Then why didn't UA232 (DC-10, Sioux City IA, no hydraulics) spin without an operative rudder?
And if an aircraft can't fly without a rudder, it certainly can't fly without a wing, can it?
Posted on 06/01/2004 1:18:12 PM PDT by Boot Hill
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:42:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON, DC, May. 29 (UPI) -- An investigation into the November 2001 crash of an Airbus A-300-600 in New York has found an unrelated potentially lethal design flaw, the New York Times reports.
The newspaper says the National Transportation Safety Board does not believe that problems with the rudder control system caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 287 [should be: 587]. The plane came down shortly after taking off from Kennedy International Airport en route to the Dominican Republic, killing all 260 people on the plane and five on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Great. That's what we need. Panels of nutburgers like Col. Partin turning scientific investigations into grandstanding for some kooky "the Joos did it" conspiracy theory.
bvw, we'll never have closure as long as loons like Michael Rivero can get a gaggle of dummies to gather around his website and marvel over how insightful he is, when, in truth, all he's doing is playing them for fools.
(Pssst: Don't tell anyone, but guess who was driving that tank in Waco?)
Osama
Nope, not me.
--Boot Hill
The terrorists are among us. How many articles and reports illustrate this?
Learn to be a maintenance person for aircraft, and it's easy access into the belly of our airliners. One little snip of a hydraulic line, and the flight is doomed.
Something occurred to place this aircraft into a flat spin. It *had* to be in a flat spin to produce the resulting condition of the passenger remains, the a/c parts thrown all over the place, as well as the condition of the a/c cabin.
Planes don't nosedive, and leave a passenger still holding a baby. It isn't possible. It also isn't possible to nosedove a plane and leave the plane's midsection more intact than the far front and far back sections which were ripped apart (from spinning).
What was the reason for the NTSB's secrecy in hiding the traffic cameras from the public? Did the cameras record a plane being ripped apart from a flat spin?
Sorry, but the NTSB, imo, is guilty until proven innocent.
I wouldn't taxi in an Airbus.
One of the Firefighters from NY was in our town recently and he was on our local radio talk show. He said in no uncertain terms that he believes that plane was taken down by terrorists. He thinks they wouldn't tell us because it would destroy the economy and airlines etc. and that they thought we would panic.
Sorry, but "something happened" doesn't stand up against a solid explanation.
Conspiracists, like terrorists, abound.
You say that like you saw the forensic evidence. Did you? Are you one of the investigators? Never know who you might meet on FR!
I have no access to the data beyond what any other citizen has.
--Boot Hill
If its not a Boeing "I aint going"
I have seen it too. It was not on takeoff. That is much more critical.
It still left 20%, which on a B52 is as much vertical stabalizer as some other planes have total. Those vertical stabalizers are tall.
The B52 uses spoilers for roll control. Aelorons cause more adverse yaw than spoilers.
Losing 100% of the vertical stabalizer is one of the most serious things that can happen to an airplane. It is 100% un-controlable.
The Wright Brothers made hundreds of test flights on a glider trying to figure out why it sometimes would go into a spin.
One of the most important inventions they made was how to control a tendency for the craft to go into a spin, by adding yaw control. That alone would have made flight not possible.
The plane did not crash in the bay. the only part that went into the bay was the vertical stabalizer. They recoverd 100% of that in one piece.
Contrary to what has been posted, an airplane cannot fly without the vertical stabalizer. It is 100% necessary to have some yaw stability. If the airplane turns sideways, the inside wing loses lift and it rolls to that side.
That is how an airplane goes into a spin. Uncontrolled spins are always fatal.
One other thing - wouldn't this airplane have had to do a "Double Rudder-Kick Test" during flight-test?
Actually, spins result from improper recovery from stalls.
Then why didn't UA232 (DC-10, Sioux City IA, no hydraulics) spin without an operative rudder?
And if an aircraft can't fly without a rudder, it certainly can't fly without a wing, can it?
The technical cause of a spin is when one wing stalls and the other does not. A snap roll is a horizontal spin, and the airplane is not near its "stall speed".
A snap roll is executed by abuptly pulling up and swinging the tail to one side while also using full aeleron. It is caused by making one wing go faster than the other through a yaw motion.
An airplane without a verticle stabalizer would yaw and start a spin. The spin is caused by the yaw motion and not from "improper recovery from a stall".
Improper recovery from a stall is one way to go into a spin, but is not the only way. Even then, the spin starts because of a yaw motion. If the rudder keeps the tail behind you, there is no yaw motion and so no spin.
As to the DC10 with loss of hydraulics, it still had a measure of yaw stability from the verticle stabalizer. The pilots used differential power in the engines to replace the control normally given by the rudder.
The loss of hydraulics was while in stabalized cruise and not at takeoff. Everything is more crititcal while taking off or landing.
As to the Israeli jet that landed without a wing, -- the body of the aircraft is shaped like a wing and gives enough lift that together with the remaining stub of a wing, gave enough wing for flight at high speed. He landed very fast.
I would think so, but not in wind gust conditions.
The rudder kick and reversal maneuver done by AA587 would have been OK at a steady airspeed - it wouldn't have exceeded the limits imposed by the flight control system.
But it apparently encountered a situation where the rudder was permitted to travel too far - my hypothesis was a wind gust or wind change of direction that caused the high rudder angle (allowed at lower speeds) to overload the rudder and vertical tail.
Once the tail comes off, the "flat spin" of earlier posts would be ongoing until gravity wins -- the yaw control of ailerons is not sufficient at takeoff/climbout airspeeds.
It could well have been a flat spin. How an airplane spins is very much depending on its balance.
Airplanes are normally loaded and flown nose heavy so that it will nose down if it loses speed or lift. If it is not loaded that way, it can spin flat like a falling leaf.
Flat spins are nearly impossible to recover. You have to get the nose down to break the stall and allow the wings to generate lift.
OK, you're right. Got me on that one. ;-P
A snap roll is a horizontal spin, and the airplane is not near its "stall speed".
That one would be an "accelerated stall". "Vstall times square root of load factor", and all that.
DC-10 ... Everything is more crititcal while taking off or landing.
Recall Capt. Haynes did manage to land more-or-less "successfully" in that configuration.
Though he never did manage to make it work afterwards in the flight simulator.
I guess he had more incentive the first time. ;-)
I read a recent story where a cargo plane took off from Bagdad and had their hydraulics knocked out by a shoulder launched rocket.
They used the same routine and returned successfully to the airport. They credited it to practicing on simulator.
As I recall, there was a third pilot on the DC 10 that came forward and ran the throttles. I do not know if he survived the landing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.