Cool. Didn't Boeing just have the entire fleet of 787's grounded because of battery issues? Point I'm trying to make is, sometimes people get it wrong. I know who he is, I did my research.
C421 down near CA/NV border
- Thread starter airplanerik
- Start date
Cool. Didn't Boeing just have the entire fleet of 787's grounded because of battery issues? Point I'm trying to make is, sometimes people get it wrong. I know who he is, I did my research.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
That's great! I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say.
When someone of that caliber makes a statement contrary to what you've experienced and been taught it's only natural to want to know why.
Also, I've never met anyone who's used "inverted spin" and "King Air" in the same sentence with out the word "Prohibited"....
A150K
Well-Known Member
He returns! Glad to see you back on here!
so sad to hear his voice
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Not that I disagree, but if the load is symmetrical, I cant imagine an engine making "the difference" seeing as the engines are not substantially far off from the longitudinal axis. Keep in mind you have an equal and opposite effect from the engine on the other side. I think the the problem is spinning in the direction where the P factor is generated farther away from the longitudinal axis like on a conventional twin. I have spun airplanes with tip tanks, and I have spun that airplane with the tanks empty, and at half, and noticed no difference. BUT I am not going to try it with asymmetrical fuel loads.
We don't know what happened. If he lost an engine, VMC rolled and that turned into a subsequent spin, nothing short of shutting the other engine down, and having a crapton of altitude would help and even that is a long shot. .There have been documented multi-engine airplane spins and recoveries. I am not saying the 421 is one of them, But at 11,000 feet he didn't have much of a buffer to do anything.
More weight equals more energy equals harder to stop the rotation. The accident here is not what we are debating(thread has creeped). Think of a flywheel. Ever seen what one looks like on an old diesel powered oil well? They are HUGE and HEAVY to help maintain the rotational energy. It takes a while to get it up to speed, but once it does, it'll keep going on less because the rotational energy of that mass keeps it going. But, it also takes a long time to get it slowed down as well. Now I know that is an extreme example, but it does correlate to why a twin would be more difficult to stop the rotation. More weight away from the center of rotation is going to impart more energy and require the same equal and opposite force to slow down to get out of the spin. It just stores more energy, simple physics and Newton's laws are at work.
And I'm not saying, nor did I ever say that you couldn't recover a spin in a multi. But what I did say was that it would be more difficult because of the energy stored by the rotation.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
The thing with P-factor is the amount of force it creates is dependent on horsepower available and AOA of the descending blade. I did a Vmc demo once in an E55 Baron with naturally aspirated IO-520s where the density altitude was in excess of 11K. It wouldn't do it. It was clearly going to stall prior to running out of rudder authority. IMO this is by far a worse scenario than just losing directional control with a Vmc roll. The Vmc roll gives you time (if you have enough altitude) It will just lead to a spiral and self recovery provided the AOA is reduced soon enough. As long as you reduce AOA and gain airspeed, you can regain rudder authority without any reduction in power. Simultaneously, the AOA of the propellor blade is being reduces as well, reducing the P-factor. The problem is that you will still loose directional control for a moment, recover off heading and lose a considerable amount of altitude in the process. The Vmc departure from a stall happens much quicker. This is what is often seen in videos. The nose appears to yaw "down" because of the associated roll and the pilot pulls back in the yoke not recognizing the Vmc condition for whatever reason. The "Panic & Pull" reflex is often the reason when this happens close to the ground. It is the same visual queues and pilot response that cause the skidded base-to-final turn spin. In the latter scenario, the pilot is causing the skid with inappropriate use of rudder. In the twin, forces outside of the pilot's primary flight controls are causing the problem.
Yaw is yaw & roll is roll. A big part of flying is knowing where it can come from and to keep it from biting you in the ass.
Yaw is yaw & roll is roll. A big part of flying is knowing where it can come from and to keep it from biting you in the ass.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
I'm pretty sure the only people qualified and privy to facts enough to really speculate on this matter are headquartered in a nice building at L'Enfant Plaza.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Wow. Really?
To those who may take this as an admonition:
One of the benefits to paying attention around here is to have people who demonstrate negative networking in such a blatant manner.
Ok...back to the regularly scheduled train wreck.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
The backside of the Sierras is know for extreme turbulence especially in the spring. On that day the winds aloft were stronger than normal at lower altitudes too. Strong winds across 14,000'+ terrain = the worst turbulence I've ever experienced and it lasted 20 minutes, I've been a pilot since 1972. ATC was complaining that I was 700' off my VFR altitude. Heck, I felt lucky to still have two wings.
I can't help but wonder if he had a structure failure.
I can't help but wonder if he had a structure failure.
Yeah really. I fail to see how this was negative networking? I think it's cool that he is an actual DER. But I also think he made a mistake about what he said, and would like an explaination. Something wrong with that? (And I'm being dead serious)
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Here's the area.
Bumblebee
Commodore
it's just the way you come across, dude. if you can't see it then it's just going to take time...if ever. He said he wasn't trying to be a dick, and was pretty frank with his perspective. Then you basically just called him a dick.... If you don't think I have a fair look at it, read some of the other responses.
then your response to Doug was pretty rich as well.
Your failure to see it, doesn't mean it isn't.
Well I appoligize. IMO, his post came off as a dick, so I said so. But at Doug, I have already sent him an appolgy, because you brought it to my attention that that post came off that way, and that wasn't it's intent.
But, when someone comes across as a dick, and admits that that is the way the post is, that's okay because? Just looking for some fair and unbiased moderation.
I am more than willing to continue this via PM's, as I feel this isn't the thread to discuss this in if you'd prefer.