LOL. Let’s hope so, as I think your understanding of it is somewhat off the beam. One elevator, huh? Never heard that one before. I don’t think a 747 has a moving tailplane either!
John
From a detailed account of the B747 incident:
So the entire left outboard elevator is missing which implies has a left inboard elevator and that it is intact.
On the other side, the outboard three-quarters of the outboard right elevator was seperated and the hydraulic lines were intact.
So rather than the aircraft missing “the whole elevator” as described on the plane-spotter’s website (airliners.net) it was missing a little under half, almost evenly distributed over both sides of the tail plane. Obviously having only the inboard elevators plus a quarter of the right outboard was enough for flight control.
The “figure 8” mentioned in the quotes is a photo of the damaged tail section.
As 1920sSDR makes clear, you and I were both mistaken here (as was the author of the report we were trying to interpret).
You’ve never heard of an aircraft with one elevator ???
And as this:
makes clear, it’s normal to speak of “the elevator” (singular) even when it consists of several sections.
Wait… “The Whole Elevator”… Is there by chance a military plane which has 27 feet of elevators?
<D&R>
I think there was. Once. For 20 minutes.
Most light aircraft have one elevator, built and controlled as a single unit, spanning the entire tail plane. I would generally refer to “the elevator” in the singular, regardless of how many sections there are, out of habbit and convenience.
According to this site airline size aircraft move the entire tail plane/horizontal stabiliser to achieve pitch trim. It doesn’t mention specific models, but it is obviously not a ridiculous question to ask whether the B747 uses this technique for trim.
And according to this site, on the B747,
An “adjustable stabilizer trim system” with “no trim tabs” can only mean that the entire tail plane is moved for pitch trim.
So maybe you could cut down a little on the dismissive tone of your post.
How interesting!
I didn’t know the 747 employs a moving tail for trim.
However, I stand by my point that this played no part in the incident I referred to. The 747 lost, as I said, part of two of its four elevators in the incident and survived.
My mistake was in saying that the moving tail could not have been a factor. Rather I should have said that it did not.
I do not think it could have managed to recover from the upset and land safely if it had lost all four. And, as I am sure you are aware, the 747 is not a ‘light’ aircraft by any stretch of the imagination, being what is technically known as a ‘heavy’ aircraft, ie very large.
Sorry if my ‘dimissive tone’ upset you or anyone else.
John
No wurries