Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrasz.
Although having flown jets for a long time, in a previous life I flew many powerful piston and torbo prop aircraft for many thousands of hours. I think the torque efect you claim would require a prop with a diamiter larger than the aircrafts wing span, and one very powerful engine to achieve what you claim.
I would also suspect, if the torque from the props had as much efect as you claim, it would be even worse with both engines running and all turboprops would spend their time on their backs!
GREEN GUARD
Can you speak English?
Although having flown jets for a long time, in a previous life I flew many powerful piston and torbo prop aircraft for many thousands of hours. I think the torque efect you claim would require a prop with a diamiter larger than the aircrafts wing span, and one very powerful engine to achieve what you claim.
I would also suspect, if the torque from the props had as much efect as you claim, it would be even worse with both engines running and all turboprops would spend their time on their backs!
GREEN GUARD
Can you speak English?
Last edited by BALLSOUT; 14th Feb 2011 at 15:08.
I think Green Guard may need to look at this:
Blohm & Voss BV P.111 Luft '46 entry
and Jazz Hands
have you read the article and the previous threads on here?
If you have then you should see that I came here because of the speculative and erroneous "press" reports that I (as an outsider now) were seeing and was hoping to find some "clarity".
sad thing then turned out that those who should know better were simply fuelling the "press" with errors, wild accusations and massive assumptions.
I posted the link to the new pictures as there are clearly some on here who do know what they are talking about and they can form their own views without misleading others.
I shall wait for the final report but if , in the meantime I find a useful link, I will share and let you all make up your own minds.
Blohm & Voss BV P.111 Luft '46 entry
and Jazz Hands
have you read the article and the previous threads on here?
If you have then you should see that I came here because of the speculative and erroneous "press" reports that I (as an outsider now) were seeing and was hoping to find some "clarity".
sad thing then turned out that those who should know better were simply fuelling the "press" with errors, wild accusations and massive assumptions.
I posted the link to the new pictures as there are clearly some on here who do know what they are talking about and they can form their own views without misleading others.
I shall wait for the final report but if , in the meantime I find a useful link, I will share and let you all make up your own minds.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm? Interesting reading:
Manx2 Flight 7100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manx2 Flight 7100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guest
Posts: n/a
ok here I try again...
BALLS-OUT
Can you find any aircraft with a one side-working engine(s),
or in the case of one side engine(s) shut down etc.
in the same axes, or on exactly opposite arm from the rudder,
where you would need ONLY a RUDDER to counter that moment ( "torque" ) ?
BALLS-OUT
It would still however be counteracted by the rudder and not the ailerons.
or in the case of one side engine(s) shut down etc.
in the same axes, or on exactly opposite arm from the rudder,
where you would need ONLY a RUDDER to counter that moment ( "torque" ) ?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: fragglerock
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just something thet struck me from the photos and diagram shown. The Investigators seem to say the right wingtip struck the RUNWAY and then continued fro 190m before the flip rotation.
Where the aircraft came to rest seems not much more than 190m from the landing threshold??
And given the later survivors accounts of not actually contacting hard surface I wonder if the wing struck softer ground before the threshold...
Where the aircraft came to rest seems not much more than 190m from the landing threshold??
And given the later survivors accounts of not actually contacting hard surface I wonder if the wing struck softer ground before the threshold...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Guard, what on earth are you talking about? on most aircraft rudder authority will counter the loss of an engine and assymetric thrust.. Maybe I'm missing the point, are you saying aileron is needed as well? The MU2 widowmaker was infamous but most others it is not a problem
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wiggy
matspart.. indeed, and to repeat a point made by others earlier in the thread the really critical RVRs (from a legal standpoint/ "damning report" point of view ) will be those that were passed by ATC to the aircraft crew just prior to them reaching the approach ban point.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GREEN GUARD,
Yes, you only use rudder, appart from maybe 5 degrees aileron towards the live engine. In reality, it is useualy quite some time before most people settle down into using the aileron input, to improve the climb out.
Yes, you only use rudder, appart from maybe 5 degrees aileron towards the live engine. In reality, it is useualy quite some time before most people settle down into using the aileron input, to improve the climb out.
Last edited by BALLSOUT; 14th Feb 2011 at 17:34.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captains, Gentlemen, and Flight Simmers etc..
It seems to me that the roll to inverted was caused by asymmetric lift, not asymmetric power.
Asymmetric lift caused by digging the stbd wing extension in the dirt and severely damaging it, or breaking it off. Ref several posts about Metroliner wing structure. Bearing in mind at the same time, GA power was applied together with high alpha. Almost perfect scenario for a snap roll.
Side comment. I find the Irish press reports refreshingly void of sensationalism, and for once, a much better source of information than my beloved Pprune.
Now running for cover.
It seems to me that the roll to inverted was caused by asymmetric lift, not asymmetric power.
Asymmetric lift caused by digging the stbd wing extension in the dirt and severely damaging it, or breaking it off. Ref several posts about Metroliner wing structure. Bearing in mind at the same time, GA power was applied together with high alpha. Almost perfect scenario for a snap roll.
Side comment. I find the Irish press reports refreshingly void of sensationalism, and for once, a much better source of information than my beloved Pprune.
Now running for cover.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Guard, you are talking about yaw, not torque. Yaw is controlled by rudder. The roll is not caused by torque but is induced by the yaw, so effectively you counter the roll by booting in rudder!
cows..
Where does this 'approach ban' phrase come from?)
After quietly watching for 23 pages, my take is this:
What we KNOW is that an aircraft ended up on its back beside the runway, killing 6 people.
The visibility was very low - but planes have ended up on their back beside the runway, killing people, in CAVOK conditions (FedEx/Narita, Sioux City). The low vis could be just an interesting sideshow to the accident.
Planes sometimes roll over because they lose part of a wing - but they also sometimes lose part of a wing because they roll over.
Planes sometimes roll over because they lose an engine - but they also sometimes get asymmetric engine damage because they roll over.
It appears there is evidence of a wing dragging, from more recent reports - presumably marks on the runway (or wingtip). But even so, there are multiple possible reasons for a wing to drag.
Without poor weather conditions.
Without an engine failure.
I'm just saying we might want to wait for more facts before spending 23 pages arguing pros and cons of things that may well have no direct causal connection whatever to this particular accident.
What we KNOW is that an aircraft ended up on its back beside the runway, killing 6 people.
The visibility was very low - but planes have ended up on their back beside the runway, killing people, in CAVOK conditions (FedEx/Narita, Sioux City). The low vis could be just an interesting sideshow to the accident.
Planes sometimes roll over because they lose part of a wing - but they also sometimes lose part of a wing because they roll over.
Planes sometimes roll over because they lose an engine - but they also sometimes get asymmetric engine damage because they roll over.
It appears there is evidence of a wing dragging, from more recent reports - presumably marks on the runway (or wingtip). But even so, there are multiple possible reasons for a wing to drag.
Without poor weather conditions.
Without an engine failure.
I'm just saying we might want to wait for more facts before spending 23 pages arguing pros and cons of things that may well have no direct causal connection whatever to this particular accident.
I'm just saying we might want to wait for more facts before spending 23 pages arguing pros and cons of things that may well have no direct causal connection whatever to this particular accident.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a question...
were there any landings, especially by larger aircraft, just prior to the accident?
were there any takeoffs, especially by larger aircraft, just priot to the accident?
I would like to rule out wake turbulence encounter.
were there any landings, especially by larger aircraft, just prior to the accident?
were there any takeoffs, especially by larger aircraft, just priot to the accident?
I would like to rule out wake turbulence encounter.
SSR post #12 shows the arrivals - is it right to assume that is all the movements that morning? if so then last plane in was a good while afore the manx2.
and I have a question for the pilots on here, regardless of what happened at Cork, but doesn't wake turbulance from any aircraft start when the wheels lift off the tarmac or stop as they touch down? therefore an a/c on approach wouldn't be affected by one that had departed unless it flew beyond the point where the preceding a/c had rotated. I ask this seriously as I do not know (just seem to recall something from way back).
For any journos reading this, my question is to help me and not speculation as to what could or could not have happened
and I have a question for the pilots on here, regardless of what happened at Cork, but doesn't wake turbulance from any aircraft start when the wheels lift off the tarmac or stop as they touch down? therefore an a/c on approach wouldn't be affected by one that had departed unless it flew beyond the point where the preceding a/c had rotated. I ask this seriously as I do not know (just seem to recall something from way back).
For any journos reading this, my question is to help me and not speculation as to what could or could not have happened
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't resist adding my speculation to everyone elses.
1. At decision , he sees the runway through the fog and realises he's off to the left of the centreline.
2. Decides not to go around again as he's done two GAs already and now can see the runway.
3.Attempts to regain the Centreline but a combination of the manoevers' difficulty (low vis, low level etc) , the aircrafts clunky roll response and his own state of mind result in the right wing hitting the ground.
4 Right wing section detaches. Left wing comes up and rolls the a/c inverted. It slides to a stop.
Total speculation on my part.
1. At decision , he sees the runway through the fog and realises he's off to the left of the centreline.
2. Decides not to go around again as he's done two GAs already and now can see the runway.
3.Attempts to regain the Centreline but a combination of the manoevers' difficulty (low vis, low level etc) , the aircrafts clunky roll response and his own state of mind result in the right wing hitting the ground.
4 Right wing section detaches. Left wing comes up and rolls the a/c inverted. It slides to a stop.
Total speculation on my part.
but doesn't wake turbulance from any aircraft start when the wheels lift off the tarmac or stop as they touch down?
However, your question, and ssr's, has possibly opened a tin of wiggly hermaphrodites. A reasonable question by both or you, and there appears to be no reports (to date), of that possibility in this accident. You may now expect your request that this line of speculation be ignored, to be well and truly ignored.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T2
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to rule out wake turbulence encounter
EICK ATC are conservative with spacing in CAVOK conditions never mind in Low-Vis procedures [especially when 17 is in use because of the need to back-track after landing.]