gautrek Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 that was close http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2008-2-9-Il76-in-Australia.wmv 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Holy crap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Glad I wasn't on that one! :eek: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Same video (I hope) for those that don't let their media player get out on the internets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMNg8FrVYM Gotta love the commentary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 A question. Not being an expert in planes it seems to me that the the problem is that the IL-76 was running out of runway. Arn't military planes (especially Russian military planes) designed to work with less than ideal conditions? Given that the plane is about to take off it would not be exerting a huge force on the ground so it wouldn't sink in, especially given that Australia is not known for its boggy ground. Therefore, although it wasn't a great takeoff, the plane is in no real danger. Am I missing something obvious? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It's an aircraft with 157.000kg takeoff weight, and clearly this one is pretty close to that. If it's not got enough lift, then even a small difference between weight and lift is gonna be quite a bit of weight. If it's short 10%, that's 15 tonnes, quite enough to sink in to create difficulties. Besides, an IL-76 probably doesn't have that great a cross country performance so getting speed up will be an increasingly tricky problem. And if it's not taken off at the end off the runway, clearing objects near the end of the runway starts getting a real problem too. Besides, these are the circumstances when pilots start making mistakes. While it's true this aircraft wasn't inches away from a crash, it found itself in a pretty serious position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 He almost broke the military rule [was an actual rule when I was still flying in the Navy] that the takeoff roll was not to exceed the length of the runway. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Ah I see, thanks for the answer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 While it's true this aircraft wasn't inches away from a crash, it found itself in a pretty serious position. I wonder what the other end of the flight was like. True they would have burnt off most of their fuel by then, but it would still have to be a lot of weight to bring to a halt. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I looked to be in a mountainous region so it's possible it was at altitude and the thin air affected it. If they were landing closer to sea level then I'd imagine they'd be OK. Especially as the landing end of the runway they'd be going slower and they do have some off-runway ability. My Mrs is a trolley dolly and she was in an aircraft that had a bird strike a couple of weeks ago. They were two seconds from takeoff when 3 partridges tried to nest in the left engine. They had to slam to a stop and nearly left the end of the runway with >160 people on board. Scary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 This has been around in aviation circles since soon after it happened Takeoff calculations re runway length always include a factor for braking should they have to reject the takeoff for some reason, so runways are usually about 1.5 times the actual length required to lift off. One reason for using the entire length might be they were trying to conserve fuel - slower acceleration and climb can save a lot of fuel due to lower engine power settings. Such takeoffs are routinely performed around the world by many airlines - but typically when there is a hugely long runway compared to the requirment - eg a 10,000 foot runway and you only need 2000 feet or something like that. Pressures on pilots to save fuel can be quite significant - there have been cases where pilots pay depended on "on time" arrival (an incentive to not divert around weather for example). I don't know if that was the case here, but it's a great video regardless of the reason! BTW note that it is a civilian a/c - not a military one, and AFAIK it was not at particularly high altitude - 571m tehre 's a bunch of discussion about it here on an acviation forum for the technically inclined, plus a few vids to similar takeoffs elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 I like this post from the above forum Compared to the Ant 12 and 24s we see in Africa that was an F18... mostly they rely on the curvature of the earth to gain altitude. another image from the same thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Priceless comment from that forum "Compared to the Ant 12 and 24s we see in Africa that was an F18... mostly they rely on the curvature of the earth to gain altitude." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 The Russki plane looks like it was taking off from Canberra, which is a mixed civilian and RAAF facility. Not particularly mountainous (those are really just hills) and only a few hundred metres ASL. Stalin's altitude above would seem about right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Classic. Thanks for the post. FSU transport pilots as a rule are grizzled middled-aged guys with thousands of hours of stick time, 3,000 hours and by them you're still green. Those guys, they know the limits of their aircraft down to the last bolt and meter. Actually Elmar, for the record Il-76 is supposed to have relatively good cross-country performance, it has reinforced gear and it's all in the belly of the plane, so supposedly shear forces aren't so bad. I've seen Ilushins take off from a concrete slab/ice/snow mixture that would be too rough and bumpy - almost - to X-country ski across. Il-76 is supposedly a really solid planes, I've only heard pilots say positive stuff about them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 How low can you go....Ouch!!! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed6_1244954465 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Kind of hard on the Beaver, wasn't it? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSgt Viljuri Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I looked to be in a mountainous region so it's possible it was at altitude and the thin air affected it. (snips) Being upside down could have serious implications as well, obviously a fighter could do it, but are transport planes suitable for antipodean traffic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Being upside down could have serious implications as well, obviously a fighter could do it, but are transport planes suitable for antipodean traffic? We're way ahead of you there - velcro runways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 wicky - that must have been an embarrassing crash to explain. I was reading Winkle Brown and after the war he was testing a Do-24 flyingboat and the German co-pilot showed him out to do it - go in a circle at full throttle and jump off the wake you have created! A novel technique. Went airborne at 71mph - not bad for a plane 88ft wide and 72ft long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.