STKNRUD

Why don't we all stop trying to play Sky King, Ace of Aces....the generalizations being made here by everyone that has ever piloted even a kite are nuts. The following taken from an FAA analysis of stall/spin accidents. Yes, it was focused on prop aircraft but it again highlights the error of making broad generalizations about spin recovery by all the "experts" in this thread. Power is NOT the first and most important thing in all situations. The highlights were added by me. Let's just call an end to this nightmare.

"Spin Dynamics

Spins are extremely complex phenomena, and no single factor can be used to predict the spin characteristics or recovery potential of a given airplane. The combined influence of several interacting variables must be considered. Although tremendous advances have been made in high angle of attack research, no one yet has all of the answers to the spin problem. Enough information is available, however, to be able to separate myth from reality and to offer some practical advice on the subject.

Applying power during a spin, for example, has long been known to aggravate spin characteristics. Increasing the rpm of the propeller literally increases the rpm of the spin. Ultimately, the degree to which power influences spin dynamics depends on the size and weight of the prop compared to the rest of the airplane. It also depends on the direction and speed of the spin, the angle of attack of the spin, and the ratio of roll to yaw in the spin. In general, upright spins to the left with power "on" tend to spin both faster and flatter; upright spins to the right with power "on" tend to spin faster, but perhaps with less noticeable pitch change."

rcjets_63

My Feedback: (4)

I think the whole idea is to apply power to avoid getting into the spin in the first place.

Still, I think the crash was due to the canards failing, or the flux capacitor, or bad sushi (sun-spots have been eliminated; I called NASA).

One thing for sure, the omniscient minds on RCU will not let this one die until at least 5 more pages of conjecture, arguement, opinion, and fantasy. Come on guys, you're slowing down. Let's get to it.

Jim

STKNRUD

Jim,

You haven't eliminated an alien attack though. I have proof but I would have to kill you if I disclosed it so will just have to accept it as fact.

I am through, finished, gone. Anything anyone says from this point is SURE to be an absolute fact, an undeniable rule of physics, astrophysics and aerodynamics. As for me, I am going flying! As I recall you pull back to go up and keep it back to go down....unless of course if you hand launch inverted...I think...just an opinion.

George

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

STKNRD: There are two ironies in that quote. 1) it "generalizes" quite a bit with regard to various types of spin, except that it is 2) quite prop specific and almost completely inapplicable to the case at hand. The airflow and gyroscopic physics that dictate a power reduction when a heavy fan is spinning really fast on the front are just a weee bit different than in the case of a turbine.

Furthermore, having and drawing from an extensive background on the topic, (as opposed to having to quote a federal document out of context) is not indicative of an aspiring "ace of aces" or 'sky king". It is simply indicative of an extensive background on the topic from which to draw.

Path yes, heading no. Huge massive difference. U are adressing the HEADING in the vid. Wind did not change the heading.

Wind does not "strike the rudder", causing the a/c to weathervane in flight. Period. On the ground, yes, because the main wheels become a pivot point. In the air, no. And by trying to use a x-wind landing as an example, u are trying to make a comparison of apples to oranges. The rudder is used to align the airplane to the runway heading, but the wind did not cause "mis-alignment" of the heading to begin with. The heading on final approach, before the rudder is used in the flare, was one chosen by the pilot to compensate for the crosswind. It was not a result of the tail having been "blown off heading"

Sorry again. A wing and the physics that govern "lift" are quite blind to the horizon. All other factors being equal, a "low" wing is no more prone to buffet than a "high" wing.

I won't be so silly as to post a re'sume in an effort to gain your trust in my credibility. But please believe me. I have been blessed with (lucked into) an amazingly broad 35+ year career and I truly do know what I'm talking about here.

Or...don't trust me. I'm cool with that. Lots of clowns log in here posting "expert" opinions when they actually know jack, and you don't know me from Adam. So ask any experienced aerobatic instructor, competitor, show performer, or maybe some other seasoned professional aviator.

I am trying to help u, but to teach basic aerodynamics is not within the scope of this thread, or even this forum, so I'm not gonna debate this topic with u any further.

I know u mean well, but u are just plain mistaken. I mean well too, and that's why I'm pointing out that your understanding of the matter is a bit...askew. I'm not trying to bash or embarrass, I'm trying to help.

Peace and best wishes, Don.

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Absolutely.
Not to mention that the propwash was disturbed when the coriolis effect was tightened by the new moon.


I'm outta here too, guys. The posts (Starting with the one that ernestly mentioned the CANARDS having failed) (NOT referring to Jim's obvious tongue-in-cheek post above) have gotten too bizarre even for me, and that's really saying something.

CraigG

My Feedback: (40)

Your posts on aerodynamics have been accurate and articulate. I appreciate them along with the references to your distinguished aviation background and experiences.

It's unfortunate this thread has been tainted with animosity.

Craig

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

x2

Beave

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

One last post to thank Jim and Bevar for the support. Fratricide is just part of RCU, and I gladly take the occasional bad with the overwhelming good.

A clarification if I may?

I wouldn't want to support the wrong impression that my career has been "distinguished", as much as I'd love to claim that it was so.

I have been more blessed and lucky than good. And have never been accused of being a "natural", though I have proven to some talented and patient instructors that I am trainable, if u know what I mean. And it's that combination of being blessed, lucky, and trainable that has let me enjoy an enviable (if not distinguished) career and lifestyle.

Thanks y'all, Don.

RCKindaGuy

....

RCKindaGuy

Then answerone simple question..........If the OPasks for people to review a video and then offer thoughts and opinions as to what may have caused the crash..then what or how exactly do you think the postings are supposed to say or read?

RCKindaGuy

.....

RCKindaGuy

......

Ayrtonsenna

My Feedback: (1)

I'm getting coffee... anyone want one?

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

Umm ... crosswinds DO cause a plane to drift from it's intended path. Hence the practice of cross-controlloing the ailerons and rudder during a crosswind landing to maintain track/heading. Wind striking a rudder will cause an aircraft to yaw into the direction of the wind.


Sorry Don, but once again, crosswinds DO cause a plane to drift from it's intended path/heading. Hence the practice of cross-controlloing the ailerons and rudder during a crosswind landing to maintain track/heading/path.

#2 - A low wing DOES develope less lift when coming out of a loop. Angle of attack, and gravity (G forces) acting on a plane that is not in a wings level attitude has a major affect as to lift/spin. Additionally, wind direction and speed are factors as well.

Without pulling out my degree in aeronautical engineering and getting into quantum physics, here is a brief, non-techenical description ...

Wind striking a rudder will cause an aircraft to yaw into the direction of the wind. This IS known as the "weathervane effect," and it is taught in basic flying. Several factors apply to weathervane effect: size of rudder, weight of aircraft, and speed of aircraft. Given the same wind speed and direction on any or all of these factors will result in different amounts of heading changes for various aircrafts. Large commercial aircraft are immune to minor crosswinds due to their weight. However, the lighter the aircraft the more suseptable the aircraft is, as in this case, a model aircraft.

Additionally, the jet model in this video did roll-out on a different heading with the right wing low. This could have also been caused by the pilot unknowingly adding right aileron as he pulled back on the elevator. Did anyone catch that the pilot did a quick adjustment to the "wings level" position just before entering the loop?

You can see that the jet went over the top of the loop with "air authority." The jet did not display any "spongy/low speed" characteristics as it went over the top of the loop. As the jet came to the bottom of the loop the G force exceeded the lift, and the jet spun to the right. The jet was off course, in a right wing low attitude. Low speed was not a factor (the jet had sufficient airspeed) ... G force was a factor, as well as a wing-low attitude. Adding power at this point WILL aggrivate an accelerated stall. Reducing power IS the answer, and will allow air-flow to stabilize quickly. Additionally, adding power will increase the arc of recovery and drive the plane/jet into the ground. (Like leaning into a punch.) Whereas, reducing power results in a smaller arc and quicker recovery when altitude is critical. If this jet was slow, then adding power would correct the recovery. However, that was not the case in this instance. A pilot needs to recognize what would be the correct action based on the conditions. If an aircraft were to attempt the same turning radius in a high speed turn that can be accomplished in a low speed turn, the aircraft would encounter excessive G's, the airflow on the wings would buffet (especially the lower wing) and the end result is the accelerated stall. The ONLY recovery is to reduce power and neutralize control inputs. Adding power INCREASES the G forces. You don't want added G's in an accelerated spin!!!

To each their own. But for the guy who claimed he was lucky to survive his accelerated stall/spin, yes he was lucky. As to whether he was at critical low-speed or just high G's, no one will ever know because this happens too fast to evaluate without a video or a flight data recorder. Sometimes luck or altitude prevails when you do everything wrong.

ViperJet1

My Feedback: (12)

Slow? The jet was flying slow? I have a Viper....that was half throttle with a 160 sx about 125 MPH. Lets not forget the landing gear is down, the flaps are fully down and the guys flying aerobatic manuevers with dirty air under the wing.
I have had 10 real pilots of full scale watch this video and all said the same thing as what I said without me even suggesting it.
Agressive stall ....at high speed..........with heavy throttle and probably full elevator on the stick in panic!!
I know.... I just did it with my extra 300. Prop or turbine or any airplane for the matter will stall. Its a fact.
Fly straight and level with one of your lesser expensive planes at near full throttle and pull full elevator and see what happens.

It will corkscrew.
I feel bad for the guy I really do, but he made several mistakes. First was the landing gear down and not landing. Second was flying at speed with the landing gear down. Third was doing a loop with the gear down and flaps down.....especially the flaps..(imagine the air pattern they chaned at speed to the elevators). And fourth.......well .........He paniced. Its simple. You look into more than that and your just simply wrong.

He knows what happened and is probably feeling shamed although he should'nt , it can happen to any of us. But I'll say this.......my viper is new and I have 5 flights on it and everyone has been extrremely conservative. I'd rather have 100 conservative flights than 10 aggressive.

So when you say slow....I am sorry, but you are wrong. If it was slow it probably would not have stalled.

Turbotronic

I agree 100%. when I say slow and low it is relative to what was required for that airframe to not get into that situation. And yea Ive done that too, on many occasions...
Also worth remembering is that while there is no torque roll on a jet, gyro precession also playes a role at higher turbine RPM's. Cant say it it was a factor here though.
Pity, real nice plane.

Tomhawk

3DAV8R

My Feedback: (39)

The airplane "departed"...nuf said