 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Still working, I think. The station in Central BC, Canada, was still standing last summer. Dan Isn't that the system boats used for navigation? I seem to recall seeing the product in boating magazines years ago. Harold |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
DoN. Nichols wrote:
I have heard of a spit from chewing tobacco killing a small frog or toad on which it lands, so there is some argument for this being possible. I recall from an old Kurt Saxon book, nicotine sulfate is readily absorbed through the skin and quite fatal. I believe Black Leaf 40 was the insecticide that used it. Hard to believe some of the nasty stuff one used to be able to buy... Jon |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Jon Anderson wrote: DoN. Nichols wrote: I have heard of a spit from chewing tobacco killing a small frog or toad on which it lands, so there is some argument for this being possible. I recall from an old Kurt Saxon book, nicotine sulfate is readily absorbed through the skin and quite fatal. I believe Black Leaf 40 was the insecticide that used it. Hard to believe some of the nasty stuff one used to be able to buy... Yep. According to the _Merk Index_, the "40" of "Black Leaf 40" is the percentage of nicotine sulfate in the insecticide. And yes, they do agree that it is readily absorbed through the skin. Nasty stuff. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"gfulton" wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , gfulton says... very rarely used it, however. That system was a bitch to maintain, but Lockheed sure built a good, solid airplane. Scarebus anyone? "Hey, the rudder just ripped off the aircraft..." Jim Exactly. I can't imagine any pilot input to a Boeing, no matter how violent, causing pieces of the ship to break away. Eurotrash. Garrett Fulton IIRC, Boeings have lost tails, but they kept on flying. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Hull wrote:
In article , "gfulton" wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , gfulton says... very rarely used it, however. That system was a bitch to maintain, but Lockheed sure built a good, solid airplane. Scarebus anyone? "Hey, the rudder just ripped off the aircraft..." Jim Exactly. I can't imagine any pilot input to a Boeing, no matter how violent, causing pieces of the ship to break away. Eurotrash. Garrett Fulton IIRC, Boeings have lost tails, but they kept on flying. IIRC, a B-52 lost most of it's tail and made it home. It was still stable enough to fly because the big slab sides of the fuselage contributed significant "weathercock" effect. I'd be interested to know whether a 7 series Boeing has ever lost a tail and made it home. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
... SNIP | I'd be interested to know whether a 7 series | Boeing has ever lost a tail and made it home. Not that I've ever heard of. Rudders and elevators I think have left the vehicle, though, which is not completely uncommon. High speed testing does some weird things to control surfaces! Up until the 777, all high and low speed rudders were separate units, but the 777's high speed rudder is a big tab of sorts mounted on the back of the low speed rudder. If I guess right, it makes the controls a lot simpler, since you want the high speed rudder to move all the way before the low speed does. Pretty cool watching it swing in the factory. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Isn't that the system boats used for navigation? I seem to recall seeing
the product in boating magazines years ago. Harold See http://www.loran.org/ Loran WAS originally set up for marine navigation, and aviators were able to buy aircraft receivers once more stations were set up to make it useable in areas far from any coast. There were handheld units sold to boaters but which were also used by pilots. The accuracy isn't all that great, but will get you close enough to find the airport. The Loran system is still functioning. They had originally decided to shut it down since GPS was so much more accurate, but it appears that it's still alive as a backup. It's a low-frequency system, around 100 kHz, and such low freqs are nap-of-the-earth waves that travel thousands of miles while losing little strength. The receiver triangulates its position based on signal times. No altitude info. Ships didn't need it :-) Omega, on the other hand, might not be in use anymore. It ran in a similar manner, but on VLF frequencies of 9 to 14 kHz. Only eight stations covered the entire earth. Dan |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, says... system. An older airplane might even be tracking Loran or Omega. I think LORAN is gone now, doesn't exist anymore. Jim I think it could be, but shouldn't be. Most planes, ships, and people use GPS. There are risky times however when the Sats get blasted by a SUN plume or burst. If many are lost - regions would be gone. I suppose picket ships could be sent out - but there are many places around the world. I know some people what might know - a LORAN station was a couple of miles from where I lived for a while - mid pacific. United States Coast Guard manned that and the other sites. Wonder if they still live there. Hum - the site that they built the birds in the sky was several miles from my old house. Small world in many ways. Martin -- Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Still working, I think. The station in Central BC, Canada, was still standing last summer. Dan Isn't that the system boats used for navigation? I seem to recall seeing the product in boating magazines years ago. Harold Yep. I was at the 'mid Pacific' refueling port (among other things) - and the LORAN station was just up island. The fleet would come by to visit them and visit us every six months. During the Cold War, one day a couple of mine sweepers came by on tour. When they went up island (within our atoll) they detected a Soviet sub inside the lagoon! - Naturally chase was given - and nets were dropped. Long story - a torpedo and the nets parted. Washington never answered the phone call. Viet Nam was on the thoughts, not a couple of mine sweepers. Martin -- Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"carl mciver" wrote in message ink.net... "Jim Stewart" wrote in message ... SNIP | I'd be interested to know whether a 7 series | Boeing has ever lost a tail and made it home. Not that I've ever heard of. Nor me. I'd be interested in that if it's a fact. And I doubt it. Garrett Fulton |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Isn't that the system boats used for navigation? I seem to recall seeing the product in boating magazines years ago. Harold See http://www.loran.org/ Loran WAS originally set up for marine navigation, and aviators were able to buy aircraft receivers once more stations were set up to make it useable in areas far from any coast. There were handheld units sold to boaters but which were also used by pilots. The accuracy isn't all that great, but will get you close enough to find the airport. The Loran system is still functioning. They had originally decided to shut it down since GPS was so much more accurate, but it appears that it's still alive as a backup. It's a low-frequency system, around 100 kHz, and such low freqs are nap-of-the-earth waves that travel thousands of miles while losing little strength. The receiver triangulates its position based on signal times. No altitude info. Ships didn't need it :-) Omega, on the other hand, might not be in use anymore. It ran in a similar manner, but on VLF frequencies of 9 to 14 kHz. Only eight stations covered the entire earth. Dan Thanks! From all indications, it's enjoying a new life. Harold |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
gfulton wrote:
"carl mciver" wrote in message ink.net... "Jim Stewart" wrote in message ... SNIP | I'd be interested to know whether a 7 series | Boeing has ever lost a tail and made it home. Not that I've ever heard of. Nor me. I'd be interested in that if it's a fact. And I doubt it. Garrett Fulton What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by stabilizer trim. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Isn't that the system boats used for navigation? I seem to recall seeing the product in boating magazines years ago. Harold See http://www.loran.org/ Loran WAS originally set up for marine navigation, and aviators were able to buy aircraft receivers once more stations were set up to make it useable in areas far from any coast. There were handheld units sold to boaters but which were also used by pilots. The accuracy isn't all that great, but will get you close enough to find the airport. The Loran system is still functioning. They had originally decided to shut it down since GPS was so much more accurate, but it appears that it's still alive as a backup. It's a low-frequency system, around 100 kHz, and such low freqs are nap-of-the-earth waves that travel thousands of miles while losing little strength. The receiver triangulates its position based on signal times. No altitude info. Ships didn't need it :-) Omega, on the other hand, might not be in use anymore. It ran in a similar manner, but on VLF frequencies of 9 to 14 kHz. Only eight stations covered the entire earth. Dan Thanks! From all indications, it's enjoying a new life. Harold Just read a fantastic new book, called "Tuxedo Park," by Jannett Conant, that discusses invention and development of Loran. Really good read! |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
... What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by stabilizer trim. It's obvious that you are quite unfamiliar with the history of Boeing's Model 299 - designated by the military as the B-17. These birds flew back to their bases with missing vertical stabilizers, missing horizontal stabilizers, and one made it back to its North African base after a mid-air collision with a German fighter that put its wing through the rear of the fuselage! [That one broke in half AFTER landing.] Boeing build tough birds. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe 20 years ago a 747 over Japan lost its entire vertical fin
and rudder when the aft pressure bulkhead blew out. The airplane zigzagged for some time as the crew tried to control it using thrust differential, but it finally crashed. There was too little directional stability, I think, and they just couldn't make a go of it. The pressure bulkhead had been damaged some time earlier when the tail struck the runway during over-rotation on takeoff. No inspector found the damage and a lot of folks paid the price. Dan |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
... SNIP | What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- | vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is | doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder | can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe | not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator | would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by | stabilizer trim. Airplanes can do a lot without a rudder, but a fin is a different story. A rudder is a control surface attached to a vertical fin, aka vertical stabilizer. While flying, have you ever noticed that the airplane banks in a turn? In order to make a turn, elevators (control surfaces on the wing) out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. The only time pretty much a plane uses the rudder to "trim" so the plane can stay straight in a crosswind or to help control the plane while on its approach for landing if there's a crosswind (when in a severe crosswind, the airplane lands at such an extreme turn angle they call it "crabbing.") I've got a couple remote control planes for my sons, and they have a vertical stabilizer, but no rudder. Just elevators and the horizontal stabilizer to control flight. For simple applications it works fine, and in a pinch, it'll work on bigger planes. To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et,
"carl mciver" wrote: To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. In that jackscrew case, the stabilizer was too far off for level flight. Could the pilot have flipped the plane upside down intermittently to compensate? Would be rough but a nose first crash is worse. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
ups.com... | Maybe 20 years ago a 747 over Japan lost its entire vertical fin | and rudder when the aft pressure bulkhead blew out. The airplane | zigzagged for some time as the crew tried to control it using thrust | differential, but it finally crashed. There was too little directional | stability, I think, and they just couldn't make a go of it. | The pressure bulkhead had been damaged some time earlier when | the tail struck the runway during over-rotation on takeoff. No | inspector found the damage and a lot of folks paid the price. | | Dan There are still arrest warrants in Japan out for one inspector and a couple mechanics from that repair job. It had been recently repaired by a Boeing AOG (Aircraft On Ground) who had gotten complacent and started pencil whipping things and not taking it seriously. AOG is constantly in a hurry, doing some rather phenomenal repairs and some rather routine stuff, so **** happened. Nowadays when repair paperwork has been presented to the customer for their information and records (new planes, being incredibly complex and built by humans, inevitably have some repairs before complete) now have the mechanics' and inspector's names either obliterated or replaced with X's, as a result of that incident. The pressure dome, as it's called, is a very thin sheet metal, fragile and highly stressed part of the airplane, and rightfully so treated very carefully. Boeing now treats damage to the domes with the utmost respect and caution. It's almost annoying, but that's the way things have become. For what would be minor damage elsewhere (small die dent, scratch) they will yank the entire back end off the plane, regardless of the completeness of the plane, and replace it. Kinda weird seeing a fully assembled plane out in the bay with aft galleys pulled forward, wires hanging everywhere, and the tail, complete with APU and stabs, sitting on huge styrofoam blocks on the floor. What really happened in Japan was that the dome blew out and took out four hydraulic pressure lines going to the tail. That was all four hydraulic systems, and since there was no way to stop the flow of fluid from the entire system, all four "bled out." There are now shut off valves immediately behind the dome on all Boeing products just for that possibility. If the hydraulics hadn't bled out, thrust control would have been enough to get them on the ground in reasonable shape with the wing surfaces functioning, but in Japan there's a few mountains here and there, so without _any_ hydraulic systems to control all the flight control systems, engines were pretty much all there was for controls, although I think they did try using the main gear to slow the plane down, but obviously they couldn't retract them, and when approaching a mountain, speed is necessary to make some altitude. Here's a decent story about it: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...nes-flight-123 I also came across this today: http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asFAQs10.htm Kinda interesting. This a bit of Boeing fluff about AOG and they stuff they've done. http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...ber/i_ca2.html The New Delhi story blows my mind, and I've seen the videotapes about it. You thought you've had a mother of a repair job? That one took the cake! That was back in the late 80's when the demand for 747's was so high that a used 747 cost more than a new one and the airline (I think Air France) was willing to pay more than new cost to get that plane back in the air. I was interested in getting on with AOG, but most of those guys are working overtime when "home" just to keep all the ex-wives paid off, and I'd just as soon not do that! |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message ... gfulton wrote: "carl mciver" wrote in message ink.net... "Jim Stewart" wrote in message ... SNIP | I'd be interested to know whether a 7 series | Boeing has ever lost a tail and made it home. Not that I've ever heard of. Nor me. I'd be interested in that if it's a fact. And I doubt it. Garrett Fulton What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by stabilizer trim. You can lose elevator control and fly with the stabilizer. If an Airbus, (A319/320/321/330 are the ones I'm sure about), loses all electrics and computers, engines and engine driven hyd. pumps, and aux. power unit, it's down to flying with the horiz. stabilizer and the rudder. The rudder does have cable control and hyd. for the stab. is provided by the RAT. (Ram air turbine driven hyd. pump and generator that drops out of the belly of the fuselage.) An Airbus maint. instructor set me up that way in the A330 simulator in Miami, and it gave me a little more respect for pilots. I finally got it straight and level, but he said that everybody in the back would have puked by now. And to clarify the Japanese 747 that lost the vert. stab., it was caused by a bad repair on the aft pressure bulkhead as someone here already mentioned. The air had to go somewhere and it blew out the structure under the vert. stab. That stabilizer sure as hell didn't come off because the pilot kicked the rudder pedals too hard as in the case of the Eurotrash. A runaway horiz. stabilizer has caused a crash every time I can remember. As in the case of the MD-80 off the California coast a while back. They always burn off the wing tanks first, which causes the CG to shift forward, (nose down), and the stabilizer_has_to compensate for that. Garrett Fulton |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "carl mciver"
wrote: Airplanes can do a lot without a rudder, but a fin is a different story. A rudder is a control surface attached to a vertical fin, aka vertical stabilizer. While flying, have you ever noticed that the airplane banks in a turn? In order to make a turn, elevators (control surfaces on the wing) Carl, I know you know but for those who may not, they are ailerons. out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. The only time pretty much a plane uses the rudder to "trim" so the plane can stay straight in a crosswind or to help control the plane while on its approach for landing if there's a crosswind (when in a severe crosswind, the airplane lands at such an extreme turn angle they call it "crabbing.") I've got a couple remote control planes for my sons, and they have a vertical stabilizer, but no rudder. Just elevators and the horizontal stabilizer to control flight. For simple applications it works fine, and in a pinch, it'll work on bigger planes. To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message news 
| On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "carl mciver"| wrote: | | | | Airplanes can do a lot without a rudder, but a fin is a different story. | A rudder is a control surface attached to a vertical fin, aka vertical | stabilizer. While flying, have you ever noticed that the airplane banks in | a turn? In order to make a turn, elevators (control surfaces on the wing) | | Carl, I know you know but for those who may not, they are ailerons. You're right. Ooops! Thanks for the correction. ! |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
RAM^3 wrote:
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message ... What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by stabilizer trim. It's obvious that you are quite unfamiliar with the history of Boeing's Model 299 - designated by the military as the B-17. These birds flew back to their bases with missing vertical stabilizers, missing horizontal stabilizers, and one made it back to its North African base after a mid-air collision with a German fighter that put its wing through the rear of the fuselage! [That one broke in half AFTER landing.] Boeing build tough birds. I have seen photos of ones with MUCH of vertical stab missing, but never whole stab. Same thing with horizontal. I have seen some with half missing, never whole (both sides). |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
gfulton wrote:
You can lose elevator control and fly with the stabilizer. If an Airbus, (A319/320/321/330 are the ones I'm sure about), loses all electrics and computers, engines and engine driven hyd. pumps, and aux. power unit, it's down to flying with the horiz. stabilizer and the rudder. The rudder does have cable control and hyd. for the stab. is provided by the RAT. (Ram air turbine driven hyd. pump and generator that drops out of the belly of the fuselage.) An Airbus maint. instructor set me up that way in the A330 simulator in Miami, and it gave me a little more respect for pilots. I finally got it straight and level, but he said that everybody in the back would have puked by now. And to clarify the Japanese 747 that lost the vert. stab., it was caused by a bad repair on the aft pressure bulkhead as someone here already mentioned. The air had to go somewhere and it blew out the structure under the vert. stab. That stabilizer sure as hell didn't come off because the pilot kicked the rudder pedals too hard as in the case of the Eurotrash. A runaway horiz. stabilizer has caused a crash every time I can remember. As in the case of the MD-80 off the California coast a while back. They always burn off the wing tanks first, which causes the CG to shift forward, (nose down), and the stabilizer_has_to compensate for that. Garrett Fulton Yes, losing elevator CONTROL is different than losing elevator surface, depending on the type of trim mechanism being used, and CG location at time of loss. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
carl mciver wrote:
Airplanes can do a lot without a rudder, but a fin is a different story. A rudder is a control surface attached to a vertical fin, aka vertical stabilizer. While flying, have you ever noticed that the airplane banks in a turn? In order to make a turn, elevators (control surfaces on the wing) out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. The only time pretty much a plane uses the rudder to "trim" so the plane can stay straight in a crosswind or to help control the plane while on its approach for landing if there's a crosswind (when in a severe crosswind, the airplane lands at such an extreme turn angle they call it "crabbing.") I've got a couple remote control planes for my sons, and they have a vertical stabilizer, but no rudder. Just elevators and the horizontal stabilizer to control flight. For simple applications it works fine, and in a pinch, it'll work on bigger planes. To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. Do you mean AILERONS on wings? Also, the degree of rudder needed depends on the adverse yaw induced by ailerons. Modern aircraft with much differential built into ailerons do not need much rudder except in slip. Older planes with a lot of adverse yaw require LOTS of rudder, especially at low airspeed and heavy throttle, as in takeoff. One can get leg cramps from some of them. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Hull wrote:
In article et, "carl mciver" wrote: To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. In that jackscrew case, the stabilizer was too far off for level flight. Could the pilot have flipped the plane upside down intermittently to compensate? Would be rough but a nose first crash is worse. Indeed, emergency procedure for runaway down trim on some planes was to invert plane and put into bank while troubleshooting cause of trim problem. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:48:51 -0500, Don Stauffer
wrote: Nick Hull wrote: In article et, "carl mciver" wrote: To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. In that jackscrew case, the stabilizer was too far off for level flight. Could the pilot have flipped the plane upside down intermittently to compensate? Would be rough but a nose first crash is worse. Indeed, emergency procedure for runaway down trim on some planes was to invert plane and put into bank while troubleshooting cause of trim problem. Holy Sheeeeit, Batman! I'll bet the passengers would just love the hell out of that maneuver. Half screaming, half puking, and the few people who didn't believe the pilot when he quickly announced to "Sit down, belt in, and hold on!" are bouncing off the overhead... ;-P Are MD-80's or 747's (or any other large passenger jets) aerobatic rated? I really doubt it. You can run around inverted in a Pitts Special or an F-16 all day, but not a 727... -- Bruce -- -- Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message news On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:48:51 -0500, Don Stauffer wrote: Nick Hull wrote: In article et, "carl mciver" wrote: To lose an elevator or two can be compensated for, usually, but the elevators on the horizontal stabilizer, if so equipped, or careful use of engine power. Losing the horizontal stabilizer is usually pretty hard to deal with; some of you remember a jackscrew problem on an MD-80 not so long ago. In that jackscrew case, the stabilizer was too far off for level flight. Could the pilot have flipped the plane upside down intermittently to compensate? Would be rough but a nose first crash is worse. Indeed, emergency procedure for runaway down trim on some planes was to invert plane and put into bank while troubleshooting cause of trim problem. Holy Sheeeeit, Batman! I'll bet the passengers would just love the hell out of that maneuver. Half screaming, half puking, and the few people who didn't believe the pilot when he quickly announced to "Sit down, belt in, and hold on!" are bouncing off the overhead... ;-P Are MD-80's or 747's (or any other large passenger jets) aerobatic rated? I really doubt it. You can run around inverted in a Pitts Special or an F-16 all day, but not a 727... If the fuel systems and hydraulics systems could feed inverted, what would be the problem? Below maneuvering speed, the wings could take it. LLoyd |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
... RAM^3 wrote: "Don Stauffer" wrote in message ... What exactly do we mean by "tail" Rudder- elevator- horizontal stab- vertical stab? To me losing tail means all of above- the plane is doomed. Losing either stabilizer, pretty much the same. Loss of rudder can possibly be saved. Have some doubt if elevator is lost, but maybe not impossible if long enough runway available. But loss of elevator would probably mean severe pitch down, more than can be compensated by stabilizer trim. It's obvious that you are quite unfamiliar with the history of Boeing's Model 299 - designated by the military as the B-17. These birds flew back to their bases with missing vertical stabilizers, missing horizontal stabilizers, and one made it back to its North African base after a mid-air collision with a German fighter that put its wing through the rear of the fuselage! [That one broke in half AFTER landing.] Boeing build tough birds. I have seen photos of ones with MUCH of vertical stab missing, but never whole stab. Same thing with horizontal. I have seen some with half missing, never whole (both sides). Locate a copy of Martin Caidin's book "Flying Forts" and you'll see some pictures of them, including one of the bird that was cut nearly in half. The center photo section shows quite a number of "battle damage" photos taken AFTER the planes were landed. One point of difference between the 299 and the 7x7s is that the 299 was not pressurized - thus no pressure bulkhead to fail catastrophically. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
carl mciver wrote:
elevators (control surfaces on the wing) out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. Try aileron :-) ...lew... |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message .net... carl mciver wrote: elevators (control surfaces on the wing) out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. Try aileron :-) ...lew... Makes me wonder if this is a case of shop terminology. Folks that build airplanes may very well make reference to components by a different name than those that fly them. Not that they don't know better, but more because the term may better serve the purpose at hand. It's true of machine tools. Only when I started conversing with hobby machinists did I ever hear a mill mentioned as a "miller". I've been in the trade since '57, worked in several shops, some with hundreds of machinists, and they were never discussed in that manner. There are "milling" operations performed on "mills"---------or-------- "milling" machines. Harold |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
harold - don't think so - pilots and aero engineers use the same terms for
the control surfaces - off the top of my head: Aileron - control surface at the trailing edge of the wing that is moved up and down to change the rate of bank spoiler - extension on leading edge of wing to enhance lift at low speed flap - extension to back of wing to enhance lift at low speed speed brake - panel that extends from top of wing to increase drag elevator - control surface at the back of the horizontal stabilizer used to control pitch or pitch trim rudder - control surface at the back of the vertical stabilizer used to control yaw stabilizer - horizontal or vertical wing at back of airplane providing directional stability no, I'm not an aero engineer, but I did design the first digital automatic pilot certified for use in cat III landings on passenger carrying planes "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message .net... carl mciver wrote: elevators (control surfaces on the wing) out on the ends of the wings till the plane and it rolls into the turn. Try aileron :-) ...lew... Makes me wonder if this is a case of shop terminology. Folks that build airplanes may very well make reference to components by a different name than those that fly them. Not that they don't know better, but more because the term may better serve the purpose at hand. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
... SNIP | Try aileron :-) | ...lew... | | Makes me wonder if this is a case of shop terminology. Folks that build | airplanes may very well make reference to components by a different name | than those that fly them. Not that they don't know better, but more | because the term may better serve the purpose at hand. Yeah, too much stuff flopping through the brain. Glad someone's paying enough attention not to confuse anyone by letting that slip through. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
RAM^3 wrote:
Locate a copy of Martin Caidin's book "Flying Forts" and you'll see some pictures of them, including one of the bird that was cut nearly in half. The center photo section shows quite a number of "battle damage" photos taken AFTER the planes were landed. One point of difference between the 299 and the 7x7s is that the 299 was not pressurized - thus no pressure bulkhead to fail catastrophically. I have seen the photo of the one nearly cut in half. The tail was still in place, so stability was not altered substantially. As to ones where entire horizontal or vertical surface was gone, I'll have to find the book again. I certainly read it, but do not remember any such photos, but there may have been, so I'll look for it again. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mostly right. However, spoiler is surface deployed from top surface of
wing to reduce lift. The extensions of the leading edge to enhance lift are called slats or leading edge flaps. Speed brakes can be on virtually ANY part of plane, but ones on top surface of wings are generally spoilers. Exception is F-15 speed brake- which is on top of fuselage but over the wing area. The horizontal stabilizer is to provide stability in pitch and altitude-hold-stability rather than directional stability. william_b_noble wrote: harold - don't think so - pilots and aero engineers use the same terms for the control surfaces - off the top of my head: Aileron - control surface at the trailing edge of the wing that is moved up and down to change the rate of bank spoiler - extension on leading edge of wing to enhance lift at low speed flap - extension to back of wing to enhance lift at low speed speed brake - panel that extends from top of wing to increase drag elevator - control surface at the back of the horizontal stabilizer used to control pitch or pitch trim rudder - control surface at the back of the vertical stabilizer used to control yaw stabilizer - horizontal or vertical wing at back of airplane providing directional stability no, I'm not an aero engineer, but I did design the first digital automatic pilot certified for use in cat III landings on passenger carrying planes "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
agree on spoilers, it was late.
disagree slightly on horizontal stabilizer - it provides pitch stability, yes, but (ok, danger, aero type statement to follow) pitch angle really controls airspeed, not altitude. "Don Stauffer" wrote in message ... Mostly right. However, spoiler is surface deployed from top surface of wing to reduce lift. The extensions of the leading edge to enhance lift are called slats or leading edge flaps. Speed brakes can be on virtually ANY part of plane, but ones on top surface of wings are generally spoilers. Exception is F-15 speed brake- which is on top of fuselage but over the wing area. The horizontal stabilizer is to provide stability in pitch and altitude-hold-stability rather than directional stability. william_b_noble wrote: harold - don't think so - pilots and aero engineers use the same terms for the control surfaces - off the top of my head: Aileron - control surface at the trailing edge of the wing that is moved up and down to change the rate of bank spoiler - extension on leading edge of wing to enhance lift at low speed flap - extension to back of wing to enhance lift at low speed speed brake - panel that extends from top of wing to increase drag elevator - control surface at the back of the horizontal stabilizer used to control pitch or pitch trim rudder - control surface at the back of the vertical stabilizer used to control yaw stabilizer - horizontal or vertical wing at back of airplane providing directional stability no, I'm not an aero engineer, but I did design the first digital automatic pilot certified for use in cat III landings on passenger carrying planes "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
william_b_noble wrote:
agree on spoilers, it was late. disagree slightly on horizontal stabilizer - it provides pitch stability, yes, but (ok, danger, aero type statement to follow) pitch angle really controls airspeed, not altitude. Old argument. People on both sides. Elevators control BOTH airspeed and altitude. So does thrust. Too complicated an answer for many, who want a simple "one-control, one effect". Pitch response of airplane is more complicated than that. Further, it is a calculus problem, control really works rate of change of each more than the altitude and airspeed themselves, depending on aircraft and how pitch-stable it is. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS 30% off and a new plane. | Woodworking | |||
| FAQ: HAND TOOLS (Repost) | Woodworking | |||
| Another $#$** request for advice on the correct way to use a hand plane | Woodworking | |||
| Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan) | Metalworking | |||
| Next plane purchase--next 2 plane purchases? | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
