Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by EvilGenius, Jan 1, 2009.
Plus the props aren't feathered.
Guess the airstair door won't work to well.
Not when they are curled aft like that.
Forward is under power:
They curl aft when windmilling or otherwise less than positive thrust.
Ya know, that makes sense but I've never seen it!
RE King Air photo. If they got it into reverse, had powered applied, and then the gear collapsed (let's say, all three, however unlikely, almost assuredly a gear up landing) would the tips be the same deformation as the pictured Cessna?
I've witnessed a couple of gear failures from the comfort of the porch out front of the FBO.
The ones I've witnessed all involved gear failures with engines fully operational. As each aircraft crossed the threshold, power was slowly pulled back and at idle by the time the props made contact. The resulting damage started with the prop tips bending rearward as each settled on to the runway.
I've never seen prop tips bent forward... but I haven't seen everything...
Sorta but there should be some big differences in leading edge vs facial damage (see nearest bottom blade), which face, and how much of the blade is deformed versus how tightly the tip is curled. There appears to be a difference between the left and right props, which is an indication of little power. The way they'd throw mud in reverse, I would expect the nose of the airplane to have been sprayed instead of clean.
Disclaimer - Obviously, this is all sidewalk speculation based on one photo and not worth a tinker's dang. Truly reading bent props is a bit of an art that's practiced by guys who just do powerplants. Damage inside the hub should tell the real story and those folks will have final say.
Hmmm, I thought they went backwards all the time, never saw props bent forward before.
It's good to not have 1st hand experience with this.
I flew Navajos in the Ditch in a previous life (between military and hauling dog shit) and we had two guys land gear up in the Navajo within 6 months of each other. Just forgot the gear, go figure. Both times, the props were bent back...
We insured a low time twin pilot who bought an Aerostar.
Was taking his preacher to Del Rio for a revival... preacher, as preachers do, talked the entire trip.
On short final, the preacher was still talking as our pilot got further and further behind the aircraft.
Beautiful landing disrupted when both props struck and peeled backward.
The gear lever remained in the "UP" position.
The claim was for over $50,000 when $50,000 was a lot of money.
B24 waist gunners in the "office"
Here we are on page 777.
I have been waiting for this page for a long time.
To me the 777 is up there as one of, and to me, the best commercial aircraft. Of course it doesnt do every thing, that is why there are 737's but long range - really long range.
Payload over that range.
That vertical at the aft fuse, SO distinctive.
The triple truck landing gear - oh yeah, the double thump on landing.
I think i remember reading it was the first boeing to come in under budget and ahead of / on schedule, and the first comercial airliner to be fully designed on computer.
There was a time when they were exploring increased thrust for take off and considered at P&W JT8-219 mounted in the empanage. But then GE came and got an exclusive deal and delivered.
Sure there have been some hull losses, all explained, and the loss rate has to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest (excluding mh370 - there is a whole thread about that).
We get them sometimes where i work and i am looking forward to thee 777x coming - folding wingtips!
There are lots of articles online, and videos too, best video i think, where they are doing the wing stress and fail test back in the 90's. Macally is there grinning like a cheshire cat.
Yeah, i like the 777
More sidewalk speculation; if it was in reverse with power applied (PT-6 can get about 70% in full reverse) AND the gear collapsed a PT-6, due to the free turbine design, its props would stop spinning very quickly. The props, gearboxes, and power turbines would take the brunt and be trashed. It would be enough to bend the props - only because of the complete stoppage of power any surface wouldn't matter, concrete or dirt. thus, no dirt/mud blowback.
But again, who knows? Occam's razor may be in play here. I've hung myself in here more than once, so why stop now? Pilots jobs are to wreck them and leave the analysis to others. The simple explanation: gear up landing with near idle power.
The 777 is magnificent. A couple of my drinking buddies are Navy/Boeing guys...they don't have much good to say about GE engines...I'll ask them about 777 engines. There was that fuel starvation issue that resulted in that hard landing in the U.K. but I understand that's been resolved.
WreckChecker's expertise in crash investigation not withstanding, I'd say this is a simple one. Clearly they landed on the runway, based on the abrasions on the props, and lack of dirt. The props were already stopped before the aircraft slid off, probably to the side, of the runway. They were not feathered, so the engines were running at the time. If they dug into the dirt while running, they may have bent forward, but I don't think that's the case here. Looks like a typical training accident, too many distractions.
In a previous life back when I was ag-flying, my part time job was aircraft recovery for insurance companies. Sometimes it was just lifting the aircraft, putting the gear down, install new props and fly it out. Sometimes it was a day with shovels and garbage bags, respectfully burying the various human remains left behind by the coroner. I've spent a good many hours with the various agency investigators. 99% of the time it is evident and obvious what happened, even the whole chain of events, even though it might take the NTSB 9 months to publish it. Sadly, the first to the scene was usually an engine manufacturer's representative. Bodies not even removed and he's checking the engines to determine company liability. When he's done, the sheriff and coroner would do their thing if necessary. The FAA, NTSB and insurance guys sometimes even drove up in the same vehicle. They often all knew each other personally because their jobs are regional and they worked many accidents together.
You guys want another "ride report"? Headed to Japan for a few days. I promise there will be cold weather, hot sake, luke-warm japanese girls and even some airplane pictures!
The LHR incident was a Rolls engine, not the GE. The GE is a great engine on the 777. Uses lots of oil, but other than that its great. The LHR incident was causes by fuel icing in the fuel oil heat exchanger. Constant rate descents into LHR are to blame for that one. Noise abatement and all that stuff. Had they applied power earlier in the decent, it would have thawed the heat exchanger prior to totally clogging it. . The passages in the GE oil fuel exchanger are larger, thus no problem with icing.
My memory might not be exactly correct, but I think pretty close.
I read all about the icing problem, but forgot it was the Rolls engine.
Both engines are rather large.
Triple 7's are awesome. Nothing competed with it for 20 years until the A350 was introduced in 2015. The A330 while not quite the same marketing and route design as the 777, is, in comparison to the 777, a fairly miserable aircraft to ride in.
I never ceased to be amazed being on a 777 taking off from some much hotter than standard airfield (DXB) with a full passenger load and making a 15 hour flight. The 13 hour flights to China were it's perfect niche. Take off at 5 PM, business class with lay flat seat-beds. Have a snack, a drink. Really good dinner, 3 choices. First rate, interesting film, 8 hours of thoroughly fine sleep, wake up, breakfast, shave, freshen up, and you're in Shangai around 7AM local.
And i think that the 777x is going to be a step ahead of the A350.