|
|
Post by 701driver on Oct 21, 2012 20:23:57 GMT 12
Ok had a look at photos and looks like an all flying elevator with large full width trim which i would have thought unusual on a T tail a/c, but i could be wrong they pretty crap photos. also go's to show how crap memory is, as i have flown this a/c (figure i was looking out the front not behind me, sure hope so)
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 21, 2012 21:34:27 GMT 12
I don't do any work on microlights. I would have thought the control forces would be very light when compared with any of the 4 seat and larger GA aircraft. Here we have two steel fittings both breaking through on the same day. When the lower fitted fractured it was not actually connected to anything. This is a push/pull rod, nothing more. We had a case recently where all Beech Bonanza with a certain control system feature were effectively grounded until a cable had been replaced. We have a Bulletin on Piper aircraft where we effectively have to change all the turnbuckles in the elevator system. (SB1245) www.piper.com/Company/Publications/SB%201245.pdfThis accident report has taken 3 1/2 years and does not seem to address many of the issues. Why the very long time frame ? I can appreciate the difficulties associated with a manufacturer being no longer in business but someone has to responsible for the Type support. Those fittings were steel, and looked to be substantial. I cannot even imagine the forces involved to initiate fatigue cracking and then actually fracture. This control system sounds similar to the Islander in many respects. It has a series of pushrods but the main concern is more about the wear caused by the rollers supporting the rods. The report didn't seem to have any closing action. Just a note that other regulating authorities have been advised of the findings. That control rod could have failed at anytime and I have family and friends that have flown in that machine almost immediately before the accident. Darrell would be in the aircraft everytime also. I am not sure my mind is entirely at rest here. Is it a case of faulty components since rectified by a mandatory change to those of a known quality ? www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10814584 |
|
|
|
Post by 701driver on Oct 22, 2012 17:11:03 GMT 12
i note your comment on some aircraft being able to be flown on the elevator trim,i have recently sold my long term quad city challenger2 that could indeed be flown on the elevator trim on all but take off (high thrust line did not allow the elevator trim to apply enough pressure to allow rotation which required firm aft stick movement) out of curiosity i had done a complete cuircuit from climb out to landing on the trim (landing not pretty tho) i wonder if the elevator on ska my have surcumbed to flutter on losing the control link, if it were recoverable situation i think darrel was capable beyond doubt. i agree with you re the acc report, feels incomplete to me, sure hope that's not fully 3.5 years work or i'm in the wrong job
|
|
|
|
Post by slackie on Oct 23, 2012 2:53:35 GMT 12
i was surprised how long it took for the accident report to surface. a sad event in any case,always rough on those left behind. We're still waiting on the ZKMAD report to be produced, even in draft form... it's coming up to 3 years since the accident. Great to see the CAA are using our hard earned $$$ wisely and expeditiously!! |
|
|
|
Post by 701driver on Oct 23, 2012 20:03:47 GMT 12
slackie - you may be psychic as i used that reg on my just sold C 2 i was unaware of its past history ... pitt's eh
|
|
