1
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Today at 12:55:10 »
Not at all insignificant, but it's a wonder the thing actually got off the ground with less than two engines.
- 07 November 2025, 21:50:03
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Please check the Forum Guidelines at the top of the Newbie section
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3
General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias
« on: Yesterday at 20:23:10 »
Perhaps by not mentioning it, the Beeb believes that it can't be accused of being pro Palestinian. 
4
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Yesterday at 20:13:13 »
I may have worded that better: in a normal attitude with sufficient air moving at a high enough speed would have been clearer.
All slats and spoilers do is change the shape of the wing as required to maximise lift/reduce drag at any given airspeed. Note that drag is not the opposite of lift.
It's a pretty moot point though... 150ft isn't enough altitude to do anything with.
All slats and spoilers do is change the shape of the wing as required to maximise lift/reduce drag at any given airspeed. Note that drag is not the opposite of lift.
It's a pretty moot point though... 150ft isn't enough altitude to do anything with.
5
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Yesterday at 16:03:01 »
AA191 had alot more altitude so was almost inverted when it hit.
The two things they needed they didn't have... Airspeed and altitude. The wings will always provide lift as long as there is air flowing over it. Removing thrust on one side causes a loss of airspeed over that wing. Less airspeed equals less lift. Likewise the yaw induced by the loss of balanced thrust further slows the unpowered wing causing more loss of lift. As the wing drops the aircraft will always roll to that side. Once the left wing touched the lift from the working wing finished the roll.
Not dissimilar to the Endeavour crash in Toronto earlier this year.
The position of the tail engine relative to the dynamic axis is less than ideal compared to the Tristar or other three engined aircraft. Where the centre line of the engine is almost aligned with the centre line of the aircraft.
The two things they needed they didn't have... Airspeed and altitude. The wings will always provide lift as long as there is air flowing over it. Removing thrust on one side causes a loss of airspeed over that wing. Less airspeed equals less lift. Likewise the yaw induced by the loss of balanced thrust further slows the unpowered wing causing more loss of lift. As the wing drops the aircraft will always roll to that side. Once the left wing touched the lift from the working wing finished the roll.
Not dissimilar to the Endeavour crash in Toronto earlier this year.
The position of the tail engine relative to the dynamic axis is less than ideal compared to the Tristar or other three engined aircraft. Where the centre line of the engine is almost aligned with the centre line of the aircraft.
6
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Yesterday at 14:45:47 »The only similarities are aerodynamic consequence. Erase that engine and it's thrust and the resultant roll is swift and catastrophic and will happen every single time.
This has happened before on a DC10
Do you mean This one?
If so you'd hope that the lesson of not fu£king about with the manufacturer's maintenance procedures had been well learned!
Incidentally, not many operators own any and fleet utilisation is pretty low...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11_operators
7
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Yesterday at 14:40:20 »It would take quite a bird strike to rip an engine off its pylon and dump it by the runway, but it's not impossible that one started the whole chain of events, I suppose.By the time it's bounced over the airfield, the external gubbins would have been smashed to bits, the core is the heaviest part so no surprise that it's on its own.
The pylons have always been a week link on those. DC10/MD11s. The AD that came from the Chicago crash in the late seventies focused on maintenance practices rather than the aircraft. The engines themselves aren't actually held on by much.
Whilst the casing should be able to contain a fan blade failure, regardless if cause, the rotational force at take off power could have been enough to twist the pylon off.
Engine #2 probably ingested the fragments of #1 as it disintegrated., something more likely due to the relative tail position as the nose came up. By contrast, the engine in the Chicago incident simply became detached and missed the tail. In this case the engine coming away was a secondary event. As was the engine fire. Once the engine came away, the subsequent roll to the left was guaranteed.
#2 failing was actually a blessing as the aircraft never gained altitude.
FOD or mechanical failure.
8
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: Yesterday at 07:00:43 »
https://youtu.be/mHW6HaS5mnc?si=J9lPvMZ_FTofaAd2
They've not mentioned a bird strike, but...
https://youtu.be/UvftcahcYsY?si=2sfMhxgDdmuH7X4k
Not the ATC recording of the actual incident but it does include the ATIS information for Louisville at the time which includes mention of increased bird activity.
They've not mentioned a bird strike, but...
https://youtu.be/UvftcahcYsY?si=2sfMhxgDdmuH7X4k
Not the ATC recording of the actual incident but it does include the ATIS information for Louisville at the time which includes mention of increased bird activity.
9
General Discussion Area / Re: Chagos Islands
« on: 05 November 2025, 22:54:40 »Hats off to the Chinese. They don’t actually need to ever fight a war to achieve world domination.And we've bankrolled all of it with all the cheap shite we keep buying
10
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 05 November 2025, 22:53:02 »True enoughThe only saving grace is that they didn't suffer it for long
.. and that it was full of Amazon packages not passengers and more crew.
11
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 05 November 2025, 17:10:28 »
The only saving grace is that they didn't suffer it for long 
12
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 05 November 2025, 13:57:42 »
The MD11 is a turd of an aircraft, just like the DC10 it's based on. It is a decent size aircraft and can carry a fair amount of weight, so makes a good freighter. Doesn't have a particularly good safety record though.
13
General Discussion Area / Re: What has P*ssed you off today?
« on: 04 November 2025, 22:08:20 »
Mancchester, Edinbugger and Glasgow are on my shit list.
Edinbugger security are a bunch of shouty power happy Frenchists.
Glasgie Security believe they can search bags and remove items 'for testing' without you being present... They actually got reported for that.
And last time I flew out of Mancchester, security there opened my liquids bag, took my toothbrush out by the bristles, shrugged and handed both back to me. If I wasn't so gobsmacked I probably would have punched him. That said, I should have expected nothing less from a council run cesspit.
Heathrow security try it on but I won't take any shit from them.
Gatwick are generally OK, although I tend to use fast track there.
Edinbugger security are a bunch of shouty power happy Frenchists.
Glasgie Security believe they can search bags and remove items 'for testing' without you being present... They actually got reported for that.
And last time I flew out of Mancchester, security there opened my liquids bag, took my toothbrush out by the bristles, shrugged and handed both back to me. If I wasn't so gobsmacked I probably would have punched him. That said, I should have expected nothing less from a council run cesspit.
Heathrow security try it on but I won't take any shit from them.
Gatwick are generally OK, although I tend to use fast track there.
14
General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias
« on: 04 November 2025, 15:27:41 »
Once you have registered your age verification via your Gov ID
15
Omega General Help / Re: Removing Omega scuttle?
« on: 04 November 2025, 15:19:16 »
It was more than one car from different original owners 
Different people have different experiences and that was mine whether one agrees or recognises the perspective does not invalidate that perspective.
Anyhoo, if you do remove the trims for any reason, be nice to them.
Different people have different experiences and that was mine whether one agrees or recognises the perspective does not invalidate that perspective.
Anyhoo, if you do remove the trims for any reason, be nice to them.