New start material strenght calculation for operating horn from crashed plane. Part 2 4

[RedSnake]

Can anyone help me check if this calculation works so far?
There are so many conversions between different units ..
The calculation is made by a free software but I assume that their calculation models are correct.

My own assumption is that the elevator is heavier at the front edge as there are hinges made of MIL 1430 N and since the lever and its attachment also are , there are also steel details on the other side and the rest is aluminum.
I have chosen to see it as a simple bar to begin with.

And the calculation is made to check which load the fixed joint must withstand for the elevator's own weight.

I intend to present it in steps so if I got something wrong I can adjust it before the next step.
If it's okay with you people?

Best regards Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Apply power and drift up and not change anything else. If you use just elevator you just trade kinetic energy for potential energy.

 

[RedSnake]

I was working in the back

For someone who worked "in" back. You seem to know a lot about flying
Even if it does not apply to radar pictures.
It was +15 ground -10 at flight level 136.

I will have look at calculators..

/A


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The back end people pretty much know more about flying than the pilots most of the time. Especially in a military environment and flight testing. Cabin crew won't but they have a completely different skill set. I couldn't do their job, they couldn't do mine but we make a great team working together.

Even with an airline operation each flight has 30-40 people directly involved in getting it away and to the other end safely. If you then add in the none direct people such as airport security, cleaners etc etc then its hundreds.

Which is one of the reason why this GA single pilot stuff is so hard. Your basically on your own after the technicians have given you the aircraft.

 

[RedSnake]

Yes, I can imagine that.
Unfortunately, I do not belong to any of the above mentioned categories.
But I am good at reading technical manuals, but all the different physical quantities that are named differently everywhere with all the abbreviations make it confusing.

Now a really difficult question ...
Is it possible to find out at what angle a stabilizer with an elevator would fall to the ground at, if you just took it loose from the plane and dropped it?
It is designed to fly, so I would guess it should try to stabilize itself and "fly" rather than "fall".
But I am not user of that eighter..

As I said to SHK, because I am neither a pilot nor a parachutist, I'm allowed to ask all stupid questions.

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Don't have a clue. Sorry. There will be mechanical limits individual to each aircraft. I have seen a couple of jets with the stab disconnected from the screw jack when they were getting broken up for spares and they looked to be nearly vertical from about 1 km away.

 

[RedSnake]

Apply power and drift up and not change anything else.

Let me see if I understood you correctly.
If you want to make a small increase in altitude, then you "step on the gas".
The elevator is still in line with the stabilizer, but the "angle of the plane" changes nose up.
And then pressure on the elevator becomes higher... or ??

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Its just an energy equation you put more energy in but don't change the kinetic then there is only one thing that can happen and that's potential energy increases by climbing. Same with descending you take energy out and the only thing it can do is balance the energy equation by using potential so you go down.

 

[zeusfaber]

Are you looking to estimate where the stabiliser became detached by working back from the place it landed?

I don't think you're going to be able to do that with any fidelity.

It is very unlikely it flew like a glider. It more likely fell, spun and tumbled through the airmass, braked by a combination of drag and lift generated by the spinning and tumbling (picture the fall of a sycamore leaf). That motion will have changed as the air became denser on the way down, and the motion may have changed its character several times during the descent. Superimposed on that descent, you have the movement of the airmass itself which isn't constant either in speed or direction. You have a couple of bits of spot data for that, but nothing in between (and, with clouds in the area, I wouldn't like to rely too much on interpolation).

If you can solve that problem, there's a PhD in it for you.

A.

 

[RedSnake]

If you can solve that problem, there's a PhD in it for you.
LOL Yes I'm sure.
Are you looking to estimate where the stabiliser became detached by working back from the place it landed?
Yes you are allmost right.
I am trying to exclude that it didn't fall off before, the most most obvious place..
Much easier you would think .. sigh.
Actually, nothing is needed other than Pythagoras' theorem, but when SHK has not written down more than a quarter of all values ​​and no map has the same size and data!
So something that should have taken a few minutes, takes an eternity.

Anna who will soon have a PhD in something!
Maybe perseverance.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[RedSnake]

I'll try to explain.
That the left stabilizer was the last thing that broke loose, I think most people agree on that and it happened before the plane was visible under the clouds. There are films which shows this.
The L.S was found a good distance beyond the actual plane wreck in the wind direction.
Att the military radar data map, you can see two primary data lines orange and light orange that follow each other up the river on the right side. I do not know if this is just the radar hitting two different parts of the plane when sweeping or.. ??
Some where in between the times

One of the lines turns about 90 degress to the west, there are three "hits" , that the military calls downpours.
The military says it could be something from the plane.
SHK says no we have found everything, last time I asked they said maybe it is from the plane ?!? ..
SHK said that they were registered at the same time as the plane was at 3000 meters altitude "fuzzy and good" being ironic now.
But if you draw the line from these 3 hits, you do end up not far from where the right stabilizer was found in the river and the distance does not differ much from the difference between the wreck and the left stabilizer.
In addition, the river may have dragged the stabilizer downstream.
And that those downpours are right there where the plane slowed down and it started to go crazy.
It bothers me as hell .. especially when no one can explain what is, or why there are 2 lines and how all this works?? I mean at SHK, not you guys..

Best Regards Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[zeusfaber]

There's some things about primary radar tracks that you mustn't forget.

Secondary radar receives a burst of data from the target with every echo - so it knows with certainty which echoes come from which target and you can pretty much trust the computer when it joins the dots up to create a track like the blue one.

Primary radar is a different beast altogether. The only thing it gets from the outside world is a succession of weak bursts of RF - some of which might be echoes from things it's trying to detect and track. It can extract range information from the exact arrival time of the pulse and it can generally infer bearing from the direction the antenna was pointing when the echo was detected, but there's no sure way of knowing which bursts are actually echoes as opposed to bits of noise and which echo came from which target.

What happens next is a bit of computer guesswork. The processor in the radar will try to identify successive echoes that sort of line up with a reasonably even interval between them, guess that this is because they all come from the same moving object, draw a track between them and then keep a special lookout for echoes which seem to come from the right sort of place on the next turn of the scanner. The key point here is that the computer is just making a best guess about which echoes are actually associated with one another.

So the first thing you think you see is two parallel tracks during the north-westerly leg just before the final turn - one red and one orange. Before speculating about whether these could be echoes from two different parts of the aircraft, take a closer look at the echoes that make up that orange track. Notice how there aren't any. The computer has drawn a straight line between an earlier echo somewhere off the bottom right of the diagram and the first of the three echoes you're interested in. With no intervening echoes, it seems most likely that that parallel orange track is a complete figment of the imagination of the computer.

Primary radar is very cluttery - the strength of the echo goes with the inverse fourth power of distance (rather than the inverse square you get with secondary radar), so the system is forever trying to distinguish genuine echoes from random bits of noise. It uses all sorts of tricks to try and pull useful data from all of this mess - most of them depend to some extent on ignoring weaker echoes unless they're close to where the processor is expecting to see the next point along one of the tracks it's storing.

The fact that SHK say the three interesting echoes came at the same time as the Secondary radar put the aircraft at 3000m suggests that the previous data points (all off the bottom of the screen) had led the processor to infer an orange target that was moving a good bit slower than the aircraft was, meaning that when it was hoping to find something in the bit of the sky where the trail of three echoes begins, the aircraft had already passed by 35 seconds previously. One possibility is that those three echoes came from something else that was moving southwestward, whose echoes the radar processor had suppressed until they happened to pass through the place where the radar was expecting to find a target.

There's one other thing to bring into the mix. Although we like to think of radar scanners delivering a wafer-thin beam (allowing perfect bearing resolution), the truth is messier than that. Not only does the beam have a finite width, but there are also likely to be a number of sidelobes in the pattern. The beamwidth just degrades the resolution of your bearing measurements, but the sidelobes can do strange things. Imagine that the antenna is pointing towards a bit of sky where it's expecting to see a target at a particular range when it gets a strong echo from a different object that happens to be at the same range, but sitting in one of the sidelobes. It's very easy for the processor to interpret this as an echo from the target it's expecting and to plot it on the main beam bearing - not at all where the target actually is (although if this was happening, it seems a bit odd that the target wasn't also getting painted in the right place when it actually was illuminated by the main beam).

If you knew where the antenna sidelobes were and where the antenna was sited, you could plot a couple of alternative (albeit less probable) locations for those three paints.

I'm pretty confident that the parallel orange track is imaginary, but you really need to treat the rest (about a separate target stealing the orange track and about sidelobe echoes getting misplotted) as wild speculation.

A.

 

[RedSnake]

How good are you on reading radar pictures? Rubbish, to tell you the truth.

I thought you said you were not good at radar systems LOL !! ;-)
Working "at" the job today ..
I will come back when I have finished for the day.
I see it is a lot of reading

Best Regard Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I know nothing about radar systems or interpreting the screens but know from the pub that its a bit like medical x rays. The interpretation of the data is a skill in itself and the technical side is another.

For years I thought ATC had fancy toilets fitted with fancy tiles because they kept on talking about mosaic integrations and offset glitches. Turns out its something about how they mesh the data from two radar heads together.

Bit like being a pilot interpreting the instrument data in real time and reacting to it is one skill set, designing the machine is another and looking after it yet another.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The issue is with pilots is we come from a such diverse range. I have flown with the nurse of Reggie Cray through to a London Harley street tit doctor to a political Phd. One of the best ones though was the lead cello of the Royal orchestra, He was really clueless how an aircraft actually fly's but to be honest he won hands down dealing with people. And as my job is only about 5 % waggling the stick the rest human interaction he was more than safe enough.

 

[RedSnake]

When I asked for the first time, they sade that the downpours had arrived when the plane was at 3000 m and that it could not be from the plane.
From report
The data also show separate radar echoes from primary radar which are possibly parts of the aircraft, but can also be so-called disturbance plots of something else, e.g. birds. These echoes are registered after the change of course when the aircraft is at an altitude of 3,000 meters. The positions of these echoes are uncertain and do not correspond to the positions of the aircraft parts at impact.

When I then asked the second time about it and sent with this picture,
And wrote ..
If something fell loose from or out of the plane at 3658 m, it may well have been registered as disturbance at 3000 m, as they should have fallen about as fast but in different directions?

Then they changed their minds, and thought that, yes it might be it ..

It was not until recently that I thought it could be the other way around.
I might have to ask someone to drive me there by boat and see what can be found for my self ...
Probably a faster way to get answers than this :-(
Now it will rain for a week, yesterday everything had been covered in snow. Than I would not found anything.

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[RedSnake]

One of my partner's favorite singers is also a pilot.

Spoiler

Bruce Dickinson in Irion Maiden.

He did not miss a concert when they were in Sweden.
So they come in all shapes

On of my favorit bands to .... appart from AC/DC of course ;-)

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Err Bruce know my kids and i know his we met through pprune 15 year ago or more when he was flying a 757 AS as an FO for some dodgy Icelandic outfit . He is FAA instrument examiner and had a engine bang out mid Atlantic ferry flight with a piston aircraft. He knows his shite. And i have been utterly rat arsed with him singing on a piano in a hotel in Gatwick at 2 am...

I have been to wedding of a hostee with Kylie M as a guest. She is very lovely. Spent two weeks ferrying her about on tour. And she served me coffee and was an utterly lovely lady.

Also have 3 of your swedish c cat celebs on my facebook which none of the English world know about. All of them utterly lovely.

BTW Cilla Black is a feck bitch and may she rot in hell.

 

[RedSnake]

Thanks zeusfaber for the clearifications, as I sade before, a lot of information from someone who is rubbish at this

Secondary radar receives a burst of data from the target with every echo - so it knows with certainty which echoes come from which target and you can pretty much trust the computer when it joins the dots up to create a track like the blue one.
I thought so too, but SHK says that the airport's MSSR data is more accurate??
And that some things are wrong like the altitude 3,658 for example.
I understand that the pito sensor for speed can give incorrect speed values.
But I had the impression that the height pressure gauge that sits at the bottom of the pito tube should not be affected in that way?
Or can the pressure be so diffrent inside a cumulus /nimbus cloud?
And if it hade been ice shouldn't the pressure hade been the same as the hight value before?
The pito tube heat wasn't on.

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It will have been on...

You have a thing called zone of confusion. Which even us stick monkeys know about with a cone vertically from the radar head which the just can't resolve anything from.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

BTW have flown your crown princess to Mora she is lovely as well.