Interviews with D P Davies on certificating aircraft
Folks,
At the risk of a bit of controversy, and having flown B707-300 and -320 modified as required to be UK registered, (total about 8000 h on various versions, on various registers) versus the FAA certified aeroplane, it is my opinion that the ARB required mods. were overall detrimental to the operation of the aircraft.
At the risk of a bit of controversy, and having flown B707-300 and -320 modified as required to be UK registered, (total about 8000 h on various versions, on various registers) versus the FAA certified aeroplane, it is my opinion that the ARB required mods. were overall detrimental to the operation of the aircraft.
During the second flight of the Dash80 we ran into rough air while doing stability and control work at 2,000ft ,gear and flaps down,speed below 200mph.Again I noted the Significant tendancy to Dutch Roll.In my test report I recommended additional attention to directional stability.
From a safety point of view it had become clear that directional stability improvements were essential for the 707 so not sure how that could be detrimental ?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
At the risk of a bit of controversy, and having flown B707-300 and -320 modified as required to be UK registered, (total about 8000 h on various versions, on various registers) versus the FAA certified aeroplane, it is my opinion that the ARB required mods. were overall detrimental to the operation of the aircraft.
I think we all acknowledge the B707 (and DC-8) had shortcomings, and aircraft design advanced by leaps and bounds over the period in question, '50s through the -80s, but the demanded changes for the B707 were, as far as I am concerned, largely a safety minus.
We should also acknowledge that aircraft certification standards have made great strides since the original SFAR 422b.
Tootle pip!!
At the risk of a bit of controversy, and having flown B707-300 and -320 modified as required to be UK registered, (total about 8000 h on various versions, on various registers) versus the FAA certified aeroplane, it is my opinion that the ARB required mods. were overall detrimental to the operation of the aircraft.
I think we all acknowledge the B707 (and DC-8) had shortcomings, and aircraft design advanced by leaps and bounds over the period in question, '50s through the -80s, but the demanded changes for the B707 were, as far as I am concerned, largely a safety minus.
We should also acknowledge that aircraft certification standards have made great strides since the original SFAR 422b.
Tootle pip!!
IIRC the 707-436 had a parallel yaw damper which had to be disengaged for take-off and landing and even with the extra fin area (main + ventral) their was a continuous mild tendency to dutch roll. This was not the case with the -321C which had a series yaw damper and thus no ventral fin. It would have been interesting to hear DPD's opinion of the stab trim motor stalling under large mistrimmed conditions.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC the 707-436 had a parallel yaw damper which had to be disengaged for take-off and landing and even with the extra fin area (main + ventral) their was a continuous mild tendency to dutch roll. This was not the case with the -321C which had a series yaw damper and thus no ventral fin. It would have been interesting to hear DPD's opinion of the stab trim motor stalling under large mistrimmed conditions.
Alan Baker: thanks for those details. Twas a long time ago!
Thread Starter
I am resurrecting this post in the hope that some readers may have an interesting story or two to tell about stalling large aircraft. For example have anyof you ever spun a large four engine transport?
A spin would have been interesting.
It was rumoured that Ron Gilman took a Vanguard beyond the buffet on a base training detail which caused it to invert. The resulting high airspeed on the recovery led to a twist in the fuselage - or at least that is the story I was given to explain why that particular aircraft was almost impossible to trim properly!
Last edited by Meikleour; 6th Jan 2018 at 16:16. Reason: withdrawing info
Two brief statements were made that I
would be curious if anyone can elaborate on
He mentions the DC8 once in passing but
not again ?
He refers to the HS748 as a ‘heap’
Can anyone add to and / or clarify?
would be curious if anyone can elaborate on
He mentions the DC8 once in passing but
not again ?
He refers to the HS748 as a ‘heap’
Can anyone add to and / or clarify?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am resurrecting this post in the hope that some readers may have an interesting story or two to tell about stalling large aircraft
Fortunately, shortly afterwards, the CAA removed the requirement for a full stall on air tests.
A couple of reports on stalling the DC-10.
Report: Fedex DC10 near Raymond on Jun 14th 2008, aerodynamic stall while in holding
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR8010.pdf
Report: Fedex DC10 near Raymond on Jun 14th 2008, aerodynamic stall while in holding
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR8010.pdf
Thread Starter
Back in the 1970s there was a stall incident on a Standard VC10 during a CofA airtest. The Standard VC10 had wing fences on both the wing and the leading edge slats such that when the slats were retracted they abutted to form one continuous fence on each wing. In the clean configuration air leakages outwards along the span were prevented by rubber blocks.
On the flight in question, I can't remember now whether the blocks on one side were missing or merely damaged, however, when they came to do the clean stall the air leakage through the gap was sufficient to make that wing stall before the other. The wing dropped and they went beyond 90degs of bank before recovering. This would have been up at somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000ft.
They recovered the aircraft without damage and it was only afterwards that the missing/damaged blocks were found. After that, one of the checks before a test flight was always to inspect these blocks.
One lives and learns!!
On the flight in question, I can't remember now whether the blocks on one side were missing or merely damaged, however, when they came to do the clean stall the air leakage through the gap was sufficient to make that wing stall before the other. The wing dropped and they went beyond 90degs of bank before recovering. This would have been up at somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000ft.
They recovered the aircraft without damage and it was only afterwards that the missing/damaged blocks were found. After that, one of the checks before a test flight was always to inspect these blocks.
One lives and learns!!
Actually, though I enjoyed listening and have some respect for the man, I do resent his 'a 16 year old boy could fly it' comments about 747 and Concorde. No doubt a sarcastic comment which he didn't expect anyone to take seriously, but our profession really could do without being undermined in that way.
[QUOTE= - and TBH 16 -18 year olds have flown some very advanced fighters...............................[/QUOTE]
Certainly, and bombers as well, but I recall he said something like 'any 16 year old who can ride a motorbike could get it around the circuit'. Which is bull**** and anyone with substantial experience as a flying instructor and a training captain would know it.
Certainly, and bombers as well, but I recall he said something like 'any 16 year old who can ride a motorbike could get it around the circuit'. Which is bull**** and anyone with substantial experience as a flying instructor and a training captain would know it.
Thread Starter
Well - I took a bunch of 12/13 year old school boys and their headmaster onto a 747-200 simulator many years ago for an end of term treat. I found most of them could not fly it (including the headmaster) without a considerable amount of help from me. However, two did remarkably well, needing only a few verbal prompts. I was very surprised how well they did. But the headmaster was not much amused!