TriStar active ailerons: gimmick or..?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of note.
steep approach mode on the latest all singing ERJ uses..............
Spoiler panels deloyed to a 10 degree position and then modulated with column input.......
sound familiar??
steep approach mode on the latest all singing ERJ uses..............
Spoiler panels deloyed to a 10 degree position and then modulated with column input.......
sound familiar??
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the L-1011 spoilers are used in the DLC mode there nul position varies by model:
-1, -100, -200 and -250 the nul position is 7 degrees.
-500 the nul position is 9 degrees.
The DLC can not be disconnected, the only way to disable it would be to shutoff the all four inboard spoilers.
The DLC system uses both pilot inputs (stick inputs) and automatic inputs from the Flight Controls Electronic System (FCES) to control the sink rate. If the aircraft is above the glide slope and the pilot pushes the stick forward the spoilers will extend to assist in reducing the altitude. However, if the pilot does nothing, the FCES extends the spoilers to regain the proper altitude. If the aircraft is below the glide slope the same scenario applies except the spoilers retract allowing more lift and the aircraft again regains the proper altitude.
-1, -100, -200 and -250 the nul position is 7 degrees.
-500 the nul position is 9 degrees.
The DLC can not be disconnected, the only way to disable it would be to shutoff the all four inboard spoilers.
The DLC system uses both pilot inputs (stick inputs) and automatic inputs from the Flight Controls Electronic System (FCES) to control the sink rate. If the aircraft is above the glide slope and the pilot pushes the stick forward the spoilers will extend to assist in reducing the altitude. However, if the pilot does nothing, the FCES extends the spoilers to regain the proper altitude. If the aircraft is below the glide slope the same scenario applies except the spoilers retract allowing more lift and the aircraft again regains the proper altitude.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Greybeard, I thought McDonnells took over Douglas in the mid-60s (1967?) because old Donald D was selling Nines at sweetheart rates and his son was undercutting even the sticker price... Didn't the Ten's AFCS problems come way later, in the 70s..?"
-----
I'm only reporting what I was told by Douglas reps in the late 1970s. I believe the DC-10 development was well under way in 1967, and certified in 1970. I'm sure there was more than one cause of the bankruptcy.
Speaking of price cutting, Pacific Southwest Airlines and other early buyers of the MD-80 at $24-26 Million each were mighty angry when AA came in and bought them for $18 Million per. AA had the advantage of a big order at a time when sales were lagging.
When there is a surplus of product, the price falls to the level of the dumbest competitor...
GB
-----
I'm only reporting what I was told by Douglas reps in the late 1970s. I believe the DC-10 development was well under way in 1967, and certified in 1970. I'm sure there was more than one cause of the bankruptcy.
Speaking of price cutting, Pacific Southwest Airlines and other early buyers of the MD-80 at $24-26 Million each were mighty angry when AA came in and bought them for $18 Million per. AA had the advantage of a big order at a time when sales were lagging.
When there is a surplus of product, the price falls to the level of the dumbest competitor...
GB
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The McDonnell Douglas Corporation began on 28th April 1967.
The British Airways DC-10 Series 30s, inherited from BCAL of course, were CAT111A certified with auto go-around.
The training captain who did my base training on the DC-10 had considerable experience on the TriStar too, from its early days with BEA. He had the greatest respect for both types. One thing he did say on the handling was with regard to tail-scrapes. Quite easily done on the TriStar, apparently, much more difficult on the DC-10.
The British Airways DC-10 Series 30s, inherited from BCAL of course, were CAT111A certified with auto go-around.
The training captain who did my base training on the DC-10 had considerable experience on the TriStar too, from its early days with BEA. He had the greatest respect for both types. One thing he did say on the handling was with regard to tail-scrapes. Quite easily done on the TriStar, apparently, much more difficult on the DC-10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet_A_, you mean TriStar, I assume. Its gust load alleviation's what this thread's all about... 
Not a turbulence damper "pax for the use of", more a way of adding span (to cut induced drag) without adding structural beef-up. Seems to have worked despite my (admittedly layman's) misgivings...
Not a turbulence damper "pax for the use of", more a way of adding span (to cut induced drag) without adding structural beef-up. Seems to have worked despite my (admittedly layman's) misgivings...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat IIIa in the DC-10 is a long way short of Cat IIIc in the Tri-Star. Even the MD-80, and maybe some 727 were Cat IIIa, but fail passive, instead of fail active.
The L-1011 always drew notice, due to its high deck angle on final approach. I can see where a tail scrape might be more likely. How did its approach speeds compare to the DC-10?
GB
The L-1011 always drew notice, due to its high deck angle on final approach. I can see where a tail scrape might be more likely. How did its approach speeds compare to the DC-10?
GB
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard deck angle on approach for the TriStar is 7.5 degrees, at all weights.
During the flare, the deck angle should not normally exceed 10 degrees.
If it gets to 13.5, the tail skid will scrape.
The -500 does not have a tail skid, as its shorter aft fuselage would seemingly eliminate the need.
Having said this, I do know of one -500 that had a tail scrape upon takeoff (would you believe) at BOM some years ago.
When the aeroplane landed at AMS, the damage (#2 thrust reverser and drain masts) was noticed, and the Captain, who was recently hired, disappeared, never to be seen again, at least at the respective airline.
And, good riddance, as he was a well known troublemaker at another carrier.
During the flare, the deck angle should not normally exceed 10 degrees.
If it gets to 13.5, the tail skid will scrape.
The -500 does not have a tail skid, as its shorter aft fuselage would seemingly eliminate the need.
Having said this, I do know of one -500 that had a tail scrape upon takeoff (would you believe) at BOM some years ago.
When the aeroplane landed at AMS, the damage (#2 thrust reverser and drain masts) was noticed, and the Captain, who was recently hired, disappeared, never to be seen again, at least at the respective airline.
And, good riddance, as he was a well known troublemaker at another carrier.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked a TWA TriStar tail strike at JFK, where the leading edge slat asymmetery brake experienced an overspeed trip and the crew continued to to carry out a full flap no slat landing. The first part of the aircraft to contact the runway was the translating cowl of the No. 2 engine. The deck angle in that case was in excess of 15 degrees. My experience of this, and several other tail strikes, is that the retractable tail skid (bumper) actually causes addtional damage rather than protecting the aft body.
Hi Hoppy,
Nice to hear you again......Still working hard then in Basle.
GLH....The short body -500 did not have a tail skid and trust me they did get damage when you hit the tail!!!!!!! I know I was there!!!!!!On the last one before the Airforce one just recently.
Nice to hear you again......Still working hard then in Basle.
GLH....The short body -500 did not have a tail skid and trust me they did get damage when you hit the tail!!!!!!! I know I was there!!!!!!On the last one before the Airforce one just recently.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer,
I didn't say the -500 had a tail skid, I said that when the tail skid took a good hit there was usually damage to skid mounting structure. I was on the L-1011 program at Lockheed for over 30 years the last 20 in customer support, including a couple of years with the RAF as their in house technical rep. So I think I know which models have tail skids and which ones don't.
I didn't say the -500 had a tail skid, I said that when the tail skid took a good hit there was usually damage to skid mounting structure. I was on the L-1011 program at Lockheed for over 30 years the last 20 in customer support, including a couple of years with the RAF as their in house technical rep. So I think I know which models have tail skids and which ones don't.
