Approaching Deep Stall

On Sep 6, 4:18 am, Airbus wrote:
In article . com,
says...



On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.

Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

All of those have T-tails.

Are you guys not familiar with the Zodiac 701?

It does not have a T-tail.

--

FF

In article .com,
says...


On Sep 6, 4:18 am, Airbus wrote:
In article . com,
says...



On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.

Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

All of those have T-tails.

Are you guys not familiar with the Zodiac 701?

It does not have a T-tail.



Yet the BAC 111 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255880/M/) was
famous for its deep-stall capability - or at least one high-profile
accident is attributed to this.

In article , says...



Yet the BAC 111 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255880/M/) was
famous for its deep-stall capability - or at least one high-profile
accident is attributed to this.


And the caravelle (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1258343/M/) to the
best of my knowledge was not particularly associated with this trait ..

On Sep 6, 12:58 pm, Airbus wrote:
In article .com,
says...





On Sep 6, 4:18 am, Airbus wrote:
In article . com,
says...

On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.

Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

All of those have T-tails.

Are you guys not familiar with the Zodiac 701?

It does not have a T-tail.

Yet the BAC 111 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255880/M/) was
famous for its deep-stall capability - or at least one high-profile
accident is attributed to this.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1255880/M/

Looks like A T-tail, not a cruciform tail like the Zodiac-701.

But assuming that Deep Stall is the same for a 'high' cruciform
tail as for a T-tail, how about addressing the second part,
how the aircraft gets into that condition in the first place,
and would it be avoided if stall were delayed until after the
horizonatl stabilizer passed through the wake of the main wing
during increasing AOA?

--

FF

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 at 21:18:53 in message
, Airbus wrote:
In article . com,
says...


On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.


Not to mention the DC-9 and MDxx variants
or the KingAir200

The deep stall first got real attention in the crash of the BAC1-11
during test flying. The full official report is included in Brian
Trubshaw's book Test Pilot. The configuration of the BAC 1-11 and the
DC-9 were very similar. The 1-11 descended almost flat with little
forward velocity until it struck the ground during a stall test flight.
All the crew were killed.

For test flying after the crash a tail parachute was installed. Part of
the trouble was the use of servo-tab elevators which at High AoA became
almost useless.

Both aircraft went on to fly safely for many years.
--
David CL Francis

In article ,
says...

The deep stall first got real attention in the crash of the BAC1-11
during test flying. The full official report is included in Brian
Trubshaw's book Test Pilot. The configuration of the BAC 1-11 and the
DC-9 were very similar. The 1-11 descended almost flat with little
forward velocity until it struck the ground during a stall test flight.
All the crew were killed.


Deep stall got further attention with the crash of the H-S Trident near
Heathrow. This is a "high" T-tail, precursor of the Boeing 727.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:06:01 -0700, cjcampbell
wrote:

On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
For a while I have been wondering why there seem to be no
airplanes with a low wing and a high tail.

Duchess and Seminole come to mind.

doesn't have to be a "high tail". ever heard of the Cheyenne II's
stability augmentation system? didn't really do a whole lot for
controllability, primarily made it feel like there was airflow over
the elevator when there wasn't much...

one has to be exploring the edges of the envelope, but other PA31's
are able to place the tail into "bad" air also.

TC

An early model of the experimental Velocity developed this problem
during testing - ended up pancaking into a canal, iirc. Pilot
suffered back injuries but survived.

wrote:
doesn't have to be a "high tail". ever heard of the Cheyenne II's
stability augmentation system?



I thought it was because of the tip tanks it had to have it.

John

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:48:38 -0400, The Visitor
wrote:



wrote:
doesn't have to be a "high tail". ever heard of the Cheyenne II's
stability augmentation system?



I thought it was because of the tip tanks it had to have it.

John

nope, they've all got tip tanks. AFAIK bigger engines led to a steeper
deck angle on climb out and dirty air over the tail.

the I's don't have enuff poop to get the nose high enuff, and the XL
has a different/longer fuselage.

when the nose gets high enuff on a II, an actuator winds up the
elevator downspring so the yoke doesn't "flop". keeps the quivering
protoplasm behind the yoke from crapping him/herself when the air
leaves the elevator.

have had the same sensation in a straight 31 with a Colemill
conversion. i kinda liked it...

TC