danger of turboprop aircrafts

[sufian1]

Prevent stall on turboprop aircrafts like Dash -8 and ATR 72 42 and the likes
First there is a need to understand that these by-design have a very thin wing for economy purpose. This design feature must be thoughtfully studied to make flying these type of aircrafts not dangerous.
At approach speeds this thin wing requires all the airflows from the propellers.
The crew must keep the Rpm high at all time to keep the airflow over the wing
And perform the approach with really high power setting even if the speed would increase but it can be kept the lowering of the drags.
And reduce the speed by the means of lowering the drags ( landing gear, flaps)
Planning the approach path carefully so as not to be high at some point which dictate lower the nose down where the speed increase for the short runway ahead.
So these aircrafts are dangerously have a HIGH RATE OF DECELERATION unlike the jet aircraft which still share the higher deceleration rate at approach speed.
For example when performing the planning the crew must make sure to monitor the loading of the aircraft very closely as of balance in these aircrafts is intolerant.
A tail heavy loaded aircraft the stabilizer will provide upward force to keep the nose from pitching up but when the aircraft is slowed for approach (by means of drags and NOT THE REDUCTION OF POWER) the stabilizer will not be able to provide that upward force and the nose will pitch up when the speed is low and this will cause a deep stall where the crew cannot push the nose down.
And worse if the power is wrongly used and reduced to unspooled range when the crew no need to prevent the imminent stall the aircraft will stall before the engines spool up!
Worse if one engine would spool up before the other this will cause yaw and one wing will drop the nose now will start slowly to lower because of the loss of the vertical lift component. Altitude now is so low and not enough to recover from the stall!
Again the power must be kept up at all time (to keep the airflow of the propellers over the wing) and speed lowered by drags. The approach can be thought of as putting the aircraft for overshoot configuration with landing gear and takeoff flaps and high RPM, in a way that if engine failure should occur the crew would have high enough speed to force land the aircraft.

[Bede]

Sorry, what?

[YC87DRVR]

Prevent stall on turboprop aircrafts like Dash -8 and ATR 72 42 and the likes
First there is a need to understand that these by-design have a very thin wing for economy purpose. This design feature must be thoughtfully studied to make flying these type of aircrafts not dangerous.
At approach speeds this thin wing requires all the airflows from the propellers.
The crew must keep the Rpm high at all time to keep the airflow over the wing
And perform the approach with really high power setting even if the speed would increase but it can be kept the lowering of the drags.
And reduce the speed by the means of lowering the drags ( landing gear, flaps)
Planning the approach path carefully so as not to be high at some point which dictate lower the nose down where the speed increase for the short runway ahead.
So these aircrafts are dangerously have a HIGH RATE OF DECELERATION unlike the jet aircraft which still share the higher deceleration rate at approach speed.
For example when performing the planning the crew must make sure to monitor the loading of the aircraft very closely as of balance in these aircrafts is intolerant.
A tail heavy loaded aircraft the stabilizer will provide upward force to keep the nose from pitching up but when the aircraft is slowed for approach (by means of drags and NOT THE REDUCTION OF POWER) the stabilizer will not be able to provide that upward force and the nose will pitch up when the speed is low and this will cause a deep stall where the crew cannot push the nose down.
And worse if the power is wrongly used and reduced to unspooled range when the crew no need to prevent the imminent stall the aircraft will stall before the engines spool up!
Worse if one engine would spool up before the other this will cause yaw and one wing will drop the nose now will start slowly to lower because of the loss of the vertical lift component. Altitude now is so low and not enough to recover from the stall!
Again the power must be kept up at all time (to keep the airflow of the propellers over the wing) and speed lowered by drags. The approach can be thought of as putting the aircraft for overshoot configuration with landing gear and takeoff flaps and high RPM, in a way that if engine failure should occur the crew would have high enough speed to force land the aircraft.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

You’re saving lives, one rambling post at a time.

[linecrew]

*aircraft

[rigpiggy]

If your aircraft (non fbw) provides upward lift on your tail, you are dangerously out the back of your envelope. Methinks he watches "Mayday" too much

[digits_]

If your aircraft (non fbw) provides upward lift on your tail, you are dangerously out the back of your envelope.

What makes you say that?

[PilotDAR]

Sorry, what?

Don't be sorry... just... what?

I don't know where to begin to comment that... So I won't bother....

[porcsord]

This reads like you asked ChatGPT about ATR or -8 stalls.

[No Smoke, No Fire]

This reads like you asked ChatGPT about ATR or -8 stalls.

ChatGPT would be a lot more coherent.

[Old fella]

Sorry, what?

Hmmm……. this new “common-tater” has a distinctly similar writing style/structure as another poster who frequents this site .

[Loon-A-Tic]

It's likely not the first time this acronym has been used but it seems appropriate.........OTL

[fish4life]

Tell me you’ve never flown a large turboprop without telling me you’ve never flown a large turboprop.

[YC87DRVR]

Sorry, what?

Hmmm……. this new “common-tater” has a distinctly similar writing style/structure as another poster who frequents this site .

I’d like to bet 500$ on “Captain” Keith.

[Rooster69]

No way the OP is a pilot. It is just written too poorly.

[TG]

Prevent stall on turboprop aircrafts like Dash -8 and ATR 72 42 and the likes
First there is a need to understand that these by-design have a very thin wing for economy purpose. This design feature must be thoughtfully studied to make flying these type of aircrafts not dangerous.
At approach speeds this thin wing requires all the airflows from the propellers.
The crew must keep the Rpm high at all time to keep the airflow over the wing
And perform the approach with really high power setting even if the speed would increase but it can be kept the lowering of the drags.
And reduce the speed by the means of lowering the drags ( landing gear, flaps)
Planning the approach path carefully so as not to be high at some point which dictate lower the nose down where the speed increase for the short runway ahead.
So these aircrafts are dangerously have a HIGH RATE OF DECELERATION unlike the jet aircraft which still share the higher deceleration rate at approach speed.
For example when performing the planning the crew must make sure to monitor the loading of the aircraft very closely as of balance in these aircrafts is intolerant.
A tail heavy loaded aircraft the stabilizer will provide upward force to keep the nose from pitching up but when the aircraft is slowed for approach (by means of drags and NOT THE REDUCTION OF POWER) the stabilizer will not be able to provide that upward force and the nose will pitch up when the speed is low and this will cause a deep stall where the crew cannot push the nose down.
And worse if the power is wrongly used and reduced to unspooled range when the crew no need to prevent the imminent stall the aircraft will stall before the engines spool up!
Worse if one engine would spool up before the other this will cause yaw and one wing will drop the nose now will start slowly to lower because of the loss of the vertical lift component. Altitude now is so low and not enough to recover from the stall!
Again the power must be kept up at all time (to keep the airflow of the propellers over the wing) and speed lowered by drags. The approach can be thought of as putting the aircraft for overshoot configuration with landing gear and takeoff flaps and high RPM, in a way that if engine failure should occur the crew would have high enough speed to force land the aircraft.

Nice trolling

[PilotDAR]

I’d like to bet 500$ on “Captain” Keith.

Except even Captain Keith makes [a little] more sense than that!

[rigpiggy]

If your aircraft (non fbw) provides upward lift on your tail, you are dangerously out the back of your envelope.
[/quo te]

What makes you say that?

Which way does the aerofoil face on most non the tails?

[digits_]

If your aircraft (non fbw) provides upward lift on your tail, you are dangerously out the back of your envelope.

What makes you say that?

Which way does the aerofoil face on most non the tails?

Just because a lot of them point down a bit, doesn't mean that you need to be outside the back of the envelope, let alone 'dangerously' out the back of the envelope in order for them to provide upward lift.

During normal operations of an aircraft, it's perfectly possible that a tail will generate lift. You might not need as much positive lift as you might need downward force at some point in the flight, but you might encounter a lifting tail.

Remember, the more downwards force the tail generates, the more upwards force the wing needs to generate, and the less efficient your plane is. Ideally you'd have a tail that generates neither up nor down force. But that plane would be uncontrollable.


Some examples:

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of ... t_aircraft

This data strongly suggests that a CoG can be put behind the CoL of the main wing, which almost guarantees that the tail will have to lift.
Note the 'almost', as there are some extra forces due to drag on the fuselage which may create a nose up or nose down moment and could theoretically cancel out the need for a positive tail lift, but it seems highly unlikely they would be big enough to actually do so.

So the CoG position is located as indicated above. The CoL of a wing is usually located around the 25% MAC position. That leaves ample margin to determine with some degree of certainty that the 737, 767 and 747 will generate upwards lift on the tail at some point.


Or, see the discussion here: viewtopic.php?t=87966

[CJ3PILOT]

No way the OP is a pilot. It is just written too poorly.

Thank you now l don't have to say it.

[broken_slinky]

I thought the danger of turboprops was those spinny things attached to the wings or nose?