Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light plane crashes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    A friend of mine who was the Chief Test Pilot at Douglas told me an interesting story. Back when they were just building the DC-8 they where curious what would happen if the DC-8 exceeded the speed of sound. So he took it up to 45,000 ft, pushed it over and did about M1.14, as I remember. Everything held together. That was not for public consumption. He told me (just between the two of us) and faxed a conformation. That was back in the 90's. Good old airplane I really enjoyed flying.
    As far as I know, the DC-8 is the only large transport category airplane to ever fly inverted and land intact. Flame me if that's not true.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Evan View Post

      As far as I know, the DC-8 is the only large transport category airplane to ever fly inverted and land intact. Flame me if that's not true.
      Pretty famous roll in a 707!

      https://youtu.be/Ra_khhzuFlE

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

        Pretty famous roll in a 707!

        https://youtu.be/Ra_khhzuFlE
        I stand corrected.

        Comment


        • #64
          There were other cases where the plane flew inverted (either intentionally or not) and it was recovered and the plane landed safely, not necessarily intact, though.
          A famous one is the FedEx DC-10 where a rogue pilot that was a pax in the flight attacked the pilots. The captain and flight eng left their seats and engaged in a fight with the guy while the first officer, severely injured from a hammer blow, kept flying the plane and did crazy maneuvers to unstabilize the bad guy.
          Another one was a 747 from a southeast Asia country flying to the USA (sorry, I don't remember the details) that lost an engine over the Pacific ocean and the crew of 3, distracted troubleshooting the engine issue, let the plane assume an abnormal attitude and then totally lost it. This plane not only flew inverted at times, but it also exceeded the speed of sound. The pilots were able to recover only after they broke below the clouds.
          And talking about exceeding Mach 1, there were several subsonic planes that did it and survived, like the 747 above, but also intentionally during certification flights. That is because Mmo / Vmo is defined in a way where, if you initiate a certain prescribed dive, the plane can be recovered while meeting certain controllability and structural requirements. During that dive and recovery, the speed will increase. So in planes that are certified for a very high subsonic speed, the certification dive may exceed M1. I think that the 747 100 to 400, with an Mmo of M 0.92, is one such plane. I don't know about the -8 that has an Mmo 0f 0.9.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #65
            Company I worked for had a 747 on a night flight to Anchorage, over Canada, do a slow roll to inverted and a recovery after M1.06. A hydraulic valve in the auto-pilot roll control stuck leaving a very tiny aileron defection. A slow roll began. Night flight under a high overcast, dark. Flight Engineer says "Captain what's the matter with your attitude indicator, it's showing a left bank?" Then they all looked at the FO's indicator and then the standby. That was when the autopilot disconnected and the aircraft rolled left inverted. They brought the throttles to idle, deployed the speed brakes and rolled back to level and then an easy pitch back to level. Boeing had this happen two other times (two different airlines),but each was during the day and corrected by the crew. Our aircraft landed at Fargo N.D. where Boeing inspected it and replaced many fiberglass panels, plus the hydraulic controller and returned to service.

            Comment


            • #66
              Apparently a light plane ran off the end of a runway.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Another one was a 747 from a southeast Asia country flying to the USA (sorry, I don't remember the details)...
                That would be China Airlines flight 006.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Not_Karl View Post
                  Did not fly inverted. Did not land intact.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Not_Karl View Post
                    That one. Thank you!

                    Originally posted by Evan
                    Did not fly inverted.
                    What do you call a 178-degrees bank?

                    Did not land intact.
                    That is why I said:

                    There were other cases where the plane flew inverted (either intentionally or not) and it was recovered and the plane landed safely, not necessarily intact, though.

                    The FedEx also did not land intact.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      What do you call a 178-degrees bank?
                      Gabriel, the hell better AEROENGINEER, would refer to as “extreme since it exceeds 0.523598776 radians” and “almost-but-not-quite-inverted”.


                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                        Gabriel, the hell better AEROENGINEER, would refer to as “extreme since it exceeds 0.523598776 radians” and “almost-but-not-quite-inverted”.

                        178° is 0.9889π rad or 3.1067 rad. That is 2° degrees, or about 0.011 rad, off of inverted wings level.
                        It is officially inverted once |φ| > π/2 rad ≈ 0.7853 rad (or, for the aggies, 90°), so yea, 178° is pretty much within the officially inverted range.

                        0.523598776 radians would be about π/6 radians (or, for the aggies, 30°). Exceeding that angle would be excessive in a transport category plane but not extreme. The first bank angle warning (which I think was not available back then in that plane) happens when the bank angle exceeds 35°.
                        For example, Airbus's HAL will fight back some but still allow the pilot to go al the way to 67° (the angle for which you need a load factor of 2.5 to support level flight). And it will let the pilot go all the way to 33° with no opposition and hold it there stick-free.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          What do you call a 178-degrees bank?
                          It depends on the pitch attitude, but I misread that one and thought it peaked it 65deg roll.

                          Truly inverted flight in my book requires something less than, say, 20deg of pitch.

                          Here's one:

                          https://avgeekery.com/time-boeing-71...erted-testing/

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                            Blah, Blah, Blah…
                            No and no.

                            Excessive vs. extreme- I know of no formal standards of discernment in the Official Rules of Parlour talk on Obscure Aviation Discussion Fora.

                            AND

                            Flipping a pancake to 91 degrees doesn’t make it inverted. Inverted is 180 degrees. I’ll give you “past vertical” and maybe the push pull inputs should be inverted, but…

                            I think we concur that 178 is relatively close to 180…and the significant digits on the radians should be acknowledged as excessive and, yes, basically the angle you should try not_to exceed for normal operations.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              What can you say. Perhaps Captain Olsen has a similar memory for us?

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2022-11-28 at 4.32.02 PM.png
Views:	0
Size:	116.8 KB
ID:	1149703

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I know you don't want to throw them a life line from the ground.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X