Wanna see a real bad landing?

Strong cross winds and swept wing planes don't like each other..:no:......:rolleyes:
 
CQGv167UcAA48s7.png



That will buff out hahaha
 

Attachments

  • CQGv167UcAA48s7.png
    CQGv167UcAA48s7.png
    407.8 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Strong cross winds and swept wing planes don't like each other..:no:......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You call that a swept wing???? J/K.. It probably has a few degrees of sweep. After flying the C750 for several years, nothing is swept other than the 747.
We had about 5 & 7 degrees pitch/bank on landing. Anymore we scraped a wing. "Kick it & Stick it" ruled the day.
 
Kritchlow said:
You call that a swept wing???? J/K.. It probably has a few degrees of sweep. After flying the C750 for several years, nothing is swept other than the 747.
We had about 5 & 7 degrees pitch/bank on landing. Anymore we scraped a wing. "Kick it & Stick it" ruled the day.
Click to expand...

Anything more then a 90 degree wing.. It is SWEPT....... And, without Googling it, my guess is that RJ is swept as much as a Citation 10 / C750.. If not more...

Prove me wrong sir...
 
N801BH said:
Anything more then a 90 degree wing.. It is SWEPT....... And, without Googling it, my guess is that RJ is swept as much as a Citation 10 / C750.. If not more...

Prove me wrong sir...
Click to expand...

You're right about anything more than 90 at the mean chord being swept.

You're not in the ballpark about it being close to the Citation X.
 
N801BH said:
OK.......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Make all the rolling eyes you want. The sweep on the X is at least 37 degrees. Some books say 40. The horizontal stab must be swept more than wings, and vertical more than hirizontal. The horizontal stab was roughly 50 degrees. The wing tips were *almost* behind the tail. The airplane actually will fly at .92 Mach. It was an incredible machine. I miss it.
 
Kritchlow said:
Make all the rolling eyes you want. The sweep on the X is at least 37 degrees. Some books say 40. The horizontal stab must be swept more than wings, and vertical more than hirizontal. The horizontal stab was roughly 50 degrees. The wing tips were *almost* behind the tail. The airplane actually will fly at .92 Mach. It was an incredible machine. I miss it.
Click to expand...

There are few at KJAC now.. I will go over and measure.. But 37-40 degrees is VERY hard to believe.... ..

As a side note.. The 750 prototype came through here several years ago and I have a nice conversation with the test pilots flying it... it is the one with the extended Pitot tube out the front..

That one broke the barrier at mach 1.052.... And lived to fly another day....

I agree... they are an outstanding plane...:thumbsup:
 
N801BH said:
There are few at KJAC now.. I will go over and measure.. But 37-40 degrees is VERY hard to believe.... ..

As a side note.. The 750 prototype came through here several years ago and I have a nice conversation with the test pilots flying it... it is the one with the extended Pitot tube out the front..

That one broke the barrier at mach 1.052.... And lived to fly another day....

I agree... they are an outstanding plane...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I agree... It does seem hard to believe. For many years Cessna/Citation was laughed at for being straight wing slow airplanes. They built the X, with engineering from Boing, to show they could do better.

I'm typed in the X, and flew it for several years. It wasn't THEE most high tech airplane out there, but it was the fastest non military airplane in the sky for many years after the concord retired. The G650 was certified a bit faster, but Cessna once again surpassed that threshold.

I'm not joking. 37-40 degrees. Walk around the airplane and stand at the wingtip. PLEASE report back. I think you'll be amazed.
 
Let's just say the swept'ness had naught to do with this. And the idea swept wings don't do well in cross winds is silly too.
 
Captain said:
Let's just say the swept'ness had naught to do with this. And the idea swept wings don't do well in cross winds is silly too.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with you... A crosswind landing with a super-swept wing airplane is not much of a problem, just a different technique.
 
Kritchlow said:
I sort of agree with you... A crosswind landing with a super-swept wing airplane is not much of a problem, just a different technique.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree.....

Nose high.... Wing low for a cross wind..... and the tip will hit ALOT sooner with a swept wing...... It is aft of the main gear and lower to the ground... Simple geometry.....

Just look at the pic of that RJ.....
 
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree.....

Nose high.... Wing low for a cross wind..... and the tip will hit ALOT sooner with a swept wing...... It is aft of the main gear and lower to the ground... Simple geometry.....

Just look at the pic of that RJ.....
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. That's why I don't use that technique.

As I said earlier, in the X we had roughly 5 degrees up and 7 bank before we scraped. The math worked where you could flip that to 7 up / 5 bank. We then got the winglets which reduced it closer to 5/5.

We NEVER intentionally dipped a wing. We used a "kick it & stick it" technique.
That's my point.
 
I should add, when we "kicked", some opposite aileron was needed to keep the wings level. With that much wing sweep, rudder works almost as effectively as aileron.
 
Kritchlow said:
You are exactly right. That's why I don't use that technique.

As I said earlier, in the X we had roughly 5 degrees up and 7 bank before we scraped. The math worked where you could flip that to 7 up / 5 bank. We then got the winglets which reduced it closer to 5/5.

We NEVER intentionally dipped a wing. We used a "kick it & stick it" technique.
That's my point.
Click to expand...

And your point is correct...:yes::yes:...

With that said.... I an outta here before Captain goes postal...:eek:

Ps..... I LOVE the blended winglets...:):)
 
You know, I'm sure there are other airplanes with the trait, but the X is the only one I've flown where the tail was so extremely swept that tight turns were a challenge. It's the only airplane I flew where the fact if that the wings cleared the turn, the tail was no where close to clearing. Made it very challenging taxiing in tight spots on GA ramps, especially with un knowledgable marshales.
 
Kritchlow said:
You know, I'm sure there are other airplanes with the trait...
Click to expand...

Seen the problem with engines more than wing sweep. Bank a KC-135 over 4 degrees and you're scraping the inboard.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
Seen the problem with engines more than wing sweep. Bank a KC-135 over 4 degrees and you're scraping the inboard.
Click to expand...

I totally can envision that. I'm sure that's why so many engines have that flattened cowl on the bottom (B737 ?).
 
For those Curious a CRJ-200 will wing strike at 9 degrees bank and tail strike at 9 degrees pitch up. A CRJ-700/-900 will wing tip strike at 11 degrees bank, and tail strike at 11 degrees pitch up.

as several above have mentioned, wing low was never a technique taught when I was getting my type, it's the classic kick the rudder in maneuver.
 
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree.....

Nose high.... Wing low for a cross wind..... and the tip will hit ALOT sooner with a swept wing...... It is aft of the main gear and lower to the ground... Simple geometry.....

Just look at the pic of that RJ.....
Click to expand...

That pic does not show cross wind issues. And why are you accusing me of drinking or going postal? Grow up.
 
wing sweep on citation x 37 degrees on crj-900 26 degrees.

as posted the bank angle for a strike on the 700/900 is 9 degrees. it can be landed wing low without striking in a wind up to crosswind limitation no problem. I have landed it wing low in crosswinds up to max limitation. the big problem with landing it wing low is getting to much deflection and having the spoilers open. I don't remember at what deflection the spoilers open but it will cause a wing drop if the spoilers open in a wing low landing. this was pure bad flying that caused it. it looks like a case of getting off speed and getting into the low speed tape. the FDR dump should be very interesting.
 
No matter that argument on how much a wing is swept back, or how much bank can be held before scraping a wing, the subject now is how quickly was the pilot fired and how soon until (s)he will get the next job?
 
Zeldman said:
No matter that argument on how much a wing is swept back, or how much bank can be held before scraping a wing, the subject now is how quickly was the pilot fired and how soon until (s)he will get the next job?
Click to expand...

My guess is it was a low time pilot, maybe on IOE. I doubt anyone will be fired however I'd bet a doughnut some sim time is coming up.
 
But that's hardly a crash at all! Asiana will hire him as a training captain to teach their pilots how to do minimal damage when crashing due to poor airmanship.
 
Captain said:
what are the rumors?
Click to expand...

I don't know of this is what he meant, but I read on another board that they didn't fess up and either tried to blame the crew before or the next one.
 
dmspilot said:
I don't know of this is what he meant, but I read on another board that they didn't fess up and either tried to blame the crew before or the next one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about a wing strike, but I've heard of tail strikes going unnoticed.
 
dmspilot said:
I don't know of this is what he meant, but I read on another board that they didn't fess up and either tried to blame the crew before or the next one.
Click to expand...

Oh my, okay. If that's true they may be fired.
 
Kritchlow said:
I'm not sure about a wing strike, but I've heard of tail strikes going unnoticed.
Click to expand...

On a B727 there is a strike plate on the tail with a metal wire. On preflight you're supposed to check the paint is on it and the wire isn't broken....however it'd be easy to miss. You have to actively look at it to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top