• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

NP Monday, Aug 12, 2019

Recommended Posts

Yes. The high stall speed and (relatively) small tire size means that an airliner like that could not land without a runway or other paved surface that is more than a mile in length, so it was fortunate that such a runway was near enough to reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Yes. The high stall speed and (relatively) small tire size means that an airliner like that could not land without a runway or other paved surface that is more than a mile in length, so it was fortunate that such a runway was near enough to reach.

Not only that. Several attempts to recreate the conditions in simulator ended with crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not only that. Several attempts to recreate the conditions in simulator ended with crashes.

I consider that situation one of the most amazing I have ever heard of and I salute the pilot responsible. It might have been partly due to luck, but this is the sort of luck that you need skill, courage and nerves of steel in order to make happen.

I forgive the pilot for leaving the 767 mostly intact upon landing. You really need to be Launchpad McQuack in order to completely wreck your plane while still allowing everybody aboard to leave unharmed and under their own power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

I consider that situation one of the most amazing I have ever heard of and I salute the pilot responsible. It might have been partly due to luck, but this is the sort of luck that you need skill, courage and nerves of steel in order to make happen.

The landing on Hudson river might be comparable, but that's only one I can think of. Well, maybe also Apollo 13, but that's different kind of problem. Granted, I might remember more given enough time.

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

I forgive the pilot for leaving the 767 mostly intact upon landing. You really need to be Launchpad McQuack in order to completely wreck your plane while still allowing everybody aboard to leave unharmed and under their own power.

:)

They COULD at least lose the wings in landing, that usually don't reduce chance of passengers to leave unharmed, but yes, if it would be Launchpad McQuack the airplane cabin would end in two pieces and yet everyone would be ok.

Usually, if the remains of plane are spread over two kilometers, there are no survivors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

They COULD at least lose the wings in landing, that usually don't reduce chance of passengers to leave unharmed, but yes, if it would be Launchpad McQuack the airplane cabin would end in two pieces and yet everyone would be ok.

In fact, I would not put it past him to have it split in two lengthwise and still have everybody aboard be okay. Which would actually simplify disembarking from the wreckage. :icon_eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The landing on Hudson river might be comparable, but that's only one I can think of.

Small planes making emergency landings is relatively common; I cannot recall any other large ones, either. I'd bet there were others, but it's rare enough to be noteworthy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

They COULD at least lose the wings in landing, that usually don't reduce chance of passengers to leave unharmed, but yes, if it would be Launchpad McQuack the airplane cabin would end in two pieces and yet everyone would be ok.

NORMALLY that's a bad idea because the main fuel tanks are in the wings. Lose the wings, you probably spill fuel all over the place and get a rip-roaring fire.

In this instance, though, the problem was that they had effectively-zero fuel. There was likely a nonzero quantity of residual fuel in the tanks, but not enough to be a major hazard. So losing the wings wouldn't have been as dangerous as normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
19 hours ago, hkmaly said:

They COULD at least lose the wings in landing, that usually don't reduce chance of passengers to leave unharmed, but yes, if it would be Launchpad McQuack the airplane cabin would end in two pieces and yet everyone would be ok.

NORMALLY that's a bad idea because the main fuel tanks are in the wings. Lose the wings, you probably spill fuel all over the place and get a rip-roaring fire.

But wouldn't losing the wings ensure that all that fuel and fire will happen in safe(r) distance from passengers?

6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

In this instance, though, the problem was that they had effectively-zero fuel. There was likely a nonzero quantity of residual fuel in the tanks, but not enough to be a major hazard. So losing the wings wouldn't have been as dangerous as normal.

This definitely, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

NORMALLY that's a bad idea because the main fuel tanks are in the wings. Lose the wings, you probably spill fuel all over the place and get a rip-roaring fire.

In this instance, though, the problem was that they had effectively-zero fuel. There was likely a nonzero quantity of residual fuel in the tanks, but not enough to be a major hazard. So losing the wings wouldn't have been as dangerous as normal.

It's weird, but look it up. Jet fuel is difficult to ignite, you can put out a match in it. Conversely, hydrocarbon vapors are easy to ignite to the point of being explosive. So, contrary to intuitive thinking, a full wing would make a mess but it would not be an immediate fire hazard if there wasn't already one, (although, if you get it going, it would burn hot) and an wing that was almost empty could be explosive. This is not true for gasoline, only for fairly heavy fuel oils. Jet fuel is around kerosene weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It's weird, but look it up. Jet fuel is difficult to ignite, you can put out a match in it. Conversely, hydrocarbon vapors are easy to ignite to the point of being explosive. So, contrary to intuitive thinking, a full wing would make a mess but it would not be an immediate fire hazard if there wasn't already one, (although, if you get it going, it would burn hot) and an wing that was almost empty could be explosive. This is not true for gasoline, only for fairly heavy fuel oils. Jet fuel is around kerosene weight.

So, I took my own advice, and need to add, there are quite a few "Jet Fuels" with varying characteristics. Most don't apply to commercial jet liners, but among those that do, there are kerosene based ones ( Jet A and Jet A1 ) that are as I described above, and some mixtures ( Jet B ) intended for cold weather and climates, that have more volatile components, such as gasoline, and will have a lower flashpoint. As this was in Canada, they might have used Jet B, so there could have been a hazard with a full wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

If the wing filled with fuel became separated from the fuselage, it would not remain filled with fuel for long.

Sure, except that the most likely time of separation would be on impact, and there's plenty of room for mayhem at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this