The Great Ongoing General Aviation Thread

For those interested in commercial jet engines this is a really fascinating video about the GE GEnX engines used on the Boeing 787.

I wonder how much further engineers can improve these engines? Surely there is a point where these engines cannot be made more efficient/powerful. It feels like they are getting close (but I really do not know…IANAEngineer).

what’s amazing is how quiet they are. The first time I experienced a 747-800 was on a ramp with a 747-400 with the engines running. The 747-800 taxied right up to me and I couldn’t hear it. It’s not the kind of thing you want sneaking up on you.

Cessna 340 crash kills pilot and UPS driver. House cameras catch it coming down. Looks like a classic loss of control due to a stall. Witnesses said plane was trying to turn. Closest airport was 10 miles away so that wasn’t an option.

Gillespie field is only about two miles from the crash site. MYF (his destination) is 10 miles away.

Perhaps NBC 7 changed the link; this is the actual video of the crash: New Video Shows Moment Plane Crashed in Santee Neighborhood Killing Doctor, UPS Driver – NBC 7 San Diego

engine(s) were at a pretty high rpm. wonder if one of them lost a prop. Also sounded like the tower was trying to talk to him with no response.

For any aviation buff’s bucket list:

interesting article but I was looking for video’s of the approaches. I like a challenging runway.

The incident in Texas today looks a lot like this:

That was an MD83 which overran the runway when they rejected takeoff well after V1. The control tabs on the elevators didn’t give an indication during checklist that the elevators weren’t working. Though, they supposedly fixed these issues.
No loss of life in either accident, luckily.

Very interesting info on the tabs.

If they ran the elevators full up would the bent actuators create a split control surface the pilots could see on a walk-around?

If I’m understanding the system correctly, the jammed gear tab would’ve been jammed in the appropriate position for when the elevators are down. Because the elevators float, they will be down due to gravity during a walk around unless there is a strong tail wind, in which case you may see one up and one down (or both up), and that is totally normal.

So if the elevators are down, the jammed gear tab is in the correct position and wouldn’t draw any attention. If the elevators were split with one up, then that is normal as well so wouldn’t draw any attention either.

I’m curious why the elevators were split after the accident. I would’ve thought they’d be down due to gravity (they wouldn’t have taken off with a strong tail wind), which makes me think there’s something about it I’m not understanding.

THAT’S scary. If they can visually look split then how would you know if they were split? To me the picture you linked looks like a mechanical. I would expect each system to be linked left and right.

I’m not an engineer but I never liked that kind of elevator system. I’m sure there’s some aerodynamic reason for it. I prefer a jack-screw horizontal tail plane. throw some grease on it every annual and it’s happy. Simple, easy to maintain and visually obvious.

Well, they are linked left to right, it’s just not the elevator itself that’s linked, it’s the servo tabs. The elevators are free to flap about, but once there’s reasonable airflow the servo tabs “fly” the elevators into the required position. The BAe 146 system is similar.

I had something wrong before. The elevators sit up when stationary due to balance weights, not down. A walk-around may have picked up the jammed gear tab in that case. That would explain why the MD-83’s elevators were split after the accident. There was enough wind for the jammed gear tab to hold that elevator down.

I understand the plane in the picture is OK but it freaks me out to look at it. what are those things sticking out of the back of the fuselage?

It’s an RAF aircraft, so some sort of military stuff. That particular aircraft was once crashed by none other than Prince Charles.

Edit: it’s one of the aircraft Queen Elizabeth flies on. So think about all the countermeasures and stuff they would have installed.

The aircraft overran on landing at Islay, and its nose undercarriage failed and broke away on the rough ground, just beyond the end of the runway. It is reported that the aircraft touched down on its nose wheel some 1,500 feet down the runway, travelling 32 knots too fast with a 12 knots tailwind component.

It is understood that the wheel brakes were then applied ‘before the full activation of the anti-skid protection systems’ causing both inboard main wheels to lock and the subsequent failure of their tyres. There were no reported injuries. It is understood that the pilot handling the aircraft at the time of the accident was HRH The Prince of Wales who was attending a series of engagements in the Hebridean Islands.

I don’t know. It’s not standard.

Is that a Royal plane? Some kind of protective device?

About the Prince’s adventure above. Did he stand on the brakes before the weight of the plane was on the gear? Is that why the anti-lock system didn’t engage?

I guess it could be.

This military version doesn’t have anything like it (I’ve flown that one, it didn’t look like that though).

The wheels have to spin up to 33 knots before the anti-skid becomes active. If you stand on the brakes before they’ve spun up then you won’t get anti-skid.

Sounds like he fucked the landing up in nearly every possible way.

The aircraft overran on landing at Islay, and its nose undercarriage failed and broke away on the rough ground, just beyond the end of the runway. It is reported that the aircraft touched down on its nose wheel some 1,500 feet down the runway, travelling 32 knots too fast with a 12 knots tailwind component.