Bad one this AM... :(

[Dave]

Halifax, Nova Scotia , - Canada...

A cargo 747, 7 lost... :(

Dave

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097748283806_98?hub=topstories

[C J Campbell]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> Halifax, Nova Scotia , - Canada...
>
> A cargo 747, 7 lost... :(

Some news reports are saying that the 747 attempted an intersection takeoff
with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a flight
from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Some news reports are saying that the 747 attempted an intersection
> takeoff
> with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a
> flight
> from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?

That one? Apparently not.

[Dave]

Yes........ started at the 700 metre point, 2000 meters
remaining...

Any 747 jocks here to comment? Temps were about 6 deg C at the
time, dry, rny is fairly level, little wind...

Apparently rotated, drug the tail all the way to -and hit the
ILS antenna berm. Tail separated at that impact and the rest we
know.. :(

One thing tho, I was VERY impressed with the ATV
reporting...no stupid comic book aeronautical stuff... just good
reporting on what they knew as the story progressed...

Dave


On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:16:11 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> Some news reports are saying that the 747 attempted an intersection
>> takeoff
>> with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a
>> flight
>> from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?
>
>That one? Apparently not.
>

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:05:26 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Halifax, Nova Scotia , - Canada...
>>
>> A cargo 747, 7 lost... :(
>
>Some news reports are saying that the 747 attempted an intersection takeoff
>with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a flight
>from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?

This Boeing site
(http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/747.htm) lists tech
details like the takeoff rolls for a given weight. We need to know
what model of 747, the brake release weight, and the pressure altitude
to determine takeoff roll.

As an example though:
The -100,-200,-300 versions of the 747 show the takeoff distance to be
9500 feet @ sea level @ max gross (720,000 lbs)

To make a 6000ft runway, the plane needs to be 140,000 lbs lighter
(580,000lbs).

The numbers for the 747-400 are even higher (starting @ 6000 feet, and
going up from there). Which explains Denver's 16,000ft runway.

-Nathan

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dave" wrote in message -
> Apparently rotated, drug the tail all the way to -and hit the
> ILS antenna berm. Tail separated at that impact and the rest we
> know.. :(

Don't know much about a 747, but I have watched a video produced by Boeing
that shows the effects of dragging the tail. It adds a significant amount to
the take-off distance.

D.

[NW_PILOT]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dave" wrote in message -
> > Apparently rotated, drug the tail all the way to -and hit the
> > ILS antenna berm. Tail separated at that impact and the rest we
> > know.. :(
>
> Don't know much about a 747, but I have watched a video produced by Boeing
> that shows the effects of dragging the tail. It adds a significant amount
to
> the take-off distance.
>
> D.
>
>


Time for boeing to add a tail wheel to the 747

[Paul Sengupta]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Don't know much about a 747, but I have watched a video produced by
Boeing
> > that shows the effects of dragging the tail. It adds a significant
amount
> to
> > the take-off distance.
>
> Time for boeing to add a tail wheel to the 747

Concorde has a tailwheel.

Paul

[Robert Briggs]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
> NW_PILOT wrote:
> > Capt.Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Don't know much about a 747, but I have watched a video produced
> > > by Boeing that shows the effects of dragging the tail. It adds a
> > > significant amount to the take-off distance.
> >
> > Time for boeing to add a tail wheel to the 747
>
> Concorde has a tailwheel.

Tailwheels aren't really all that much *use* in museums. :-(

[John Pelchat]

Nathan Young > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:05:26 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Halifax, Nova Scotia , - Canada...
> >>
> >> A cargo 747, 7 lost... :(
> >
> >Some news reports are saying that the 747 attempted an intersection takeoff
> >with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a flight
> >from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?
>
> This Boeing site
> (http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/747.htm) lists tech
> details like the takeoff rolls for a given weight. We need to know
> what model of 747, the brake release weight, and the pressure altitude
> to determine takeoff roll.
>
> As an example though:
> The -100,-200,-300 versions of the 747 show the takeoff distance to be
> 9500 feet @ sea level @ max gross (720,000 lbs)
>
> To make a 6000ft runway, the plane needs to be 140,000 lbs lighter
> (580,000lbs).
>
> The numbers for the 747-400 are even higher (starting @ 6000 feet, and
> going up from there). Which explains Denver's 16,000ft runway.
>
> -Nathan


Nathan - A crew is required to calculate the balanced filed length
which provides sufficient runway for the plane to accelerate to V1,
lose an engine, and then stop using only brakes, with no reverse
thrust. The actual length required for a normal take-off is much much
less.

And as another poster noted, this was not a normal takeoff in that the
crew apparently over-rotated the airplane, resulting in the tailstrike
and diminishing the plan's performance.

It will interesting to learn more about this as the investigation
develops. My thoughts and condolances to those who loved the members
of the crew.

Blue skies

John

[Ash Wyllie]

NW_PILOT opined

>"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
>> >"Dave" wrote in message -
>> > Apparently rotated, drug the tail all the way to -and hit the
>> > ILS antenna berm. Tail separated at that impact and the rest we
>> > know.. :(
>>
>> Don't know much about a 747, but I have watched a video produced by Boeing
>> that shows the effects of dragging the tail. It adds a significant amount
>to
>> the take-off distance.
>>
>> D.
>>
>>


>Time for boeing to add a tail wheel to the 747

And delete that nose wheel.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message > And delete that nose wheel.

That would create a pilot shortage. Few of my colleagues have a tailwheel
endorsement.

D.

[Joe Morris]

(John Pelchat) writes:

>And as another poster noted, this was not a normal takeoff in that the
>crew apparently over-rotated the airplane, resulting in the tailstrike
>and diminishing the plan's performance.

>It will interesting to learn more about this as the investigation
>develops.

Agreed...but a tail strike by itself should not lead to a crash unless
the vertical force of contact was so extreme that it caused structural
damage. (Of course, at that angle of attack you're not going to get
your maximum Cl, so if the takeoff parameters were marginal to begin
with things could get interesting in a hurry.)

A friend of mine was one of the design engineers for the 747; he
has a film of some of the certification test flights -- including
abused takeoffs where intentional overrotation caused the tail to
contact the runway surface...and at gross weight (IIRC) it successfully
completed the takeoff.

Of course, that was a new bird without who-knows-how-many years of
service behind it.

Has there been any information available concerning loading (takeoff
weight and CG) being out of limits? An aft CG, perhaps from poorly
secured cargo that moved during takeoff and rotation, could explain
the over-rotation.

Joe Morris

[Dave]

A "local" update...

The voice recorder is toast (literally) :(

The data recorder has a broken tape, repaired, and is being
examined now...

Apparently the crew were very expirenced, and they are
wondering about the tail strike, which was not a "bump" ,- the scrape
trail was very lengthy. The shower of sparks was extensive, lasting a
long time & distance. Current speculation surrounds cargo shift aft,
holding the tail on the rny..

Extreme, but that is being checked out..

Many are wondering why an experiencd crew would hold the
tail hard on the rny knowing it would extend the TO run...

Credible eyewitnesses said all appeared normal until rotation,
and shortly after the trail of sparks started and lasted until it
"barely " lifted in ground effect until the tail hit the ILS antenna
berm.

The rest was a tumbling fireball... :(

Dave

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:31:01 +0000 (UTC), Joe Morris
> wrote:

(John Pelchat) writes:
>
>>And as another poster noted, this was not a normal takeoff in that the
>>crew apparently over-rotated the airplane, resulting in the tailstrike
>>and diminishing the plan's performance.
>
>>It will interesting to learn more about this as the investigation
>>develops.
>
>Agreed...but a tail strike by itself should not lead to a crash unless
>the vertical force of contact was so extreme that it caused structural
>damage. (Of course, at that angle of attack you're not going to get
>your maximum Cl, so if the takeoff parameters were marginal to begin
>with things could get interesting in a hurry.)
>
>A friend of mine was one of the design engineers for the 747; he
>has a film of some of the certification test flights -- including
>abused takeoffs where intentional overrotation caused the tail to
>contact the runway surface...and at gross weight (IIRC) it successfully
>completed the takeoff.
>
>Of course, that was a new bird without who-knows-how-many years of
>service behind it.
>
>Has there been any information available concerning loading (takeoff
>weight and CG) being out of limits? An aft CG, perhaps from poorly
>secured cargo that moved during takeoff and rotation, could explain
>the over-rotation.
>
>Joe Morris

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 at 14:31:01 in message
>, Joe Morris >
wrote:

>A friend of mine was one of the design engineers for the 747; he
>has a film of some of the certification test flights -- including
>abused takeoffs where intentional overrotation caused the tail to
>contact the runway surface...and at gross weight (IIRC) it successfully
>completed the takeoff.

I think you will find that is a standard test to check the 'Velocity
Minimum Unstick' speed. A large block of wood (Usually Oak) is fastened
to the tail bumper to protect the airframe. It is not abuse but a
careful test at the Maximum practical rotation. Unless the tail has been
definitely touching for about the last 500 ft of the ground run the
test is not accurate.

For a description of this test see "21st Century Jet" by Karl Sabbach
regarding the Boeing 777.
--
David CL Francis

[John Gaquin]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> >
> >with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a
flight
> >from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?

No. Not at gross.

[Dave]

News today on the data box...

I "heard" rotation occoured at 50 mph less than rotation
speed..

....more when I get more...

Dave


On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:04:01 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >with 6000 feet of runway left, fully loaded with fuel and cargo for a
>flight
>> >from Halifax to Spain. Can the 747 really do that?
>
>No. Not at gross.
>

[[email protected]]

Here is a very cool photo of this test being done on an Airbus. They
forgot the block of wood :)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=219906&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzNDAtNjQy&WdsYXMg=QWlyYnVzIEluZHVzdHJpZQ%3D%3D&QtODMg=VG91bG91c2UgLSBCbGFnbmFjIChUTFMgLyBMRkJPKQ% 3D%3D&ERDLTkt=RnJhbmNl&ktODMp=SnVseSAyNywgMjAwMQ%3D%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=RnJlbmNoIEZyb2dzIEFpclNsaWRlcw%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=Ri1XV0NB&MgTUQtODMgKE=VGhlIG1vc3QgYmVhdXRpZnVsIGFpcmNyYWZ0I GZvciBhIGdyZWF0IHBpY3R1cmUgISBDb25kdWN0aW5nIFZNVSB 0cmlhbHMgLSB0aGUgdGFpbCBzdHJpa2UgaXMgZG9uZSBpbnRlb nRpb25hbGx5IGZvciB0ZXN0aW5nIHB1cnBvc2VzIHRvIGRldGV ybWluZSB0aGUgbWluaW11bSBzcGVlZCBhdCB3aGljaCB0aGUgY WlyY3JhZnQgd2lsbCBsaWZ0IG9mZiB0aGUgZ3JvdW5kLg%3D%3 D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MTI3NzUx&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wMi0xOQ%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&size=M
Sorry about the huge URL- I don't know how to make them small.

[John Clear]

In article om>,
> wrote:
>Here is a very cool photo of this test being done on an Airbus. They
>forgot the block of wood :)
>
>Sorry about the huge URL- I don't know how to make them small.

Neat picture.

You can cut the airliners.net url down to this:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=219906

For other URLs use http://makeashorterlink.com, http://tinyurl.com
or my favorite, http://evilurl.com.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[David Kinsell]

> wrote in message ups.com...
> Here is a very cool photo of this test being done on an Airbus. They
> forgot the block of wood :)

If you blow up the picture, it looks like a large red block of something
(probably oak) is doing exactly what it s'possed to do.

[Morgans]

"David Kinsell" > wrote in message
news:FWrfd.10096$R05.6567@attbi_s53...
>
> > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Here is a very cool photo of this test being done on an Airbus. They
> > forgot the block of wood :)
>
> If you blow up the picture, it looks like a large red block of something
> (probably oak) is doing exactly what it s'possed to do.
>
>
>

Mmmm, no. I am quite sure in saying that Oak does not produce a trail of
sparks. A large chunk of steel, yes.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:20:13 in message
>, Morgans
> wrote:

>Mmmm, no. I am quite sure in saying that Oak does not produce a trail of
>sparks. A large chunk of steel, yes.

How did the original 'Boy Scout' method of lighting fires work then?
Wood burns and friction will heat it beyond ignition.
--
David CL Francis

[Morgans]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 18:20:13 in message
> >, Morgans
> > wrote:
>
> >Mmmm, no. I am quite sure in saying that Oak does not produce a trail of
> >sparks. A large chunk of steel, yes.
>
> How did the original 'Boy Scout' method of lighting fires work then?
> Wood burns and friction will heat it beyond ignition.
> --
> David CL Francis

With the speeds and pressures involved, I feel certain that the runway would
scrub away wood, like a giant sanding belt, removing the heated wood, *way*
before a huge trail of sparks evolved. The end result would be a badly
scraped fuselage.

Of course, it could have been "ironwood". ;-)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004