Critical engine (jet)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: -
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Critical engine (jet)
I would appreciate if someone could help explain what is the critical engine on a jet in relation to direction of crosswind and whether it is better to lose the upwind or downwind engine?
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a jet there is no "critical engine" in the normal sense. This is a term used for twin prop aircraft where both props rotate in the same direction. All about the "downgoing blade effect"
I would suggest that in a situation where you have a significant crosswind, it would be better to lose the downwind engine, as the aircraft will have a tendency to turn towards the wind (weathercock) which you would need to counteract with rudder (I'm talking on a final approach of course, in level flight I don't think it makes any difference.) So losing the upwind engine will mean that you have less available rudder deflection to counteract the yawing effect of the good engine, as some of it is used up in counteracting the tendency to weather cock.
Of course I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.
I would suggest that in a situation where you have a significant crosswind, it would be better to lose the downwind engine, as the aircraft will have a tendency to turn towards the wind (weathercock) which you would need to counteract with rudder (I'm talking on a final approach of course, in level flight I don't think it makes any difference.) So losing the upwind engine will mean that you have less available rudder deflection to counteract the yawing effect of the good engine, as some of it is used up in counteracting the tendency to weather cock.
Of course I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: -
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that answer, that is the way which i saw it but have heard other opinions suggesting the extra airflow on the keel surface of the fin and aircraft fuselage adds a restoring force, and therefore the opposite is true.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you might want to have a look at thse answers for a balanced view!!
http://www.atpforum.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6132.html
http://www.atpforum.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6132.html
Quote from matt_hooks:
...it would be better to lose the downwind engine, as the aircraft will have a tendency to turn towards the wind (weathercock) which you would need to counteract with rudder (I'm talking on a final approach of course, in level flight I don't think it makes any difference.)
[Unquote]
You are right that it's better to lose the downwind engine, but - generally speaking - there is no weathercocking when airborne. It is true, however, that it would help on final approach when using the side-slip crosswind-landing technique. Using the normal technique, it assists when decrabbing (kicking the drift off), immediately prior to touchdown.
In the engine failure on T/O (EFTO) case, it would help on the ground, particularly if the T/O was being continued, and during rotation. Once airborne, after allowing the aircraft to weathercock slightly to compensate for drift, it would make no difference.
...it would be better to lose the downwind engine, as the aircraft will have a tendency to turn towards the wind (weathercock) which you would need to counteract with rudder (I'm talking on a final approach of course, in level flight I don't think it makes any difference.)
[Unquote]
You are right that it's better to lose the downwind engine, but - generally speaking - there is no weathercocking when airborne. It is true, however, that it would help on final approach when using the side-slip crosswind-landing technique. Using the normal technique, it assists when decrabbing (kicking the drift off), immediately prior to touchdown.
In the engine failure on T/O (EFTO) case, it would help on the ground, particularly if the T/O was being continued, and during rotation. Once airborne, after allowing the aircraft to weathercock slightly to compensate for drift, it would make no difference.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed Chris, I forgot to mention the ground case, but that's where it could cause the greatest problem. As for weathercocking in the air it does happen, hence why your heading and track are often two quite different numbers. However I agree that in the air it's not so important. However I still believe it has a role to play, especially with a very strong crosswind component where you require to hold a given track.
Air Navigation - Day 1
Sorry to bang on about this, matt, but think you may be confusing two completely different things:
WEATHERCOCKING
The tendency of an aircraft with conventional vertical tail surfaces to swing its nose into a stiff wind when it is resting on the ground (i.e., NOT airborne).
DRIFT IN FLIGHT
[Assuming no side-slip, i.e., with the aircraft flying straight IN RELATION TO THE AIR MASS.]
As you say, the difference between the HEADING (the bearing in which the aircraft is pointing) and the TRACK (the bearing of the track made good over the ground).
This results from the movement of the AIR MASS (at the altitude of the aircraft) in relation to the ground. The air mass is, after all, what is supporting the aircraft.
If the true airspeed (TAS) of the aircraft is 120kts, and there is a 90-degree crosswind of 40kts, the drift will be approximately 20 degrees.
The relationship between HDG/TAS, W/V, and TRK/GS can be mathematically represented by a triangle of velocities, which is what we old farts used to do on a Dalton Computer.
WEATHERCOCKING
The tendency of an aircraft with conventional vertical tail surfaces to swing its nose into a stiff wind when it is resting on the ground (i.e., NOT airborne).
DRIFT IN FLIGHT
[Assuming no side-slip, i.e., with the aircraft flying straight IN RELATION TO THE AIR MASS.]
As you say, the difference between the HEADING (the bearing in which the aircraft is pointing) and the TRACK (the bearing of the track made good over the ground).
This results from the movement of the AIR MASS (at the altitude of the aircraft) in relation to the ground. The air mass is, after all, what is supporting the aircraft.
If the true airspeed (TAS) of the aircraft is 120kts, and there is a 90-degree crosswind of 40kts, the drift will be approximately 20 degrees.
The relationship between HDG/TAS, W/V, and TRK/GS can be mathematically represented by a triangle of velocities, which is what we old farts used to do on a Dalton Computer.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 19th Feb 2008 at 17:35. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Failure of the critical engine between V1 and Vr will exacerbate the tendency of the aeroplane to swing nose into wind. Failure of a downwind (leeward) side engine will be partially cancelled out by the weathercocking caused by the crosswind - so losing a downwind engine is best (but not as good as losing none!).
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_hooks
On a jet there is no "critical engine" in the normal sense. This is a term used for twin prop aircraft where both props rotate in the same direction. All about the "downgoing blade effect"
There IS a critical engine - it will be the outboard engine onto the into wind (windward) side.
Failure of the critical engine between V1 and Vr will exacerbate the tendency of the aeroplane to swing nose into wind. Failure of a downwind (leeward) side engine will be partially cancelled out by the weathercocking caused by the crosswind - so losing a downwind engine is best (but not as good as losing none!).
Originally Posted by matt_hooks
On a jet there is no "critical engine" in the normal sense. This is a term used for twin prop aircraft where both props rotate in the same direction. All about the "downgoing blade effect"
There IS a critical engine - it will be the outboard engine onto the into wind (windward) side.
Failure of the critical engine between V1 and Vr will exacerbate the tendency of the aeroplane to swing nose into wind. Failure of a downwind (leeward) side engine will be partially cancelled out by the weathercocking caused by the crosswind - so losing a downwind engine is best (but not as good as losing none!).
In reality what you say is correct but it is not "the critical engine" as far as the certification goes.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, I'm not disagreeing with you. On the ground it's called weathercocking (the tendency of the nose of the aircraft to swing into wind due to the aerodynamic pressure on the vertical tail surface) and in the air it manifests as drift, where the nose of the aircraft is pointing in a different direction to the direction of travel.
And the modern equivalent is the CRP5!
And moggie, as FE states, in the certification there is no "critical engine". There definitely IS an engine that will cause a worse situation, but to call it a critical engine might tend to mislead!
And the modern equivalent is the CRP5!
And moggie, as FE states, in the certification there is no "critical engine". There definitely IS an engine that will cause a worse situation, but to call it a critical engine might tend to mislead!
matt's progress...
Quotes from matt:
1) As for weathercocking in the air it does happen, hence why your heading and track are often two quite different numbers. However I agree that in the air it's not so important.
2) Chris, I'm not disagreeing with you. On the ground it's called weathercocking.... and in the air it manifests as drift.
[Unquote]
Not good enough, Hoskins... Until you have grasped the elementary - but essential - difference between the concepts of weathercocking and drift, and admitted (at least to yourself) that you were confused, I cannot allow you to proceed to Day 2 of your basic Air Navigation course !
In the meantime, kindly read my note again.
[Thinks - Is he like this with all his instructors?]
1) As for weathercocking in the air it does happen, hence why your heading and track are often two quite different numbers. However I agree that in the air it's not so important.
2) Chris, I'm not disagreeing with you. On the ground it's called weathercocking.... and in the air it manifests as drift.
[Unquote]
Not good enough, Hoskins... Until you have grasped the elementary - but essential - difference between the concepts of weathercocking and drift, and admitted (at least to yourself) that you were confused, I cannot allow you to proceed to Day 2 of your basic Air Navigation course !
In the meantime, kindly read my note again.
[Thinks - Is he like this with all his instructors?]
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott - you are absolutely correct. Weather-cocking takes place on the GROUND, and drift is simply the angular difference between heading and track. It takes place in the AIR!
On the question of "critical engine" related to a jet, there is no comparison with that of a propeller driven twin. There is however an engine that we would prefer not to fail in some situations, most notably being when taking off in crosswind conditions in a LIGHTLY loaded aircraft.
In such cases (jets) the calculated V1 for a given WAT may actually compute to a speed below the "real" VMCG. The stated Flight Manual VCMG is determined without any consideration given to the effect of crosswind, so the loss of the upwind engine after V1 may, in the case of a lightly loaded aircraft departing in a crosswind, result in a loss of directional control.
The solution? If the TODA permits, increase the V1 by picking a different weight from the tables, but by no more than VR of the actual weight. V2, also should be based on the actual weight.
On the question of "critical engine" related to a jet, there is no comparison with that of a propeller driven twin. There is however an engine that we would prefer not to fail in some situations, most notably being when taking off in crosswind conditions in a LIGHTLY loaded aircraft.
In such cases (jets) the calculated V1 for a given WAT may actually compute to a speed below the "real" VMCG. The stated Flight Manual VCMG is determined without any consideration given to the effect of crosswind, so the loss of the upwind engine after V1 may, in the case of a lightly loaded aircraft departing in a crosswind, result in a loss of directional control.
The solution? If the TODA permits, increase the V1 by picking a different weight from the tables, but by no more than VR of the actual weight. V2, also should be based on the actual weight.
Moderator
Worth a search of the archives as Mutt and I periodically do this one to death. Useful to recall that the effect of crosswind on real Vmcg varies from 0.5 kt/kt through to something in excess of 1.0 kt/kt .. and, if your crosswind limit is a lot of knots, and you are light and at aft CG and on a min speed schedule ... life could get very interesting if one goes quiet.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it this way: when you are drifting in air, the airplane is out of contact with ground and therefore, for the constraints of movement, it is irrelevant what the underlying ground is doing.
When the airplane touches ground, anywhere, the support points affect the aircraft movement, both vertically and (unless completely freely sliding) horizontally.
I should assume that the effects of weathercocking would be rather different depending on which wheels contact ground (e. g. front wheels on ground, tailwheel off ground, vs. main wheels supported, nosewheel off ground...). Drift and sideslip should work in a more similar manner.
When the airplane touches ground, anywhere, the support points affect the aircraft movement, both vertically and (unless completely freely sliding) horizontally.
I should assume that the effects of weathercocking would be rather different depending on which wheels contact ground (e. g. front wheels on ground, tailwheel off ground, vs. main wheels supported, nosewheel off ground...). Drift and sideslip should work in a more similar manner.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Critical engine etc...
Fact - There is no critical engine in a jet aircraft -
xxx
Many of you have established that fact here above. And obviously, the outboard engines in a 4-engine aircraft are the two "critical engines" as compared to the inboard engines. It does not matter if nš 1 or nš 4 fails, the resulting VmcG will be equal. No need to say, same applies to 2-engine aircraft, the resulting VmcG are equal with the L or R engine failed.
xxx
This is for FAA (FAR 25) certification.
However, the British CAA accounts for crosswind effect on VMCG. In the case of 747-200/300s as an example, in the minimum V1 speeds (restricted by VmcG), speeds in the FOM/QRH are different in airplanes certificated as per FAA and CAA. Those of you who operate such 747s, if you have the original Boeing FOM manuals, if they are marked at the bottom of pages by "FAA", or "CAA", next to the page revision date, it will indicate to you which certification was used (among other info) for the speed tables, and the speed tables are different. VmcG/V1 speeds are higher for CAA certification.
xxx
In the simulator, when I train pilots, I can demonstrate VmcG/V1 engine failures that are controlable at speeds as low as about 115 KIAS, or uncontrolable at speeds as high as 135 KIAS, this based on which engine power, CG position and crosswind factors...
xxx
Now again - nose wheel steering...
How do I say it again, in English, Spanish or Guarani - it is WORTHLESS -
If you think that your nose wheel steering will assist you, you are having a dream.
Read the following...
xxx
Background -
In July 2001, LV-MLP (a 747-287B) sustained damage by veering off the runway during takeoff at Buenos Aires EZE airport. The weather was partially obscured by light drizzle and fog, wind calm. The captain stated that the takeoff roll began normally with only minor corrections, with the tiller, to maintain runway centerline. Prior to receiving the "80-knots" call, the captain felt the airplane moving to the right. He applied left rudder and left nosewheel steering without any effect on the path of the airplane. Prior to departing the runway, and with right drift increasing, the captain stated that he applied full left rudder and nosewheel steering. The right wing gear damaged a few runway lights, and departed the runway concrete area. The captain then retarded the power on nš 1 engine to turn the nose of the aircraft towards the centerline, then, retarded all thrust levers to idle and the T/O autobrakes stopped the aircraft.
xxx
The probable cause of the incident was the captain's failure to reject the takeoff in a timely manner when excessive nosewheel inputs resulted in a loss of directional control of the aircraft.
xxx
We have concluded that the procedure to "guard the tiller" during the takeoff roll to 80 knots increased the likelihood for overcontrol of the nosewheel, and that we should eliminate the procedure. From then on, our procedure changed to instruct the captain not to guard the tiller, and place his hand on the wheel, after alignment for takeoff on the runway. I was instructed by the chief pilot to effect the new procedure to all types (747, 737, MD-80 and A-310s), effective immediately. There were no further problems since the procedure changed.
xxx
Further, "elevator down" to "increase nosewheel effectiveness" is worthless. It is obviously worthless at low speeds, worse, it does increase aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. Directional control should rely only on aerodynamic forces, once the aircraft starts rolling for takeoff. Elevators are kept in a "neutral/faired" position.
xxx
Boeing sent us a bulletin confirming our change of procedures without objections.
Be aware that with PanAm, the "rudder pedal-nosewheel steering" linkage in the 747 was disconnected and removed even from 747 airplanes we acquired from other airlines which were so equipped. And pilots did not "guard the tiller" during takeoff roll to "80 knots".
xxx
Happy contrails
P.S. For those of you who play with "engine out ferries" qualification, like I have to do occasionally, with the 747-200s, the "VmcG-2 is 160 - VmcA-2 is 155 KIAS" with Flaps 10 and JT9D-7Q power, at 3 engine-ferry weights.
xxx
Many of you have established that fact here above. And obviously, the outboard engines in a 4-engine aircraft are the two "critical engines" as compared to the inboard engines. It does not matter if nš 1 or nš 4 fails, the resulting VmcG will be equal. No need to say, same applies to 2-engine aircraft, the resulting VmcG are equal with the L or R engine failed.
xxx
This is for FAA (FAR 25) certification.
However, the British CAA accounts for crosswind effect on VMCG. In the case of 747-200/300s as an example, in the minimum V1 speeds (restricted by VmcG), speeds in the FOM/QRH are different in airplanes certificated as per FAA and CAA. Those of you who operate such 747s, if you have the original Boeing FOM manuals, if they are marked at the bottom of pages by "FAA", or "CAA", next to the page revision date, it will indicate to you which certification was used (among other info) for the speed tables, and the speed tables are different. VmcG/V1 speeds are higher for CAA certification.
xxx
In the simulator, when I train pilots, I can demonstrate VmcG/V1 engine failures that are controlable at speeds as low as about 115 KIAS, or uncontrolable at speeds as high as 135 KIAS, this based on which engine power, CG position and crosswind factors...
xxx
Now again - nose wheel steering...
How do I say it again, in English, Spanish or Guarani - it is WORTHLESS -
If you think that your nose wheel steering will assist you, you are having a dream.
Read the following...
xxx
Background -
In July 2001, LV-MLP (a 747-287B) sustained damage by veering off the runway during takeoff at Buenos Aires EZE airport. The weather was partially obscured by light drizzle and fog, wind calm. The captain stated that the takeoff roll began normally with only minor corrections, with the tiller, to maintain runway centerline. Prior to receiving the "80-knots" call, the captain felt the airplane moving to the right. He applied left rudder and left nosewheel steering without any effect on the path of the airplane. Prior to departing the runway, and with right drift increasing, the captain stated that he applied full left rudder and nosewheel steering. The right wing gear damaged a few runway lights, and departed the runway concrete area. The captain then retarded the power on nš 1 engine to turn the nose of the aircraft towards the centerline, then, retarded all thrust levers to idle and the T/O autobrakes stopped the aircraft.
xxx
The probable cause of the incident was the captain's failure to reject the takeoff in a timely manner when excessive nosewheel inputs resulted in a loss of directional control of the aircraft.
xxx
We have concluded that the procedure to "guard the tiller" during the takeoff roll to 80 knots increased the likelihood for overcontrol of the nosewheel, and that we should eliminate the procedure. From then on, our procedure changed to instruct the captain not to guard the tiller, and place his hand on the wheel, after alignment for takeoff on the runway. I was instructed by the chief pilot to effect the new procedure to all types (747, 737, MD-80 and A-310s), effective immediately. There were no further problems since the procedure changed.
xxx
Further, "elevator down" to "increase nosewheel effectiveness" is worthless. It is obviously worthless at low speeds, worse, it does increase aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. Directional control should rely only on aerodynamic forces, once the aircraft starts rolling for takeoff. Elevators are kept in a "neutral/faired" position.
xxx
Boeing sent us a bulletin confirming our change of procedures without objections.
Be aware that with PanAm, the "rudder pedal-nosewheel steering" linkage in the 747 was disconnected and removed even from 747 airplanes we acquired from other airlines which were so equipped. And pilots did not "guard the tiller" during takeoff roll to "80 knots".
xxx
Happy contrails
P.S. For those of you who play with "engine out ferries" qualification, like I have to do occasionally, with the 747-200s, the "VmcG-2 is 160 - VmcA-2 is 155 KIAS" with Flaps 10 and JT9D-7Q power, at 3 engine-ferry weights.
As has been previously stated there is no critical engine on a jet a/c.
However if you are flying a crosswind take off and the downwind engine fails (let keep ourselves to twin jets but the same principle applies) during the ground roll and the take off is continued the effect of the engine failure will tend to counteract the requirement for into wind rudder due to the crosswind. However as the aircraft becomes airborne the rudder will have to be re-applied to keep going straight (in the air that is - never mind the ground track at the moment although this is also important).
I remember well a B707-436 which was written off during training at Prestwick in the mid 1970s. They were departing on RW 13 and the average wind was circa 220/15 (although the speed and direction were quite variable). After V1 the training captain closed the thrust lever on the No1 engine to simulate an engine failure. The trainee was slow to apply corrective rudder and as the a/c became airborne it started to yaw rapidly at which point the training captain took over control and (if my memory serves me correctly) restored the thrust on No 1 and retarded thrust on No 4. The main gear then contacted the runway again (lots of drag as much aileron in use) and folded sideways at which point a decision was made to abandon the take off. The a/c came to a halt a few yards from the fire station at PIK - all the crew got out but the a/c was destroyed (by fire I think).
One of the interesting factors in this accident which was pointed out in the investigation was that the VMCA wings level was 40 kt HIGHER than with a few degrees of bank towards the live engine. If the a/c had been banked a trifle towards the live engine they would have regained directional control and they might have got away with it!
Another factor was that the B707-436 was not fitted with a series yaw damper so all take offs and landing were made with the yaw damper disengaged which made the a/c somewhat of a challenge from a control point of view with engine out and/or crosswind.
However if you are flying a crosswind take off and the downwind engine fails (let keep ourselves to twin jets but the same principle applies) during the ground roll and the take off is continued the effect of the engine failure will tend to counteract the requirement for into wind rudder due to the crosswind. However as the aircraft becomes airborne the rudder will have to be re-applied to keep going straight (in the air that is - never mind the ground track at the moment although this is also important).
I remember well a B707-436 which was written off during training at Prestwick in the mid 1970s. They were departing on RW 13 and the average wind was circa 220/15 (although the speed and direction were quite variable). After V1 the training captain closed the thrust lever on the No1 engine to simulate an engine failure. The trainee was slow to apply corrective rudder and as the a/c became airborne it started to yaw rapidly at which point the training captain took over control and (if my memory serves me correctly) restored the thrust on No 1 and retarded thrust on No 4. The main gear then contacted the runway again (lots of drag as much aileron in use) and folded sideways at which point a decision was made to abandon the take off. The a/c came to a halt a few yards from the fire station at PIK - all the crew got out but the a/c was destroyed (by fire I think).
One of the interesting factors in this accident which was pointed out in the investigation was that the VMCA wings level was 40 kt HIGHER than with a few degrees of bank towards the live engine. If the a/c had been banked a trifle towards the live engine they would have regained directional control and they might have got away with it!
Another factor was that the B707-436 was not fitted with a series yaw damper so all take offs and landing were made with the yaw damper disengaged which made the a/c somewhat of a challenge from a control point of view with engine out and/or crosswind.
Moderator
the VMCA wings level was 40 kt HIGHER
important consideration and applies across the board ... if the bank is applied the wrong way (sillier things have happened in high workload situations), the delta goes up out of sight ... food for thought for those who like to play with Vmca demonstrations etc in flight rather than the sim ...
However, the British CAA accounts for crosswind effect on VMCG
more a point of style than reality .. 7kt versus nil wind.
important consideration and applies across the board ... if the bank is applied the wrong way (sillier things have happened in high workload situations), the delta goes up out of sight ... food for thought for those who like to play with Vmca demonstrations etc in flight rather than the sim ...
However, the British CAA accounts for crosswind effect on VMCG
more a point of style than reality .. 7kt versus nil wind.
(1) Weathercocking and Vmcg. (2) Sideslip.
Quotes from chornedsnorkack:
(1) I should assume that the effects of weathercocking would be rather different depending on which wheels contact ground (e. g. front wheels on ground, tailwheel off ground, vs. main wheels supported, nosewheel off ground...).
(2) Drift and sideslip should work in a more similar manner.
[Unquote]
(1) Yes. This is a bit off-topic,
, but may help to build the picture of crosswind effects on VMCG (see sooty615, john_tullamarine, BelArgUSA and fireflybob posts).
Tricycle L/G: If noseheel firmly on ground and steering is HELD central (using the pilot's tiller), weathercocking can be stopped, but this can only be used at taxiing speeds. [If the pilot takes his/her hand off the tiller, or relaxes feet on the rudder pedals, the nosewheel will be free to castor - and the aeroplane is free to weathercock.] Rudder-fine-steering, if you have it, helps at speeds up to 60 - 80 kts. Above that speed the directional control of the nosewheel(s) cannot be relied upon, and trying to use tiller-steering can be lethal. So on take-off the prime directional control is by aerodynamic rudder, mainly opposite to the crosswind. On landing you also have the option of differential brakes, which can likewise be used in taxiing.
Tailwheel L/G: Tail-draggers are much more susceptible to weathercocking, because the wings are in a flying attitude which catches the wind at low speed. Also, for a given size of aeroplane, the tail surfaces are further behind the pivot point (the main-wheels) than on a trike, giving a bigger moment. Few tailwheels are steerable. On taxiing you steer and control weathercocking with differential brakes, aerodynamic rudder, or differential power (difficult). Once the tail starts swinging, quick action is needed to avoid embarassment! However, additionally for take-off and landing, the tailwheel can often be LOCKED fore-and-aft. On take-off, weathercocking can also be anticipated by differential engine power (difficult), and on landing is invariably combatted with differential brakes.
On a crosswind take-off on the DC-3, for example, the pilot pulls the "stick" (control column) fully back initially, the propellers' slipstream forcing the locked tailwheel firmly on the ground to keep the aeroplane straight. Once the rudder becomes effective (about 40 kts IAS), the tail can be lifted quickly. Once the nose is level, the weathercocking tendency reduces, and is controlled with opposite rudder, backed up by into-wind aileron.
[For crosswind landing on the DC-3, the standard technique is to "wheel it on" well above stalling speed with the tail quite high. You then have to use more and more forward stick as you slow down. The trick is to pick the right moment to allow the tail to descend rapidly on to the ground, after which you pull the stick back to hold it down firmly. The locked tailwheel then provides directional stability, which the pilot backs up with liberal amounts of brake on the downwind side...]
(2) Not sure what you mean. Sideslip must not be confused with drift.
Let me explain SIDESLIP (already done drift to death)
. It is when the aircraft is travelling slightly sideways through the air (forget the ground).
For example, if you slowly put 10 degrees of right bank on, you will normally turn to the right. But IF you simultaneously feed in opposite rudder, you can stop the aeroplane turning. [I believe it works for a helicopter too.] The "ball" goes off to the right side, indicating that you are now in a sideslip. The aircraft creeps sideways in relation to the air, in the direction of the bank. DRAG is greatly increased, which can be used to get surplus height off on an approach (NOT on an airliner, please).
The only connection between sideslip and drift is that, on a crosswind approach, the former is sometimes used to counteract the latter, so that the nose of the aircraft can be pointing straight along the runway. [A right-banked sideslip can counteract a crosswind from the right. This technique is normally frowned upon in airliners, partly because all the loose glasses slide off the galley work-tops...]
On landing, the upwind wheel(s) touch down first. As the downwind wheel(s) come down, you already have downwind rudder to help counteract the tendency of the aeroplane to weathercock. [Rudder is backed up by aileron into wind.]
(1) I should assume that the effects of weathercocking would be rather different depending on which wheels contact ground (e. g. front wheels on ground, tailwheel off ground, vs. main wheels supported, nosewheel off ground...).
(2) Drift and sideslip should work in a more similar manner.
[Unquote]
(1) Yes. This is a bit off-topic,
, but may help to build the picture of crosswind effects on VMCG (see sooty615, john_tullamarine, BelArgUSA and fireflybob posts).Tricycle L/G: If noseheel firmly on ground and steering is HELD central (using the pilot's tiller), weathercocking can be stopped, but this can only be used at taxiing speeds. [If the pilot takes his/her hand off the tiller, or relaxes feet on the rudder pedals, the nosewheel will be free to castor - and the aeroplane is free to weathercock.] Rudder-fine-steering, if you have it, helps at speeds up to 60 - 80 kts. Above that speed the directional control of the nosewheel(s) cannot be relied upon, and trying to use tiller-steering can be lethal. So on take-off the prime directional control is by aerodynamic rudder, mainly opposite to the crosswind. On landing you also have the option of differential brakes, which can likewise be used in taxiing.
Tailwheel L/G: Tail-draggers are much more susceptible to weathercocking, because the wings are in a flying attitude which catches the wind at low speed. Also, for a given size of aeroplane, the tail surfaces are further behind the pivot point (the main-wheels) than on a trike, giving a bigger moment. Few tailwheels are steerable. On taxiing you steer and control weathercocking with differential brakes, aerodynamic rudder, or differential power (difficult). Once the tail starts swinging, quick action is needed to avoid embarassment! However, additionally for take-off and landing, the tailwheel can often be LOCKED fore-and-aft. On take-off, weathercocking can also be anticipated by differential engine power (difficult), and on landing is invariably combatted with differential brakes.
On a crosswind take-off on the DC-3, for example, the pilot pulls the "stick" (control column) fully back initially, the propellers' slipstream forcing the locked tailwheel firmly on the ground to keep the aeroplane straight. Once the rudder becomes effective (about 40 kts IAS), the tail can be lifted quickly. Once the nose is level, the weathercocking tendency reduces, and is controlled with opposite rudder, backed up by into-wind aileron.
[For crosswind landing on the DC-3, the standard technique is to "wheel it on" well above stalling speed with the tail quite high. You then have to use more and more forward stick as you slow down. The trick is to pick the right moment to allow the tail to descend rapidly on to the ground, after which you pull the stick back to hold it down firmly. The locked tailwheel then provides directional stability, which the pilot backs up with liberal amounts of brake on the downwind side...]
(2) Not sure what you mean. Sideslip must not be confused with drift.
Let me explain SIDESLIP (already done drift to death)
. It is when the aircraft is travelling slightly sideways through the air (forget the ground).For example, if you slowly put 10 degrees of right bank on, you will normally turn to the right. But IF you simultaneously feed in opposite rudder, you can stop the aeroplane turning. [I believe it works for a helicopter too.] The "ball" goes off to the right side, indicating that you are now in a sideslip. The aircraft creeps sideways in relation to the air, in the direction of the bank. DRAG is greatly increased, which can be used to get surplus height off on an approach (NOT on an airliner, please).
The only connection between sideslip and drift is that, on a crosswind approach, the former is sometimes used to counteract the latter, so that the nose of the aircraft can be pointing straight along the runway. [A right-banked sideslip can counteract a crosswind from the right. This technique is normally frowned upon in airliners, partly because all the loose glasses slide off the galley work-tops...]
On landing, the upwind wheel(s) touch down first. As the downwind wheel(s) come down, you already have downwind rudder to help counteract the tendency of the aeroplane to weathercock. [Rudder is backed up by aileron into wind.]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: deco stop
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker 700 and 800
If I remember correctly, they have different "critical" engines, when on ground, and even perhaps at lower speeds.
Due to the redesign of the lower section of the tail fin.
Perhaps a current HS bod can confirm.
widny
Due to the redesign of the lower section of the tail fin.
Perhaps a current HS bod can confirm.
widny
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If noseheel firmly on ground and steering is HELD central (using the pilot's tiller), weathercocking can be stopped, but this can only be used at taxiing speeds. [If the pilot takes his/her hand off the tiller, or relaxes feet on the rudder pedals, the nosewheel will be free to castor - and the aeroplane is free to weathercock.] Rudder-fine-steering, if you have it, helps at speeds up to 60 - 80 kts. Above that speed the directional control of the nosewheel(s) cannot be relied upon, and trying to use tiller-steering can be lethal. So on take-off the prime directional control is by aerodynamic rudder, mainly opposite to the crosswind.
How is a tricycle aircraft kept on a runway in strong crosswinds at speeds above taxi speeds but below the speeds where rudder becomes effective?
Also, how do tandem landing gear planes handle weathercocking? Rotation is not an option, and they have a high angle of incidence.
(2) Drift and sideslip should work in a more similar manner.
(2) Not sure what you mean. Sideslip must not be confused with drift.
When the landing gear is extended, it would start affecting drag, sideslip and yaw behaviour. But it is only when the gears touch down that they become the major control of bank and pitch attitude.
As for weathercocking: do B-2 planes, with no fin and rudder at all, weathercock in crosswinds?