Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:36:53 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-619828@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.218.83.70; envelope-from=clkeller@utahweb.com
From: C & A Keller <clkeller@utahweb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Alert. NACA 64212
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roberto:--

    What a startling and chilling observation!  It brought to mind some 
almost forgotten memories, especially after Skip Slater mentioned 
slats.  Some of you may recall back in 1980 or thereabouts a DC-10 lost 
an engine - literally, it departed the aircraft - on takeoff at O'Hare. 
As was the noise abatement custom the airplane climbed out steeply, but 
the departing engine severed the hydraulic lines to the slats on that 
wing and they retracted. The effect of closing the slat is to move the 
stall point back down the curve in Roberto's graph to a lower angle of 
attack. The result was that one wing stalled while the other was still 
flying; the aircraft rolled over and dived into the ground. The least 
asymmetry or  possibly even surface roughness on the L.IV wing could, at 
the stall point, put it into the same situation as with one slat 
extended, the other retracted.

    I'm not building a L.IV, but if I were I wouldn't take this 
observation lightly.

                Charles Keller


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Utahweb]