AA Flight 587 accident at JFK:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA Flight 587 accident at JFK:
All the Ph.D's and the Aero. Engineers at the AA 587 NTSB hearing, have not figured out the probable cause, even after seeing the picture of the vertical stabilizer showing the three rudder actuators completely severed from the rudder!
Airbus states flatly that the rudder was pilot commanded.! The rudder movements were so rapid, and in opposite directions, that no pilot could or would operate the rudder in such a manner.!
At some point in time the 0.3, 0.4 and the 0.8 G forces from the rotating vortices, of the B747, struck the vertical fin and rudder, BROADSIDE, and severed the rudder linkage to the actuators.
The rudder is now freely floating and moves in the direction of the wind shear forces. These wind shear forces are also striking the vertical fin, BROADSIDE, and now we have an additional, and very effective, flight control surface.
The large, two engine jet transport design requirement for a large vertical stabilizer, for engine out on take-off control, has created a very large, weather-vane design.
The 0.8 G force against the left side of the vertical control surface induced an abrupt, left yaw of 10 degrees/sec., into an instantaneous Dutch roll, with a left bank through 25 degrees and a pitch down to -30 degrees.!
Although the pilot used full opposite aileron to counter the radical roll to the left, he did not have the use of right rudder to assist the aileron in countering the left bank.! He had no control of the rudder.!
ATC released AA 587 15 seconds early and then turned him inside the path of the departing heavy B747. AA 587 made a perfect join-up on a horizontal tornado, the 747's vortex.!
For improved flight safety..
William Sherriff
Capt. AAL (Ret)
Flight Safety Consultant
Airbus states flatly that the rudder was pilot commanded.! The rudder movements were so rapid, and in opposite directions, that no pilot could or would operate the rudder in such a manner.!
At some point in time the 0.3, 0.4 and the 0.8 G forces from the rotating vortices, of the B747, struck the vertical fin and rudder, BROADSIDE, and severed the rudder linkage to the actuators.
The rudder is now freely floating and moves in the direction of the wind shear forces. These wind shear forces are also striking the vertical fin, BROADSIDE, and now we have an additional, and very effective, flight control surface.
The large, two engine jet transport design requirement for a large vertical stabilizer, for engine out on take-off control, has created a very large, weather-vane design.
The 0.8 G force against the left side of the vertical control surface induced an abrupt, left yaw of 10 degrees/sec., into an instantaneous Dutch roll, with a left bank through 25 degrees and a pitch down to -30 degrees.!
Although the pilot used full opposite aileron to counter the radical roll to the left, he did not have the use of right rudder to assist the aileron in countering the left bank.! He had no control of the rudder.!
ATC released AA 587 15 seconds early and then turned him inside the path of the departing heavy B747. AA 587 made a perfect join-up on a horizontal tornado, the 747's vortex.!
For improved flight safety..
William Sherriff
Capt. AAL (Ret)
Flight Safety Consultant
Last edited by wsherif1; 10th Jun 2003 at 06:45.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to express my doubts about this theory.
I know very little about what actually happened, so my opinion could be complete BS.
But I've got two feelings:
First, that the 747 vortex is not so strong to destroy the tail of an airliner like that.
Sure it can create a problem, but severing an Airbus tail is another matter...
Second : Airbus says the rudder was pilot commanded, and there is no proof this theory is wrong.
I had, years ago, an american instructor, ex Vietnam Phantom pilot, whose obsession was using the rudder instead of the ailerons!
He thought me to react to external disturbances with my feet, to keep the heading perfectly centered and wings level, and flying with him was a real torture, almost continuously kicking the pedals left and right!
Now, I say again, I know nothing about the Airbus captain, but I'm just asking myself if maybe he had the same kind of background of my ex instructor...
It would not be the first time we see pilots doing crazy things.
I apologise if my doubt hurts someone, but since a lot of people died, I think it's worth considering all possibilities.
I know very little about what actually happened, so my opinion could be complete BS.
But I've got two feelings:
First, that the 747 vortex is not so strong to destroy the tail of an airliner like that.
Sure it can create a problem, but severing an Airbus tail is another matter...
Second : Airbus says the rudder was pilot commanded, and there is no proof this theory is wrong.
I had, years ago, an american instructor, ex Vietnam Phantom pilot, whose obsession was using the rudder instead of the ailerons!
He thought me to react to external disturbances with my feet, to keep the heading perfectly centered and wings level, and flying with him was a real torture, almost continuously kicking the pedals left and right!
Now, I say again, I know nothing about the Airbus captain, but I'm just asking myself if maybe he had the same kind of background of my ex instructor...
It would not be the first time we see pilots doing crazy things.
I apologise if my doubt hurts someone, but since a lot of people died, I think it's worth considering all possibilities.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I say it then it must be true.
Airbus states flatly that the rudder was pilot commanded.!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also completely ignores the possibility of the Vert Stab flexing in the mounts because of impending failure.
Wouldn't this cause differential inputs to the rudder actuators. The pulleys are mounted to the empenage in the fuselage tailcone so they would remain fixed.
If the vert stab were flexing left and right the relative length of the input cables/rods would change. That would cause some pretty wild rudder excursions to my way of thinking.
Just one man's opinion.
Wouldn't this cause differential inputs to the rudder actuators. The pulleys are mounted to the empenage in the fuselage tailcone so they would remain fixed.
If the vert stab were flexing left and right the relative length of the input cables/rods would change. That would cause some pretty wild rudder excursions to my way of thinking.
Just one man's opinion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Previous Quote:
"The 747 vortex is not so strong to destroy the tail of an airliner like that."
The clockwise rotating vortices from the left wing tip of the 747 can register a force of 300'/sec., according to NASA. The vortex is a horizontal tornado with 200plus mph wind velocities. We know what damages tornados can do on the ground, right.!
Quote:
Airbus says the rudder was pilot commanded, and there is no proof this theory is wrong."
At some point in time the linkages were sheared off their connection with the rudder actuators.! See picture of vertical stabilizer being hauled up off the barge. No linkages attached to the three rudder actuators. The rudder was in pieces and recovered 600 yards from vertical stabilizer.!
No evidence the pilot used right rudder input to counter the steep left bank, along with his full right aileron control input. If the pilot had had rudder control, he may have been able to recover the aircraft.!!!
"The 747 vortex is not so strong to destroy the tail of an airliner like that."
The clockwise rotating vortices from the left wing tip of the 747 can register a force of 300'/sec., according to NASA. The vortex is a horizontal tornado with 200plus mph wind velocities. We know what damages tornados can do on the ground, right.!
Quote:
Airbus says the rudder was pilot commanded, and there is no proof this theory is wrong."
At some point in time the linkages were sheared off their connection with the rudder actuators.! See picture of vertical stabilizer being hauled up off the barge. No linkages attached to the three rudder actuators. The rudder was in pieces and recovered 600 yards from vertical stabilizer.!
No evidence the pilot used right rudder input to counter the steep left bank, along with his full right aileron control input. If the pilot had had rudder control, he may have been able to recover the aircraft.!!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vortex is a horizontal tornado with 200plus mph wind velocities. We know what damages tornados can do on the ground, right.!
The airplane was travelling at more or less the same speed.
If you consider the vector diagram which compounds the forward velocity of the aircraft with the sideways velocity of the "tornado", you will immediately see the difference of the resultant velocity: the resultant vector will be set at an angle of at least 45 degrees, thus much less powerful.
No evidence the pilot used right rudder input to counter the steep left bank, along with his full right aileron control input. If the pilot had had rudder control, he may have been able to recover the aircraft.!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts,
Right now, this hour, every hour, every day, every week, somewhere in the world, there are aircraft departing and arriving 4-5 miles behind a preceeding B-747. Now, IF anyone seriously believes the wake turbulence from a JAL 747 can BREAK the structure of a sound airframe 4.3 miles behind, then ALPA, APA, NASA, etc. should be DEMANDING FAA immediately increase the required spacing to ten miles or four minutes.
But that's not likely to happen, is it? Because no majority seriously believes it. If it were so, we'd have airplanes being damaged and/or crashing on a weekly or monthly basis at least. Before the current standard became rule, we had much smaller aircraft operating even closer behind 747's. And while several suffered severe upsets, even crashed, they weren't falling apart in mid air.
The JFK controller DID NOT release AAL587 fifteen seconds early, she released the aircraft with the required 4+ miles in trail. The rule book says either standard may be applied.
I can buy the idea that wake turbulence was a link in the accident chain. But there HAD to be other factors in play.
And for the record, I also believe that to assume a professional pilot was deliberately dancing on the rudders enough to cause a .8 G sideload or more is bordering on insane as well. That's akin to the peak cornering capability of a VERY expensive sports car.
Something more was at work here.....
Right now, this hour, every hour, every day, every week, somewhere in the world, there are aircraft departing and arriving 4-5 miles behind a preceeding B-747. Now, IF anyone seriously believes the wake turbulence from a JAL 747 can BREAK the structure of a sound airframe 4.3 miles behind, then ALPA, APA, NASA, etc. should be DEMANDING FAA immediately increase the required spacing to ten miles or four minutes.
But that's not likely to happen, is it? Because no majority seriously believes it. If it were so, we'd have airplanes being damaged and/or crashing on a weekly or monthly basis at least. Before the current standard became rule, we had much smaller aircraft operating even closer behind 747's. And while several suffered severe upsets, even crashed, they weren't falling apart in mid air.
The JFK controller DID NOT release AAL587 fifteen seconds early, she released the aircraft with the required 4+ miles in trail. The rule book says either standard may be applied.
I can buy the idea that wake turbulence was a link in the accident chain. But there HAD to be other factors in play.
And for the record, I also believe that to assume a professional pilot was deliberately dancing on the rudders enough to cause a .8 G sideload or more is bordering on insane as well. That's akin to the peak cornering capability of a VERY expensive sports car.
Something more was at work here.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Officer Had Kicked Rudders Before
AA Captain John Francis LaVelle is on record as having said that AA587 F/O Sten Molin had kicked the rudder pedals while flying as F/O on the B727 at an earlier time.
"He had excellent flying ability, however, he had one strange tendency: To be very agressive on the rudder pedals!"
Captain LaVelle stated that during a climb out in a B727, while the airplane was dirty with flaps at 5 degrees, Mr. Molin stroked the rudder pedals "1-2-3, about that fast."
Captain LaVelle thought that they had lost an engine. Captain LaVelle asked him what he was doing, and Mr. Molin said that he was leveling the wings due to wake turbulence. Captain LaVelle stated that Mr. Molin had never leveled the wings, and his actions had just created yawing moments on the airplane.
Captain LaVelle thought that Mr. Molin was more aggressive than he needed to be. He said that the B727 was a very stable airplane. "Sten was aggressive in his approach to wake turbulence."
"He had excellent flying ability, however, he had one strange tendency: To be very agressive on the rudder pedals!"
Captain LaVelle stated that during a climb out in a B727, while the airplane was dirty with flaps at 5 degrees, Mr. Molin stroked the rudder pedals "1-2-3, about that fast."
Captain LaVelle thought that they had lost an engine. Captain LaVelle asked him what he was doing, and Mr. Molin said that he was leveling the wings due to wake turbulence. Captain LaVelle stated that Mr. Molin had never leveled the wings, and his actions had just created yawing moments on the airplane.
Captain LaVelle thought that Mr. Molin was more aggressive than he needed to be. He said that the B727 was a very stable airplane. "Sten was aggressive in his approach to wake turbulence."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA 587 Accident at JFK.
Quotes:
"But houses on the ground dont move."
No, they just disintegrate.!
"We had much smaller aircraft operating even closer behind
747's. And while several suffered severe upsets, even
crashes, they weren't falling apart in the mid air."
The smaller the aircraft the less the inertia.! A heavy Airbus
will not move as readily with the applied force, and will absorb
a large portion of the kinetic energy in the structure.
"The resultant vector will be set at an angle of at least 45
degrees."
The -0.8g, (FDR reading) vector force striking the vertical
stabilizer, broadside, on opposite sides of the vertical fin and
rudder, rapidly, would induce extreme bending forces at the
support junction.!
"Now, if anyone seriously believes the wake turbulence from
JAL 747 can break the structure of a sound airframe 4.3 miles
behind, then ALPA, APA, NASA, etc should be demanding FAA
immediately increase the required spacing."
Yes, If the NTSB had not covered up TWA 800's real cause
AA 587 may not have occurred.!
For improved flight safety.
"But houses on the ground dont move."
No, they just disintegrate.!
"We had much smaller aircraft operating even closer behind
747's. And while several suffered severe upsets, even
crashes, they weren't falling apart in the mid air."
The smaller the aircraft the less the inertia.! A heavy Airbus
will not move as readily with the applied force, and will absorb
a large portion of the kinetic energy in the structure.
"The resultant vector will be set at an angle of at least 45
degrees."
The -0.8g, (FDR reading) vector force striking the vertical
stabilizer, broadside, on opposite sides of the vertical fin and
rudder, rapidly, would induce extreme bending forces at the
support junction.!
"Now, if anyone seriously believes the wake turbulence from
JAL 747 can break the structure of a sound airframe 4.3 miles
behind, then ALPA, APA, NASA, etc should be demanding FAA
immediately increase the required spacing."
Yes, If the NTSB had not covered up TWA 800's real cause
AA 587 may not have occurred.!
For improved flight safety.
Last edited by wsherif1; 14th Jun 2003 at 16:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA 587 Accident at JFK:
Lem,
Captain LaVelle is only one of the many Captains that have
flown with F/O Sten Moline.! There has been nothing but praise
for Sten's character and abilities as a pilot from them.!
Captain LaVelle is only one of the many Captains that have
flown with F/O Sten Moline.! There has been nothing but praise
for Sten's character and abilities as a pilot from them.!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, but even the best person in the world can make just one fatal mistake.
Unless Catain La Velle is lying, what happened is in incredible coincidence (a copilot with that background + a severed tail )!
Unless Catain La Velle is lying, what happened is in incredible coincidence (a copilot with that background + a severed tail )!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Pro Flt Control Design Engineer's Opinion
IMHO you could have a sideways hammer-blow from a mature wake vortex - but whether it would be laterally sharp (and hard) enough to cause a rudder movement that would snap one, two or three of its actuators? Hard to say - but I would doubt it.
But then again, you have to ask: "So when did the rudder actuators snap and the rudder separate from the fin? Did actuator breakage and rudder hinge detachment occur simultaneously? Was it whilst the vertical fin was still attached to the fuselage?”. In my lay view it would have to have been - because the detached fin's short fluttering descent to the water would not have provided sufficient force to cause the rudder to wholly detach..
Bit of a mystery really when looked at from the angle of rudder detachment timing and forces required. Maybe Rainman would have a view. Obviously the NTSB would have sucked on this aspect already.
Rainman says in reply
unctuous wrote:
>>Did actuator breakage and rudder hinge detachment occur simultaneously? Was it whilst the vertical fin was still attached to the fuselage?<<
Not only would I say yes, but I also think this is another sign of an undamped oscillation that supports my theory of what happened on this airplane. A standing wave oscillation (wake vortex, in this case) that stimulates a closed-loop control system that has negative phase margin is going to cause larger, additive hinge moments in the rudder control system than if it were not out-of-phase. That's because if the control system is 180 degrees out of phase (directly opposing) the aerodynamic load, then the hinge "feels" the force of the aerodynamic load, and it also feels the force its control system is exerting against it, in its out-of-phase attempt to control the airplane.
As the oscillation continues, each new "peak" reaches a new (higher) peak in surface load and therefore hinge moment. If the control system is truly 180 degrees out of phase, then at the point of fracture, the rudder control system would have been pushing one way (say left) with all its force, and the vertical stabilizer would have been pushing the opposite direction (right) with the full force of the aerodynamic response. Rudder breaks and flies off in one direction, tail-fin breaks and flies off in the other.
I still would like to see someone push a big question to the front of the media on this accident: Airbus, could you please publish the "normal" frequency response of the rudder control system, and your "estimated" frequency response of the same system while subjected to your known "rudder synchronization" failure mode described in the subject AD?
Why is this data not available? If there is no smoking gun in this data, not only will I shut up, but other professionals with my knowledge would also comment on that data, and they could pass their own, independent judgment.
Rainman
But then again, you have to ask: "So when did the rudder actuators snap and the rudder separate from the fin? Did actuator breakage and rudder hinge detachment occur simultaneously? Was it whilst the vertical fin was still attached to the fuselage?”. In my lay view it would have to have been - because the detached fin's short fluttering descent to the water would not have provided sufficient force to cause the rudder to wholly detach..
Bit of a mystery really when looked at from the angle of rudder detachment timing and forces required. Maybe Rainman would have a view. Obviously the NTSB would have sucked on this aspect already.
Rainman says in reply
unctuous wrote:
>>Did actuator breakage and rudder hinge detachment occur simultaneously? Was it whilst the vertical fin was still attached to the fuselage?<<
Not only would I say yes, but I also think this is another sign of an undamped oscillation that supports my theory of what happened on this airplane. A standing wave oscillation (wake vortex, in this case) that stimulates a closed-loop control system that has negative phase margin is going to cause larger, additive hinge moments in the rudder control system than if it were not out-of-phase. That's because if the control system is 180 degrees out of phase (directly opposing) the aerodynamic load, then the hinge "feels" the force of the aerodynamic load, and it also feels the force its control system is exerting against it, in its out-of-phase attempt to control the airplane.
As the oscillation continues, each new "peak" reaches a new (higher) peak in surface load and therefore hinge moment. If the control system is truly 180 degrees out of phase, then at the point of fracture, the rudder control system would have been pushing one way (say left) with all its force, and the vertical stabilizer would have been pushing the opposite direction (right) with the full force of the aerodynamic response. Rudder breaks and flies off in one direction, tail-fin breaks and flies off in the other.
I still would like to see someone push a big question to the front of the media on this accident: Airbus, could you please publish the "normal" frequency response of the rudder control system, and your "estimated" frequency response of the same system while subjected to your known "rudder synchronization" failure mode described in the subject AD?
Why is this data not available? If there is no smoking gun in this data, not only will I shut up, but other professionals with my knowledge would also comment on that data, and they could pass their own, independent judgment.
Rainman
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA587 Accident at JFK:
Forget the rudder.! We are talking about a larger and more
effective flight control surface in the vertical stabilizer.! This
extensive surface area of the fin and rudder, when struck by the
force of the rotating vortices, BROADSIDE, first on one side and
then the other, creates a tremendous shear force at the joint
structure.
At some point in time the 0.3, 0.4, and the 0.8 G forces break
the rudder control linkages to the rudder actuators. The free
floating rudder now moves with the directional changes in wind
shear forces and indicates the forces applied on the tail fin.
The designers, due to the requirement for control in engine out
on take-off, have now come up with a very sensitive weather
vane.! The 0.8 G force against the large fin will induce an
abrupt yaw motion, creating an instantaneous Dutch roll into a
steep left bank and a -30 degree dive attitude. There is no
evidence the pilot had use of right rudder to assist in any
recovery attempt, although he used full right aileron application
to counter the left bank.
effective flight control surface in the vertical stabilizer.! This
extensive surface area of the fin and rudder, when struck by the
force of the rotating vortices, BROADSIDE, first on one side and
then the other, creates a tremendous shear force at the joint
structure.
At some point in time the 0.3, 0.4, and the 0.8 G forces break
the rudder control linkages to the rudder actuators. The free
floating rudder now moves with the directional changes in wind
shear forces and indicates the forces applied on the tail fin.
The designers, due to the requirement for control in engine out
on take-off, have now come up with a very sensitive weather
vane.! The 0.8 G force against the large fin will induce an
abrupt yaw motion, creating an instantaneous Dutch roll into a
steep left bank and a -30 degree dive attitude. There is no
evidence the pilot had use of right rudder to assist in any
recovery attempt, although he used full right aileron application
to counter the left bank.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are back at the starting point.
I think it's useless to look for noon at midnight: one of the pilots (guess who?) kicked the rudder both ways, as he had already done in the past, and the fin was severed.
If wake turbulence alone could do that, we'd have a crash everyday.
Period.
I think it's useless to look for noon at midnight: one of the pilots (guess who?) kicked the rudder both ways, as he had already done in the past, and the fin was severed.
If wake turbulence alone could do that, we'd have a crash everyday.
Period.
For those who simply want to blame the deceased FO/Captain: had the FO or Captain ever before (the accident) experienced serious encounters behind larger, widebody jets? If so, had either pilot made fast inputs on the rudder pedals as a result? Memories of such encounters might be subjective and vague, but helpful.
Unctuous: even if Airbus Inc. never releases the data which aerospace engineers could analyse, could data on the 767, DC-10 or MD-11 be similar to that for an A-300, even if some components are built by different sub-contractors? Are similar size Boeing or MD rudders designed to be much less sensitive at normal climb/approach speeds?
After the USAir 737 crash years ago near Pittsburgh (PIT), PA, didn't Boeing use wake vortex data from 727s to keep the focus away from rudder actuators and yaw dampers? Incidentally, as an FO many years ago we once had a DC-9 on initial climb-out begin to smoothly yaw from side to side, to a large angle, and totally uncommanded while hand flying. Nobody was in front of us and the early morning air in Knoxville (TYS) was cool and smooth. The Captain selected manual rudder, and the yaw disappeared fairly quickly, as we quickly did the decent and approach checklists (plus a PA to minimize concern among the passengers and FA's) while turning onto a downwind for an immediate return and declaring an emergency with tower. He had already experienced this problem years before that on an MD-80. Luckily, at a much higher speed near 300 knots, the "porkchop" rudder would have limited rudder movement to about one inch, if my memory (jet-lagged since yesterday in Schipol) is correct.
My main emphasis is that after any major incident or accident, any manufacturer will strenuosly put the spotlight on any other factor except the possibility that its own aircraft can have a malfunction or need for extra inspections, will it not? Just imagine the potential loss in revenue, whether the manufacturer's civilian sector has been subsidized through massive tax-payer subsidies or not.
Unctuous: even if Airbus Inc. never releases the data which aerospace engineers could analyse, could data on the 767, DC-10 or MD-11 be similar to that for an A-300, even if some components are built by different sub-contractors? Are similar size Boeing or MD rudders designed to be much less sensitive at normal climb/approach speeds?
After the USAir 737 crash years ago near Pittsburgh (PIT), PA, didn't Boeing use wake vortex data from 727s to keep the focus away from rudder actuators and yaw dampers? Incidentally, as an FO many years ago we once had a DC-9 on initial climb-out begin to smoothly yaw from side to side, to a large angle, and totally uncommanded while hand flying. Nobody was in front of us and the early morning air in Knoxville (TYS) was cool and smooth. The Captain selected manual rudder, and the yaw disappeared fairly quickly, as we quickly did the decent and approach checklists (plus a PA to minimize concern among the passengers and FA's) while turning onto a downwind for an immediate return and declaring an emergency with tower. He had already experienced this problem years before that on an MD-80. Luckily, at a much higher speed near 300 knots, the "porkchop" rudder would have limited rudder movement to about one inch, if my memory (jet-lagged since yesterday in Schipol) is correct.
My main emphasis is that after any major incident or accident, any manufacturer will strenuosly put the spotlight on any other factor except the possibility that its own aircraft can have a malfunction or need for extra inspections, will it not? Just imagine the potential loss in revenue, whether the manufacturer's civilian sector has been subsidized through massive tax-payer subsidies or not.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for interests sake, on the forces of 747 wingtip vortices. Many years ago as a young fighter pilot, I had the opportunity to escort a 747 SUD in a Mirage F1.
I am a bit rusty on the performance of a F1 now, but just to demonstrate the aileron power of the F1, if I remember correctly at 350kts, lowlevel in an airshow, it had a roll rate in excess of 600º/sec with full aileron application.
I don’t know what speed we were descending, as we were flying fairly close formation on the 747, so was referencing my speed to his, but I’m sure a 747 driver can give us the descent speed in a 747 SUD.
We were descending through about 25,000 ft, when I decided to go and find out what the “hype” was about 747 vortices. I was flying on the right wing, and I slid into the vortice from side. With full aileron application to the right, the vortice still rolled me to the left at the speed of a normal straight roll.
So if anyone still doubts that there is a mini tornado behind a 747 think again. This was at 1 “g” and a fairly high speed, say 250 kts +, and fairly light after a 10 hr flight, and minimal pax. Can you imagine the force after takeoff, heavy and slow. Frightening!
It might have been stupid at the time, but it gave me a healthy respect for vortices, and made me a very careful driver after that, whenever I was behind big birds.
I am a bit rusty on the performance of a F1 now, but just to demonstrate the aileron power of the F1, if I remember correctly at 350kts, lowlevel in an airshow, it had a roll rate in excess of 600º/sec with full aileron application.
I don’t know what speed we were descending, as we were flying fairly close formation on the 747, so was referencing my speed to his, but I’m sure a 747 driver can give us the descent speed in a 747 SUD.
We were descending through about 25,000 ft, when I decided to go and find out what the “hype” was about 747 vortices. I was flying on the right wing, and I slid into the vortice from side. With full aileron application to the right, the vortice still rolled me to the left at the speed of a normal straight roll.
So if anyone still doubts that there is a mini tornado behind a 747 think again. This was at 1 “g” and a fairly high speed, say 250 kts +, and fairly light after a 10 hr flight, and minimal pax. Can you imagine the force after takeoff, heavy and slow. Frightening!
It might have been stupid at the time, but it gave me a healthy respect for vortices, and made me a very careful driver after that, whenever I was behind big birds.
Last edited by Flamgat; 17th Jun 2003 at 18:55.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flamgat: I don't think that anyone doubts that significant vortexes are generated by 74s.
What most aviators doubt is that those forces are sufficient to rip off the vertical stab and rudder. It's just a fact that heretofore no airplane has had its tail ripped off from such an event.
What most aviators doubt is that those forces are sufficient to rip off the vertical stab and rudder. It's just a fact that heretofore no airplane has had its tail ripped off from such an event.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball, I beg to differ. There have been failures of metallic vertical stabilizers before. There is a very interesting article on composite primary structures on:
http://www.abaris.com/Downloads/Newsletter1-v4.pdf
Well worth a read.
http://www.abaris.com/Downloads/Newsletter1-v4.pdf
Well worth a read.