News Flash: You don't need elevator control !

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach
design
is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come
off.


Come on guys, this story is getting out of hand. Your asking us to believe
that
a Kestrel driver used his neat little wing assembly tool to force his
wings
together and then FORGOT to put the main pin in? And you say he did it
twice?
That pin is not load bearing, but any turbulance (like what we do to make
the
wing come out, on didassembly) will allow the wings to slide out and then
our
fictitious Kestrel driver would find himself wingless.
JJ Sinclair

Nevertheless, the owner admitted to doing this twice.

Frank

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach
design
is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come
off.


Come on guys, this story is getting out of hand. Your asking us to
believe
that
a Kestrel driver used his neat little wing assembly tool to force his
wings
together and then FORGOT to put the main pin in? And you say he did it
twice?
That pin is not load bearing, but any turbulance (like what we do to
make
the
wing come out, on didassembly) will allow the wings to slide out and
then
our
fictitious Kestrel driver would find himself wingless.
JJ Sinclair

Nevertheless, the owner admitted to doing this twice.

Frank

Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_ enough........

One of our club members also landed his Std Jantar 2 following a winch
launch. A young lady that walked out to look at the glider picked up the
horizontal tail attach pin and handed it to him, as it had fallen out on
landing. He painted it in such a way that if it wasn't properly seated, a
color would show. He then booked a flight to Majorca to 'enjoy life' and
the fact that he was still living it.

Frank

Depends on the glider type. In a Ka6E you will certainly crash. If on
tow, you will kill the tug pilot and then crash yourself. Which part of
the phugoid you are in when you hit the ground will play a large part in
determining whether your crash is fatal or just very serious.

Chris N.

At 10:00 30 October 2003, Andrew Warbrick wrote:

Mind the flaps are the major pitch control in the ASW20,
the elevator is there more for fine adjustment.


I'd like to see a 20 completing a loop with flaps alone
before I accept that oft stated view:-) A spin recovery
would be interesting too.

John Galloway

And, in related news:
http://www.news.com.au/common/printp...628206,00.html
See ya, Dave

"nowhere" wrote in message
m...
Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
stick."

I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
workload as well. The benefits are endless!

(nowhere) wrote in message om...
Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
stick."

I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
workload as well. The benefits are endless!

Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick free phugoid can
get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction of the stick
attached to provide some damping . If you have not tried this, you
should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings level with
rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real roller coaster
ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether you would land or
crash.

There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800 that had a loose
nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the down part of the
phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never flew again.

The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the DC-10-10, that
crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the Sioux City
Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics, they had
no movable flight controls. They were able to fly the aircraft with
differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they could not
control pitch on final approach.

I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that a knowledgable
person would suggest that elevator control is optional.

Doug overstates the case a bit. Even without elevator
control it is possible to damp out the phugoid mode.
I tried this on a BFR recently and I encourage the
rest of you to give it a try as well. Since the phugoid
is a function of airspeed/pitching moment coupling,
you can damp it out by applying speedbrakes at the
bottom of the cycle. This take a bit of thinking ahead,
but it can be managed with practice.

The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
control. It was crude put effective enough to get to
the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
conspired a bit.

At 00:48 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
(nowhere) wrote in message
news:...
Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
in the November
issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your elevator
control! I
quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
that a
disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
for that matter any
other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
no
different from what occurs when the pilot removes
his hand from the
stick.'

I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15
now. Imagine
how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
Not having to
worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
on the cockpit
workload as well. The benefits are endless!

Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick
free phugoid can
get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction
of the stick
attached to provide some damping . If you have not
tried this, you
should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings
level with
rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real
roller coaster
ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether
you would land or
crash.

There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800
that had a loose
nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the down
part of the
phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never
flew again.

The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the DC-10-10,
that
crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the
Sioux City
Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics,
they had
no movable flight controls. They were able to fly the
aircraft with
differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they
could not
control pitch on final approach.

I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that
a knowledgable
person would suggest that elevator control is optional.

On 1 Nov 2003 04:25:38 GMT, Andy Blackburn
wrote:


The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
control. It was crude put effective enough to get to
the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
conspired a bit.

One might mention that NASA tried to recreate this 232'2 landing
using a simulator (as well as an F-15).
No aircrew *ever* was able to touch down their aircraft soft enough to
make the crash survivable.



Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote in message . ..


One might mention that NASA tried to recreate this 232'2 landing
using a simulator (as well as an F-15).
No aircrew *ever* was able to touch down their aircraft soft enough to
make the crash survivable.



Bye
Andreas


NASA followed up with a test using a modified MD-11. The FADEC
control laws were changed to allow much greater authority in engine
trim and the Flight Control Computer (FCC) software was modified to
control pitch and roll with FADEC thrust commands. (On an MD-11 a
single autothrottle servo drives all engines in parallel but the FCC
to FADEC interface provides independent thrust trim to each engine)

The program demonstrated that it was possible to control the aircraft
in pitch and roll with thrust only using normal inputs from the
autopilot mode control panel. Several approaches were made I think at
least one sucessful landing was demonstrated. (I was only involved
with the lab test and never saw the flight test reports).

Andy

On 5 Nov 2003 05:56:22 -0800, (Andy Durbin)
wrote:


NASA followed up with a test using a modified MD-11. The FADEC
control laws were changed to allow much greater authority in engine
trim and the Flight Control Computer (FCC) software was modified to
control pitch and roll with FADEC thrust commands. (On an MD-11 a
single autothrottle servo drives all engines in parallel but the FCC
to FADEC interface provides independent thrust trim to each engine)

The program demonstrated that it was possible to control the aircraft
in pitch and roll with thrust only using normal inputs from the
autopilot mode control panel. Several approaches were made I think at
least one sucessful landing was demonstrated. (I was only involved
with the lab test and never saw the flight test reports).

You are correct - these tests followed the 232 accident and proved
that custom FCC modes indeed allow a safe landing by engine control
only. Without FCC inut it was not possible to damp the phugoide (sp).

Bye
Andreas