Jammed Elevator

tscottme wrote:
Thanks for the lesson. Rolling to drop the nose is something I will keep in
mind, should I need it.

Congrats for keeping your head and working the problem.

Scott

I've seen a mention here previously of doing this, and I'm wondering if
someone here could comment on the aerodynamics of this. It's not obvious
to me that for a given elevator position, rolling to keep the nose level
would affect the likelihood of a stall. You are stopping the airplane
from climbing, but the stall speed has increased because you are in a bank.

Are you actually flying further from a stall if the elevator is in a
"climb" position but you bank the plane to stay level?

--
David Rind

In article ,
David Rind wrote:


I've seen a mention here previously of doing this, and I'm wondering if
someone here could comment on the aerodynamics of this. It's not obvious
to me that for a given elevator position, rolling to keep the nose level
would affect the likelihood of a stall. You are stopping the airplane
from climbing, but the stall speed has increased because you are in a bank.

Bank angle does not affect stall speed, the increased load factor that
comes with a banked turn does.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

It's not obvious to me that for a given elevator position, rolling
to keep the nose level would affect the likelihood of a stall.

Agreed. The elevator position determines the AOA. Banking the
airplane keeps more or less the same AOA, but the associated speed
will increase.

If the a/c didn't stall in the bank, then it likely wasn't going to
stall in straight flight, particuarly with only 1/3 "up" and a forward
CG.

In article ,
Greg Esres wrote:


If the a/c didn't stall in the bank, then it likely wasn't going to
stall in straight flight, particuarly with only 1/3 "up" and a forward
CG.

Gee Greg, sure wish you had been in the airplane with me. You could
have explained to the airplane that it wasn't "likely" to do what it was
doing. Ok, perhaps it wouldn't have exceeded the critical AOA causing a
stall, but the pitch angle was going to be excessive. If left alone it
would have pitched over seeking trim speed with a resultant zoom right
back up. Not a ride I wanted to participate in...and I'm comfortable
with pitch and bank angles that most people probably are not comfortable
with.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

As I recall, you said it stabilized at about 80 kts, reduced power, slight
descent.
Sounds like you had a nice approach set up. 80 might be a tad high for a
light
206. At what speed did it stabilize with no power?

Also sounds like the phugoid contributed to the adrenaline level.


Dale wrote in message ...
In article ,
Greg Esres wrote:


If the a/c didn't stall in the bank, then it likely wasn't going to
stall in straight flight, particuarly with only 1/3 "up" and a forward
CG.

Gee Greg, sure wish you had been in the airplane with me. You could
have explained to the airplane that it wasn't "likely" to do what it was
doing. Ok, perhaps it wouldn't have exceeded the critical AOA causing a
stall, but the pitch angle was going to be excessive. If left alone it
would have pitched over seeking trim speed with a resultant zoom right
back up. Not a ride I wanted to participate in...and I'm comfortable
with pitch and bank angles that most people probably are not comfortable
with.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Question:
Say again your thoughts/concerns/decisions regarding flaps extension?
Thx,
VL
PS: Good job on the landing!

In article ,
(MLenoch) wrote:

Question:
Say again your thoughts/concerns/decisions regarding flaps extension?


I didn't consider the flaps at the time. If I had been forced to land
with the elevator jammed I would have experimented while still at
altitude to find a way to get into a survivable landing attitude..flaps
would be on the list of items to try.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

sounds like the phugoid contributed to the adrenaline level.

That's my interp.

In article ,
"dennis brown" wrote:

As I recall, you said it stabilized at about 80 kts, reduced power, slight
descent.
Sounds like you had a nice approach set up. 80 might be a tad high for a
light
206. At what speed did it stabilize with no power?

Less than about 14 inches and the nose would drop, more than about 14
inches and the nose would pitch up.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

I think if you would look really closely, the airspeed would stabilize at a
pretty much given number with a fixed elevator
position. Whether you climb, cruise or descend would depend on power. The
rest is probably the phugoid motion
causing the airspeed variations. One of these times do some experimenting
with blocked controls. Or disconnected
controls. You can simulate blocked by using various sized stuff to keep the
stick fixed. To simulate disconnected, let
go. I found I could easily control my aircraft by using flaps instead of
elevator. In fact it seemed
so stable that I let go of the ailerons and rudders also. So no elevator, no
aileron, no rudder. Just flaps. It established
a spiral and just stayed there. I could only get it to tighten up a bit by
letting the phugoid get more severe. When I
damped out the phugoid, the spiral lessened and it went back to a stable
spiral descent. This would
have been a bail out situation for me because it would mean contacting the
ground with the tip first. Add a tad
of rudder or aileron control and it would have been quite survivable. One
other interesting thing, I could not get it
to establish a straight ahead wings level stable condition (no fair touching
the stick or rudders after you let go).
It would eventually end up in a stable shallow spiral one direction or the
other. Maybe I need to look at the flaps
and see how they match up. On the other hand, I think I'll just keep my
chute on and know that if the controls all
break at the same time it's time to jump.

How many others of us know how many controls can break before they need to
jump? What? They don't know?

Dale wrote in message ...
In article ,
"dennis brown" wrote:

As I recall, you said it stabilized at about 80 kts, reduced power,
slight
descent.
Sounds like you had a nice approach set up. 80 might be a tad high for a
light
206. At what speed did it stabilize with no power?

Less than about 14 inches and the nose would drop, more than about 14
inches and the nose would pitch up.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html