Jump to content

Talk:Flight with disabled controls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Frozen controls

[edit]

St. Clair Streett experienced a flight with disabled controls in 1928, with the controls frozen from extreme cold. The event was written up in Popular Science in the article "Stranded—Seven Miles Up!"

Can this article expand to include this example, and perhaps others of its kind (if they exist)? Right now I do not see an obvious way to incorporate Streett's story. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an obvious problem with including that story - it fits the subject of the article. Just go ahead and make a new section. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, it looks good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer controlled aircraft without hydraulic

[edit]

I've hear here is a system which can control aircraft without hydraulics. It was NASA PCA project. Better to put info about it into first paragraph. 212.119.225.105 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throttling up will always raise the nose

[edit]

The position of the engines relative to the center of gravity is completely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.242.253 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct! It is all dependent on the position of the engines vertically versus the vertical centre of gravity. If the engines are mounted high, like on an amphibian, then the application of power will push the nose down, not up. Try it some time! This is exactly why most modern gyroplane designs use high landing gear, to allow prop clearance to permit the engine to be be mounted lower. This allows the prop hub to be on the centre of gravity and thus power application will have no effect on pitch. With the commonly higher mounted engines seen in the past, application of power resulted in the nose being forced down, which is undesirable, particularly when applying a burst of power in the flare on landing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight with disabled controls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-numbering?

[edit]

As you may or may not know, according to Aviation accidents and incidents, 9/11 is the deadliest aviation disaster. So, should I re-number stuff? (Note: American Airlines Flight 11 which hit the North tower of the WTC is the deadliest single plane crash and the deadliest 767 crash. United Airlines Flight 175 (which hit the South tower of the WTC) is the second deadliest in both of these categories.) Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... those are widely recognized as terrorist/acts of war — so not normally in the category of accidents or incidents. I'd say no renumbering therein. Myndex (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Flight 191 go?

[edit]

Flight 191 was The Chicago DC 10 that lost an engine on takeoff (lost as in if fell off the aircraft and damaged hydraulic and electrical systems).

The left wing slats retracted and loss of control information at the yoke (no stick shaker) thus failed to warn of the stall of the left wing.

I'd say this goes under structural failure leading to partial control loss — uncommanded left slat retraction, and loss of control information (no stick shaker or slat retracting indicators working due to the #1 electrical system being offline).

Slats are a control surface, though categorized as secondary control, still belongs here, IMO... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myndex (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with damaged by structural failure. Thank you for adding it. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing with engines

[edit]

"For instance, to climb to a higher altitude, the pilot can increase thrust which will cause the aircraft to climb while maintaining airspeed. Alternately, the pilot may climb by pitching the aircraft up, though in this case airspeed decreases."

Edited because all my own text failed to post first time. This is redundant. The section is about climbing using engine power. That is done by either increasing speed and maintaining pitch, or increasing pitch and maintaining speed. The plane doesn't just rise because power increases without changing anything else. And if you are simply pitching up without increasing power, you aren't using your engines to climb, which is what's being discussed. You are just flying normally and failing to increase engine power. That might be relevant to flying with engines out, but that's not really the topic of the article.

Idumea47b (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Idumea47b The plane doesn't just rise because power increases without changing anything else
Yes it does. It is useful to think of thrust as the way to change altitude. It is useful to think of pitch as the way to adjust speed. This is basic ground school material (as in, first lesson. FWIW I am a licensed pilot).
If you mean that changing thrust “results” in a change in pitch, okay, but that’s not really the point being made.
Pitch can also adjust altitude, but speed will change as a result. Pitching up without any other control input will cause speed to decrease, all the way into a stall—at which point you are no longer going up, but falling rather rapidly. 😎
I.e. trading speed for altitude or vice versa. I think perhaps you are suggesting that thrust affects the actual pitch of an aircraft when the horizontal stabilizer is not adjusted?
In the case of thrust, when piloting a single engined aircraft, and the engine suddenly dies, the first thing you’ll notice is the aircraft starts descending rapidly (maintaining airspeed). In this emergency case, you want to immediately re-trim the horizontal stab for max glide speed (typically Vy).
simply:
thrust = altitude
pitch = speed
roll = turning
yaw = coordination
Coordination is not insignificant, and loss of the vertical stabilizer was a key factor in the flight 191 tragedy.  Myndex talk   08:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_with_disabled_controls&oldid=1248574883"