Another Airbus down ....
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
before they are all grounded ? ......
Yeti
> ANOTHER airbus down in the Indian Ocean 150 lost .... how many more must die
> before they are all grounded ? ......
>
>
A Yemeni A310, landing in bad weather.
Brian Morrison
>
> I remember a few years ago landing at Heraklion in an Airbus 310 in a
> strong crosswind. The aircraft did a 50 ft (estimated) one-wheeled
> bounce, which put my back out, before stopping near the end of the
> runway with full braking and reverse thrust applied.
All aircraft have a certificated crosswind limit, above which they are
not permitted to land and must divert. Sometimes a gusting crosswind can
rise above limits when it's too late to go around, but usually the
gusty-ness will be notified to the flight crew and they will then make a
decision on whether to divert based on their company SOPs.
I don't know about the comparative risks of flying with Yemeni airlines,
but note that the middle east has a significantly worse accident record
than Europe or the US. There are likely to be several different reasons
for this.
--
Brian
Yeti
>
> I remember a few years ago landing at Heraklion in an Airbus 310 in a
> strong crosswind. The aircraft did a 50 ft (estimated) one-wheeled
> bounce, which put my back out, before stopping near the end of the
> runway with full braking and reverse thrust applied.
>
>
I'm saying that:
a) Yemeni Airlines will probably have a worse maintenance record than
we're used to.
b) The strength of the winds there, as reported, are worse than the
strongest wind than is even available to land in in a simulator.
and I'm adding:
c) I'm sure there was another crash at this airport in bad weather
previously as well.
You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
Steve Terry
"Brian Morrison" <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:h2cn1j$f0h$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>
>
Runways are to blame, didn't have this problem when at aerodromes
you could take off in any direction into the wind ;-)
Steve Terry
Spike
Yeti wrote:
>You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
A bit like this, perhaps:
http://curry.podshow.com/?p=1005
--
from
Aero Spike
Brian Morrison
> Walt Davidson wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:20:55 +0100, Yeti <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim GM4DHJ ...at home wrote:
>>>> ANOTHER airbus down in the Indian Ocean 150 lost .... how many more must die
>>>> before they are all grounded ? ......
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A Yemeni A310, landing in bad weather.
>> Are you saying the weather has to be good for Airbuses to land safely?
>>
>> I remember a few years ago landing at Heraklion in an Airbus 310 in a
>> strong crosswind. The aircraft did a 50 ft (estimated) one-wheeled
>> bounce, which put my back out, before stopping near the end of the
>> runway with full braking and reverse thrust applied.
>>
>> 73 de Wlat
>>
>
> I'm saying that:
>
> a) Yemeni Airlines will probably have a worse maintenance record than
> we're used to.
And in fact the aircraft concerned has been inspected and a lot of
faults found, the airline concerned is on the point of being banned from
flying into European airspace apparently.
>
> b) The strength of the winds there, as reported, are worse than the
> strongest wind than is even available to land in in a simulator.
>
> and I'm adding:
>
> c) I'm sure there was another crash at this airport in bad weather
> previously as well.
>
> You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
A quick look at PPRUNE this morning revealed that the landing in the
Comoros is very tricky and the local terrain can cause very odd
conditions such as a tailwind from both ends of the runway
simultaneously. Some airlines such as South African Airways only allow
landings there in daylight, this flight crashed in darkness. Some
comments about the airport describe it as a "black hole" approach, with
very few lights on the ground that provide the flight crew with a
positional reference when flying manually, and lots of potential for
disorientation.
--
Brian
Spike
luc...@eternal-flames.gov wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:54:09 +0100, Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Yeti wrote:
>>
>>>You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
>>
>>A bit like this, perhaps:
>>
>>http://curry.podshow.com/?p=1005
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzhNijBvVaA
>
>Nick.
LOL. They say a good landing is one you walk away from....
--
from
Aero Spike
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
"Walt Davidson" <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h7mj459ui7vmp4j6f...@4ax.com...
>
> 73 de Wlat
>
I blame French people .....and ra kooncil .......
Yeti
> Yeti wrote:
>
>> You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
>
> A bit like this, perhaps:
>
> http://curry.podshow.com/?p=1005
>
wow! best I've seen yet - touching down in that could have been suicide.
Yeti
An excellent landing is one where they can re-use the plane.
John
"Brian Morrison" wrote
> I don't know about the comparative risks of flying with Yemeni airlines,
> but note that the middle east has a significantly worse accident record
> than Europe or the US. There are likely to be several different reasons
> for this.
Could it be something to do with the initials of their name. I think most
people know that the name of the Pakistani airline PIA really means "Please
Inform Allah"
Similarly
BOAC - Better On A Camel
SABENA - Such A Bad Experience Never Again
and the best
LUFTHANSA - Let Us F**k The Hostesses And No-one Say Anything
Yeti
or - A Little Italian Tradition And Lotsa Italian Attitude
BEA - Better Eat Afterwards
CAAC - Chinese Airlines Always Cancel
Qantas - Queers And Nymphomaniacs Trained As Stewards
Pan Am - Passengers Always Need A Mortician
Virgin - Very Interesting Ride: Going Into Nymphos
and my personal favourite:
BOEING - Broken Off Engines In Numerous Gardens
John
"Yeti" wrote
LOL!
Brian Reay
news:h2dkn2$ogn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Could it be something to do with the initials of their name. I think most
> people know that the name of the Pakistani airline PIA really means
> "Please Inform Allah"
I flew on a PIA flight in (about) 1985 from Islamabad to Karachi. The
aircraft was a tatty 747, I suspect number 001. The boarding process
reminded me of the films you see of Indian railways in the days of Empire. I
swear to this day that there was a goat in the economy section- you could
hear in the business section. I was told, by our interpreter, that it
wasn't unknown for passengers to light a small "primus" to have a brew.
As I recall, the in-flight meal was a sort of Cornish pasty*. It wasn't as
good as the Pakistan Army rations (also a "pasty" but much nicer) we had in
the desert.
--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
*Not a somasa- definitely more pasty like.
Johnny Melvin
"Brian Reay" <s...@website.invalid> wrote in message
news:W_t2m.36297$b01....@newsfe02.ams2...
at RAF Compton Basset ( learning my Morse )
The plane was always on the same Sat morning run.
An old Valletta. it was old in 1955.
I though it was a scrapper on the runway before I was told to board it.
What seat belts ?
You could see some of the wing rivets rotating as you flew.
Last trip I had they were moving a Sergeants furniture to his new camp.
Settee Wardrobe etc that seemed so odd to see.
Great days. And I got paid to learn Morse 16 Bob a week.
80np to the younger gentlemen reading this.
de Johnny G3LIV
Dave
>
> I remember a few years ago landing at Heraklion in an Airbus 310 in a
> strong crosswind. The aircraft did a 50 ft (estimated) one-wheeled
> bounce, which put my back out, before stopping near the end of the
> runway with full braking and reverse thrust applied.
Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
that idea?
Dave
Brian Reay
"Johnny Melvin" <joh...@melvin.com> wrote in message
news:tCu2m.16120$C46....@newsfe11.ams2...
>>
> I used to cadge a lift from RAF Lyneham. to RAF Dishforth when I was
> at RAF Compton Basset ( learning my Morse )
>
> The plane was always on the same Sat morning run.
> An old Valletta. it was old in 1955.
Not a plane I'd heard of so I had to google it. It seems the Mk1 Valetta was
current in 1948 so yours may not have been that old. May be it had a hard
life ;-)
> I though it was a scrapper on the runway before I was told to board it.
> What seat belts ?
Can you remember which way the seats were facing? I was surprised to learn
on my first RAF flight (a BAC 1-11 of RAE Farnborough) that the passenger
seats faced backwards.
> You could see some of the wing rivets rotating as you flew.
>
> Last trip I had they were moving a Sergeants furniture to his new camp.
> Settee Wardrobe etc that seemed so odd to see.
I expect you never rode in a C130, they had (probably still have) a sort of
"deck chair" which are uncomfortable after minutes rather than hours.
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:54:09 +0100, Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> You'd struggle to land any large airliner safely in a 38 knot crosswind.
>> A bit like this, perhaps:
>>
>> http://curry.podshow.com/?p=1005
>
>
Nice video.
Once a pilot gets his main undercart on the ground and compressed
somewhat, he can use his brakes to pull out of the yaw he landed with,
before he drops his nose wheel down.
Once his nose wheel is down and compressed, he gets his nose wheel
steering back again. In the words of Jim Lovell, 'we never worried about
it'.
Dave
Brian Reay
"Dave" <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:qMWdnaIWMatv6tfX...@bt.com...
>
> Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
> be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
> that idea?
Was that a "first" for the Trident? I'm pretty sure the Trident also had an
early moving map display. I think it was a Smiths design as I learned of it
long after, mid 80s, when some from a Smiths engineer was giving a potted
history of such maps in relation to something called SNAPS, a ship based
system of similar concept but "a bit" larger (a SNAPS table was the size of
a big desk!). Both moved a "pointer" over a paper map. Already out of date
in the 80s, by which time the first digital maps were coming on line in RAF
aircraft and could have been adapted to ships- although memory cost would
have been an issue at first.
Dave
> "Dave" <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:qMWdnaIWMatv6tfX...@bt.com...
> >
>> Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
>> be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
>> that idea?
>
> Was that a "first" for the Trident?
I'm not too sure, but I think it was. This was in my early days of
aerospace when I joined what was known as Avroe's of Manchester. The
company name was Hawker Siddely, but the local factory was always called
Avroe's, after the famouse Lancaster it had spawned and built :-)
My only recolection of the Trident systems was from the company house
magazine.
> I'm pretty sure the Trident also had an
> early moving map display. I think it was a Smiths design as I learned of it
> long after, mid 80s, when some from a Smiths engineer was giving a potted
> history of such maps in relation to something called SNAPS, a ship based
> system of similar concept but "a bit" larger (a SNAPS table was the size of
> a big desk!). Both moved a "pointer" over a paper map. Already out of date
> in the 80s, by which time the first digital maps were coming on line in RAF
> aircraft and could have been adapted to ships- although memory cost would
> have been an issue at first.
I know nothing about that, as it was before I became aware of aircraft
systems. I only became aware of those when I moved to British Aerospace,
as it had become known as then, at Warton aerodrome, in 1978.
You could well have been right, but I think the Trident got sunk for
other reasons.
Dave
Yeti
Any conditions? Certainly not capable of take off with the leading edge
devices retracted, just ask Captain Keys...
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
>The worst in-flight meal I have ever experienced was on board a Garuda
>Indonesia flight from Singapore to Amsterdam in 1993.
My worst was in internal Soviet flight. Black Bread and water, back in the
mid eighties.
Dave
Yeti
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:49:08 +0100, "Brian Reay" <s...@website.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> As I recall, the in-flight meal was a sort of Cornish pasty*. It wasn't as
>> good as the Pakistan Army rations (also a "pasty" but much nicer) we had in
>> the desert.
>
> inedible and none of us could identify what it was! I lived on
> digestive biscuits and bottled Coca Cola for the entire 20 hour
> journey. :-( The only thing that made the trip tolerable (just) was
> that we were travelling in Business Class. Heaven knows what Tourist
> Class was like.
>
> The aircraft was an ancient EI- registered Tri-Star wide-bodied jet
> ... you could actually see parts of the old Aer Lingus paintwork where
> the Garuda livery was flaking off! We stopped for an hour at Abu
> Dhabi, where they had to use a sledge-hammer to close the cargo door
> before we were able to continue our journey. A large crate of live
> parrots was offloaded at East Berlin Airport at a final stop on the
> way to Amsterdam!
>
> Garuda Indonesia are now prohibited from flying anywhere within the EU
> because of their poor maintenance standards.
>
> 73 de Wlat
>
At least you were flying on what was a decent aircraft to begin with -
if they'd had to force the cargo door shut on a DC-10, you'd be dead.
Peter Day
> There is only one runway at Heraklion, running parallel to the beach
> and only about a quarter of a mile inland from the shoreline.
>
> 73 de G3NYY
> fro
You should try Katmandu! An aircraft carrier is safer for landing ...
Dave
Just why should they even try to do so?
Dave
Johnny Melvin
"Walt Davidson" <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:2k1l45tm76dpkr5ok...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:49:08 +0100, "Brian Reay" <s...@website.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>good as the Pakistan Army rations (also a "pasty" but much nicer) we had
>>in
>>the desert.
>
> Indonesia flight from Singapore to Amsterdam in 1993. It was totally
> inedible and none of us could identify what it was! I lived on
> digestive biscuits and bottled Coca Cola for the entire 20 hour
> journey. :-( The only thing that made the trip tolerable (just) was
> that we were travelling in Business Class. Heaven knows what Tourist
> Class was like.
>
> The aircraft was an ancient EI- registered Tri-Star wide-bodied jet
> ... you could actually see parts of the old Aer Lingus paintwork where
> the Garuda livery was flaking off! We stopped for an hour at Abu
> Dhabi, where they had to use a sledge-hammer to close the cargo door
> before we were able to continue our journey. A large crate of live
> parrots was offloaded at East Berlin Airport at a final stop on the
> way to Amsterdam!
>
> Garuda Indonesia are now prohibited from flying anywhere within the EU
> because of their poor maintenance standards.
>
> 73 de Wlat
>
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Its my 50th wedding anniversary this year.
But because of being an Old F**T I could not get full insurance
cover past April this year.
So the treat to XYL for putting up with me was a month in Thailand.
And Business Class Newcastle Dubai Bangkok..With Emirates.
WOW ..How is the wine sir ? Would madam like another glass of Moet.
White table clothes. Red napkins, Fine china tableware. PROPER knives
and forks. We dined for the first hour and a half of the flight.
Then on the Dubai-Bangkok leg.
Would you like an extra mattress on your bed sir.
Just pressed a button on my rather BIG seat. There Brrrrrr the thing turned
into a full length bed.
Only trouble is. Wife wont fly cattle again.
AH Well cant win them all.
So guys do it once before you become SK
de Johnny G3LIV
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:39:14 +0100, Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
>> be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
>> that idea?
>
> They were the successor to the Vanguards and Viscounts on that route.
> Very noisy and smokey, even when new!
Was that inside, or outside Walt? It's not like Rolls Royce to make a
coal burner for an aircraft.
> They were initially a de
> Havilland design, but latterly became known as Hawker Siddley
> Tridents.
Yes, that was the start of the take over of the industry comming in.
Hawker Siddley bought up about half the industry and BAC (British
Aircraft Corperation, bought up the rest. Late seventies, they were
nationalised and named British Aerospace, later to become BAe Sytems.
> A notable feature of the Trident was its use in the development of a
> completely automatic blind landing system, the "Autoflare", developed
> by Hawker Siddeley and Smiths Aircraft Instruments.
> The Trident performed the first automatic blind landing by a civil
> airliner in fog on 4 November 1966, pioneering the ability to land in
> fog, a major problem at London Heathrow.
Thanks for that Walt, it pre dates my time in the industry by many
years, but still very interesting. I hadn't realised that it had been
used so early in the life of the Trident.
Has anyone noticed that Prestwick airport never gets fog bound. Even the
rain comes in horizontally ;-)
Dave
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:39:14 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
>> be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
>> that idea?
>
> training captain in the right seat returning from Europe and over
> northern France:
>
> Training captain: "So when were you thinking of beginning the descent to
> land?"
>
> Capt: "I thought we'd go down at the coast"
>
> Training captain: "Well starting a descent at a preplanned DME was more
> what I had in mind old boy, but which coast did you mean?"
>
> Capt: "In one of these, any ****ing coast!"
>
> A Trident could be descended with full air-brakes and the outer engines
> at maximum reverse thrust, in this condition is was almost capable of
> going backwards relative to the ground when there was a fair headwind.
Air brakes can be used any time, but...
Thrust reverse can only be engaged when the main wheels are at weight on
wheels condition.
Dave
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:22:34 +0100
> Walt Davidson <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> overran the runway after aborting the takeoff well above rotation speed.
>
> That's what V1 is for, any problem at or above that speed and you take
> the problem into the air.
So what is V2 about then?
Dave
I was a systems man, by the way
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:22:42 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Just why should they even try to do so?
>
> 2 occasions where the l/e droops were accidentally retracted below
> 225kts before the Staines crash.
Even at that speed, I would have thought that the leading edge slats
would have been redundant.
> In the early days of jets Comet crashes on takeoff were common, there
> were no l/e devices and it was possible to over-rotate and stall the
> wing on the ground. It was very difficult to judge the rotation
> especially at night and there was no accurate attitude indicator or
> flight director to help the pilot.
Thank gawd I survived a trip to Malta and back in the seventies.
We travelled out and back on a Commet 3.
I'll never forget the climb out of Luca and the engines being throtted
back and dropping like a stone.
Dave
Yeti
> Thrust reverse can only be engaged when the main wheels are at weight on
> wheels condition.
>
> Dave
Not always. Some planes are allowed and designed to use reverse thrust
in flight - DC-8 being one.
On 1 July, 00:18, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:40:49 +0100
>
> Dave <daven...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Was that inside, or outside Walt? It's not like Rolls Royce to make a
> > coal burner for an aircraft.
>
> Outside, the inside of a Trident was very quiet because the engine
> exhausts were well behind the rear of the cabin.
>
> The Spey was a noisy engine, but then so were all other engines of its
> vintage and configuration.
>
> --
>
> Brian Morrison
>
I miss the Tu-154s already.
Don't miss flying in them - just miss hearing them throttle up and
seeing them climb!
Yeti
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:46:41 +0100, Dave <daven...@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Air brakes can be used any time, but...
>
> >Thrust reverse can only be engaged when the main wheels are at weight on
> >wheels condition.
>
>
> "The Trident also had the unusual capability to use reverse thrust in
> flight. This was limited to the two "pod" engines, and the normal
> landing procedure was to close the throttles in the flare, and
> immediately open the reverser buckets by selecting reverse idle. At
> the pilot's discretion, up to full power could then be selected in
> reverse prior to touchdown. Useful on wet or slippery runways, it
> produced a firm but well-controlled touchdown, and reduced
> hydroplaning, giving a very short landing. This compensated for its
> rather poor braking characteristics.
>
> The use of reverse thrust up to 10,000 rpm was also permitted for
> emergency descent purposes. At indicated airspeeds below 280 kts it
> was also permissible to extend the main landing gear (but not the
> nosewheel) as an emergency airbrake, and when combined with
> conventional speedbrakes and reverse thrust this produced a phenomenal
> rate of emergency descent in the region of 12,000 feet per minute."
>
> 73 de G3NYY
Concorde also could engage reverse idle thrust on the outer two
engines, enabling a descent rate of 10,00- feet per minute. Learn
something new every day.
Steve Terry
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:h2dnko$oa5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> John wrote:
>> "Brian Morrison" wrote
<snip>
> BOEING - Broken Off Engines In Numerous Gardens
>
>
Not since they changed the engine mounting bolts after the Amsterdam crash
Steve Terry
Yeti
> "Yeti" <y...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
There was a 737 in 2007, and a 747 in 2004.
Dave Liquorice
> CAAC - Chinese Airlines Always Cancel
Thought that was "China Airways Always Crashes".
--
Cheers
Dave.
Steve Terry
news:20090630231...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:39:14 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you ever fly on that old bird called the Trident? It was supposed to
>> be capable of take off and landing in any conditions. What happened to
>> that idea?
>
> Genuine comment from a Trident captain who was on a check flight with a
> training captain in the right seat returning from Europe and over
> northern France:
>
> Training captain: "So when were you thinking of beginning the descent to
> land?"
>
> Capt: "I thought we'd go down at the coast"
>
> Training captain: "Well starting a descent at a preplanned DME was more
> what I had in mind old boy, but which coast did you mean?"
>
> Capt: "In one of these, any ****ing coast!"
>
> A Trident could be descended with full air-brakes and the outer engines
> at maximum reverse thrust, in this condition is was almost capable of
> going backwards relative to the ground when there was a fair headwind.
>
> the early versions. Some pilots believed it required the curvature of
> the earth to become airborne.
> Brian Morrison
>
>
With those Speys they were underpowered
Probably why the 727 became the success the Trident should have been?
Steve Terry
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
> Watching the rudders of the aircraft, you can see the pilots
> struggling to keep the things going where they want them..
>
> Looking at the angle of the 747's port wing as it lands, it would seem
> he came close to bouncing the outer engine.
>
> When I fly, those are the sort of blokes I want up front, doing the
> driving.
>
> Nick.
But their talents would be wasted in an Airbus .......
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
"Jim GM4DHJ ...at home" <jim.g...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:h2es7n$4tk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
> He may have already been dead at that point, we shall never know.
>
I remember that.... I was working on a new school in Linwood in 1972 now
demolished how time passes...I remember the papers saying everybody on the
flight deck was too busy laughing at "farting noises" to realise he was
having a massive heart attack ..that was the "distraction" in the article
Jim GM4DHJ ...at home
> If you travelled in a Comet in the seventies, I should think it was
> probably a 4B.
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
tee hee Dan Air Comets .........only thing worse than an airbus .....
Brian Reay
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:56:17 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:22:34 +0100
>> > Walt Davidson <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> overran the runway after aborting the takeoff well above rotation
>> >> speed.
>> >
>> > That's what V1 is for, any problem at or above that speed and you take
>> > the problem into the air.
>>
>> So what is V2 about then?
>
> Minimum safe speed after rotation to maintain a positive climb rate,
> see here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds
>
V1 relates to "stopping distance", not ability to "fly".
Read your own reference.
--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
Spike
Brian Morrison wrote:
>Comets are pretty old and hence have an old wing design. It's not much
>different on a 707, most of the lift on a 707 occurs over about 10% of
>the wing chord but it does have l/e devices to increase the wing
>camber for low speed flight.
>
>More modern wing designs produce lift over a much larger chord range,
>but the shape needed to do this is more difficult to make and was
>beyond the abilities of the manufacturers in the 1950s.
You probably know about the Davis wing; that produced lift over a wide
chord range, and was used by Consolidated for, among others, the B-24
Liberator of 1939 design.
--
from
Aero Spike
Yeti
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:47:48 +0100
>
> luci...@eternal-flames.gov wrote:
> > Looking at the angle of the 747's port wing as it lands, it would seem
> > he came close to bouncing the outer engine.
>
> determining crosswind limits.
>
> --
>
> Brian Morrison
>
> bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk
>
> "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud;
> after a while you realize you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it."
>
> GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 -http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html
737-300 and up can land in a 0.5 knot crosswind then - and not much
more!
Brian Morrison
> On 1 July, 09:40, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:47:48 +0100
>>
>> luci...@eternal-flames.gov wrote:
>>> Looking at the angle of the 747's port wing as it lands, it would seem
>>> he came close to bouncing the outer engine.
>> Engine nacelle clearance is sometimes the dominant factor in
>> determining crosswind limits.
>
> more!
:)
I suppose that the engines being fairly far inboard and not much outside
the u/c track means that there has to be a lot of bank to bring the
nacelle close to the ground on a 73 NG. And even on a -200!
--
Brian
Brian Morrison
That accident was the reason that voice recorders became mandatory in
the UK, so how could anyone know that they were laughing seeing as
G-ARPI did not have one fitted? Had they known the one thing then they
would have also known why the l/e droops were selected in at too low a
speed.
--
Brian
Yeti
> <jim.g...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember the papers saying everybody on the
>> flight deck was too busy laughing at "farting noises" to realise he was
>> having a massive heart attack ..that was the "distraction" in the article
I don't recall any such noises mentioned in the AAIB's reports, or in
the book "Papa India".
Brian Reay
"Brian Morrison" <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20090701093...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> Er, where did I say that V1 related to flying?
Think about it. You get to V1, so don't have the runway to stop but can't
make V2, you are not going to be flying anywhere.
I agree that, once pass V1 and V2 you would take off but only if you make
V2. In essence V1 is the last point were is it safe to abort intentionally.
If you go through V1 and don't make V2, you will end up in the gravel at the
end of the runway. The choice is to do so while rolling and braking or, if
you have managed to "get off" but not maintain flight, "drop in".
Des Kinvig
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:h2fprb$j7c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
you mean I heard that in 1972 and now I am confabulating ? ... :~)) I
couldn't make it up...so what WAS the distraction then ???? .....
nn...@benison.co.uk
David
Brian Reay
<nn...@benison.co.uk> wrote in message
news:di8n459i5i1cejui0...@4ax.com...
> I'd check the full definition of V1 if I were you.
Good advice.
Brian Morrison
Stanley Key was dying, dead or totally incapacitated, the various alarms
were clanging and hooting and beeping and were not cancelled, and the
aircraft was pitched up so that the crew could not see the approaching
ground.
They also had a variety of similar warning lights illuminated that meant
different things but were close to each other, one was the stick pusher
pneumatic low pressure warning that was close to the droop out of
position light, both were amber. The valve controlling the stick push
compressed air was out of alignment and at some point the low pressure
warning illuminated, it might have caused the very inexperienced P2 to
select droops up because the lever was not aligned with the flap lever
after flap retraction.
But no one knows now or will ever know. The only four people who might
have known all died in the cockpit.
--
Brian
Yeti
You've misunderstood the point - once you've made it to V1 - you take
off, no matter what. Unless you reach Vr, and it fails to rotate... in
which case the technical term is "f***ed".
Yeti
True - thank god for Cockpit Voice Recorders, else we'd never know what
happened in half these accidents nowadays.
Incidentally, I noticed that it's against Canadian Law for them to
release the CVR recording from any crashes that occur in Canada. How
bizarre.
Yeti
No, no - just saying that between what the AAIB say and what the papers
say, I know which I have more trust in.
Brian Reay
>
> You've misunderstood the point - once you've made it to V1 - you take off,
> no matter what. Unless you reach Vr, and it fails to rotate... in which
> case the technical term is "f***ed".
If you can't reach V2, how do you achieve flight?
In a multi-engined a/c, the V1 is highest speed above which the plane can be
stopped on the runway, it is also the speed at which (even if there is a
critical engine failure) you can still safely achieve V2 IF you have engine
power from the other engines.
However, in a single engined aircraft, the latter part of that is rather
optimistic- if the engine goes you will not keep on accelerating. In a
multi, the remaining engine(s) should allow you to reach V2. However, if you
don't, won't be flying.
Vr is the speed at which the nose wheel can be lifted.
I expect you, and others, have been Googling. Trying looking at the official
definitions of the V speeds and then thinking about the physics.
nn...@benison.co.uk
wrote:
>But no one knows now or will ever know. The only four people who might
>have known all died in the cockpit.
Correct and well said.
And for the other Brian. Yeti has the sentiment right. When a pilot calls V1
they are saying they have reached a velocity that the aircraft will reach V2
even if with a critical engine failure and we are going to rotate. V1 and V2
are extremely close in many types because of this. I am no longer qualified
multi-engine and was never qualified on the Trident but the fundamental of
this are based in physics and do not change over time!
David
nn...@benison.co.uk
>However, in a single engined aircraft, the latter part of that is rather
>optimistic- if the engine goes you will not keep on accelerating. In a
>multi, the remaining engine(s) should allow you to reach V2. However, if you
>don't, won't be flying.
V1 = V2 in this situation so there is no time between V1 and V2 for a critical
failure.
David
Dave
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:56:17 +0100
> Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:22:34 +0100
>>> Walt Davidson <g3...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> overran the runway after aborting the takeoff well above rotation speed.
>>> That's what V1 is for, any problem at or above that speed and you take
>>> the problem into the air.
>> So what is V2 about then?
>
> Minimum safe speed after rotation to maintain a positive climb rate,
> see here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds
>
in aircraft development.
Dave
Yeti
Yes, if the engine failed between V1 and Vr on a single engined plane,
you'd have reached the "f***ed" stage and have to run off the runway.
Although given the incredibly short take-off run of the PA28 I've flown
and the massive runway at Prestwick, it's not something I've ever
worried about.
On the other hand, any airliner has at least 2 engines, and once it's
past V1, you take off.
V2 is the minimum speed at which the aircraft can maintain a normal
postive climb with one engine disabled.
On some aircraft, V2 is lower than Vr.
I think you're confusing it with the unstick speed. (Vmu), which is the
lowest speed at which the aircraft can become airborne.
Brian Reay
news:bpcn45prip5028ivg...@4ax.com...
The physics says, if you don't have power, you won't keep accelerating. The
understanding of that bit of physics dates back to Isaac Newton and, last
time I checked, it hasn't changed.
In a multi, the idea is that (even with a critical engine failure) you will
still have enough power to keep accelerating to V2. If you are in single, or
the remaining power in a multi isn't enough, you don't get to V2. No V2 and
not enough runway and you "have a problem".
I agree that, if V1 and V2 are the same, you should be OK.
If you read my first and later comments, you will see I picked up on:
"That's what V1 is for, any problem at or above that speed and you take the
problem into the air." and the comment re V2.
V1 is no guarantee of reaching V2, even in a multi with a problem. True,
multis are designed to cope with A critical engine failure but if the
problem is more extensive, are you saying you can still reach V2? If you
know the physics to achieve that, the world is waiting.
Reminds me of the great "motion without power" debate, eh Spike?
Dave
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:01:42 +0100
> Yeti <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, I noticed that it's against Canadian Law for them to
>> release the CVR recording from any crashes that occur in Canada. How
>> bizarre.
>
> irrelevant stuff removed but the audio should not be. I don't think
> anyone other than the ghoulish really wish to hear the last noises made
> by people about to die, with the exception of the AAIB and their
> equivalents abroad.
I would agree with that.
In my job it was normal for the two recorders (black box and cockpit
voice recorder to be pulled after every test flight and analysed. The
chief test piplot at that time was known as the heavy breather for
obvious reasons. I never stayed to listen to it, or look at the data
streem coming out of the flight recorder. I had no need of the information.
Dave
nn...@benison.co.uk
>V1 is no guarantee of reaching V2, even in a multi with a problem.
V1 is calculated and defined such that this statement is not true.
Many 4 engined jets are engineered that they can climb on two.
One military 4 engine in current service can do this on one engine.
All three engine jets can do so on two.
>Reminds me of the great "motion without power" debate, eh Spike?
Confabulation to use your term.
A multi-engine environment is what is under discussion.
In the single engine case V1 = V2 = Vr