flying in California.

Thanks in advance for any info that could be given.


AK

[cptn2016]

I have been told that the long body G1 is very easy to get too tail heavy and there is a marked shift as you burn off fuel.

I thought it was standard practice to calculate weight & balance for take-off fuel as well as for an empty tank to account for fuel burn during the flight? Seems it would have been a good idea, especially in an aircraft known to experience such a drastic shift?

[Angelking]

I have been told that the long body G1 is very easy to get too tail heavy and there is a marked shift as you burn off fuel.

I thought it was standard practice to calculate weight & balance for take-off fuel as well as for an empty tank to account for fuel burn during the flight? Seems it would have been a good idea, especially in an aircraft known to experience such a drastic shift?

A G-159 and the G-159C are neutral for fuel burn. There is no "shift" in moment, only a reduction in weight. If it was tail heavy on landing, it was tail heavy on takeoff, unless some pax that were in front changed seats to the rear, that could certainly cause it.




AK

[cptn2016]

I have been told that the long body G1 is very easy to get too tail heavy and there is a marked shift as you burn off fuel.

I thought it was standard practice to calculate weight & balance for take-off fuel as well as for an empty tank to account for fuel burn during the flight? Seems it would have been a good idea, especially in an aircraft known to experience such a drastic shift?

A G-159 and the G-159C are neutral for fuel burn. There is no "shift". Only a reduction in weight.




AK

AK, first of all I apologize in advance for 'burying' your query regarding the serial number of the aircraft (everybody please go read it).

I'm a little confused here - J31 mentioned the aircraft became very tail-heavy after burning off some fuel - but if, as you say, there is no shift in CG, would that mean that the weight & balance was outside of limits even at takeoff? (*EDIT - it seems you edited your post and answered my question in advance, thanks!)Or is the poster perhaps mistaken about the cause of the mishap?

Secondly, is it in fact standard practice to do an additional W&B for zero fuel to avoid something like this (perhaps in other aircraft where it could be an actual factor)?

[Angelking]

AK, first of all I apologize in advance for 'burying' your query regarding the serial number of the aircraft (everybody please go read it).

I'm a little confused here - J31 mentioned the aircraft became very tail-heavy after burning off some fuel - but if, as you say, there is no shift in CG, would that mean that the weight & balance was outside of limits even at takeoff? (*EDIT - it seems you edited your post and answered my question in advance, thanks!)Or is the poster perhaps mistaken about the cause of the mishap?

Secondly, is it in fact standard practice to do an additional W&B for zero fuel to avoid something like this (perhaps in other aircraft where it could be an actual factor)?

Our W&B does not deal with a landing CG because it is the same as the takeoff CG. The only difference is weight from fuel burn. I can see a scenario, especially in a C model, that if you were at the aft end of the envelope(but legal) for takeoff and a passenger or two changed seats to the rear and after landing you turned onto an upsloping taxiway, a tail slam could occur. I learned a long time ago...never say never. I also learned a long time ago never to question what another human did, I am also after all........human.



AK

[Siddley Hawker]

I was in Savannah while Gulfstream was doing the zero fuel weight calculations, I think it was, with the G1C. They had all kinds of electronic stuff onboard checking stress, etc. and they'd take off with about 1000 lbs of fuel a side, fly around for awhile and then land on the fumes. Apparently they put the airplane on it's tail once after they'd shut down and someone went back to the baggage compartment, so the standard procedure after that was to have a ground crewman install a pogo stick back aft as soon as the airplane parked, before they shut down.

Thanks for that site Angelking. I see our old machine is there, SN054. The original owner was Massey-Ferguson, then us (QNS&L.) We leased it for one month to Air Inuit, then it was sold to Austin Jet, hence N26AJ. I had heard the airplane was involved in some rendition flights with Phoenix, dunno how true that is. I understood they'd made a freighter out of it.

[Angelking]

I was in Savannah while Gulfstream was doing the zero fuel weight calculations, I think it was, with the G1C. They had all kinds of electronic stuff onboard checking stress, etc. and they'd take off with about 1000 lbs of fuel a side, fly around for awhile and then land on the fumes. Apparently they put the airplane on it's tail once after they'd shut down and someone went back to the baggage compartment, so the standard procedure after that was to have a ground crewman install a pogo stick back aft as soon as the airplane parked, before they shut down.

Thanks for that site Angelking. I see our old machine is there, SN054. The original owner was Massey-Ferguson, then us (QNS&L.) We leased it for one month to Air Inuit, then it was sold to Austin Jet, hence N26AJ. I had heard the airplane was involved in some rendition flights with Phoenix, dunno how true that is. I understood they'd made a freighter out of it.

Ahh...AJ = Austin Jet......cool thanks.

I am updating that site everyday when I learn new "stuff".


054 is alive and well flying passengers from Point Mugu to San Nick Island everyday.

Rendition flights????????



AK

[oldtimer]

The weight and Balance for the G1 was calculated on the zero fuel weight because the addition or subtraction of fuel, although changing the C of G, would not put the C of G out of limits. The limits were quite generous. There was quite a difference between being out of limits for flight and being out of limits on the ground. Just look at early Cessna 172's. They would fall on their tail while loading but within limits (airborne).

[Angelking]

The weight and Balance for the G1 was calculated on the zero fuel weight because the addition or subtraction of fuel, although changing the C of G, would not put the C of G out of limits. The limits were quite generous. There was quite a difference between being out of limits for flight and being out of limits on the ground. Just look at early Cessna 172's. They would fall on their tail while loading but within limits (airborne).

exactly.......the two numbers.....29707 and 27303



AK