Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Aeroflot Superjet 100 fire and evacuation at UUEE
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostHave you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostDo a bit of research. There's a lot of high-tech development that went into the SSJ, particularly the 9.9 aspect ratio wings. The FBW is state-of-the-art and very robust, (using LLI (Liebherr Lindenberg) FCC's and Thales avionics, some purpose built from scratch). It is certified as a Protected Aircraft. It is also modern is its reduced complexity.
"Ultra-modern", maybe not, but definitely a modern, 21st century aircraft. Much more modern than the 737-Max. There may be some serious design issues that come to light as a result of the investigation, but otherwise, it's a pretty impressive aircraft for a first-time effort.
OK, the aspect ratio of the wing. Russians are actually pretty good at aero research. But a modern airplane is not just the wing design.
This is an airplane that entered service in 2011. Where are the cheap composites? No wingtip devices or raked wing - only in 2017 they came up with the saberlet concept.
Also, from wikipedia - special mods and control law settings had to be adopted for the steep London City Airport approach. And in 2018, that super efficient wing was looked into again and they found they can improve it by 10%.
The engines are really outdated. I haven't heard of a new PW1000G version being planned. That would be a big surprise to me. Even the MC-21 might have some trouble getting the PW1000G for political reasons.
Sure, the SSJ has FBW. But even the TU-204 had that.
From what I've read in articles and on forums, the planes are spending more time on the ground than flying and everyone is looking for a way out - except for Peruvian, which is showing interest in acquiring them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostHave you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Postbut to call it sub-par is a disservice to the people who designed it and all the hard work that went into it.
Originally posted by Evan View PostIn other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Black Ram View PostOK, the aspect ratio of the wing. Russians are actually pretty good at aero research. But a modern airplane is not just the wing design.
This is an airplane that entered service in 2011. Where are the cheap composites? No wingtip devices or raked wing - only in 2017 they came up with the saberlet concept.
Also, from wikipedia - special mods and control law settings had to be adopted for the steep London City Airport approach. And in 2018, that super efficient wing was looked into again and they found they can improve it by 10%.
The engines are really outdated. I haven't heard of a new PW1000G version being planned. That would be a big surprise to me. Even the MS-21 might have some trouble getting the PW1000G for political reasons.They need western components, and it doesn't seem like they can make CFRP components without foreign help. All that costs money, and might be subject to sanctions. I don't think they can build a plane as efficient and capable as the 737 MAX at the fraction of the price.
The MS-21 features CFRP wings and is powered by the PW1400G. It's already flying. Surprise! The Russians have been busy. Boeing has been napping and has fallen well-behind. Real tortoise and hare stuff.
Not your papochka's Tupolev...
Comment
-
Ok...Boeing is ancient, napping and sucks.
The Russians are large, and in-charge and modern.
But is there some possibility we are discussing a design flaw?
Sure, the SuperJet doesn't have DCAS.
BUT
Do Boeings go into alternate law and bounce down runways when struck by lightning?
I'm sure that engineering teams at both places tried really hard.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Black Ram View PostWell that's not a very fair comparison. Sure, even the most modern Soviet airliners before the Cold War ended - the TU-154M and the IL-86 - had your favorite steam gauge cockpits and required at least 3 pilots, which made them look obsolete compared to the latest western planes in service - 757, 767, A300, etc. But if you look at later Russian planes, like the TU-204 and the IL-96, they have modern cockpits and FBW. And still they are behind, but that's besides the point.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostOk...Boeing is ancient, napping and sucks.
The Russians are large, and in-charge and modern.
But is there some possibility we are discussing a design flaw?
Do Boeings go into alternate law and bounce down runways when struck by lightning?
Direct law: stick commands are directly proportionate to control surface movements.
As I said above, SSJ pilots have reported that the handling is very benign (even improved) in the SSJ version of direct law. So, assuming no other malfunctions, that alone should not inhibit control.
I've also heard it said that if you are stable down to the flare, you aren't going to get bouncy and if you are unstable before the flare, you go around and do it again.
So I think—no disrespect to your avgeek discussion on PIO vs porpoising technique—the best way to avoid getting bouncy is to keep it stabilized or go around.
However, many questions remain unanswered on this one, including what exactly failed and what didn't, so who knows what the pilots were up against and if it was even possible to control a stable approach.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post***no disrespect to your avgeek discussion on PIO vs porpoising technique—the best way to avoid getting bouncy is to keep it stabilized or go around.***
BUT...
Maybe the normal airplane isn't bouncy, but you fry HAL and it becomes nasty...
...and then you have a fried airplane that for some reason you can't slow down, and rules that it's generally a little bit bad to go around AFTER touchdown...
...and a fried airplane that you really WANT to get on the ground...
It's a sad combination- and if you want to write procedures for it, fine...but I'm also thinking this is another crew where HAL abandons them AND throws them who knows how many red blinking and beeping lights.
No disrespect intended in the youtube- the humor below is based on some truth of blinking-light-overload.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Postbut you fry HAL and it becomes nasty...
...and then you have a fried airplane that for some reason you can't slow down...
You fry HAL, you get FBW without HAL. You fry the FBW, then you don't bounce on the runway, you go straight into a potato field. Obviously, the FBW was still working (although maybe off the RAT or the batteries).
I've heard it said that if you have basic pitch control and thrust control, you can slow down. Or you can go around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostListen to yourself.
I've heard it said that if you have basic pitch control and thrust control you can slow down...
#1. The guys are said to have landed fast. I don't know why, but maybe there's these electrically controlled flap thingies that are essential for slowing down enough to land nicely- but maybe the flap control system got fried by the lightning bolt?
#2. Using genius fundamental airmanship to not stall the shit out of an alternate-law, largely-healthy airliner at 36,000 feet versus managing a crippled airliner 3 feet off the ground when alternate law is possibly porpoiseeee...not really apples to apples.
I am glad to know you would not porpoise the 100 Superjet- but I ask if you actually have enough hours- including flying it after a lightning strike- to make that claim.
However, in my experience, I've had some lateral PIO's on my bicycle and Toyota Corolla and some pitch PIPorpoiseOs on my instructor's 172...
...those three things give me a little sympathy for the MD-11 guys and maybe these guys.
In the meantime, I await the final report where flap operation, spoiler operation, and pitch stability while in a lightning-affected state will hopefully be detailed.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostIn the meantime, I await the final report where flap operation, spoiler operation, and pitch stability while in a lightning-affected state will hopefully be detailed.
Instead of parroting the apocryphal HAL myths of the interwebs, I would focus on how and why a common lightning strike penetrated and damaged the electrical system and avionics (perhaps it was uncommon lightning).
Taking the FCC's out of the loop shouldn't result in an uncontrollable aircraft. Unless you don't know how to fly it that way...
Comment
Comment