From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: Boeing Date: 04 Dec 92 22:30:32 PST References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1992.85@ohare.Chicago.COM> weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes: > >After the third post with this answer, I figure it's time to clarify my >statement. I am referring to the unbalance of WEIGHT, not THRUST. Nonetheless >I suppose we should go on... It doesn't matter, the loss of weight on that wing was actually a short-term plus in that incident (effectively generated a right-hand (positive) roll moment to help counter the loss of lift on the left wing). The adverse affect (aside from the obvious one of damage occuring during the departure of the engine and strut) is the increase in wing-root bending moment. >>Flight AA 191 lost the slats on the left hand >>wing (if memory serves) because of Douglas' failure to include mechanical >>lockouts on the slat actuators. They were not required to certify the >>airplane. > >Which doesn't disprove my theory. As it is, though, the loss of the slats >(which, according to all my aero classes, only lowers the stall speed but does >NOT increase the coefficient of lift!) was enough to stall the wing, more than >"countering" the loss of weight on the wing. You may wish to recheck your math. It isn't possible to lower the stall speed without improving the coefficient of lift (assuming constant weight, air density, and wing area). What is not increased is the total amount of lift produced, assuming unaccelerated, level flight. -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."