Originally Posted by OK465
Does the Velocity stall description bring anything to mind?
Of course it does! It reminds of my snide remark that mental gymnastics some posters apply are awesome to behold while being of poor to nil informational value.
I don't mind stressing for the third time: we're discussing the deep stall as related to transport category aeroplanes and as is described by DP Davies, certainly an authority in the field of transport aeroplanes behaviour. Reference is "Handling the big jets", pages 115-119 in the third edition.
Velocity is four seater aeroplane. A330 is not.
Velocity is piston powered aeroplane. A330 is not
Velocity is single engine pusher aeroplane. A330 is not
Velocity is canard aeroplane. A330 is not.
There are also some differences between Velocity and A330 regarding the mass and wing loading.
To just wink-wink-nudge-nudge-you-know-what-I-mean in order to somehow make an impression that something that Velocity's test pilot has encountered during test flight and was labeled by NTSB as deep stall has anything to do with transport aeroplane's deep stall and therefore further imply that Velocity incident somehow proves that A330 is susceptible to the phenomenon is beyond my ability to comprehend. Why would anyone mix handful of facts with bag of suspect notions and expect to get something meaningful out of it is enigma to me.
If we'd call every extremely high AoA situation deep stall, there would be no end of it.
Originally Posted by Lord Spandex Masher
I can't, I have paper copies of several flight test documents on controls and stability.
Why? Because you would have to kill me if I see it? Can't you at least hint what aeroplane is dealt with in your papers or someone would get you if you release that little bit of information?
References contrary to your claim can be found in "Handling the big jets". third edition, page 119. Or any decent basic aerodynamics textbook, e.g. Atlantic Flight Training ltd JAA ATPL training handbook, Principles of flight, pages 8-14 to 8-16 in 2006. edition. Those were first that I dug out of my bookshelf and I can't publish excerpts due to copyright issues but if you really want to know what's written in them, i don't think you'll have problem finding out.
Originally Posted by Lord Spandex Masher
It is not the tendancy of a T-Tail to deep stall it is the recovery that can be a problem
You were on good way to tautology before you slipped into something akin to surrealism. Of course that recovery is the problem! The biggest part of the deep stall definition: it's irrecoverable!
Originally Posted by Lord Spandex Masher
Even if the entire length of a wing, swept or straight, stalls at the same time the separation of the airflow occurs towards the rear of the wing causing the centre of lift to move forward. Unchecked that may cause pitch up.
(...)
But if any part of the wing stalls it still has the effect of moving the centre of lift forward purely because of the separation of the airflow from the rear of the wing section.
But it doesn't follow that moving the Cp in stall forward results in pitch-up! If it were so in the real world, we would be in deep trouble and I certainly would not be writing this post but pushing daisies at certain quiet village graveyard.
Originally Posted by Lord Spandex Masher
Did you not spot the part about several roll excursions, some up to 40 odd degrees and the 270 heading change?!
These roll excursions started when aeroplane was extremely deeply stalled. Whether they were stopped by CM2's monstrous effort on the stick or by sheer incident is something for aerodynamicsists to resolve. Aeroplane has stalled somewhere around 02:11:06 Z. Next 30 seconds roll is quite gentle, not exceeding 9 degrees. AoA increase is also gradual and that is somewhat at odds with the theory of tips stalling first.
As for 270° turn, I find it quite astonishing for diametrically oposite reason to you: that it was so mild. 270° over three minutes gives astonishing average of 1.5° per second or four minutes to complete single turn. Now I'm only waiting for the next ignoramus in line to state that it was Airbus fault that aeroplane which was never intended to have good post-stall characteristics had so benign stall and if it spun (as B752 at Puerto Plata did) the pilots would have at least an idea what was wrong.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
I raised that question (how would the FCPC´s behave during manual trim when not in direct law) some moons ago. Nobody followed my lead there.
Reason for it might be that I don't recall this information being included in FCOMs, I remember it as part of my training syllabus. When my captain & me went on Airbus 320 TR course, it was for both of us our first MRJT so our company thought it was good idea to put us through something called "Jet transition" It was ten hours of raw data, manual flight in direct law without autothrust for each of us. Direct stick-to-control displacement. Normal pitch-power couplings. Trimming with the wheel all the time. It certainly gave us the feeling what is the aeroplane like to fly without FBW holding your hand. Contrary to horror stories we heard, after ATR it was piece of cake. Near the end of jet transition, ALT law was introduced to give us taste of autotrim and that's when we were demonstrated why it isn't good idea to fight the autotrim - to make sure there's no negative transfer from "Jet transition" into "Normal" phase of training which was conducted in normal law. It didn't come cheap - we have used up 20 hours of sim time and prolonged our course by a week. So did it pay off by making us better A320 pilots than we would be if we just started with full FBW and making just casual acquaintance with direct law during abnormals? It's just my severely biased opinion but I'd say - hell, yes!