Posted on 09/14/2008 2:30:01 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Russian jet crash kills all 88 on board
Photo: AFP
PERM, Russia (AFP) - An Aeroflot Boeing-737 jet crashed near a Ural mountains city Sunday killing all 88 passengers and crew on board, after reportedly catching fire in the sky, the airline said.
There were 21 foreigners and seven children on the jet which came down as it prepared to land in Perm on a flight from Moscow. The wreckage cut off the Trans-Siberian railway.
"It was burning while still in the sky and it looked like a falling comet," one female witness told Russia's Vesti-24 television.
The jet narrowly missed a main residential area as it fell shortly after 5:00 am (2300 GMT Saturday).
Aeroflot confirmed there were no survivors and said the dead included nine people from Azerbaijan, five from Ukraine and one each from France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Switzerland, and Turkey.
One passenger was also said to be American but US officials were reportedly checking that information.
(Excerpt) Read more at asia.news.yahoo.com ...
“Wrong.”
Sorry to disappoint you. Pray, tell me how a missing rudder would cause an aircraft to lose its lift.
“Dead wrong.”
I’m waiting for your lesson in aerodynamics. A brief primer would suffice.
I was responding to DB’s implication that the loss of the rudder caused the aircraft to crash. The loss of the rudder would have next to no affect on an aircraft’s lift. But the loss of the entire tail assembly, though, which includes the elevators, would certainly affect lift.
To emphasize my last post,
It was the elevator control that failed.
If I recall, the jack screw kept turning, locking the elevator into a full up position.
It is pretty damn hard to fly if the sick is stuck in a full up position.
“If I recall, the jack screw kept turning, locking the elevator into a full up position. It is pretty damn hard to fly if the sick is stuck in a full up position.”
Wasn’t there a problem with a jack screw on the MD-80 some years back? I think an Air Alaska MD-80 crashed due to that problem.
So sad. I know many Americans go to Perm to adopt children.
Prayers for the souls of those onboard.
Modern jets are inherently unstable without the vertical stabilizer. There's nothing to keep the nose pointed forward. The plane can simply rotate on a horizontal plane without any form of overriding control. Airplanes don't fly well sideways. With modern aircraft the fuselage extends as far in front of the wings as it does behind so it doesn't not act as a stabilizing force (if there's more fuselage in front than behind then it is a positive feedback system without a vertical stabilizer). Flight 587 lost the entire vertical stabilizer (not just the "rudder" flap) in flight.
Um, no. No coordinated flight without a rudder.
There have been alot of things I have thought were terrorist attacks, like the Egypt flight that went down and the black box heard a Muslim pilot who was forcing the airplane downward saying Allah Akbar (we now know the significance of that statement with all the beheadings) and they swear it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Their logic was “He had no reason to kill himself”, but neither did the goons on 09/11.
I think they do this to either claim “Our war on terror is working”, or “It’s not terror, go back to sleep”.
“It was burning while still in the sky and it looked like a falling comet,”
Definitely Obama’s fault.
Just picking up on this thread...the flight data recorder clearly showed the over-reaction by the co-pilot to wake turbulence from a departing JAL 747. It then showed that the plane lost yaw control due to the vertical stabilizer snapping off. It was found in the water along the terminal flight path. Losing the vertical stabilizer would not cause the plan to lose lift, but would cause uncontrolled sideslip and loss of control, which will result in a stall.
If you want to rebut the findings of the NTSB on this topic, which would mean that you suspect a wide-ranging government conspiracy among the investigation team, you could at least bring a fundamental understanding of the actual events and some notion of aviation/aerodynamics. Otherwise you should leave the conclusions to experts or put on the tin-foil hat.
Prayers for the family and friends of those who lost their life and for the emergency workers.
“Um, no. No coordinated flight without a rudder.”
Um yes. An aircraft can fly without a rudder, aas a rudder has nothing to do with lift (i.e., an aircraft would have virtually no problem getting airborne and staying airborne without a rudder). The only thing a missing rudder would affect is turning, and even at that a good pilot can turn a multi-engined aircraft by adjusting his engines (i.e., increasing the thrust on one side and decreasing it on the other, etc.); it’s awkward, but certainly doable (as countless WWII bombers proved with rudders shot away). As long as the vertical stabilizer is intact even yaw could be controlled. Again, an aircraft is still aerodynamically capable of maintaining flight (i.e., lift) without a rudder.
“Modern jets are inherently unstable without the vertical stabilizer.”
You weren’t talking about the vertical strailizer: You were talking about the rudder, which is the movable, vertical “flap” at the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. The vertical stabilzer combats drift and yaw. The rudder, along with the ailerons, allows for turning.
Why do keep posting nonsense about the “rudder”. The entire vertical stabilizer of the plane was snapped off by control inputs. The plane was in a climbing bank at about 250kts when this occurred. The forces on the aircraft were not benign at this point, and excessive side-slip led to aerodynamic stall almost immediately.
Your argument that planes can be flown without rudders, and that some planes have flown without significant stabilizers in place, all reference a specific situation with it’s own flight dynamics. If you had read the NTSB report you could perhaps understand this, but apparently you’d rather just post uninformed general comments than have a position based on on knowledge.
Your attitude is an insult to those who died. How is your uninformed conspiracy theory any less insulting than that of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts? By falsely attributing this incident to terrorism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you actually reinforce the outrageous claims of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.