Video of Ukrainian Air Show Disaster

CNN, MSNBC | 07-27-2002

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I saw that, but it briefly looked like the aircraft flew over something, maybe it is in the background/foreground. Or it could be me!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I agree. Not too too bad of an aircraft, but they rushed it out the door without being prepared to fly/support it. Just as the Saudi Air Force; if we left, they wouldnt have anyone qualified to work on their F16s or fly them.

[Moose4]

Looks to me like a classic stall-spin at low altitude. Slow speed, steep turn -- watch how the inside wing drops and it snaps right over.

Yep. Makes sense to me. It looked like the inside (left) wing stalled in the turn, wouldn't that cause the plane to snap-roll over to the left like it did?

Looking at the second angle from the MSNBC footage, it looked like the pilot almost had enough room to get it pulled out--maybe another two or three hundred feet was all he needed. But I'm not a pilot and am just guessing.

}:-)4

[wrench]

The video appears to show an accelerated stall at low altitude. Look at the vapor trails off the wing leading edge, and the indicated angle of attack. The wing was stalling. Conditions at the airshow site may have been hotter/higher and or more humid than practice conditions.

The aircraft is probably marginal in its ability to execute this manouver this close to the ground. High density altitude may have been the ultimate unduing.

[Tennessee_Bob]

But I'm not a pilot and am just guessing.

Congratulations! You're now qualified as a aviation commentator on any of the major news networks! Your contract will be mailed out within a week.!!

And no - that's not a slam against you or anyone else on here - I'm really (honest!) picking on the talking heads on television who see something like this and are instant experts, without even so much as a disclaimer as yours.

By the way - if you don't know anything about sea life, we could probably get you an entire show of your own. Personally (don't tell anyone), I'm working with MSNBC on my own show where I talk about brain surgery.

[Moose4]

Congratulations! You're now qualified as a aviation commentator on any of the major news networks! Your contract will be mailed out within a week.!!

Does it pay well? :)

Point well taken. I understand what you're saying. I'm not a pilot but I'm an airplane nut, know a bit of aerodynamics, talk with pilots--in other words I know just enough to (a) be dangerous and (b) make a fool of myself. :)

The responsibility's different, true, between me making a speculative post on this message board (with proper disclaimer) and a talking head with a half-million people watching in horror as the continuous replay loop of that Flanker carving through the crowd plays again and again. One would hope that's why the networks have "experts" in various things on call--though how often they have been wrong!

By the way - if you don't know anything about sea life, we could probably get you an entire show of your own. Personally (don't tell anyone), I'm working with MSNBC on my own show where I talk about brain surgery.

Cool, I can do sea life, I love the beach! Thanks, Doctor! :)

}:-)4
expert on nothing

[b4its2late]

If the pilot B'dout, how could he have ejected? Does the co-pilot have a control to set them both through the canope?

[Gunrunner2]

Really, he ejected. I must have missed that. Sorry. Looked again at the reports and you are correct.
Still. . .when someone has a black-out (not total loss of consciousness, just total lack of vision due to inadequate anti-G straining maneuver and loss of blood to the brain), as opposed to a true G-LOC (out like a light), the pilot may not have time to recover from the situation, and the guy-in-back (WSO) is along for the ride, and, if I recall correctly, the backseat of the SU-27 has no flight controls---but he does have a command ejection capability.
I will withhold judgment on the actually cause, but I will hold to my “black-out”/G-LOC scenario and subsequent WSO initiated sequenced ejection as the most likely scenario at this time---as much as it pains me to not blame the aircraft.

We have regulations that do not permit overflight of crowds, just for this reason.

[Enemy of the NWO]

Here is how I was able to get the CNN videon to play with Real Player One.

E-mail this Free Republic posting to yourself and then click on the Medium or Low Speed link under Real RTSP Format.

Click HERE to download the free RealPlayer One.

[Sir Gawain]

I don't have a subscription and it played for me.

[Gunrunner2]

Regarding the “accelerated stall”/snap-roll.

First off, the angle of attack/lift diagram associated with the classic “Hershey Bar” wing design does not apply when you are flying a narrow cambered wing. With a classic thick chamber wing---like civilians use and my trusty ol A-10---as you approach the stall you have a clear “stall” buffet just before a clean stall break and the aircraft quits flying. However, with narrow camber wings---like those in hi-performance fighters---you experience a stall buffet well before you actually stall the wing. During the airshow the pilot had the aircraft in a sustained hi-G turn and the jet would not have experienced a classic "accelerated stall" common with a thick camber. The aerodynamics would not allow it. Even if the pilot snapped the stick back into his lap, as the jet would not have slowly rolled and dropped off, it would have "snapped" into the turn, the airspeed would have bled off immediately, and this would have been so noticeable that Ray Charles could have seen it.

A “stall” with a narrow camber is not a clean break and you do not have a snap-roll from it. In actuality, you fly narrow cambered fighters in a stall buffet on final approach, in the final turn, during loops, rolls and max-G turns---all done in a stall buffet (monitored by the seat of your pants---experience--and backed up by the AOA gauge).

Basically, you reach a "stall" earlier but you do not experience a stall-break like your average Cessna driver knows.

All that really happens when you reach the max point on the angle of attack/lift diagram on a narrow cambered wing is the nose stops tracking. . .you have no clean stall break.

But not to worry, the SU-27, like most all advanced fighters has a wing design where the wing will stall from the root outward, leaving the ailerons functional until well into a deep stall. And that, my friends, gives me reason to suspect the "accelerated stall"

[Gunrunner2]

Thnaks. I do try and be humble about these things. . .
:-)

[dighton]

Strange. For CNN, selecting Real format played the video, but selecting QuickTime returned the subscription message.

[Sir Gawain]

I used WMP.

[Gunrunner2]

>>And that, my friends, gives me reason to suspect the "accelerated stall" <<

What the Lt Col meant to say, "And that, my friends, gives me reason NOT to suspect the "accelerated stall"

I'll thank you for not noticing my error.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Windows media player 7.1 wont work on most links for me also. ( I have Quckitime and Real Player also)

Go to Start/Run/ (type in, the "open:" blank) mplayer2/ click OK/ (you should get the old windows media player screen, click on) View/Options. Click on the Formats tab, Hit "Select All"/ Apply/OK. Windows media links should open then.

[Light Speed]

In a "Flight Journal" article a non Russian pilot discovered that the SU-27 suffers from roll continuance...in some cases the aircraft will continue to over roll near 90 degrees after the stick is centered.
The aircraft has pitch problems and shape control in some manuevers.
With the over roll ..the stick is recentered..but the aircraft still slides laterally.
Comment form Flight Journal on over roll on U.S. aircraft such as F-15 and 16..is the onboard computer acts to counter the dynamic..
The SU-27's comp suite is in catch up mode...to flight shape profile.
Maybe milliseconds slower than U.S. systems..but a serious concern....and leathal at certain elevations.

[wrench]

I didn't mean to suggest the aircraft encountered a "stall break", I stated he encountered an accelerated stall.

View the video, and it is clear the wing loading increased just before the (probable) uncommanded roll to the left.

I am very familiar with the stall characteristics of the Clark-Y airfiol. But I also have experience with the accelerated stall characteristics of a modified delta wing as in the A-4. Not state of the art as in this ruskie augernaught, but enough to demonstrate to me I didn't want to jack the thing around at low altitude without a lot of spare knots.

[Gunrunner2]

Absolutely.

The question remains: The jet was established in a stable turn, and after what I figure was about 270 degrees of turn, it rolled over. . .what would cause this?

(For those that don't fly, the stick is centered right after you establish your desired bank angle. This is not like a car where you turn the wheel and hold it there during the turn. In an aircraft, you center the stick once you achieve the desired bank angle as this neutralizes the ailerons and stops the banking maneuver.)

Given the Russians loss of face, I wonder if we will ever find out the "cause" of the mishap?

[Gunrunner2]

Excuse my implication you were inferring what most non-fighter type people would consider an accelerated stall. I was not trying to quibble, I was merely trying to explain why the on-set of a stall on a hi-performance fighter, A-4 included ;-), is not at all like the Cessna most people are familer with.

That said, the aircraft was rating the turn quite well and to me the nose rate did not seem to drop off or accelerate (perhaps you have better modem than I). So, unless he was in a "deep" stall, the ailerons would have been effective and he could have rolled out at any time. But, since we were never in the jet, we shall never really know what caused the mishap.

I, like you, know low altitude flying is a bear and not a place for errors or any kind, mechanical or otherwise. And as we both know, the best you can hope for is to equal the low fly record, not beat it.