You "can" stall a tail, but its pretty rare... it's possible in a t-tail aircraft to get into a deep stall where you basically blank air flow over the tail and the tail then "stalls" not necessarily because of exceeding critical AOA, but because you have a ton of really dirty air coming off the wing that blanks out the tail. MOST t-tail aircraft have stick pushers on them to prevent this. Im 99% certain the ATR has a pusher.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
You don’t see flat spins in commercial aircraft that often……
- Thread starter 7.62willdo
- Start date
Feathering is, as rjajacobs points out, for a failed engine. If the prop is not spinning fast enough, it is like having a big giant parachute dragging on that side. So, in the event of a failure, feathering turns the prop at an angle, sideways, that lets the wind go right through. Even if the outside engine was in failure, in a spin, you would rather have that outside engine dragging, not slipping through the air. Anyway, if there was a spin due to an engine failure, and the prop is not feathered, it would be the inside engine, the drag pulling the aircraft in that direction.
I'm not a pilot. I talked to an old experienced one today who opined it was icing.
Have you watched the Juan Browne video? Care to share your thoughts for those of us who are not pilots?
This is what I read.
I’ll leave it to pilots to verify the possibility.
Remember that time the Virgin rocket pilot transitioned the wing from “flight” to “landing” in the midst of the rocket burn.
It does require you be a rocket scientist.
Lots of speculation about the world leading cancer docs being on it.
Maybe one was going to publish a paper about something suddenly causing cancer.
How hard is it to get the nose down like that. If they are not centrifically pinned to a bulkhead “Everyone to the cockpit now!
Last edited:
Let her know when the frost bite injury is hurting putting it somewhere 98.6 and moist is the only thing that will help.
In a flat spin, counter clockwise (viewed from the top) I think I want the right engine dragging (not pulling) and the left engine pulling hard to get out of the spin. Reducing thrust or feathering, not sure which works faster or allows quick reengagement after the spin stops.
Saw a video of a YouTuber/Influencer that bought new plane and didn't know how to use it. First or second flight out killed herself and her dad because autopilot got her into a situation she had no idea how to get out of or that she was even in it.
That is not how spin recovery works. Spin recovery in a multi engine aircraft is one of the most difficult things to do. The recovery rate is probably in the low 20% of all spins. Designs help mitigate the issues that get you in it but ultimately it’s up to the pilot to recognize and recover before it even happens. A commercial aircraft recovering from a flat spin is almost certain death. They aren’t designed to spin at all, let alone a flat spin.
There is a reason you don’t see aerobatic multi engine airplanes (excluding jets) and almost all aircraft certified aerobatic are centerline thrust. Single engine or centerline thrust jets. It’s just not a situation you want to find yourself in on accident.
In a spin it’s not just about nose down. Problem is in a flat spin even the elevators could be unresponsive. It’s just a bad situation to be in
Watch an F22 demo a flat spin. The elevators are flapping all over. The difference is it has the thrust to weight ratio to just power out of it. It’s also designed for that shit
Something I haven’t seen mentioned here yet (though I’ll admit I only skimmed some posts) is that icing changes the shape of an airfoil as it builds. So even if they were doing everything “right,” it may not have been enough if the ice buildup was such that the airfoil’s new shape didn’t allow the production of lift sufficient to regain controlled flight.
But I’m going to sit back and let the investigators do their thing before I hang the pilots. Nobody yet knows for sure what happened.
But I’m going to sit back and let the investigators do their thing before I hang the pilots. Nobody yet knows for sure what happened.
Doesn’t the F22 have a computer adding inputs that a pilot would never be able to accomplish?
As you state though it’s immaterial when they add thrust and whether it has wings or not it will go forward in the direction it’s pointed.
Only thing I’m thinking is nose down they may get some air over the wings but perhaps you go from being a straight falling frisbee to a spiral lawn dart.
Can you say Boeing 737 Max and the stall indicator or whatever they added without training for it and the pilots misinterpreted the info and did opposite of what should have been.
My understanding is the 737 is possibly a good plane but trying to keep it in the specifications of the previous model to prevent a new training program was a bad idea.
Standing by for correction from the pilots hete.
Well yes in a traditional spin where you corkscrew. But in a flat spin the re is no airflow over the wing or elevator therefore they are pretty much useless. The best you could hope for is opposite rudder might help force it down but that’s a big if.
Ill just leave this LOL here... LOL...
This crash and the issue that caused the Max to crash 2x are completely polar opposites to be barely containable on the same planet...
How anybody could attempt to draw a comparison between the two except that they are both "airplanes that crashed and killed people" is ridiculous.
I’m not saying the 737 issue had any similarity to the Brazil incident.
Earlier poster mentioned a new pilot that did not recognize inputs or reaction of autopilot and performed opposite to what the technology was telling her.
Wasnt at least one of the max crashes caused by a new “takeoff stall” technology and the pilot without training did opposite of what should have happened?
Bob Hoover needed to fly a twin engine airplane in his aero routines because he needed the power to haul his massive balls around.
It also has vectored thrust.
Check out this accessible article and the info on F-22 and thrust vectoring in stall and how the flight control system coordinates all of the means of maneuvering.
How Things Work: Thrust Vectoring
In a tight spot, you need zoom to maneuver.
www.smithsonianmag.com
Also not aerobatic……..experimental. I do love the commander. Flew a turbine one for a bit back in the beginning. What a great airplane.
Agreed, same thing I said earlier in the thread. My point here was that I thought I’d heard that Ttail’s could also stall a tail and become unrecoverable because of the dirty air coming from the stalled wings, essentially blanking out the tail.
My favorite pilot of all time. Much better than Yeager, in my opinion, and much more humble and likable. He could pour tea from a pitcher into a glass set on the instrument panel with one hand, while performing a roll with the other and never spill a drop. His finale was to shut the engines down, perform a loop and a roll dead stick into a landing, and coast up to show-center and stop right in front of the crowd. Incredible.
Perhaps my description of the technology was off.......is this fake news or since been found false......?
Both crashes were linked to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a new automatic flight control feature. Investigations into both crashes determined that Boeing and the FAA favored cost-saving solutions, which ultimately produced a flawed design of the MCAS instead.
In 2016, the FAA approved Boeing's request to remove references to a new Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) from the flight manual. In November 2018, after the Lion Air accident, Boeing instructed pilots to take corrective action in case of a malfunction in which the airplane entered a series of automated nosedives. Boeing avoided revealing the existence of MCAS until pilots requested further explanation. In December 2018, the FAA privately predicted that MCAS could cause 15 crashes over 30 years. In April 2019, the Ethiopian preliminary report stated that the crew had attempted the recommended recovery procedure, and Boeing confirmed that MCAS had activated in both accidents.[5
I thought it was actually the correct procedure but the Boeing system deactivated the powered assist which made it impossible to recover from the dive manually.
He did the loop to dead stick at the show I saw. And…can’t remember where or how… but his trick was doing a loop with a glass of OJ on the dash and he kept the g’s so constant it never moved or spilled a drop. He was incredible.
Cheers
I guess I dont really know the point you are trying to make vis a vis this crash to the 2 Max crash's... I dont see any similarities between the two honestly...
No. You cant manually re-trim the aircraft when its going north of 400kts(its basically impossible north of 250kts)... but the crew in Africa had their heads so far up their asses they had no clue what state the aircraft was in because when shit went south the Captain was basically single pilot trying to fly the airplane and assess the problem as the FO was so inexperienced to be basically useless at that point.
that's what I said... they needed to deactivate the MCAS system which was crashing the plane, but once they did they, they also lost power assist. It was a design flaw in the Boeing flight software.
??? Not sure I understand...his Shrike was not stock...is that what you are saying? Mods to it for aerobatics wouldn't surprise me but I dunno anything about his aircraft.
had they not left the power at the stops and been accelerating to somewhere north of 400kts when they hit the ground, they could have manually re-trimmed no problem. We practice manual trimming, jammed flight controls, runaway trim, etc...
I fly the Max so I think I understand how it works...
Bob Hoover commander 500RA was not certified for aerobatics. But Hoover being Hoover he did it anyway. I believe it was experimental due to some modifications but don’t quote me on that
That software was about to be released shortly after the first crash... then the second crash occurred a few weeks later and...2 fucking years later...politics got in the way... Not that Boeing didnt really shit the bed in all this, but the FAA wasnt clean either, although they continue to act like it... They allowed Boeing to do all the shit they did. They allow lots of shit to go on that shouldnt all the time and then when its exposed/they get caught, they want to attempt to drop the hammer on the "perpetrator" who usually has evidence that "the FAA signed off on us doing it this way"... and things go away.
And ill be honest the "re-training" for return to service wasnt anything to write home about...but then again, here in the USA we tend to not be a bunch of fuckwits flying transport category aircraft...
BUT again, what does the Max shit have to do with the ATR crash??? Nothing but people trying to continually dredge up old tired shit thats been dealt with and trying to keep making Boeing look bad.... "oh my god a tire fell off a 757, that Boeing hasnt touched in 35 years, what a piece of shit Boeing is putting out"... LOL
I think it was a spin-off discussion about how/when pilots are/aren't doing the correct actions to save the plane and if it's even possible.
Damn, untwist those panties.
problem is nobody knows WHAT HAPPENED to cause this ATR to get into a flat spin... so discussion on what this crew did or did not do in this situation has zero meaning since we have no clue what they did... We cant say "they did this right" or "they did that wrong" or whatever...
Accident investigation 101 is not to speculate...
And yet when you ask, any pilot what aircraft they want to fly, they all say the 757
