Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Northwester]

Is it possible for the plane to gain altitude when it is in a 90 deg. roll?

[Gabriel]

Is it possible for the plane to gain altitude when it is in a 90 deg. roll?

Yes, of course it is.

[Northwester]

Yes, of course it is.

Are you really saying that a jetliner like Tu-154 flying with a 90 deg. roll, no lift, can gain altitude?

[Gabriel]

Are you really saying that a jetliner like Tu-154 flying with a 90 deg. roll, no lift, can gain altitude?

Yes. I am really saying that.

Here is an hypothetical simulation. Note it is a numerical simulation using the classical laws of mechanics of solid bodies, integrated every 0.1 seconds. I will provide the Excel file to anyone that requests so via PM.

While it is obviously inspired in the Polish accident, it is NOT a simulation of this accident. I used initial conditions, pull-up inputs, and roll rates just out of my head.

Yet, the similarities with the real accident (at least the official version of it) really surprised me.

In any event, yes, a big plane can climb after loosing part of the wing and can keep climbing (for a short while) after rolling past 90 degrees.

- An airplane is approaching at 160 kts (I assume no wind and that this airspeed remains constant).
- When the plane descends through 50 ft the pilot starts to pull up to 2G.
- They manage to arrest the descent, they skim the ground and start to climb still at 2G.
- But when climbing through 30 ft, for some reason or another, they loose 20% (by area) of the left wing (10% of the whole wing).
-With 10% less of wing to provide lift, the load factor immediately drops by 10% to 1.8G.
- At the same time, the airplane becomes uncontrollable in roll and starts to roll left, eventually reaching a roll rate of some 45 degrees per second.
- Still, at the beginning, with the wing providing a lift that is 80% higher than the airplane's weight, the airplane keeps increasing its climb rate.
- But the lift points more and more to the left as the plane rolls, not only making it turn left but also diminishing the available lift to increase the climb rate (the lift remains constant, but it is more and more tilted).
- When the plane reaches a bank of 60 degrees, the climb rate stops increasing and starts to diminish, but it still positive. INERTIA: You can't make a plane that is climbing 5300fpm descend without passing throug +4000fpm, +3000fpm, +2000fm, and +1000fpm first.
- In fact, by when the plane rolls through 90 degrees of bank, the climb rate is still 4900fpm. Of course, with a roll rate of 45 degrees per second, less than one second elapsed since the vertical component of the lift was not enough to compensate the weight.
- But now, as the lift starts to point in the same direction than the weight, the climb rate diminishes quickly. It is zero by when the bank angle is 155 degrees. And the sink rate develops very quickly.
- I guess that I used a too high roll rate in my model, because before reaching the ground the plane has already rolled past 270 degrees, so the lift starts to point in the "good" direction again and the sink rate starts change its trend, but it is too late.
- The plane hits the ground with a vertical speed of -10,000 fpm, a bank angle of 290 degrees, a descending trajectory of 33 degrees, and displaced laterally 180m from the original line they were flying.

The first 5 graphics are altitude [ft], vertical speed (ft/min), load factor, roll rate [degrees per second] and bank angle [degrees].

The sixth graphic is the ground track, X and Y in the same scale in meters.
The seventh graphic is the lateral view, the X axis in this case is "ground track meters" (that is, the sixth graphic rectified along the X axis) and the Z is altitude, again both in the same scale in meters.

The first red line is the point where the pilots start to pull up and the second red line is where part of the wing is lost.

[3WE]

Yes. I am really saying that.

Here is an hypothetical simulation. Note it is a numerical simulation using the classical laws of mechanics of solid bodies, integrated every 0.1 seconds. I will provide the Excel file to anyone that requests so via PM.

While it is obviously inspired in the Polish accident, it is NOT a simulation of this accident. I used initial conditions, pull-up inputs, and roll rates just out of my head.

Yet, the similarities with the real accident (at least the official version of it) really surprised me.

In any event, yes, a big plane can climb after loosing part of the wing and can keep climbing (for a short while) after rolling past 90 degrees.

- An airplane is approaching at 160 kts (I assume no wind and that this airspeed remains constant).
- When the plane descends through 50 ft the pilot starts to pull up to 2G.
- They manage to arrest the descent, they skim the ground and start to climb still at 2G.
- But when climbing through 30 ft, for some reason or another, they loose 20% (by area) of the left wing (10% of the whole wing).
-With 10% less of wing to provide lift, the load factor immediately drops by 10% to 1.8G.
- At the same time, the airplane becomes uncontrollable in roll and starts to roll left, eventually reaching a roll rate of some 45 degrees per second.
- Still, at the beginning, with the wing providing a lift that is 80% higher than the airplane's weight, the airplane keeps increasing its climb rate.
- But the lift points more and more to the left as the plane rolls, not only making it turn left but also diminishing the available lift to increase the climb rate (the lift remains constant, but it is more and more tilted).
- When the plane reaches a bank of 60 degrees, the climb rate stops increasing and starts to diminish, but it still positive. INERTIA: You can't make a plane that is climbing 5300fpm descend without passing throug +4000fpm, +3000fpm, +2000fm, and +1000fpm first.
- In fact, by when the plane rolls through 90 degrees of bank, the climb rate is still 4900fpm. Of course, with a roll rate of 45 degrees per second, less than one second elapsed since the vertical component of the lift was not enough to compensate the weight.
- But now, as the lift starts to point in the same direction than the weight, the climb rate diminishes quickly. It is zero by when the bank angle is 155 degrees. And the sink rate develops very quickly.
- I guess that I used a too high roll rate in my model, because before reaching the ground the plane has already rolled past 270 degrees, so the lift starts to point in the "good" direction again and the sink rate starts change its trend, but it is too late.
- The plane hits the ground with a vertical speed of -10,000 fpm, a bank angle of 290 degrees, a descending trajectory of 33 degrees, and displaced laterally 180m from the original line they were flying.

The first 5 graphics are altitude [ft], vertical speed (ft/min), load factor, roll rate [degrees per second] and bank angle [degrees].

The sixth graphic is the ground track, X and Y in the same scale in meters.
The seventh graphic is the lateral view, the X axis in this case is "ground track meters" (that is, the sixth graphic rectified along the X axis) and the Z is altitude, again both in the same scale in meters.

The first red line is the point where the pilots start to pull up and the second red line is where part of the wing is lost.

But if people are moving trees around, this may not be valid.

[Northwester]

Yes. I am really saying that.

Here is an hypothetical simulation. Note it is a numerical simulation using the classical laws of mechanics of solid bodies, integrated every 0.1 seconds. I will provide the Excel file to anyone that requests so via PM.

While it is obviously inspired in the Polish accident, it is NOT a simulation of this accident. I used initial conditions, pull-up inputs, and roll rates just out of my head.

Yet, the similarities with the real accident (at least the official version of it) really surprised me.

In any event, yes, a big plane can climb after loosing part of the wing and can keep climbing (for a short while) after rolling past 90 degrees.

- An airplane is approaching at 160 kts (I assume no wind and that this airspeed remains constant).
- When the plane descends through 50 ft the pilot starts to pull up to 2G.
- They manage to arrest the descent, they skim the ground and start to climb still at 2G.
- But when climbing through 30 ft, for some reason or another, they loose 20% (by area) of the left wing (10% of the whole wing).
-With 10% less of wing to provide lift, the load factor immediately drops by 10% to 1.8G.
- At the same time, the airplane becomes uncontrollable in roll and starts to roll left, eventually reaching a roll rate of some 45 degrees per second.
- Still, at the beginning, with the wing providing a lift that is 80% higher than the airplane's weight, the airplane keeps increasing its climb rate.
- But the lift points more and more to the left as the plane rolls, not only making it turn left but also diminishing the available lift to increase the climb rate (the lift remains constant, but it is more and more tilted).
- When the plane reaches a bank of 60 degrees, the climb rate stops increasing and starts to diminish, but it still positive. INERTIA: You can't make a plane that is climbing 5300fpm descend without passing throug +4000fpm, +3000fpm, +2000fm, and +1000fpm first.
- In fact, by when the plane rolls through 90 degrees of bank, the climb rate is still 4900fpm. Of course, with a roll rate of 45 degrees per second, less than one second elapsed since the vertical component of the lift was not enough to compensate the weight.
- But now, as the lift starts to point in the same direction than the weight, the climb rate diminishes quickly. It is zero by when the bank angle is 155 degrees. And the sink rate develops very quickly.
- I guess that I used a too high roll rate in my model, because before reaching the ground the plane has already rolled past 270 degrees, so the lift starts to point in the "good" direction again and the sink rate starts change its trend, but it is too late.
- The plane hits the ground with a vertical speed of -10,000 fpm, a bank angle of 290 degrees, a descending trajectory of 33 degrees, and displaced laterally 180m from the original line they were flying.

The first 5 graphics are altitude [ft], vertical speed (ft/min), load factor, roll rate [degrees per second] and bank angle [degrees].

The sixth graphic is the ground track, X and Y in the same scale in meters.
The seventh graphic is the lateral view, the X axis in this case is "ground track meters" (that is, the sixth graphic rectified along the X axis) and the Z is altitude, again both in the same scale in meters.

The first red line is the point where the pilots start to pull up and the second red line is where part of the wing is lost.

This is of course highly theoretical and has not much to do with the Polish accident. The Tu-154 was actually climbing at about 700 fpm, not 5300 fpm, and if someone used your numbers, the plane would have reached about 150 ft above ground! In fact the plane lost any ability to climb when it reached about 48 deg. roll (see to picture). At that time the plane was at 13 m above ground and any further roll would have caused it to crash right then. This is what Binienda is talking about.

And I am not even talking about number of trees that were taller than the birch and just few yards past the birch that were not touched by the plane. Pure nonsense.

[Gabriel]

This is of course highly theoretical and has not much to do with the Polish accident. The Tu-154 was actually climbing at about 700 fpm, not 5300 fpm, and if someone used your numbers, the plane would have reached about 150 ft above ground! In fact the plane lost any ability to climb when it reached about 48 deg. roll (see to picture). At that time the plane was at 13 m above ground and any further roll would have caused it to crash right then. This is what Binienda is talking about.

And I am not even talking about number of trees that were taller than the birch and just few yards past the birch that were not touched by the plane. Pure nonsense.

Northwester, I was answering your question if a plane can gain altitude with a bank of 90°. I've specifically said that I was NOT simulating this crash. Of course you can see that there will be an assortment of scenarios where the plane will still be climbing past the 90° roll point at climb rates anywhere between 0 and 5000fpm, right?

And this is NOT what Binienda was talking about in the last video you've posted. He said that the Russians had to invent the climb to make room for the remainder of the wing to go under the plane while rolling, and that a plane climbing after loosing part of its wing was against the laws of Physics, which proves that the Russians are lying.

[Northwester]

Northwester, I was answering your question if a plane can gain altitude with a bank of 90°. I've specifically said that I was NOT simulating this crash. Of course you can see that there will be an assortment of scenarios where the plane will still be climbing past the 90° roll point at climb rates anywhere between 0 and 5000fpm, right?

And this is NOT what Binienda was talking about in the last video you've posted. He said that the Russians had to invent the climb to make room for the remainder of the wing to go under the plane while rolling, and that a plane climbing after loosing part of its wing was against the laws of Physics, which proves that the Russians are lying.

Ok, but going back to Binienda and the report, the initial information released shortly after the crash showed what's on the attached picture (and based on the damage to the trees). It is easy to check that according to these numbers the plane would have crashed somewhere in the yellow rectangle. There was not enough clearance for the wing to rotate. So the next version showed much more altitude gain and that's what Binienda called "invented climb".

Binienda ran some simulations using actual flight parameters, and every time the plane crashed shortly after loosing the wing and starting the roll.

[Gabriel]

Ok, but going back to Binienda and the report, the initial information released shortly after the crash showed what's on the attached picture (and based on the damage to the trees). It is easy to check that according to these numbers the plane would have crashed somewhere in the yellow rectangle. There was not enough clearance for the wing to rotate. So the next version showed much more altitude gain and that's what Binienda called "invented climb".

Binienda ran some simulations using actual flight parameters, and every time the plane crashed shortly after loosing the wing and starting the roll.

Northwester, you are loosing any credibility that you still had with me.
You can't be seriously using that source of information to support your and Binienda's position. And you know what I mean.

[Northwester]

After a publication in the weekly "Do Rzeczy" stating that the initial tests in Smolensk showed the presence of TNT, octogen, hexogen, and paramononitrotoulene (p-MNT), the Chief Military Prosecutor issued the following statement:

In reference to the article published in the most recent weekly "Do Rzeczy" indicating that detectors used by the experts in Smolensk showed on the screens the presence of additional explosives: octogen and hexogen, the District Military Prosecutor states that the detectors used by experts and specialists from the Central Criminal Laboratory and Central Investigation Bureau for the initial testing, showed on the screens presence of chemical compounds that could be high energy substances, amongst them TNT, nitrates, octogen (HMX) and hexogen (RDX).

Such screen readings are not equivalent with the statement that such explosives were present on the examined parts of the wreckage. The conclusive answers will be given after detailed laboratory testing.

[justLOT787]

I like the fact that more and more people are starting to dig in to this assassination of Polish President. There are all kinds of TNT material being found on the wrack, but as soon as some thing comes to light Polish gov. (PO) shuts it down, this is because they are behind the assassination. I really hope Poland will elect true Poles to run Poland and to finally bring this assassination to light and punish those who are responsible. Why are the black boxes still in Russia and why is the planes wrack still in Russia?? The truth will see the light it always does!!

[SYDCBRWOD]

...., but as soon as some thing comes to light Polish gov. (PO) shuts it down, this is because they are behind the assassination.

So now the Poles are to blame. Wasn't that what we were saying in the first place? Polish pilot either under duress from his superiors killed the rest of the poles on the plane.

[Northwester]

So now the Poles are to blame. Wasn't that what we were saying in the first place? Polish pilot either under duress from his superiors killed the rest of the poles on the plane.

The president, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces, the political elite of a country perish in a plane crash in a foreign country, they detect explosives on the wreckage, and you post garbage like that?

[Gabriel]

Garbage like this, garbage like that...

There is so much garbage in this thread that I think that no one is in a position to say which garbage is Ok to post and which isn't.

[SYDCBRWOD]

The president, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces, the political elite of a country perish in a plane crash in a foreign country, they detect explosives on the wreckage, and you post garbage like that?

You must have missed the bit where I was simply quoting and summarising what your co-conspirator had written.