Spinning an Airliner

[Arm out the window]

Teadriver, I can't access the accident report now, but the RAAF 707 I mentioned above did have engine pod or pods separate in flight as it spun (only from about 5000 ft if I remember right).

[FCS Explorer]

wanna spin?
take something like a 737, fail some slats on one side, put it in a std rate turn an slow it down.

[barit1]

Oh ask Hoot Gibson how he did it that 727-100.

[farsouth]

Teadriver -
"A Dash 8 was lost a few years ago in south west UK, spinning following loss of control during a Vmca check on an air test"

..... the aircraft was a Dash 7 (VP-CDY). The airtest was for a 3-engine climb for C of A renewal. Schedule called for Flap 25, Eng #1 shut-down, Eng #2, 3 and 4 Take-off power, climb at V2 (80kts at planned weight). Unfortunately the Flaps were left at 0, and the aircraft stalled at 90kts. Aircraft descended at a high rate to impact. AAIB report states that it is not possible to state whether the subsequent path was a spin or a spiral dive, as the recorded "g" suggested a spiral dive, but the low IAS suggested a spin. Full aft elevator was held throughout the descent, and full power on 3 engines also kept almost to impact. CVR was u/s, findings were based only on FDR recordings.

Report is available on AAIB website

[Kiwiguy]

Thanks KenFoggo... I'm still LMAO about the B777 sim trying to shake itself to pieces... Good one. I have some spin experience but not enough to be an authority.

I recall a Channel Express F.27 freighter had it's cargo shift aft on approach and it went into a flat spin. There was something similar about a BAC-111 spin test in which the spin parachute was of no help. Were these flat spins indicative of heavy aircraft characteristics or just reflective of the special circumstances.

Roethesod about the Mu-2 which I have never flown personally, I gather they all have some difficulty with power levers (constant speed pitch levers)down between the pilot's seats being vulnerable to being knocked or having a friction nut deficiency. I gather that it is not uncommon for one of the power levers to retreat without the pilot noticing.

This plane is a well known widowmaker and the issue seems not with the engines, but with deficient power levers.

I would add my voice about the structural failure risk to airliners. Engine pylons are designed to shear if the engine seizes, or when torque is too great. Remember the L-188 Electra (a la spinning a C-130/P-3) had speed restictions imposed because at 400kt the engines shook off their mounts. Engine mounts were never designed with strength in sideways motion.

[fantom]

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

I recall a Channel Express F.27 freighter had it's cargo shift aft on approach and it went into a flat spin. There was something similar about a BAC-111 spin test...
Roethesod about the Mu-2 which I have never flown personally, I gather they all have some difficulty with power levers (constant speed pitch levers)down between the pilot's seats being vulnerable to being knocked or having a friction nut deficiency. I gather that it is not uncommon for one of the power levers to retreat without the pilot noticing.
This plane is a well known widowmaker and the issue seems not with the engines, but with deficient power levers.

Kiwiguy,
I think the unfortunate F27 suffered a C of G issue and, when the final stage of flap was selected, became uncontrollable in pitch. I don't remember anything about a 'flat spin'.
As I recall, a BAC 1-11 was lost during a flight test programme concerning stalling and had nothing to do with 'cargo shifting' or a 'flat spin'.
In my hazy recollection, the Mu-2 was denied British certification as (perhaps, inter alia) a consequence of the forward window integrity not meeting British requirements. I would hesitate to refer to a type as 'a well-known widow-maker'. Unless, of course, you have private, unlimited income to support an expensive libel case.
Just my humble opinions, of course.

[Kiwiguy]

I didn't say the BAC-111 crash had anyhting to do with cargo shifting. You're making that connection yourself.

I referrred to the Channel Express F.27's cargo shifting rearwards. At the time Flight International published a photo showing the aircraft landed flat and did not strike nose first. I seem to recall mention of a flat spin.

In terms of the BAC-111 crash I read an account of the crash many years ago stating that it was in a flat spin at impact. Even without black boxes it is usually evident from the impact whether the impact was flat or not.

With regards to the Mu-2 many pilots will not fly her and have an apprehension of it because of it's accident rate. Fair comment. If Mitsubishi want to draw attention to the claim with banner headlines, so be it, but I think they have better things to worry about.

In many respects I actually like the Mu-2 design. If it has flaws then it is appropriate for the professional pilot community to discuss this. Many aircraft designs are pretty fantastic but have a single flaw which damages their reputation, for example the Comet 1 with square windows, or the L-188 Electra which vibrated it's engines off until it's speed was limited to 350kts.

Pity aircraft manufacturers would think to sue before thinking to rectify something as simple as power levers.

[rodthesod]

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

Roethesod about the Mu-2 which I have never flown personally, I gather they all have some difficulty with power levers (constant speed pitch levers)down between the pilot's seats being vulnerable to being knocked or having a friction nut deficiency. I gather that it is not uncommon for one of the power levers to retreat without the pilot noticing.

This plane is a well known widowmaker and the issue seems not with the engines, but with deficient power levers.

The problem we had with our MU-2 was nothing to do with power levers, I don't recall ever experiencing the 'wander' you describe. We had what was described as a 'torque shift'. I don't pretend to understand the Garrett 'single red line' instrumentation system, but what we actually experienced was a slow reduction in the starboard engine torque over a long period of time (100s of flying hours) so that, at the time of my airtest there was 10 - 12% less torque with identical on-board engine indications. Our investigations prior to the said test flight were extensive and included blade angle, idle fuel flow, flap spoiler and trim-aileron rigging checks etc. The engine malfunction was only discovered when we had the actual torques checked with a Le Beau (apologies for spelling?) meter, a device which is fitted between engine and prop - not the kind of equipment normally held by a small fleet. As far as I know Garrett had never advised that the torque gauge indications could be totally meaningless (100% torque was 100% of what was available on an engine, nomatter how sick and underpowered it was, it seems).

I agree with your appraisal of the aircraft's safety reputation and I may be wrong but I never heard of any pilots being sued by Lockheed for calling the F-104 a 'widow-maker' (fwiw a very fine aircraft in my opinion). Many MU-2s were lost in the USA prior to my complaints to Mitsubishi about its asymmetric handling characteristics. The AFM quoted Vmca as 93kts in those days (1984-ish). We complained about difficulties our trainee pilots were having with EFATOs and were asked 'at what speed did we make the 'cut'?' When we told them 105kts+ they were amazed and said 'NEVER BELOW 125kts'. It appeared that the low Vmca was there to sell the aircraft's short-field performance. We suggested this and that they review their AFM. Probably the fastest AFM ammendment on record followed and the Vmca was increased to 115kt IIRC. We immediately ceased our Nigeria MU-2 operation and sold the aircraft (which had been bought specifically for VIP flights into a performance limiting field after thorough AFM study).
rts

[Kiwiguy]

Like I say, I haven't flown the Mu-2 and just base my observation on what friends have told me about their experiences on it. What you say about torque differences makes a lot of sense out of the problems with that type.
My friends blamed the power levers.

[212man]

I think you'll find that the BAC 1-11 was in a deep stall (T-tail blanked so no elevator authority.) TP kept the running commentary all the way down.

[m5dnd]

The BAC 1-11 G-ASHG was sadly lost to a Deep Stall, the Anti-spin/anti-stall shute was not fitted. Another 1-11 G-ASJD forced landed on Salisbury Plane with the chute attached and streamed.. This aircraft was repaired and flew on becoming XX105 of the RAE/DERA/Qinetq.

M5DND

[barit1]

It was actually during a flight demo over Lake Washington during Aug. 1955 hydroplane races. Thousands of people witnessed it:

http://www.historylink.org/output.cfm?file_id=390

BTW - Tex Johnston lived to the ripe old age of 84 before dying of Alzheimer's.

[gulfairs]

Spinning larger aircraft

The Indian Airforce back in day one spun the Bristol Freighter, and wrote back to the manufacturer asking for correct spin recovery technique!
2:
A B747(Classic) did a one turn spin when the crew failed to observe an Autothrottle disengage, and the bird slowed up in Alt Hold untill too late it auto rotated.
They used the gear to control the huge speed excursion on recovery, lost the gear doors and limped into LAX.
The aircraft was flown home (orient) about a year later after Mr Boeing did one or two repairs.
The crew Paxed home with out expenses or a future in aviation.

[Confabulous]

The Air China incident wasn't a spin, the pax described high g loads for extended periods of time, similar to a spiral dive or badly executed barrel roll. No chance for the engines to separate! Besides, the report makes no mention of a spin, just a roll. Granted, the aircraft probably exceeded Mach 1 in the recovery

[rodthesod]

Originally Posted by Confabulous

The Air China incident wasn't a spin, the pax described high g loads for extended periods of time, similar to a spiral dive or badly executed barrel roll. No chance for the engines to separate! Besides, the report makes no mention of a spin, just a roll. Granted, the aircraft probably exceeded Mach 1 in the recovery

Confabulous,

I absolutely agree with you; I first thought spiral dive because of the high speed and high G loads, but having read on I go for the barrel roll which, without an initial pull up, rapidly becomes a barrel roll in the down vertical as demonstrated fatally by Don Bullock in the A26 Invader at Biggin Hill.

I Ford,

The structural damage is consistent with high G loads. There are no high G loads in a stable spin (IAS too low) although pilots have been known to follow a spin recovery with a spiral dive - but not in the Air China incident. I still think an early 707 would have shed pylons (due to sideslip loads) if it had been spun.

Regards,

rts

[Treetopflyer]

Wasn't there a TAROM A300 which got into a spin about 10 years back? I recall the crew recovered from it at a fairly low altitude, there even was a video about the incident but I can't put my hand on it.

Anybody?

TTF

[safetypee]

Treetopflyer the FDR animation of the incident which I believe that you refer to shows that the aircraft did not spin. There was a pitch up during go-around due to the crew over-powering the autopilot (no force disconnect) which caused excessive nose up (auto) trim. The aircraft ‘rolled-off’ the top of a very nose high wing over (>90 deg roll). Although the airspeed was less than stall speed, the ‘g’ level, and presumably the AOA were low. The aircraft repeated the manoeuvre before the crew regained control.