CZAR 52 Accident aerodynamics
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am doing a university assignment on a B-52 aircraft accident, the CZAR 52 Fairchild accident to be more precise. The assignment requires us to look at this accident from an aerodynamic perspective and im struggling tying all the elements together to prove what i think happened. I understand the aircraft used spoiler deflection to initiate a roll movement, however it kept rolling to the point where it overbanked, the wings stalled, lost lift and the aircraft crashed to the ground, as a very basic description.
However I'm struggling to support this, using the aircrafts aerodynamics, how it uses spoiler deflection to roll, its swept wings, adverse yaw, sideslip, overbanking, why bank angle continued to increase, roll rate.
any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks for your time
Daniel
However I'm struggling to support this, using the aircrafts aerodynamics, how it uses spoiler deflection to roll, its swept wings, adverse yaw, sideslip, overbanking, why bank angle continued to increase, roll rate.
any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks for your time
Daniel
Moderator
You've probably read the linked article by Tony Kern but, if not, start there to get some general background to the mishap.
The aerodynamics side of things is more generic and you will find a LOT of links on the net if your background is not, say, senior undergrad aero engineering.
The aerodynamics side of things is more generic and you will find a LOT of links on the net if your background is not, say, senior undergrad aero engineering.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany (North)
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds like you have no idea at all.
For starters: the B-52G & H don't even have ailerons, they use spoilers exclusively for Roll Control.
Getting an aerodynamic model with sufficient accuracy to predict transient dynamics might get difficult. The only models I came across were proprietary manufacturer's data, and then you have so many parameters that any student is surely lost.
For starters: the B-52G & H don't even have ailerons, they use spoilers exclusively for Roll Control.
Getting an aerodynamic model with sufficient accuracy to predict transient dynamics might get difficult. The only models I came across were proprietary manufacturer's data, and then you have so many parameters that any student is surely lost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cabin master, can you please tell me where i said the B52H uses ailerons for roll control? i mentioned twice in my initial post that they use spoilers...
Hi John! yes i have read many articles on the accident, the problem im having is that most discuss the human factors surrounding the pilot. I cant find any in depth aerodynamic analysis of the accident. Was just hoping there might be people on here with enough knowledge on aerodynamics that might be able to help me out.
anyone else got anything they can add?
Hi John! yes i have read many articles on the accident, the problem im having is that most discuss the human factors surrounding the pilot. I cant find any in depth aerodynamic analysis of the accident. Was just hoping there might be people on here with enough knowledge on aerodynamics that might be able to help me out.
anyone else got anything they can add?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi John,
yes i have. My thoughts are that;
- he entered the initial turn, banking to about 45 degrees with an appropriate airspeed
- however, as can be seen in the still shots, as the aircraft rounds the control tower, both spoilers are deployed which is also the airbrake 2 position, therefore slowing the aircraft?
- i think then pilot attempts to move to a 60 degree AOB therefore flattening the right spoiler, leaving the left one deployed to further disrupt airflow over the left wing, incresing drag on this wing and reducing lift and increasing the AOB.
- however, i think, the aircraft was travelling below the stall speed for a 60 AOB, therefore causing the wing to stall,
- Th problem is compounded by the fact swept wings stall from the tip first. As the lowered wing reaches its critical angle first, it will stall before the top wing, it will produce a strong rolling moment due to the long moment arm from the outer sections of the wing to the centre of gravity.
- At this point not only is there a strong rolling moment produced by the stall on the lower wing, but the upper wing will have reached its critical angle also, stalling and losing any lift production it had left. The aircraft continues to bank to 90 degree, whilst doing so appears to be experience a yawing movement.
- due to all of this occurring at such a low altitude, and that a typical response to spoiler deflection is 3 seconds, any action taken by the pilot to correct once at around 60 degrees AOB it is to late.
does this seem like its on the right track? does sideslip play a roll in this aswell?
thanks for responding!!
much appreciated
daniel
yes i have. My thoughts are that;
- he entered the initial turn, banking to about 45 degrees with an appropriate airspeed
- however, as can be seen in the still shots, as the aircraft rounds the control tower, both spoilers are deployed which is also the airbrake 2 position, therefore slowing the aircraft?
- i think then pilot attempts to move to a 60 degree AOB therefore flattening the right spoiler, leaving the left one deployed to further disrupt airflow over the left wing, incresing drag on this wing and reducing lift and increasing the AOB.
- however, i think, the aircraft was travelling below the stall speed for a 60 AOB, therefore causing the wing to stall,
- Th problem is compounded by the fact swept wings stall from the tip first. As the lowered wing reaches its critical angle first, it will stall before the top wing, it will produce a strong rolling moment due to the long moment arm from the outer sections of the wing to the centre of gravity.
- At this point not only is there a strong rolling moment produced by the stall on the lower wing, but the upper wing will have reached its critical angle also, stalling and losing any lift production it had left. The aircraft continues to bank to 90 degree, whilst doing so appears to be experience a yawing movement.
- due to all of this occurring at such a low altitude, and that a typical response to spoiler deflection is 3 seconds, any action taken by the pilot to correct once at around 60 degrees AOB it is to late.
does this seem like its on the right track? does sideslip play a roll in this aswell?
thanks for responding!!
much appreciated
daniel
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
86
Sorry my friend but there is no such thing as a simple stall speed/AOB relationship. For example you only stall at 1.414 times the wings level stall speed at 60 AOB IF you pull the stick back and try to hold height (ie actually pull the required g such that the vertical component of the lift vector equals the weight).
You can take an aeroplane to any bank angle you want but it NEED not stall. It will only stall if you reach the stalling AOA.
Good luck with what you are trying to do but my personal view is that the video by itself is not enough to establish everything that was going on aerodynamically.
If I was your tutor and you explained why you could not provide a definitive answer I would give you A+. He/she may sneakily be trying to make sure you understand that the much talked about 'stalling speed' is very often meaningless. Stalling is about AOA and little else. (I say little rather than nothing because under high IMN conditions the stalling angle of attack of a wing will reduce slightly)
JF
he entered the initial turn, banking to about 45 degrees with an appropriate airspeed
however, i think, the aircraft was travelling below the stall speed for a 60 AOB, therefore causing the wing to stall
You can take an aeroplane to any bank angle you want but it NEED not stall. It will only stall if you reach the stalling AOA.
Good luck with what you are trying to do but my personal view is that the video by itself is not enough to establish everything that was going on aerodynamically.
If I was your tutor and you explained why you could not provide a definitive answer I would give you A+. He/she may sneakily be trying to make sure you understand that the much talked about 'stalling speed' is very often meaningless. Stalling is about AOA and little else. (I say little rather than nothing because under high IMN conditions the stalling angle of attack of a wing will reduce slightly)
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
perrdan86
Leaving out the mindset of the flying pilot is inexcusable. This pilot's dream was to roll (360 degrees) the B-52. He had alienated most of his mates such that they refused to fly with him. He was a cowboy who should have been grounded years before this "airshow" practice circuit. His goal in this last flight was to tightly circle on base, and plant the a/c on the r/w. Once the roll left exceeded about 10 degrees, the a/c was doomed. With long and heavily loaded wings, any roll carries enough momentum to fatally affect handling. With everything BUT an agile response in the roll, this bomber takes to aerobatics like a bull to the color red. The commander was an accident waiting to happen.
rgds
Leaving out the mindset of the flying pilot is inexcusable. This pilot's dream was to roll (360 degrees) the B-52. He had alienated most of his mates such that they refused to fly with him. He was a cowboy who should have been grounded years before this "airshow" practice circuit. His goal in this last flight was to tightly circle on base, and plant the a/c on the r/w. Once the roll left exceeded about 10 degrees, the a/c was doomed. With long and heavily loaded wings, any roll carries enough momentum to fatally affect handling. With everything BUT an agile response in the roll, this bomber takes to aerobatics like a bull to the color red. The commander was an accident waiting to happen.
rgds
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chasing Dreams
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw a little something else in there:
At the low speed the aircraft is traveling, during the turn there is a delta lift between the wings causing a roll into the turn. Were the control surfaces sufficient to even over power the delta? (None of this involves a stalled wing either.)
Think to situations of differencial flap extension, this rapidly overpowers ailerons and rudder input.
Just a thought...
At the low speed the aircraft is traveling, during the turn there is a delta lift between the wings causing a roll into the turn. Were the control surfaces sufficient to even over power the delta? (None of this involves a stalled wing either.)
Think to situations of differencial flap extension, this rapidly overpowers ailerons and rudder input.
Just a thought...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reinforce the comments about indeterminism:-
there is nothing in the video as seen (that is, qualitatively) to show that the pilot didn't suffer from indecision or incapacity and let the nose fall through after going knife-edge.
To exclude that possibility, you would have to reconstruct the actual (quantitative) dynamics from measurements of the video, a skill which I don't recommend trying to pick up in the course of a student project assignment.......
What one might assume is that the pilot was highly skilled, well aware, and not able to roll level when the nose starts to fall through, because of some aerodynamic control impediment, for example spoilers not able anymore to generate differential lift on the wings to enable roll. But that is an assumption. You would have to validate it by analysing the true dynamics of the manoeuvre, which is not apparent without considerable reconstructive skill from the video. One might be able to tell from the video if wings-level roll inputs were attempted.
PBL
there is nothing in the video as seen (that is, qualitatively) to show that the pilot didn't suffer from indecision or incapacity and let the nose fall through after going knife-edge.
To exclude that possibility, you would have to reconstruct the actual (quantitative) dynamics from measurements of the video, a skill which I don't recommend trying to pick up in the course of a student project assignment.......
What one might assume is that the pilot was highly skilled, well aware, and not able to roll level when the nose starts to fall through, because of some aerodynamic control impediment, for example spoilers not able anymore to generate differential lift on the wings to enable roll. But that is an assumption. You would have to validate it by analysing the true dynamics of the manoeuvre, which is not apparent without considerable reconstructive skill from the video. One might be able to tell from the video if wings-level roll inputs were attempted.
PBL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply the pilots put the airframe into a flight condition that was outside the parameters of the aircraft remaining in controlled flight. Oh, that sounds like the conclusion.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will really have to find a copy of the accident report for all the details and for a verifable source of citation. However this will give you a clueon what you are looking for on the areodynamics of the accident.
1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As said before, the captain put the aircraft into a stall by exceeding the limits that the aircraft could maintain that turn without stalling at that IAS. His high angle of bank and high AoA meant that the LH wing stalled first and the loss of lift would produce an continued roll to port and the nose to pitch down. Only increasing airspeed and having the height to carry out recovery action would have given him the chance to save the aircraft. He had neither the time to increase speed or height to carry out any recovery action.
Have fun with your research.
1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As said before, the captain put the aircraft into a stall by exceeding the limits that the aircraft could maintain that turn without stalling at that IAS. His high angle of bank and high AoA meant that the LH wing stalled first and the loss of lift would produce an continued roll to port and the nose to pitch down. Only increasing airspeed and having the height to carry out recovery action would have given him the chance to save the aircraft. He had neither the time to increase speed or height to carry out any recovery action.
Have fun with your research.
Google is your friend (and easy enough to use too!)
"...The investigation found that as the B-52 entered its final turn sequence around the tower, its indicated
airspeed (IAS) was 182 knots (337 km/h). Although Holland applied additional engine power after
starting the turn, the late power application was not enough to maintain the aircraft's current airspeed
during the turn. Although the aircraft's airspeed indicator was available to all four aircrew members, the
aircraft's airspeed was allowed to continue to decrease. Eight seconds before impact, the aircraft's IAS
had deteriorated to 145 knots (269 km/h), the aircraft's bank increased past 60 degrees, and the aircraft
began to stall. Although Holland or McGeehan at this time applied full right spoiler, right rudder, and a
nose-up elevator, the aircraft continued to stall, exhibiting a behavior known as an "accelerated stall".
An accelerated stall occurs when the stall speed of an aircraft increases without an aircraft reducing its
airspeed because of environmental factors and/or the current attitude of the aircraft in relation to which
way it's moving.[6]
Due to the bank of 60 degrees or more, the stall speed for the aircraft at that moment was an IAS of 147
knots (272 km/h). Thus, flying at 145 knots (269 km/h) IAS the aircraft stalled without sufficient
altitude to recover before impacting the ground.[6]..."
"...An earlier incident occurred in 1991 when a B-52 piloted by Holland
performed a circle above a softball game in which Holland's daughter
was participating. Beginning at 2,500 feet (760 m) AGL, Holland's
aircraft executed the circle at 65 degrees of bank. Described by one witness as a "death spiral," the nose
of the aircraft continued to drop during the maneuver and the bank angle increased to 80 degrees. After
losing 1,000 feet (300 m) of altitude, Holland was able to regain control of the aircraft.[8]"
for the full report go to:
www.txwgcap.org/pdfs/B-52%20crash.pdf
"...The investigation found that as the B-52 entered its final turn sequence around the tower, its indicated
airspeed (IAS) was 182 knots (337 km/h). Although Holland applied additional engine power after
starting the turn, the late power application was not enough to maintain the aircraft's current airspeed
during the turn. Although the aircraft's airspeed indicator was available to all four aircrew members, the
aircraft's airspeed was allowed to continue to decrease. Eight seconds before impact, the aircraft's IAS
had deteriorated to 145 knots (269 km/h), the aircraft's bank increased past 60 degrees, and the aircraft
began to stall. Although Holland or McGeehan at this time applied full right spoiler, right rudder, and a
nose-up elevator, the aircraft continued to stall, exhibiting a behavior known as an "accelerated stall".
An accelerated stall occurs when the stall speed of an aircraft increases without an aircraft reducing its
airspeed because of environmental factors and/or the current attitude of the aircraft in relation to which
way it's moving.[6]
Due to the bank of 60 degrees or more, the stall speed for the aircraft at that moment was an IAS of 147
knots (272 km/h). Thus, flying at 145 knots (269 km/h) IAS the aircraft stalled without sufficient
altitude to recover before impacting the ground.[6]..."
"...An earlier incident occurred in 1991 when a B-52 piloted by Holland
performed a circle above a softball game in which Holland's daughter
was participating. Beginning at 2,500 feet (760 m) AGL, Holland's
aircraft executed the circle at 65 degrees of bank. Described by one witness as a "death spiral," the nose
of the aircraft continued to drop during the maneuver and the bank angle increased to 80 degrees. After
losing 1,000 feet (300 m) of altitude, Holland was able to regain control of the aircraft.[8]"
for the full report go to:
www.txwgcap.org/pdfs/B-52%20crash.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, Aa bit more..
Stall (flight) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You really need to find a text book that states it..
The aircraft was entering a spin.. However it never got the chance to because the ground was there!
You really need to find a text book that states it..
The aircraft was entering a spin.. However it never got the chance to because the ground was there!
...and another one!
"Crash sequence
The investigation found that as the B-52 entered its final turn sequence around the tower, its indicated airspeed (IAS) was 182 knots (337 km/h). Although Holland applied additional engine power after starting the turn, his input came too late to maintain the aircraft's airspeed, because its turbine engines take up to 8 seconds to respond to throttle movements. Even though the airspeed indicator was available to all four aircrew members, the aircraft's airspeed was allowed to continue to decrease. Eight seconds before impact, the aircraft's IAS had deteriorated to 145 knots (269 km/h) and the aircraft's bank increased past 60°. At this time Holland or McGeehan applied full right spoiler, right rudder, and nose-up elevator, and the aircraft entered a turning flight stall (sometimes called accelerated stall). This phenomenon is a stall that occurs at a higher airspeed than the design stall speed – which always refers to straight and level flight - because of the fact that the aircraft is turning. Due to the bank of 60° or more, the stall speed for the aircraft was at that moment 147 knots (272 km/h). Thus, flying at 145 knots (269 km/h) IAS the aircraft stalled, without sufficient altitude to recover, before striking the ground."
"Crash sequence
The investigation found that as the B-52 entered its final turn sequence around the tower, its indicated airspeed (IAS) was 182 knots (337 km/h). Although Holland applied additional engine power after starting the turn, his input came too late to maintain the aircraft's airspeed, because its turbine engines take up to 8 seconds to respond to throttle movements. Even though the airspeed indicator was available to all four aircrew members, the aircraft's airspeed was allowed to continue to decrease. Eight seconds before impact, the aircraft's IAS had deteriorated to 145 knots (269 km/h) and the aircraft's bank increased past 60°. At this time Holland or McGeehan applied full right spoiler, right rudder, and nose-up elevator, and the aircraft entered a turning flight stall (sometimes called accelerated stall). This phenomenon is a stall that occurs at a higher airspeed than the design stall speed – which always refers to straight and level flight - because of the fact that the aircraft is turning. Due to the bank of 60° or more, the stall speed for the aircraft was at that moment 147 knots (272 km/h). Thus, flying at 145 knots (269 km/h) IAS the aircraft stalled, without sufficient altitude to recover, before striking the ground."
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are writing a BSc level Uni assignment on areodynanics?
All things mentioned are backed up here.
Stall (flight) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To all intent and purposes, the aircraft was entering a spin when it impacted the ground. All due to a pilot disregarding and exceeding the handling limits of his aircraft.
All his other antics were released on an flight safety video.
YouTube - Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild Air Force Base Washington
All things mentioned are backed up here.
Stall (flight) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To all intent and purposes, the aircraft was entering a spin when it impacted the ground. All due to a pilot disregarding and exceeding the handling limits of his aircraft.
All his other antics were released on an flight safety video.
YouTube - Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild Air Force Base Washington
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Le Shed on the Tropic of Capricorn
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Daniel, Perhaps you can compare some captured ‘still’ shots from the videos and try to get an idea of the wing flex (angle and shape of flex) and use this to justify your conclusions re the loading on the wings at various stages during the final moments.
Regards
Ian
Regards
Ian
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't see anything in the video suggesting the a/c stalled. It was turning, and appeared to tighten the turn before impact, but the fact that it impacted the ground was due to standard loss of altitude in a turn of any kind.
1. He may have been attempting knife edge "flight". (around a point)
2. He may have been attempting a split ess.
3. He may have thought he was hook trapping onboard the ship
4. He may have gotten so far up his own tail everything tumbled.
I favor #4
Two things come to mind
This is a rather farfetched example of "aerodynamic" flight.
Once past the limits of control authority, all bets are off.
bear
1. He may have been attempting knife edge "flight". (around a point)
2. He may have been attempting a split ess.
3. He may have thought he was hook trapping onboard the ship
4. He may have gotten so far up his own tail everything tumbled.
I favor #4
Two things come to mind
This is a rather farfetched example of "aerodynamic" flight.
Once past the limits of control authority, all bets are off.
bear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey guys!!
wow! thanks so much for your replies!! very much appreciated! Yes as you can see im no aerodynamics expert, far from it and this course is my first real introduction to this concept of flight. Here are the comments the lecturer made on last years group who did the assignment, ive been trying to use these when attempting to break down the sequence of events. For someone of my limited background in this area, it is quite hard as there is a lot of depth in regards to aerodynamics knowledge.
Here are the comments the lecturer made on last years group who did the assignment, ive been trying to use these when attempting to break down the sequence of events.
Fortunately, the majority of you seemed to understand most of the principles well enough. Areas where some of you still had difficulty were:
1. Making the distinction between angle of bank and load factor. Many of you insisted that “the stall speed increases with angle of bank” which is not always true (how does an aircraft do a slow roll?) and many of you used the formula “ sqrt(load factor)” to calculate a stall speed at a certain angle of bank ... which is NOT correct! It is possible to get to 90 degrees AOB without pulling ANY extra ‘g’ ... the formula is ONLY true in a STEADY, LEVEL TURN (where lift is being used to generate the CPF). If you look at the video again, you’ll see that not much of the manoeuvre fits that bill!
2. Many of you had a trouble distinguishing between not enough lift to maintain altitude, and stalling. They are completely different issues. Those of you who went for the simple “it stalled” solution really needed to state exactly ‘when’ (eg X degrees AOB at time Y), explain ‘why’, and then go on to explain why the bank angle continued to increase .. and the aircraft continued to ‘fly’ quite well, albeit in a descent. Those of you who said it didn’t stall needed to come up with a very convincing case indeed, and some of you did.
3. The stall characteristics caught a lot of you out ... many people just described ‘typical’ stalls from GA textbooks. Swept wing aircraft will likely stall wingtip first and pitch up, not ‘nose drop’ ... and recovery can usually be completed simply by ‘blasting out of it’ with lots of thrust ... well, that certainly worked in the 747 and 777 : )
4. A common misunderstanding was the spool up time of the engines. The eight seconds (which very few of you referenced ... where did it come from?) refers to the time from idle thrust to max thrust .... it is unlikely that either thrust setting was used. More likely, engine response was almost instantaneous from the thrust settings they were using. Similarly, just because the engines were at low thrust at impact does NOT prove that thrust was not added before then.
5. Many of you quoted the lift formula, then asserted that the ONLY way to increase lift in a turn is by increasing AOA. Well, what about increasing speed!? Also many stated that “at 90 degrees AOB the aircraft is not producing ANY lift.” Well, there is a LOT of lift coming from the wings ... but it just isn’t opposing weight, and there is also quite a lot of lift coming from fuselage, fin, thrust etc.
6. Many people did not understand how spoilers work. They do not work like elevators or rudders. They do NOT produce an angle of bank. They generate a roll RATE ... when the required AOB is reached, spoilers are retracted (and possibly deflected slightly on the other wing) to STOP the rate of roll, then retracted.
7. There were also a lot of people who stated that there is NO lift being produced after the wing stalls. Have another look at the CL v AOA curves ... there is a loss of lift, but the wing is still producing a LOT of lift ...
8. A small number seemed to want to relate the increase in induced drag to a corresponding increase in thrust ... without realising that parasite drag probably made up a larger proportion of total drag at the time.
9. Another small number did not understand the effect of flaps (no, they do NOT increase the stall speed, nor do they “reduce the available range of AOA” either)
10. Those of you who explored the spiral instability idea had their work cut out. Quite a few simply mentioned that swept wing and high wing are stable, and that anhedral was the opposite, then somehow ‘concluded’ that the overall effect was “unstable” ... that’s a bit of a leap of faith! There was much more to that argument, and a lot of referencing work would have to be done to support it.
11. The understanding of the effect of head/tailwind was poor. Many of you would have scored more marks by forgetting it completely.
Thanks again all for your input, again i cant emphasize how much it is appreciated!
Daniel
wow! thanks so much for your replies!! very much appreciated! Yes as you can see im no aerodynamics expert, far from it and this course is my first real introduction to this concept of flight. Here are the comments the lecturer made on last years group who did the assignment, ive been trying to use these when attempting to break down the sequence of events. For someone of my limited background in this area, it is quite hard as there is a lot of depth in regards to aerodynamics knowledge.
Here are the comments the lecturer made on last years group who did the assignment, ive been trying to use these when attempting to break down the sequence of events.
Fortunately, the majority of you seemed to understand most of the principles well enough. Areas where some of you still had difficulty were:
1. Making the distinction between angle of bank and load factor. Many of you insisted that “the stall speed increases with angle of bank” which is not always true (how does an aircraft do a slow roll?) and many of you used the formula “ sqrt(load factor)” to calculate a stall speed at a certain angle of bank ... which is NOT correct! It is possible to get to 90 degrees AOB without pulling ANY extra ‘g’ ... the formula is ONLY true in a STEADY, LEVEL TURN (where lift is being used to generate the CPF). If you look at the video again, you’ll see that not much of the manoeuvre fits that bill!
2. Many of you had a trouble distinguishing between not enough lift to maintain altitude, and stalling. They are completely different issues. Those of you who went for the simple “it stalled” solution really needed to state exactly ‘when’ (eg X degrees AOB at time Y), explain ‘why’, and then go on to explain why the bank angle continued to increase .. and the aircraft continued to ‘fly’ quite well, albeit in a descent. Those of you who said it didn’t stall needed to come up with a very convincing case indeed, and some of you did.
3. The stall characteristics caught a lot of you out ... many people just described ‘typical’ stalls from GA textbooks. Swept wing aircraft will likely stall wingtip first and pitch up, not ‘nose drop’ ... and recovery can usually be completed simply by ‘blasting out of it’ with lots of thrust ... well, that certainly worked in the 747 and 777 : )
4. A common misunderstanding was the spool up time of the engines. The eight seconds (which very few of you referenced ... where did it come from?) refers to the time from idle thrust to max thrust .... it is unlikely that either thrust setting was used. More likely, engine response was almost instantaneous from the thrust settings they were using. Similarly, just because the engines were at low thrust at impact does NOT prove that thrust was not added before then.
5. Many of you quoted the lift formula, then asserted that the ONLY way to increase lift in a turn is by increasing AOA. Well, what about increasing speed!? Also many stated that “at 90 degrees AOB the aircraft is not producing ANY lift.” Well, there is a LOT of lift coming from the wings ... but it just isn’t opposing weight, and there is also quite a lot of lift coming from fuselage, fin, thrust etc.
6. Many people did not understand how spoilers work. They do not work like elevators or rudders. They do NOT produce an angle of bank. They generate a roll RATE ... when the required AOB is reached, spoilers are retracted (and possibly deflected slightly on the other wing) to STOP the rate of roll, then retracted.
7. There were also a lot of people who stated that there is NO lift being produced after the wing stalls. Have another look at the CL v AOA curves ... there is a loss of lift, but the wing is still producing a LOT of lift ...
8. A small number seemed to want to relate the increase in induced drag to a corresponding increase in thrust ... without realising that parasite drag probably made up a larger proportion of total drag at the time.
9. Another small number did not understand the effect of flaps (no, they do NOT increase the stall speed, nor do they “reduce the available range of AOA” either)
10. Those of you who explored the spiral instability idea had their work cut out. Quite a few simply mentioned that swept wing and high wing are stable, and that anhedral was the opposite, then somehow ‘concluded’ that the overall effect was “unstable” ... that’s a bit of a leap of faith! There was much more to that argument, and a lot of referencing work would have to be done to support it.
11. The understanding of the effect of head/tailwind was poor. Many of you would have scored more marks by forgetting it completely.
Thanks again all for your input, again i cant emphasize how much it is appreciated!
Daniel