Russian new transport plane crash
Discussion
I wonder what caused it to roll like that - could be an aerodynamic stall caused by loss of thrust on the number 2 engine, or it could be due to loss of aileron control due to damage from fire on uncontained engine failure. Either way they didn't appear to be in a hurry to get down. I was trained to immediately search for and identify a place to land even if it's a road or field in case of fire. It's different from a regular loss of power where you want to pitch for best gliding range.
LunarOne said:
I wonder what caused it to roll like that - could be an aerodynamic stall caused by loss of thrust on the number 2 engine, or it could be due to loss of aileron control due to damage from fire on uncontained engine failure. Either way they didn't appear to be in a hurry to get down. I was trained to immediately search for and identify a place to land even if it's a road or field in case of fire. It's different from a regular loss of power where you want to pitch for best gliding range.
Could have been both. Loss of power in the starboard engine gives asymmetric thrust, starboard wing drops, fire is developing as the aircraft rolls right, burning through control wires giving the crew no chance to try and correct it with left aileron and rudder, starboard wing continues to drop and eventually stalls, and the aircraft is pitching nose down in to the ground.United Aircraft Il-112V Prototype with three on board.
LunarOne said:
I wonder what caused it to roll like that - could be an aerodynamic stall caused by loss of thrust on the number 2 engine, or it could be due to loss of aileron control due to damage from fire on uncontained engine failure. Either way they didn't appear to be in a hurry to get down. I was trained to immediately search for and identify a place to land even if it's a road or field in case of fire. It's different from a regular loss of power where you want to pitch for best gliding range.
It’s a two engined military turboprop though not a light twin or single. If one engine goes then you wouldn’t be looking for a landing spot, you’d be focusing on keeping positive climb, the airspeed above V2 or so and then doing the memory items for an engine fire which presumably involve some kind of shutting it down and releasing some fire extinguishers.
The landing spot would likely be the airfield they’ve just departed from.
If it rolls like that after an engine failure it looks like there was either massive damage to the flight controls from the engine explosion early on or some other issue with the design or the rudder.
It looks like what happens on a light twin if you have an engine failure and don’t do anything,
That thing should be able to climb on one engine in Moscow without any trouble at all.
Could it be the things just a real pig to fly if it's not perfect?
https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/crash-of-the...
https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/crash-of-the...
scramble said:
made its first flight at the airfield of PJSC Voronezh Aircraft Building Company (VASO, part of PJSC United Aircraft Building corporation) on 30 March 2019. After that, the flight tests of the sample were halted for two years in order to reduce the weight of the aircraft and improve its design.
Munter said:
Could it be the things just a real pig to fly if it's not perfect?
https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/crash-of-the...
That sort of thing (weight reduction/design improvement) is not unusual if significant parts of the aircraft are not yet ready. The prototype often flies with a different engine(s) to the production aircraft, e.g. the Messerschmitt Bf109 first flew with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine.https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/crash-of-the...
scramble said:
made its first flight at the airfield of PJSC Voronezh Aircraft Building Company (VASO, part of PJSC United Aircraft Building corporation) on 30 March 2019. After that, the flight tests of the sample were halted for two years in order to reduce the weight of the aircraft and improve its design.
Often manufacturers offer their latest, or even speculative, technology to aircraft designers so the new design can meet its intended performance improvement over existing designs. In many cases the development of these new parts and systems isn't ready for early flights. Once a certain point is reached in the flight test programme, there is no point continuing to fly with parts unrepresentative of production aircraft, hence the hiatus.
There are serious problems in Russian aerospace at the moment. A project that has been hanging around for this length of time should have had most of its bugs sorted out by now. The recent experience with the wayward module that docked with the International Space Station is another example of these inherent problems.
Given Starliner and 737Max I wouldn't say it's fair to single out the Russians. The F-35 has hardly covered itself in glory in terms of on time deliveries or staying to budget either.
I have a vague recollection of a similar crash to the above with a Soviet airliner. Someone had done an engine overhaul but not put enough bearings in (?) and when it went to takeoff power the bearings melted (?) so the engine caught fire shortly after departure. I think it turned turtle after the hydraulic lines were burned through.
I'll try to find the accident report, I'm not very certain about the details. I think it was a three engine design like a Tristar. The engine fire followed by control failure seems familiar.
Edit, found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmozscmM16I
I have a vague recollection of a similar crash to the above with a Soviet airliner. Someone had done an engine overhaul but not put enough bearings in (?) and when it went to takeoff power the bearings melted (?) so the engine caught fire shortly after departure. I think it turned turtle after the hydraulic lines were burned through.
I'll try to find the accident report, I'm not very certain about the details. I think it was a three engine design like a Tristar. The engine fire followed by control failure seems familiar.
Edit, found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmozscmM16I
Edited by Flooble on Wednesday 18th August 22:23
Flooble said:
Given Starliner and 737Max I wouldn't say it's fair to single out the Russians. The F-35 has hardly covered itself in glory in terms of on time deliveries or staying to budget either.
I have a vague recollection of a similar crash to the above with a Soviet airliner. Someone had done an engine overhaul but not put enough bearings in (?) and when it went to takeoff power the bearings melted (?) so the engine caught fire shortly after departure. I think it turned turtle after the hydraulic lines were burned through.
I'll try to find the accident report, I'm not very certain about the details. I think it was a three engine design like a Tristar. The engine fire followed by control failure seems familiar.
Problems seem very different to me - starliner and f35 are both quite bleeding edge experimental and not a fair comparison. The max is a cluster of course but its fine in the sense they have the technology to design and build a good jet if they wanted to, the problems were related to poor management of market forces.I have a vague recollection of a similar crash to the above with a Soviet airliner. Someone had done an engine overhaul but not put enough bearings in (?) and when it went to takeoff power the bearings melted (?) so the engine caught fire shortly after departure. I think it turned turtle after the hydraulic lines were burned through.
I'll try to find the accident report, I'm not very certain about the details. I think it was a three engine design like a Tristar. The engine fire followed by control failure seems familiar.
Whereas the Russians here it's a little transport. They're hardly reinventing the wheel.
48k said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm struggling to connect this video with the theme of the thread.
...says the man whose two contributions to a thread about a Russian aircraft crash have been about the International Space Station. 
That video isn’t anything to do with this accident at all. It does say it’s unrelated in the post though.
The connection was dodgy Russian construction and maintenance standards. Don't forget the hole drilled into the hull of the Soyuz and then plugged with mastic and the Proton rocket that nose dived into the ground because of a valve installed back to front. There was the aborted lift off of the Soyuz in 2018 which was caused by a location pin being bent when it was installed - because the person doing the installing forced the pin into place using a mallet!
There are more. There is a litany of shoddiness with Russian aerospace engineering in recent years.
There are more. There is a litany of shoddiness with Russian aerospace engineering in recent years.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff