Flap baffles being removed for flight

[JoCrow]

Here at LRAFB it has become common pratice to remove both flap baffles and allow the aircraft to continue to fly if one or both flap baffles are found to have a rub or be cracked. I guess this does not change the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft with flaps extended or the performance data in any way since STAN/EVAL and maintenance say this is acceptable. This doesn\'t really seem right to me but I can\'t find a reference in any publication that says it can\'t fly in this configuration. I have looked in the flight manual, lockheed manuals, 27JG, and every other publication I could think of. Kind of seems like flying with a panel missing, does anyone have any references or thoughts. Thanks.

[Steve1300]

I have a thought that I\'ve had for years. Since you asked.....

If one peruses the structural repair manual, there are many examples of primary structure, secondary structure, etc. We have gap and step limits and rules for repairs that require flush fasteners versus protruding head fasteners.

Actual practice tends to make folks wonder about many of those rules and claims. Many Herks fly today that have violations of those requirements in effect. I am pretty sure that those flap baffles serve a very minor purpose, and in effect, change very little of the aerodynamics if at all. We are just used to having them installed.

Look at some of the other changes that have happened to Herks that seem to violate all the previous assumptions made about the airframe: nose door mods, APU intake/exhaust changes, strakes, buffer boards, etc.

Lots of rules have real effects, lots don\'t. They are just grouped according to the original writers opinions and no book can account for all questions. That is why we have aero-engineers and sometimes even they are wrong.

[donwon]

It seems to me that the takeoff and landing speeds would have to be increased.

[RPM Flux]

I remember flying without the flap baffles at KLRF a long time ago. Wasn\'t a big deal then either.