When the landing gear wont deploy
Discussion
OK, another plan. Anyone remember Spielberg's 'The Mission'?
Last episode - B17 returning from mission, u/c buggered, ball turret gunner in a pickle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9mTbooWyw&fea...
It's a bit dark; you may need to turn the brightness up.
Last episode - B17 returning from mission, u/c buggered, ball turret gunner in a pickle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9mTbooWyw&fea...
It's a bit dark; you may need to turn the brightness up.
Simpo Two said:
OK, another plan. Anyone remember Spielberg's 'The Mission'?
Last episode - B17 returning from mission, u/c buggered, ball turret gunner in a pickle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9mTbooWyw&fea...
It's a bit dark; you may need to turn the brightness up.
I remember this! Was very Sad IIRC? Cannot watch @ work... will have a nosey later.Last episode - B17 returning from mission, u/c buggered, ball turret gunner in a pickle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9mTbooWyw&fea...
It's a bit dark; you may need to turn the brightness up.
Eric,
The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
Torquey said:
I'd also have thought more friction from the Tarmac means the plane will stop sooner than on grass.
Good thought though. I did think hard about it after watching that Poland video.
IMO as an aero engineer the shock loads imparted into the airframe will cause untold and unseen damage that would write the a/c off anyway. The friction caused by tarmac will be far greater than grass which will result in the a/c speed reducing faster than on grass. Good thought though. I did think hard about it after watching that Poland video.
The a/c would have (IMO) a greater chance of remaining in a smooth slide on the tarmac surface as it will have been laid much more smoothly than the grass around it. The uneven nature of a grass surface and moisture content of the soil below could cause the a/c to bounce and result in sections of the airframe to dig into the soil.
The Foam sprayed is not for 'lubrication or anti-spark' purposes, it is quite probably AFFF to prevent any spilt a/c fuel igniting as a result of the heat/sparks caused by the friction of the airframe on the tarmac.
We operate Fast Jets and rotary wings here and in 11 years of working in aviation i've never seen or heard of a lube tanker for runways BTW!
c7xlg said:
Eric,
The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
In light of the number of spotters and CCTV around Heathrow, I am amazed that there has never been any film come to light of this. I realise that for all intents and purposes, until the aircraft actually hit, it would just look a little low, but even so, I am sure that many people film normal landings.The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
Back in the days when the RAF had MDAs (Master Diversion Airfields), Manston (uniquely in the UK) had the ability to lay a foam carpet for a/c with u/c problems.
See: http://www.bywat.co.uk/manston.html
However, with the downgrading to MEDAs (Military Emergency Diversion Airfields), this capability was removed.
See: http://www.bywat.co.uk/manston.html
However, with the downgrading to MEDAs (Military Emergency Diversion Airfields), this capability was removed.
c7xlg said:
Eric,
The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
I remember almost learning the hard way to only retract the flap a bit at a time when taking off from Rochester once. Not sure who was more scared - the FI sat next to me or the birds in the treetops The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
c7xlg said:
Eric,
The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
Correct. The data from Boeing indicated that the aircraft would have cleared the perimeter (just) at the normal landing configuration but would have landed on the ILS and lighting pylons. Captain Burkhill's thinking was that if thelanded on the equipment there would be massinve if not totalloss of life. He thought he may save half by doing what he did.The BA 38 'landing' technique was to pull the flaps up one notch when they realised they had lost (virtually) all power as the lowest flap setting gives masses of extra drag with little extra lift.
This then gave them a little more energy to glide a touch longer... otherwise normal landing configuration and some basic hands on the stick flying to get her to land pass the road and with fairly low vertical component. So groundeffect would have been there, but not as something they had any control over.
Shame the AF airbus drivers over the atlantic didn't have the same thought patterns when they were approaching/in a stall...
Pity BA treated him like s
t afterwards...It's unlikely that any grassed area of an airport will be sufficiently clear of obstructions. There are all sorts of mysterious installations, electrical 'boxes' (for want of a better word) etc. littering the grassed areas between runways and taxiways, used by the airfield service techs.
Don't forget also that many airports operate a 'long grass' policy, as a deterrent to birds feeding on the grass.
It would be more difficult to judge an approach to the grass, as the pilot would lose the runway 'perspective'. The instrument and visual approach aids (ILS, runway lighting, PAPIs etc) would also be of limited use, at best.
Don't forget also that many airports operate a 'long grass' policy, as a deterrent to birds feeding on the grass.
It would be more difficult to judge an approach to the grass, as the pilot would lose the runway 'perspective'. The instrument and visual approach aids (ILS, runway lighting, PAPIs etc) would also be of limited use, at best.
Edited by JoeBolt on Saturday 19th November 15:06
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff