Deep Stall?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
I think the push in Pappa India went off several times did it not?
SSD
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Conan the Librarian
With the deep stall case as was made recently aware with the 111 (By the way - what was the Javelin like?) the B727 was operated in the States I believe without a shaker and pusher. The first ones on the UK register were by Dan Air and the CAA made them fit aforesaid shaker and pusher at not inconsiderable expense. Or so I am told... Anyone?
Conan
Conan
The 727s in the States did operate with shakers. No pusher.
Psychophysiological entity
Pappa India was a doubly tragic accident in a way. I'm sure I have mentioned this before, but one of the attending officers was a member and inspecting officer of our pistol club. He told me a bit about that day.
The emergency services were hampered by an unprecedented queue of folk, all stopping to look. Some of the people were still alive and there was just a feint possibility that some may have been saved could the services have got to them sooner.
The emergency services were hampered by an unprecedented queue of folk, all stopping to look. Some of the people were still alive and there was just a feint possibility that some may have been saved could the services have got to them sooner.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=Conan the Librarian]By the way - what was the Javelin like?]
If you fancied a deep stall, the Javelin was the jet for you, at least a couple were lost during flight test before any further stall research was cancelled. When the aircraft stalled the high-set tailplane was fully blanked, the angle of descent was thought to be as near vertical as made no difference.
The aircraft was released to service and throughout its life was limited to a minimum of 150 KIAS (except on approach to land) and a prohibition of looping aerobatic manoeuvres. If I remember Pilot's Notes correctly, recommended action in event of stalling was to persuade the aircraft to spin and try to recover from that by vigorous use of aileron; no-one was optimistic that this would work, but it was thought this would pass the time until the enormous rate of descent brought the contraption down to MSH for initiating a Martin Baker recovery.
If you fancied a deep stall, the Javelin was the jet for you, at least a couple were lost during flight test before any further stall research was cancelled. When the aircraft stalled the high-set tailplane was fully blanked, the angle of descent was thought to be as near vertical as made no difference.
The aircraft was released to service and throughout its life was limited to a minimum of 150 KIAS (except on approach to land) and a prohibition of looping aerobatic manoeuvres. If I remember Pilot's Notes correctly, recommended action in event of stalling was to persuade the aircraft to spin and try to recover from that by vigorous use of aileron; no-one was optimistic that this would work, but it was thought this would pass the time until the enormous rate of descent brought the contraption down to MSH for initiating a Martin Baker recovery.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NutherA2: You said "If I remember Pilot's Notes correctly, recommended action in event of stalling was to persuade the aircraft to spin".
As I recall it didn't need any persuasion, it almost inevitably would spin.
The quote from Pilots Notes re spin recovery is here.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=61378&page=7
As I recall it didn't need any persuasion, it almost inevitably would spin.
The quote from Pilots Notes re spin recovery is here.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=61378&page=7
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Nuther - Can't think of an aircraft with a more closely coupled wing and tail. Just looking at the Javelin side on makes me twitch... I wonder what it would have taken to dispense with the tailplane altogether? Presumably that would cure any deep stall proclivities at the same time.
Conan
Conan
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=Conan the Librarian] I wonder what it would have taken to dispense with the tailplane altogether?
I believe that the tailplane was essential because the Dragmaster needed flaps, which in turn were necessary to avoid giving the aircraft an unacceptably high nose attitude during landing; the alternative would presumably have been an immensely long nosewheel assembly. If anyone's got a better explanation, though, I'd defer to their expertise.
I believe that the tailplane was essential because the Dragmaster needed flaps, which in turn were necessary to avoid giving the aircraft an unacceptably high nose attitude during landing; the alternative would presumably have been an immensely long nosewheel assembly. If anyone's got a better explanation, though, I'd defer to their expertise.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask, because the Javelin always struck me as something of a Dogs' dinner, even as a layman. From what I understand the thing was decades ahead of its' time regarding relaxed stabiility, which is why they had to bolt that tail on, plus all those vortex generators too. Still, I digress, so forgive my idle thoughts 
Conan
Conan
Deep stall Vulcan or Concorde?
Did anyone ever test stall/spin a big delta type aircraft like the Vulcan, Concorde or the SR-71?
Just curious after reading this informative post as the Vulcan generally ressembles a Javelin but IIRC lots of programs give the impression the Vulcan (and Victor) were flown quite hard during service.
Cheers
Just curious after reading this informative post as the Vulcan generally ressembles a Javelin but IIRC lots of programs give the impression the Vulcan (and Victor) were flown quite hard during service.
Cheers
Not quite a spin (but certainly post stall), some interesting things happened on the YB-49. Gen.Bob Cardenas (I think he was probably a Captain or Major at the time) found some very unpleasant things and recommended that it not be taken close to the stall as a result.
It's generally believed that Glen Edwards subsequently got a little further to Bob Cardenas' danger area than was wise, causing an in-flight breakup and loss of the aircraft and crew at around FL300.
General Cardenas put together a summary of his flight test reports a few years ago for a history session, and later was good enough to share them with me in support of some work I was doing into a similar problem. This is an excerpt from one of his reports:
G
It's generally believed that Glen Edwards subsequently got a little further to Bob Cardenas' danger area than was wise, causing an in-flight breakup and loss of the aircraft and crew at around FL300.
General Cardenas put together a summary of his flight test reports a few years ago for a history session, and later was good enough to share them with me in support of some work I was doing into a similar problem. This is an excerpt from one of his reports:
“23 February YB-49 #368 one landing local Muroc-------- 0:35 mins.
Recommended no intentional stalls due to the fact that during the final phase of the stall entry maneuver it lurched over backwards into a tumble. Had to use asymmetric power to recover. Submitted a full report and thankful that the throttles were hanging down from the ceiling rather than in a normal position since G forces had my arms locked upwards and my rear off the seat. Flight test engineers told me later that I had encountered inertial coupling”
“the results of my one Stall Test during which the aircraft had assumed a very high angle of attack without a stall warning and then pitched over backwards…. The rotation was severe and made it difficult to keep my hands and feet on the controls. The engineers called it a lateral roll but I was experiencing a tumble! I was lucky that the designers had put two throttles hanging down from the upper surfaces, each connected to four engines.I applied full power with the left throttle and resolved the "tumble" with asymmetric power and elevon control.”
Recommended no intentional stalls due to the fact that during the final phase of the stall entry maneuver it lurched over backwards into a tumble. Had to use asymmetric power to recover. Submitted a full report and thankful that the throttles were hanging down from the ceiling rather than in a normal position since G forces had my arms locked upwards and my rear off the seat. Flight test engineers told me later that I had encountered inertial coupling”
“the results of my one Stall Test during which the aircraft had assumed a very high angle of attack without a stall warning and then pitched over backwards…. The rotation was severe and made it difficult to keep my hands and feet on the controls. The engineers called it a lateral roll but I was experiencing a tumble! I was lucky that the designers had put two throttles hanging down from the upper surfaces, each connected to four engines.I applied full power with the left throttle and resolved the "tumble" with asymmetric power and elevon control.”
G
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: France
Age: 58
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this on a Falcon 10/100.......
assuming you are flying an approach with full flaps and outboard slats only (ie in case of emergency extension of slats with #2 HYD generation....)....permit the outboard slats to retract (loss of #2 HYD...bad day !..).......& you will experience a deep stall....rather impressive and dangerous one by the way !...all the most that you will continue with nose up approach-like attitude, wings level.....but huge sink rate !!!!.......
That's why Dassault call for "No Slats - No Flaps"...........
(....however, that one will recover by simply retracting some flap......and applying TOGA of course..if you feel it and react promptly !!!)
assuming you are flying an approach with full flaps and outboard slats only (ie in case of emergency extension of slats with #2 HYD generation....)....permit the outboard slats to retract (loss of #2 HYD...bad day !..).......& you will experience a deep stall....rather impressive and dangerous one by the way !...all the most that you will continue with nose up approach-like attitude, wings level.....but huge sink rate !!!!.......
That's why Dassault call for "No Slats - No Flaps"...........
(....however, that one will recover by simply retracting some flap......and applying TOGA of course..if you feel it and react promptly !!!)
Last edited by rvator; 3rd Mar 2006 at 17:49.
