VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #41  
Old 05-30-2012, 03:42 PM
SMO's Avatar
SMO SMO is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salmon Arm, BC
Posts: 933
Default Butting in

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostpilot28 View Post
That in mind, I would be flat out AMAZED if you, or Mr. Morris have NEVER used "forceful and abrupt" actuation of a flight control.
Reminds me of doing snap rolls in the old Aerobat many years ago. Get the speed right and then a rather "abrupt" pulling the yoke into the chest while simultaneously "abruptly" pressing a rudder pedal and around we would go! Wheeeee!

To keep this somewhat on topic: I've always thought of a snap roll as an accelerated stall followed by a horizontal spin. Same recovery technique.
__________________
Mark Olson
1987 RV-4 Sold
2003 Super Decathlon - Sold
F1 EVO Rocket, first flight May 31/14
First in line for the Sonex JSX-2T kit
  #42  
Old 05-30-2012, 05:43 PM
TSwezey TSwezey is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,849
Default 100% aft cg.

I figured it was way back there. That would probably be the only place you could get a -10 to act like that unintentionally.
__________________
Todd
N110TD
RV-10 Vesta V8 LS2/BMA EFIS/One formerly flying at 3J1 Hobbs stopped at 150 hours
Savannah, GA and Ridgeland, SC
  #43  
Old 05-30-2012, 06:43 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

small correction here: design load limits are independent of weight. You pulled nearly 6 g, and it was enough to deflect the engine mounts so that there was damage to the cowl. That would have happened regardless of how heavy or light you were.

I'm concerned about your cg. Most 10's are not at the aft limit when lightly loaded, just the opposite. I suppose it's the fixed pitch prop. But I'd go over the balance numbers again. Is it possible you stalled the plane with a too-far aft cg? Maybe you were luckier than you know. Remember if the cg is aft, it will move further aft as you burn gas.
  #44  
Old 05-30-2012, 07:51 PM
jetjok's Avatar
jetjok jetjok is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostpilot28 View Post
No, his comment was in reference to my comment about doing stalls/spins in a 152. And the reason I mentioned that the analogy wasn't in-line was because of the flying situation, not the type of aircraft. The Airbus wasn't attempting to perform a 1G stall when they "stomped" the rudder. They had considerable air loads on the tail when they did that, which obviously helped break it off. Had it been a 1G maneuver, do YOU think the tail would've snapped?

Not trying to sound terse, but some here really could use a little clearer perspective on context. That in mind, I would be flat out AMAZED if you, or Mr. Morris have NEVER used "forceful and abrupt" actuation of a flight control.
If you are going to hypothesize about the loads on the vertical tail which were causal to the A-300 accident, I might suggest that you read the NTSB report before you make further public comments.
You are correct that I (Mr. Morris is very respected aviator, so I will not speak for him) may have at some point in time utilized abrupt and rapid actuation of a flight control. However, I can safely say that in 35 years of flying in a range from ultralights to 747's, I have never "STOMPED" any control.
Let's get back to the OP's original post, eh?
__________________
Mark Ohlau
RV-6 N506MM VAF #1410
2017 Donation Made
  #45  
Old 05-30-2012, 07:53 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
Default

Man...this whole deal scares the living daylights out of me.

A pilot so inexperienced he doesn't know the difference between a spiral dive and a spin trying to execute accelerated stalls in an unfamiliar plane, and as a result can't even remember the steps he may have taken to recover, an RV-10 that may have an aft CG issue, a seemingly cavalier attitude about doing a careful inspection, an airframe that was obviously stressed beyond its design load.........good grief......we are so fortunate we aren't discussing an NTSB report.

The main difference between this incident and the ones the FAA is coming down on us about (fatalities during Phase 1) is the pilot is able to post to the forum.

Sorry for the rant......there is just so much wrong with this incident...........so many reasons it should have never happened......I hope we can learn from it.
__________________
Sam Buchanan
RV-6
Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 05-30-2012 at 07:58 PM.
  #46  
Old 05-30-2012, 07:54 PM
Space Cadet's Avatar
Space Cadet Space Cadet is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 211
Default CG, retraction

Edit: Missed Sam's post while writing. Yes, it scared me too. I didn't consider myself inexperienced (400 hrs in several different aircraft types), and jumped to a conclusion as to what happened. I've never done a spin, so I assumed that was it, and it didn't dawn on me to consider something else. To say I don't remember how I recovered is also not true, I just don't recall it perfectly and understand the limits of my own recall. It happened very quickly, and was trying to be honest about it. I was not cross-coordinated or applying pressure the wrong way if that's what you are implying. I don't believe there's any aft cg issue with the plane, just my understanding of how that cg position feels during the maneuver. It was intentionally being flown at that limit for testing. After all, when you go fly with an instructor they don't take you through all the possible cg loading positions and how it feels to you as a pilot, you're almost always in the middle of the box. So the inputs didn't match what my muscle memory was expecting and I was slow to react. And I resent the comment that have a cavalier attitude about inspecting the airplane. I don't. Perhaps you should remove the entire post if you feel it represents that bad of example.


Dwight
__________________
RV-10 #40762 - 100 hrs+
Denver, CO

Last edited by Space Cadet : 05-30-2012 at 08:11 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-30-2012, 08:03 PM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Cadet View Post
rudder. I kept my head up and was using ailerons mostly, I think, and was nervous about which leg to push with (should have just looked at the instruments).
Bingo. Aileron input in the stall will only aggravate a cross-controlled stall condition. Stick neutral, bringing up a wing is with rudder only, you do not want to be looking at anything on the panel while doing this.
__________________

Please don't PM me! Email only!

Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N9187P PA-24-260B Comanche, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.
  #48  
Old 05-30-2012, 09:23 PM
szicree szicree is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,061
Default

So suppose I'm doing accelerated stalls as part of my phase one "tests". I assume this is to make sure the plane reacts predictably in the stall. But suppose it doesn't. What then? Isn't the whole point of the test to find out what it's going to do? Isn't one of the most likely adverse outcomes a spin? Doing this kind of testing without spin training seems like a pretty bad idea (to me).
__________________
Steve Zicree
Fullerton, Ca. w/beautiful 2.5 year old son
RV-4 99% built and sold
Rag and tube project well under way

paid =VAF= dues through June 2013
  #49  
Old 05-30-2012, 10:27 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default This is why it is called flight "testing".

First off, I commend the O.P. for baring his sole to all the world, and admitting to a situation he got himself into that could have ended very tragically.
He is also to be commended for doing what very few people seem to do during phase 1... actually testing the airplane.
He is even loading the airplane to different C.G. locations so that he can fully evaluate the flight characteristics, and at the same time better learn how to fly the airplane. Even fewer people do this.

Having said that, I am hoping that people will learn from his experience (I'm sure he has already), and realize that flight testing is much more serious business than most people making first flights and doing phase 1 flight testing think.

If you undertake the job of test pilot, you need to already be ready for anything the airplane could possibly do. This is not a learn as you go occupation. You need to already know what to do at the start of a spin entry, and be able to make the proper control inputs by seeing what is happening out the windscreen (the instruments are not going to give you the best indication). Making an incorrect determination of what is going on, making incorrect control inputs, or delaying taking proper action, can quickly turn a simple anomaly, in to a very serious situation (like it did here).

Please consider the flight testing of your new airplane to be a serious undertaking.
Please consider carefully, whether you are prepared for all of the different situations that could pop up during a first flight, and all of the testing that follows.

And please consider, There is no shame in using a more experienced pilot for some (or even all) of the test flying.
  #50  
Old 05-30-2012, 10:30 PM
lostpilot28's Avatar
lostpilot28 lostpilot28 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetjok View Post
If you are going to hypothesize about the loads on the vertical tail which were causal to the A-300 accident, I might suggest that you read the NTSB report before you make further public comments.
You are correct that I (Mr. Morris is very respected aviator, so I will not speak for him) may have at some point in time utilized abrupt and rapid actuation of a flight control. However, I can safely say that in 35 years of flying in a range from ultralights to 747's, I have never "STOMPED" any control.
Let's get back to the OP's original post, eh?
Yeah, let's. But since you brought it up, why don't you enlighten me how my comment about the loads on a 1G maneuver are the same as the loads on the Airbus in question.

I frankly don't care how experienced a pilot you are...my whole point is that you both are making an issue out of the word "stomp" which has zero to do with how I fly. I'll tell you what, I've heard "respected" aviators say things much worse than "stomp".
__________________
Sonny W
Boise, Idaho
RV-7A Flying!

Last edited by lostpilot28 : 05-30-2012 at 10:47 PM.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.