On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:45:16PM -0600, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Wow ... when it broke, it broke ... interesting test. I wonder if the
'rate' of flex is important, not just the amount of flex? They were
bending the wing pretty slowly ...
They would run the test slowly for a number of
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Also, flex wings are surprisingly robust, even slow beginner
nice-weather-only gliders are specified to +6 gs.
IIRC the Vari-EZ composite is spec'ed at +12 -6 and Ruttan refuses to divulge
the actual limits. (Not that you're going to be awake after pulling +12
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:57:06 -0600, Jon S. Berndt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WHAT???
Design maneuvering speed is Va and is simply and _only_
Va = Vs * sqrt(g load limit)
You can be sure that an aircraft manufacturer would have a whole lot of
patents if they had a method to recognize all the
The problem with Neural Nets, as I understand it, is that they
are regarded as non-predicatable. The only way to check that
they perform correctly in all circumstances is to check all
circumstances. The logic is effectively non-traceable (or
regarded as such).
I don't know, but there's a
Safety board says pilots can cause tail fin to break off
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/08/ntsb.flight587/index.html
IANAPNAE, but this sounds like they're blaming the pilot for a weak
tail fin. Thought it was interesting...
(IANAPOAAE: I Am Not A Pilot Nor An Engineer)
--
Cameron Moore
[
Cameron Moore wrote:
Safety board says pilots can cause tail fin to break off
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/08/ntsb.flight587/index.html
IANAPNAE, but this sounds like they're blaming the pilot for a weak
tail fin. Thought it was interesting...
There's politics at work here
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 15:06, Andy Ross wrote:
Cameron Moore wrote:
Safety board says pilots can cause tail fin to break off
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/08/ntsb.flight587/index.html
IANAPNAE, but this sounds like they're blaming the pilot for a weak
tail fin. Thought it was
There's politics at work here somewhere. The actual statement by the
NTSB was actually fairly straightforward and plausible. But the fact
that it was made at a podium in front of a room full of reporters
pretty much guaranteed that the pilot error angle would be played
up. Weird.
What this doesn't address is why the tail of this particular airliner
fell off while it was travelling at a comparatively modest speed.
Anything over 250 kts would have been illegal at that altitude and
would have been REALLY played up by the media. But the point is
valid; the NTSB quizzed
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:46:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this doesn't address is why the tail of this particular airliner
fell off while it was travelling at a comparatively modest speed.
Anything over 250 kts would have been illegal at that altitude and
would have been REALLY played
Wrong. It was an A320 where the display pilot (some time after
'first flight') switched off major protective modes of the FCS.
He did this to show that he could fly the A320 'party trick' of
a low, slow, high alpha pass with safety (due to FCS protection)
manually. He couldn't
Here is
The statement in question is this:
Many pilots have not been made aware that full rudder inputs,
under certain conditions, can jeopardize the integrity of the
vertical tail fin and that in some airline modes, rudder
deflections can be achieved with relatively small pedal
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:13:31 -0600, Jon S. Berndt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong. It was an A320 where the display pilot (some time after
'first flight') switched off major protective modes of the FCS.
He did this to show that he could fly the A320 'party trick' of
a low, slow, high alpha
13 matches
Mail list logo
