Hey Homey or Kabookie

[JohnnyMack]

How come this bird went down like it did? Unable to keep that fat bitch airborne on only 3 engines?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash.ap.ap/story.site.close.wtxf.jpg

[Jimminy Crimson]

User error? :confused:

[OklahomaTuba]

Gravity?

[sanantoniosooner]

Texas Sucks?

[Okla-homey]

Apparently they had a problem with that #1 engine during climb-out. They were fully loaded and full of fuel outbound for Spain and thus were at a very high gross weight. They circled to land and came down in a farm field. 14 souls aboard and they're all gonna make it (fair or better condition.) I'd say that was a fine example of airmanship and a great testament to Lockheed engineering.

Too early to tell what went wrong. That's the Safety Board's job.

[JohnnyMack]

Too early to tell what went wrong.

So guess.

[JohnnyMack]

Gravity?

:mad:

:P

[olevetonahill]

Apparently they had a problem with that #1 engine during climb-out. They were fully loaded and full of fuel outbound for Spain and thus were at a very high gross weight. They circled to land and came down in a farm field. 14 souls aboard and they're all gonna make it (fair or better condition.) I'd say that was a fine example of airmanship and a great testament to Lockheed engineering.

Too early to tell what went wrong. That's the Safety Board's job.
Damn good pilots IMHO everyone lives :D :D :D :D :D
Weve had to many that havnt made it in the past :mad: Glad all aboard are (I assume) walking wounded ;)

[olevetonahill]

So guess.
JM my guess would be # 1 engine Flamed out and the balance went south
hows that for a guess ?

[Okla-homey]

So guess.

If I was to GUESS, I'd say they had the throttles firewalled climbing out, threw a turbine blade in #1 and shelled the engine. That's not good. You've instantly got an asymmetric thrust problem in a very unstable flight regime at an extremely high gross weight.

If they didn't have enough rudder authority to fight the ensuing yaw, I expect they may have had to pull back on the power on the good side to compensate which would have induced a dangerous situation technically referred to in perfeshinul aviation circles as "scr3wed, blued and tattooed" -- thus no more climb-out. Really succy situation. You level off, lower the gear and flaps and look for a place to set her down ASAP.

Plus, from the looks of the pic, the engine caught fire. Like I said, all in all, apart from the fact that everyone aboard will need a change of underwear, looks like they done good.

Again, sheer speculation. Could have been a bunch of stuff. I've only flown in C-5's, never driven one.

[JohnnyMack]

JM my guess would be # 1 engine Flamed out and the balance went south
hows that for a guess ?

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.

[olevetonahill]

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.
I was just guessin . Homey did a lot better than me :)

[olevetonahill]

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.
I was just guessin . Homey did a lot better than me :)
Oh And ANY landing ya walk away from is a good one ;)

[Tiptonsooner]

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.


As long as those birds have been flying, I doubt there are very many engineering errors anymore with the C-5.

[KABOOKIE]

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.


For big iron, engine failure shortly after rotation @ MTOW (max takeoff weight) is a 10 on the *** puckering scale. However, reports said the plane made an attempt to circle to land and was just short of the runway. Maybe he was too low on approach and got behind the power curve for the weight and 3 engines running? Who knows. :mack:

[mdklatt]

If they didn't have enough rudder authority to fight the ensuing yaw


Don't they teach you military guys about Vmc? ;)

I guess military aircraft don't have the same safety standards as in the airline world regarding engine-out climb performance?

[TexasLidig8r]

Apparently they had a problem with that #1 engine during climb-out. They were fully loaded and full of fuel outbound for Spain and thus were at a very high gross weight. They circled to land and came down in a farm field. 14 souls aboard and they're all gonna make it (fair or better condition.) I'd say that was a fine example of airmanship and a great testament to Lockheed engineering.

Too early to tell what went wrong. That's the plaintiff's attorney's job.

Fixed it.

[Okla-homey]

Don't they teach you military guys about Vmc? ;)

I guess military aircraft don't have the same safety standards as in the airline world regarding engine-out climb performance?

FWIW, the C-5 was designed in the late 1960's and fielded in the early 70's. No such technology then existed.

here's another fun fact. A B-52H (aka BUFF) if restrained by brakes, chocks and tie-downs, at military power (full, throttles all the way forward) can actually lose its engines as they fly off the wings. Don't ask me how I know that.;)

[Newbomb Turk]

here's another fun fact. A B-52H (aka BUFF) if restrained by brakes, chocks and tie-downs, at military power (full, throttles all the way forward) can actually lose its engines as they fly off the wings. Don't ask me how I know that.;)

now THAT would be cool to see...from a distance.

[olevetonahill]

FWIW, the C-5 was designed in the late 1960's and fielded in the early 70's. No such technology then existed.

here's another fun fact. A B-52H (aka BUFF) if restrained by brakes, chocks and tie-downs, at military power (full, throttles all the way forward) can actually lose its engines as they fly off the wings. Don't ask me how I know that.;)
Did you do that ??????? :eek:
sounds like fun to watch :cool:

[KABOOKIE]

FWIW, the C-5 was designed in the late 1960's and fielded in the early 70's. No such technology then existed.



Vmca was pretty well known property in the 60's ;)

Military aircraft are not certified to FAA regulations. The military has their own standards to certify however, the flight test methods are essentially the same. Example, most military fighter aircraft would never certify to the FAA's stability and control requirements. GA aircraft are normally designed to be extremely stable in all axis whereas a fighter aircraft is designed to be relatively unstable (i.e. from level flight you push the nose down in your Skyhawk and let go of the controls, the nose wants to return to level flight. you do the same maneuver in an F/A-18 and the nose will stay where you put it) . This instability in a fighter makes for a better weapons platform than your Skyhawk!

[proud gonzo]

I was just trying to figure out if it was some sort of engineering error that made it too hard to keep up with only 3 engines lit while it was loaded down with cargo and enough fuel to get to Spain. Just curious.
planes don't crash when one thing goes wrong--they crash when a lot of things go wrong all at the same time.

[JohnnyMack]

planes don't crash when one thing goes wrong--they crash when a lot of things go wrong all at the same time.

don't you have an advisor to stalk or somethin'? :les:

[proud gonzo]

don't you have an advisor to stalk or somethin'? :les:
nah... i already stirred up enough of a commotion. I'm sure she's going to keep hearing about it.