Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

Gulfstream G650 Crash - Roswell - 4 Dead

Wikiposts
Search
Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

Gulfstream G650 Crash - Roswell - 4 Dead

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th Apr 2011, 19:44
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A minor mishap transpired during G-IV "unstick" testing. The jet partially stalled and banged a wingtip
Thanks GVFlyer.

Would fly by wire prevent this high an angle of attack on a G650?

Or maybe envelope protection is normally diabled this close to the ground?
hawk37 is online now  
Old 7th Apr 2011, 20:52
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NTSB preliminary, apologies if already posted.
barit1 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2011, 21:19
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Would fly by wire prevent this high an angle of attack on a G650?

Or maybe envelope protection is normally diabled this close to the ground?
In that you're comparing dramatically different wings, it's really comparing apples to orangutans unless you're only conceptionally speaking. In that case it would be determined by the FCS control laws and whether it was a hard stop or soft stop system.
GVFlyer is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 07:40
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or maybe envelope protection is normally diabled this close to the ground?
Envelope protection is probably disabled during flight testing to determine the borders of the envelope. Thats what testing is for.
Volume is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 10:27
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Londinium village
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very sad indeed.....

NTSB Issues Preliminary Report on G650 Crash
The flight-test Gulfstream G650 that crashed in Roswell, N.M., on Saturday “was performing a takeoff with a simulated engine failure to determine takeoff distance requirements at minimum flap setting” at the time of the accident, according to an NTSB preliminary report released this morning. The two test pilots and two technical specialists aboard were killed in the crash, and the twinjet was destroyed. The report said the aircraft slid approximately 3,800 feet from where the first wing scrapes were seen on Runway 21 at Roswell International Air Center Airport, and struck several obstructions before it came to rest on fire, but upright about 200 feet from the airport’s control tower. In a statement issued this morning, Gulfstream pledged its cooperation with the NTSB. “We are participating fully in the aircraft investigation, and will resume flying the G650 only when we and the [FAA] are satisfied it is safe to do so,” said Pres Henne, Gulfstream’s senior vice president for programs, engineering and test. The airframer noted that all other certification and production work on the program would continue. Earlier this week, Jay Johnson, chairman and CEO of parent company General Dynamics expressed his sympathy for the families of the crew, along with his confidence in the 650 program. The accident G650, S/N 6002, had accumulated more than 425 flight hours since it first flew in February last year.
specialbrew is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 13:48
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of the pilots was named Dave Mccollum in case anyone knew him.
787FOCAL is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 15:25
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
David McCollum was a flight-test engineer.
GVFlyer is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 16:41
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That name Dave McCollum is spookily similar to Dave McGollum (sp?), who was copilot of the flight test Canadair that was lost over Edwards in about 1980. The FTE bailed ok; Dave bailed almost too late, and was in hospital six months recovering from broken legs, etc. The Capt didn't get out. I met Dave in about 1983, when he was FAA pilot DER.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 17:45
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe someone can elaborate on 'unstick testing'.

Would that be similar to holding the yoke back on departure and trying to find the lowest airspeed the plane comes off into ground effect? Or is that more of a dynamic yank back type of maneuver to get the plane into ground effect?

Also, 'envelope protection'...that set up in a flight computer somewhere in fly by wire aircraft?
theficklefinger is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 19:16
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vmu - Minimum Unstick Velocity

I have no connection to Gulfstream and thus my comments are not specific to this event.

Vmu is the minimum unstick speed. It is the minimum speed at which the airplane can generate enough lift with its tail on the ground to takeoff. This speed ends up being the basis for some of the takeoff operational speeds and associated field length requirements.

The testing to demonstrate / determine Vmu involves rotating early and having the tail in contact with the ground at the time that liftoff occurs. The trick is to get the tail down at just the right moment so that it does not drag too much and yet the demonstrated Vmu is as low as possible. Tail skids (a suitable block of wood) are often used during this testing.

I am aware of control law provisions on non-Gulfstream fly-by-wire airplanes that reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent tailstrike during takoff, but I don't know of any that completely prevent hitting the tail. To do so would be to reduce the available performance of the airplane and thus in my opinion would not be wise.
FCeng84 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2011, 00:07
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That name Dave McCollum is spookily similar to Dave McGollum (sp?), who was copilot of the flight test Canadair that was lost over Edwards in about 1980. The FTE bailed ok; Dave bailed almost too late, and was in hospital six months recovering from broken legs, etc. The Capt didn't get out. I met Dave in about 1983, when he was FAA pilot DER.

GB
Dave Gollings, who since his retirement from the FAA has been a consultant DER, was the co-pilot on this CL-600 certification flight.

The jet was Challenger serial number 1001. During stall testing the jet pitched-up and could not be returned to controlled flight without deploying the stall chute.

The least desirable stall characteristic any jet can have is to pitch-up when it stalls, the reason being that the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer causing a loss of pitch control and the ability to get the nose down to fly out of the stall. A stall chute, when deployed, gets the nose down to reestablish airflow over the tail and subsequent pitch control. It is then cut away.

The crew could not get rid of the stall chute after getting the nose down. Subsequently, there was insufficient thrust available for sustained flight and controllability was suspect. The three crew members bailed out. Pilot Eric Norman Ronaasen died when his chute did not deploy. Dave who was functioning as the scribe received minor injuries. Flight-test engineer Bill Scott was not injured.

This stall characteristic seems to be emblematic of the breed. During Global Express development while demonstrating recovery from unaccelerated aerodynamic stalls with a FAA test pilot at the controls, the Global also pitched-up and could not be returned to controlled flight without deploying the stall chute.
GVFlyer is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2011, 10:35
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The least desirable stall characteristic any jet can have is to pitch-up when it stalls, the reason being that the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer causing a loss of pitch control and the ability to get the nose down to fly out of the stall.
That is a common explanation. But there is a better one.
Flaps settings are not only alter chambers it alter as well average incidence angle.
Assume the fuselage itself acts as a wing.
That can lead to situations in which the wing produce less lift than the wing.
the scenario is at low IAS and at low flap settings the fuselage can produce more lift than the elevator can counteract.Supercritical wings are knows (esp. the earliest) for poor lift creation, what increase the effects. That lead into a not controllable but stable situation, in that the wing itself isn't stalled, called superstall. During landing the flaps are set, running the wing at notable higher angle of attack than the fuselage, so that the fuselage can't produce lift.
I used x-plane for investigation the flying wing and lather on together with a fuselage formed from wing shape. I discovered severe problems with liftoff and also in diving, when the fuselage produce lift (in that case-negative lift).
That isn't a suspect into the case, just a comment into the general relation. If more discussion about this, admins split into a own tread.
rak64 is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 19:57
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,907
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Apparently flight tests resumed a few days ago with airframe 6001.

Any news about the Roswell crash ?
atakacs is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.