Bad one this AM... :(

Halifax, Nova Scotia , - Canada...

A cargo 747, 7 lost...

Dave

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=topstories

"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?

"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.

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.

"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.

"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

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 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

(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

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