Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Pulling a Stop to Runway Overruns

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Pulling a Stop to Runway Overruns

Old 17th Jan 2006, 16:22
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,074
DD, or are you the Oz side of the IASA web site and OVERTALK; still attempting to further your worthy, but often poorly founded objectives through PPRuNe?
To be brief;
“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood. He who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” - 'The Man in the Arena', Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
alf5071h is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2006, 23:37
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
See You and Raise you a more "Apt" Quote

Only know OVERTALK via PM's on this subject. IASA is not a private lobby group but a non-profit educational group working actively for aviation safety and funded by an aircrash "survivor" who lost her husband on Swissair 111. Details are on the web-site at www.iasa-intl.com. IASA authors contribute to a number of air safety periodicals. IASA has been around since Swissair's MD11 went down.
.
"I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much and come up short again and again, who at best knows the high achievement of triumph, who at worst, fails while daring greatly for he knows his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory no defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt (from link) (fifth quote down)
.
Alf, better get those meds reviewed. I'm now waiting for your quotes from the venerable bard (surely the last refuge of tech dilettantes with nothing further to offer).
DD

Last edited by Dagger Dirk; 18th Jan 2006 at 10:03.
Dagger Dirk is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2006, 02:38
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by OVERTALK
But many newer design rear-engined smaller jets such as the CRJ seem to have similarly mounted engines....so perhaps someone can comment on whether the CRJ has a similar caution written into the Pilots' Notes.
Actually, I can, because your assumption that the manufacturer I work for is based south of the "49th Parallel" is misplaced. So while I don't know what McDD (why does it censor the 6 letter version?) may have recommended in the past for their product line, Bombardier (in the form of Canadair, specifically) does have such a recommendation.

At present the FAA is very very circumspect in defining techniques and configurations for establishing "book" distances - so I'd see that view as being unnecessarily alarmist.
If we were allowed to take credit for all available braking devices, rather than having to leave one 'in reserve' as it were, I can assure you that simple commercial pressure would REQUIRE us to do so, or lose performance and hence sales to our competitors. So if there were a reliable technique for increasing braking performance that we could take credit for, there would be very power motivation to use it.

I'm not sure that ALPA or IFALPA would agree with your continued portrayal of professional pilots as having to conform to your depiction of their abilities, skills and challenges necessarily being limited (and conforming) to a lowest common denominator.
I recall being at a light aircraft design conference in the UK where one of the keynote speakers - who was I believe from the 'pilot side of the fence' was urging us, as designers, to design aircraft that even an idiot couldn't kill themselves in. I'm not the only person thinking in terms of lowest common denominators.

Not sure that this is a productive piece of imagery. It's one reason why my first inclination was to first use the analogy of the second-class lever (with the nose as fulcrum). Using that logic the backstick just lowers the tail and loads up the main-gear, with the nose-gear acting as a pivot-point.
No, no, a million times NO. The nose gear is NOT rpt NOT a fixed pivot. It will extend or compress the nose oleo in response to load, as indeed will the mains. Any increased download on the tail MUST both increase mainwheel download (compressing the main oleos more) and decrease nosewheel load (necessarily extending the nose oleo). EITHER of these two effects will cause the pitch attitude to increase; both together certainly will.

The question remains whether the amount that the nose rises is either
(a) a risk of actually raising the wheel out of ground contact - something to be avoided at almost any cost, and a DEFINITE risk on our types. Any aircraft where that is a concern shouldn't be using this advocated technique.
(b) a small increase in pitch attitude and hence AoA and a MILD unloading of the nose. The former will act to increase wing lift and counter the downloading you're seeking to add; the latter may have directional control implications.

On those types not subject to the "pitch up" risk the technique MAY help; and it may not. It's by no means certain to. But until demonstrated by the OEMs and endorsed by appropriate handling advice, you are essentially assuming that you know better than our test pilots did when they developed the advice we provide. I'd really rather people didn't try that, certainly in our product line.

Oh, and ...

John Farley has endorsed the ability of backstick to "load up" the main-gear for more effective braking on mush - so perhaps we can leave this nicety to be thrashed out by the aerodynamicists (who will see it as the resultant of couples (nosedown pitching moment and taildown pitching moment).
That aerodynamicist would, in fact, be me, I'm afraid. At least for my company (in company with my colleagues, of course; no one works alone these days). So I'm quite familiar with the nature of on-ground modelling for aerodynamic behaviour; I think I've been doing it, off and on, for about 16 years now.

Last edited by Mad (Flt) Scientist; 18th Jan 2006 at 02:55.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2006, 15:43
  #64 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 53
Posts: 1,335
My company's flying manuals mention this technique, but discount it in a risk-management formula against the increased risk of tailstrike.

Interestingly, the contaminated braking co-efficients acceptable for the 320 have just been clarified... down. Essentially we can now land on "slippery" runways, but not take-off.

Don't know if I'm brave enough for that, might be time for a little Commander's discretion to be applied there.

Squid
Sick Squid is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2006, 10:26
  #65 (permalink)  
LEM
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 828
After reading the whole thread, I'm surprised the what I thought was the major reason for pushing the stick while braking has been almost totally overlooked: to decrease the residual lift from the wings, thus getting MORE weight on the main gear.

In simple words: while it's true that UP elevator will tend to increase somewhat the apparent weight for reasons discussed at lenght before, it will also increase the incidence of the wing, while elevator full down will reduce the attitude by maybe a couple of degrees.

My point is: the spoilers DON'T kill ALL lift.

A portion of the wing is not influenced by them, and even in areas with spoilers extended above the wings, some lift is still generated on the lower surface, by pure angle of incidence.

So the question is: by pushing the stick (almost) fully forward, as I've done since now, what do get out of the balance?

More lift from the tail, or more-reduced lift from the wings?

See what I mean?

My feeling has always been that the net result from this equation is in favor of PUSHING, not of PULLING on the yoke.

This lift reduction on the wings by a pitch decrease is the key to this issue, and I'm really surprised nobody has given this the due attention.

Or have I missed something?

Try to visualize, Gentlemen, that we are talking about VERY POOR braking coefficient, so very little pitch moment generated by normal braking, very little compression of the nose oleo and so on...

Imagine the airplane slipping on pure ice, and trying to brake.
Pushing or pulling can change the pitch by how many degrees?

What's the difference in lift generated?

Here we need the math people!

But only after we have the right picture in mind!

LEM
LEM is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2006, 12:15
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,865
One of the contributory causes of landing over-runs is excessive threshold speed. Manufacturers recommend specific additives to the basic Vref. Boeing, for example, recommend adding half the steady headwind component and all of the gust with a total of not more than 20 knots above Vref. Boeing also say that the headwind component additive should be bled off approaching touch-down while maintaining the gust additive. These additives are taken into account in landing distance calculations.

What is often observed are HW additives applied as recommended, but with no real attempt to bleed off the HW additive before arrival over the fence. This may result in a long float. And if the gust additive is maintained, a still longer float or a high touch down speed may occur.

With full gust additive applied right into to the flare, Murphy's Law dictates that the expected lull accompanying the gust will fail to eventuate and you are left with lots of excess speed. When the runway is slippery and a float is allowed to occur to obtain a smooth touch-down, chances are you are risking an over-run. With a gust factor at 90 degrees and the same additive applied, the extra speed is not always dissipated.

While a speed-deficient arrival over the fence is undesirable for several reasons it can be sometimes countered with judicious use of thrust but it takes a deft touch. On the other hand unwanted speed over the fence has been proved to lead to over-runs.

From personal observations on line and in simulators, it is rare to see the half-the-HW component deliberately bled off - mostly people argue it happens naturally at the flare. Maybe so, but not too often. In general, most crews don't worry about it and simply plant the aircraft or go for a smooth landing via the float. Fine if the runway is long and not wet.

I would like to see aircraft manufacturer's have another look at their recommendations on HW and gust additives when conducting manual thrust landings - instead of auto-throttle engaged landings where the Boeing recommendation is to add five knots only to Vref for all landings.

Defining the term "approaching touch-down" where it refers to bleeding off the HW additive, would be helpful. In theory, the free-stream wind gradient starts around 2000 ft and upwards so it is logical to start bleeding off the HW component then -and not leaving it to the flare. Is "approaching touch-down" a specified distance from the runway or a specified height above the aerodrome on final approach?

Accepting some over-runs could be prevented if airspeed control was more precise, manufacturers could consider fine-tuning their advice on the subject of airspeed additives. In short, their strict application may in some cases cause more problems than they are meant to fix.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2006, 14:21
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
A Principle Still Misunderstood

I thought what was the major reason for pushing the stick while braking has been almost totally overlooked: to decrease the residual lift from the wings, thus getting MORE weight on the main gear.
In simple words: while it's true that UP elevator will tend to increase somewhat the apparent weight for reasons discussed at length here, it will also increase the incidence of the wing, while elevator full down will reduce the attitude by maybe a couple of degrees.
.
Elevator full down (i.e. stick full forward) will only effectively weight transfer onto the nosewheel, leading to "wheel-barrowing" (a condition of directional instability). It won't, by any useful measure, decrease the wing's AoA. Why? Think of a depressed oleo as only being able to soak up shock i.e. weight-bearing oleos are effectively incompressible to flight-control inputs - therefore fully-down elevator will just load up the nosewheel. It won't depress the nose oleo appreciably more, nor take any angle-of-attack off the wings. By contrast backstick will load up the mainwheels, increasing traction, enhancing directional stability and you will achieve effective braking much earlier - particularly on a wet or contaminated runway. Why wouldn't backstick raise the nose? Don't forget the combined pitchdown effect on nose touchdown of engine reverse, braking and spoilers. During the important period for effective braking this pitchdown couple enables the backstick's effect of loading up the mainwheels - by stopping the progressive up elevator from raising the nose. Why progressive? Well obviously a pilot is not going to immediately put his yoke to the backstops after nosewheel on. But as speed decreases, inevitably, if going for the maximum backstick braking effect, the yoke will end up fully back. Obviously differently configured airplanes will have slightly different characteristics.
.
...by pushing the stick (almost) fully forward, as I've done since now, what do we get out of the balance?
More lift from the tail, or more-reduced lift from the wings?
You will note that internationally well-known Experimental Test-pilot John Farley came out in support of the backstick braking technique but was rudely rebuffed, essentially in mid-post, by one of those who cannot accept the practical facts..... and who instead waxed on with ever-confusing hypotheticals. Backstick braking is a proven effective stopping technique. Unfortunately it's not yet been automated and, because it is a dynamic process, it is easily misunderstood. Those who normally oppose change have been well represented on this thread and have used quite illogical reasoning in an attempt to deny its effectiveness and conjure up fanciful possible dangers.
.
This lift reduction on the wings by a pitch decrease is the key to this issue, and I'm really surprised nobody has given this the due attention.
Or have I missed something?
You most certainly have missed the big points essential for understanding how the technique works.
OVERTALK is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2006, 16:32
  #68 (permalink)  
LEM
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 828
Elevator full down (i.e. stick full forward) will only effectively weight transfer onto the nosewheel, leading to "wheel-barrowing" (a condition of directional instability). It won't, by any useful measure, decrease the wing's AoA. Why? Think of a depressed oleo as only being able to soak up shock i.e. weight-bearing oleos are effectively incompressible to flight-control inputs - therefore fully-down elevator will just load up the nosewheel. It won't depress the nose oleo appreciably more, nor take any angle-of-attack off the wings.
OVERTALK, that's where we disagree. I believe a full forward stick can change your AoA by say a couple of degrees, depending on type, of course.

Remember, we're having a very hard time braking on this slippery surface, so the nose oleo isn't compressed by a braking momentum.

And another point where we disagree is that reverse thrust does produce a pitch down effect.

Actually, the pivot being the main wheels, reverse thrust produces a pitch up effect, even on low mounted engines like a B737, unlike in flight where it would produce a pitchdown effect.

I can't believe it's so hard to understand...


Btw, maybe pushing the scenario to the limit will help get a clearer picture.
Imagine the worst case, an airplane with no spoilers.
Or simply the pilot forgetting to arm them.
Or simply a model without any spoiler!
Upon touch down, the wing is "still flying", and as speed decreses, lift gradually decreases.
Of course after touchdown one can get the impression the wing is fully stalled.
Not so, especially after you've lowered the nose.
The Aoa will not be beyond the stall limit at all, and the wing is still producing lift.
What would you do? Push or pull?

I suggets you push, my friend, to reduce the attitude (yes, the nose oleo IS compressible!), and decrease the residual lift as much as possible.

It's as natural as that. I know the tail will produce some lift, but that's almost nothing if compared to the lift loss on the wings.

Now, if this scenario is right without spoilers, probably it's still right with spoilers extended.

My assumption is that spoilers kill only a fraction of the lift.

If this is NOT true, then you're right.

MFS should have the numbers about the exact percentage, at least on his type.

LEM

Last edited by LEM; 22nd Mar 2006 at 16:50.
LEM is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2006, 16:42
  #69 (permalink)  

the lunatic fringe
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 63
Posts: 615
One of the contributory causes of landing over-runs is excessive threshold speed
As an ex DHC-6 pilot, and a current 747-400 Captain, my experience on limiting runways, is that you have to, absolutely have to, land at the beginng of the runway. Do not float, stick it down and get on with the business of braking. A few extra knots is not an issue. The issue is that if you land half way down, you are going off the end.

L337
L337 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 00:36
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by OVERTALK
Elevator full down (i.e. stick full forward) will only effectively weight transfer onto the nosewheel, leading to "wheel-barrowing" (a condition of directional instability). It won't, by any useful measure, decrease the wing's AoA. Why? Think of a depressed oleo as only being able to soak up shock i.e. weight-bearing oleos are effectively incompressible to flight-control inputs - therefore fully-down elevator will just load up the nosewheel. It won't depress the nose oleo appreciably more, nor take any angle-of-attack off the wings. ....
Sorry, but this is nonsense. ANY increase in the load on an oleo will cause it to further compress, unless it is ALREADY fully compressed. For very good reasons relating to the risk of internal damage and loss of shock-absorbing capacity, designers will include sufficient margin that under any kind of foreseeable operation the oleos - all of them - are NOT fully compressed.

Therefore, back stick WILL raise the nose (by compressing the mains and unloading the nose) and forward stick WILL lower the nose (by compressing the nosegear and unloading the mains). It's simple physics, no magic about it.

The QUESTION which is type dependent is whether the directly created mainwheel download by back-stick will or will not outweigh the unloading caused by increased AoA. It's type dependent and CG dependent and technique dependent and...and...and...
it certainly is not a given that backstick is the preferred option.

You will note that internationally well-known Experimental Test-pilot John Farley came out in support of the backstick braking technique but was rudely rebuffed, essentially in mid-post, by one of those who cannot accept the practical facts..... and who instead waxed on with ever-confusing hypotheticals. Backstick braking is a proven effective stopping technique. Unfortunately it's not yet been automated and, because it is a dynamic process, it is easily misunderstood. Those who normally oppose change have been well represented on this thread and have used quite illogical reasoning in an attempt to deny its effectiveness and conjure up fanciful possible dangers.
I for one prefer a soundly based theory to hero-worship - with all due regard to JF, he cannot possibly know the characteristics of every type and I will repeat once again for those who missed it:
THE SPECIFIC ADVICE TO CREWS FOR MY COMPANY'S MAIN PASSENGER AIRCRAFT IS PROGRESSIVE FORWARD STICK DURING BRAKING. This is based upon flight test experience of the aircraft, not upon a theory. I would hate one of our crews to decide to go against the advice of Test Pilots who flew our certification testing and try out some technique of their own.

And it doesn't matter how 'automated' the process is: ANY transference of load from nose to main MUST raise the nose. The less load you transfer, the less the nose will raise and the less use also will be the backstick method....
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 02:36
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Pitch UP effect of Runway Reverse???

LEM says:
And another point where we disagree is that reverse thrust does not produce a pitch down effect.
Actually, the pivot being the main wheels, reverse thrust produces a pitch up effect, even on low mounted engines like a B737, unlike in flight where it would produce a pitchdown effect.
.
Beg to differ here (and I did notice that MFS decided to gloss over this basic point).
But there is so much fundamental confusion about cause and effect in this thread that it wouldn't be worthwhile embarking upon any indepth explanation.
.
MFS said:
ANY increase in the load on an oleo will cause it to further compress, unless it is ALREADY fully compressed. For very good reasons relating to the risk of internal damage and loss of shock-absorbing capacity, designers will include sufficient margin that under any kind of foreseeable operation the oleos - all of them - are NOT fully compressed.
.
There's a significant difference between a compression able to be induced by flight control loads and the additional shock absorption capabilities of an oleo.
.
MFS says:
THE SPECIFIC ADVICE TO CREWS FOR MY COMPANY'S MAIN PASSENGER AIRCRAFT IS PROGRESSIVE FORWARD STICK DURING BRAKING. This is based upon flight test experience of the aircraft, not upon a theory. I would hate one of our crews to decide to go against the advice of Test Pilots who flew our certification testing and try out some technique of their own.
.
It has been conceded in ths thread that there is a difference between your tail-mounted engines types (now a dying configurational breed) and others. BAe146/RJ85/RJ100 pilots have said that they use backstick braking because it works and therefore it's an endorsed handling technique. At some time in the future we will probably see the practise automated (in Airbus A340, A380, A330, and 737, 767, 787 etc). However by that time there will be but a few aft-mount beasties around (Embraers and Bombardiers). They will be trapped in the technology of their era.
.
MFS said:
ANY transference of load from nose to main MUST raise the nose. The less load you transfer, the less the nose will raise and the less use also will be the backstick method....
.
Another confusing injection. The up elevator's aerodynamics is exerting a download on the maingear, not off-loading the nose-gear by any "transference". It's a relative change (nose to mains loadings) only. As speed dissipates, that up elevator ability will be progressively diminished - however it is at the higher speed that we would like (and benefit from) maximized maingear wheel traction, so that's the beauty of "backstick braking".
.
UNCTUOUS is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 02:51
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,113
There is, and MUST be, transference of load from nose to mains.

Consider the simple levers that keep getting quoted herein. Three points of action/reaction. The nosegear, the main gear, and the tail. Mains are equidistant from nose and tail, to keep it simple.

Suppose the aircraft to have, under whatever braking, reverse thrust, whatever condition, to have zero tail load, and 10 tonnes of load on the nose gear, and 90 tonnes on the main gear (total). In equilibrium, in pitch.

Apply X tonnes of down force at the tail. Taking moments about the nose first: downforce must increase at main gear by 2X tonnes (since nose-to-tail is twice nose-to-mains).

Therefore, since we only added X tonnes of down force to the system, but appear to be pushing down more on the ground by 2X at the mains, we must be removing X from the nose also. Calculating the moments about either main gear or tail shows this, as does consideration of the vertical force balance.

Therefore in addition to adding our X tonnes of aerodynamic downforce from the tail to the mains, we are also effectively TRANSFERRING X from nose to mains.

If the ratio of nose-to-main and main-to-tail is not unity, the exact numbers change, but the principle doesn't; the only way a lever can act to INCREASE the download at the main gear relative to the applied tail load is to decrease a force somewhere else.

Now, for any given type you can calculate the ratio between added mainwheel download and nosewheel unload, and make a specific calculation for a specific tail load.

You can then calculate the amount by which the aircraft WILL pitch as a result, as the main and nose oleos re-adjust to account for the change in load.

You can then calculate what change in wing lift will account for the resulting change in AoA and compare that to the direct load increase.

If the transferred tail load effect outweighs the wing lift effect, you have NET increased mainwheel download. If it doesn't, you've actually unloaded the mains.

Whether a given aircraft is particularly nose up or down in tendency doesn't matter to that; all that matters is whether the oleos are fully compressed. Except in exceptional circumstances, they are not. Therefore increased download at the tail must pitch the aircraft.

The factors which will determine the effectiveness or otherwise of this method are the relative nose-main-tail geometry, the stiffnesses of the oleos and the sensitivity of the aerodynamic lift to pitch changes. It's not a one-way bet, and depends on how those interact. As the oleos approach infinite stiffness, the backstick method becomes more viable; as the wing effectiveness improves, the backstick method becomes less useful.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 07:23
  #73 (permalink)  
LEM
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 828
Hi UNCTUOUS.
You are right about reverse pitch moment.
Geometrically the pivot are the main wheels, but being a dinamic scenario, the cg of the whole thing still remains above low mounted engines.
Point taken.

Now, back to main topic: is it true or not that spoilers kill only a fraction of the residual lift?
Is it true or not that we can change our pitch by yoke input during rollout?

Mad (Flt) Scientist,
It would be great if you have the (approximate) figures: what percentage of total lift do the spoilers kill after touchdown?
How much residual lift is killed by a pitch reduction of, say, two degrees?
Is the net result outweighing the lift created by down elevator?
LEM is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 09:13
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
MFS - I'll Try and Simplify it for you

MFS said (unQUOTEd) <<Far too much in his confusing post above to bear repeating so...>>(/UNderQUOTEd)
Imagine you are at the speedway. Note the racing cars with the huge slanting spoilers on top. They weigh 1300kgs each. The secret of their success is that, courtesy of the spoilers, their effective weight (nil weight transference) is increased by their air-speed (i.e. the square of their IAS). That gives them more traction for cornering, braking and holding onto the racetrack. If you were to mount them on a weigh-trolley at speed you would note that their weight effectively increases by 100's of kgs as their airspeed increases. Their mass and its distribution remains essentially the same.
.
As they now go around a 180 degree turn and enjoy a 15kt tailwind (instead of a 15kt headwind) but remain at the same groundspeed, their effective weight will be changed (i.e. significantly reduced) by the difference in the squares of the two airspeeds and the coefficient of negative lift that comes courtesy of the spoilers.
.
Backstick braking works on the same principle. There is no weight-shift between the nose-gear and main-gear. The benefit comes from the up-elevator (the equivalent of the racing car's spoiler). It is what pushes the maingear into the ground, increasing traction and enhancing braking at speed.
.
I hope that you will be able to see that to be a fact......
But I have absolutely nil faith that you will......
UNCTUOUS is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 10:06
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Spoiler Effectiveness and Yoke Authority in Pitch

LEM queried:
(1) is it true or not that spoilers kill only a fraction of the residual lift?
(2) Is it true or not that we can change our pitch by yoke input during rollout?
answers:
1. A sufficiently large enough fraction that, on an uncontaminated runway, braking coefficients are more than adequate. However it is the very wet and contaminated runways that we are addressing in this thread.
.
2. We can (and would) by backstick braking aft yoke input - if it wasn't for the nose-down pitch effect of spoilers, reverse and natural C of G distribution plus autobrake. Those four pitchdown elements permit a proportional (and increasing) aft yoke (i.e. up elevator) pilot input as the braking effect increases - which in turn increases the weight-on-wheels and the nose-down pitch due to braking.... which allows eventually up to max backstick.
.
As you may have read earlier in this thread, some airliner's SOP's do recommend it and military schools do teach it (backstick braking). It's an example of the widening conceptual gulf between civil and military as less and less of our pilots are now ex-military. Inevitably as the huge tally of overruns continues, manufacturers will be forced to look into ways and means of reducing the toll. Bigger reversers, larger capacity brakes, larger spoilers? Or maybe just automating backstick braking?
UNCTUOUS is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 11:27
  #76 (permalink)  
LEM
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 828
Absolutely right about the racing car.

However, an airplane differs from the racing car by having a huge inverted spoiler forward or the aft spoilers, which is creating lift!

If a wing is capable of creating a 50 tons lift, after spoilers are extended and pitch is zero when on the runway, it will still generate, for example, 10 tons of lift.

Now, the tailplane is designed to create a constant negative lift.
By pushing the yoke fully forward, I think you can reduce this negative lift, or even create a positive one - it doesn't matter - by, say, 3 tons (imaginary figures).

Doing so your pitch will decrease by a couple of degrees.

This may reduce the residual positive 10 tons on the wing to 5 tons.

You see from all this simple math that the net result is in favor of pushing, because the apparent weight of the airplane has increased by 2 tons (-3 on the tail, +5 on the wings).

Thus more weight on the wheels.

Of course all this is type and conditions dependant.
If conditions permit a further compression of the nose oleo, for example, it's better to push, otherwise it's better to pull.
If the imaginary math above is in favor of pulling on a certain type, so be it, pull.
And the list is long.

That's why it's almost impossible to establish an official procedure.



Ps: an instructor once criticised me for pushing too much after touchdown.
He said Boeing's official technique was to neither push or pull.
Just to leave the yoke neutral.

I can't recall such a statement in any book. Anybody has got the official reference?

LEM
LEM is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 11:36
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by UNCTUOUS
MFS - I'll Try and Simplify it for you

I hope that you will be able to see that to be a fact......
But I have absolutely nil faith that you will......
That's very 'generous' of you.

Please actually READ what I wrote, and work out the moment balance about main, nose and tail with and without download. It's not rocket science, it's not even 'flight' science.

You will find that ANY download at the tail MUST produce a LARGER downforce at the maingear and a corresponding, proportionate, DECREASE at the nose. That is weight transference.

to address the racing car analogy

You may have noticed that F1 and similar cars, which do use aerodynamic downforce, have both FORWARD and REAR spoilers, all of which are intended to produce downforce. The ideal is to achieve an aerodynamic downforce distribution, courtesy of this feature AND of the car body design, which is proportionate to the existing weight distribution, as that means that the handling is more consistent. Very few aircraft have the luxury of a 'front tail' analogous to the F1 front spoilers.

Also, those vehicles with large rear spoilers alone are often using them to counteract the large aerodynamic lift being exerted on the back of the vehicle (in a typical 'saloon car' configuration) rather than to generate 'extra' downforce; they're just trying to keep the back wheels on the ground.

It is highly amusing that the 'backstick lobby' bandies around accusations of closed-mindedness, yet refuses to even do any even mildly dissenting view the courtesy of considering its points.

Last edited by Mad (Flt) Scientist; 23rd Mar 2006 at 11:53.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 11:55
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elysion
Posts: 195
Yes LEM, you are quite correct in believing that reverse thrust does not give a pitch-down moment. Neither do spoilers for that matter. But I suspect we have moved onto the point of religion. And you know what happens then.

Anyhoo, some airlines might have this 'technique' in their books, some might not. I suspect those who do, have so because those wielding the pen are ex-warriors. Is the military the sole proprietor of the gospel? I could have sworn I've seen the camouflaged ones off the runway too.

No matter, I think the 'pro-lobby' here is not a large as appearences might suggest.
Conan The Barber is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2006, 18:23
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,207
The front and rear spoilers of F1 cars are mounted very close to the two sets of gear. I suspect that the downforce vectors are located between the axles, in which case there is no unloading of an axle. In the case that spoiler(s) are located beyond an axle:
  1. the moment arm is enormously less that that from a tailplane so that the result is very little unloading of the opposite axle -- or the car goes off the road
  2. Any unloading from one spoiler is more than counterbalanced by the action of its opposite number.
In the case of a/c we are dealing with moment arms of a hundred feet or so as opposed to much less in F1.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2006, 20:02
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CV
Posts: 54
The most important things in my humble is opinion are:

1. Is the runway safe for landing LAW, X-wind Tailwind etc etc? I do not care what the last landing pilot said. If the information about runway status is not clear then why would one want to try if not sure. This is not a game where you try but must make solid judgements and decisions.
2. Make a firm landing at the correct touch down point and speed. Do not try to impress the passengers your copilot or new flight attendant you are daydreaming about, by hunting for a smooth landing and floating.
3. Apply recommended stopping technique; auto brakes, spoilers reverse as recommended.

Lastly I have flown with pilots who apply so much brute force on the reverse levers so hard, that once the conditions are met for reverse they cannot get reverse because they are applying such a high force that the solenoid or whatever prevents reverse on (your aeroplane) they cannot get anything beyong reverse idle. Only after this white knuckle stage are they able to get reverse which is not as effective at low speed. (this may not apply to all aeroplane types but applies to all I have flown.)
Fropilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.