Dear jondc9
as to air intakes and being blanked by the wing, does that mean the t tail was blanked by the wing too?
It will be up to NTSB experts to have the final say wether tail blanketing was involved too, but I doubt it. Tail blanketing on T-tails easily leads to deep stall from which recovery is possible only by the means of antispin chute, installed only for test flights. Don't anyone get an idea we should use those chutes in regular operation, we have stick-pushers preventing deep stall nicely, unless overriden.
unless you personally have knowledge of flew the CRJ at FL410 with exact weights, speeds, aoa and the rest, specualtion on the capability of the air intake is a bit odd. and bringing up a slew of fighter planes means nothing
I've never, ever flown any jet, at any level, let alone CRJ at FL410, but aerodynamics and jet powerplants were part of my fATPL syllabus! Important lesson was that short, circular engine intakes are quite efficient at low AoA but at high AoA they tend to disturb airflow to engine and all kind of nasties, like compressor stall, can happen. Difference between CRJ and aforementioned fighter jets is that they're designed for manuevering at altitude while CRJ and all the rest of paxjets are only good for cruising! If you want to manuever at altitude, put big wedge-shaped, downturned intakes well ahead of your fan or compressor's first stage and set them ahead of the wing or below the fuselage - very practical indeed if you're designing the pax jet. So don't redesign the plane, stick to its limitations and procedures.
still, no matter what really happened and why, every pilot today now knows that the GE engines on the CRJ need to be respected and given a safer envelope.
Every pilot who was ever worth of being called pilot knows that his engine has to be respected, be it GE, P&W, Klimov, Lycoming or Rotax! The ones that needed this crash to find out their engines are to be respected are indeed
poor pilots. I really hope they're only product of my sick imagination. I'm pretty certain that in order to attach engine to aircraft, manufacturer has to demonstrate that engine's envelope always matches or exceeds aircraft's one. Now go on and suggest it was CRJ's tiny envelope at fault.
Let's not be too harsh to our fallen comrades in the CRJ. They taught us all something
I haven't seen much of our deceased comrades bashing around and besides no one can be more harsh to our colleagues than themselves. We've seen execution of the capital punishment, now the
NTSB will tell what preceeded it, but from preliminary reports I don't think there will be many new lesons to learn. My guess is they'll be: Don't climb too slow. Don't let your airspeed bleed off. If you have sufficient altitude and insufficent airspeed, make a trade-off. Power available goes down with altitude. Always respect your stall warning. If you lose all power, go for best glide and turn towards nearest appropriate landing area before trying to restart. Respect and obvserve SOPs, checklists and limitations, they're there to save your life.
Maybe that's just me but my instructors taught me all of that before I was allowed to touch the aeroplane, let alone fly it. And I'm talking about cessna 150 here.
One atitude that worries me and it was amply demonstrated on this forum is: "Aircraft was certified to fly at FL410, so it should have held that level". So you bring your shiny jet to some high level, leave power at climb and speed starts to trickle away. Now what do you do? A)Come to conclusion that either manufacturer lied to you or you don't know the whole story and start descending or B) stubbornly remain on your level because plane-has-to-be-capable-of-doing-it even when shaker warns you it's not good idea. Please answer it for yourself while it's still hipothetical