zlacker

>>jnsaff+(OP)
This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield.

They were on fire just as they reached V1.

Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario.

Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else, instead of go beyond the runway at that speed. Accelerating a fully loaded jet plane at ground level beyond the runway has obvious consequences. They had one choice.

Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by before this, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground like a mousetrap by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over.

Physics took over. Plane flipped and rolled upon loss of port wing, smearing a rolling fireball of the remaining fuel load from the starboard wing for another half a mile.

Louisville is now a firestorm as a result.

Respect to the flight crew; rest in peace, they made the best they could out of a really shitty scenario. They flew it all the way down.

Footage:

https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46

https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46

https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46

https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46

>>octaan+en
> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level

Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

>>gizmo6+Vn
Unless you have a berm several dozen meters high with a 100 meter base, you ain't stopping something like this from a physics standpoint unfortunately.

Many airports have this problem. The recent korean air disaster which echos this is another example. BTW, this is why most airports, if possible, point out to sea...

>>octaan+ao
There is a dead zone between rejection and successful take-off speeds. We see it hit too often.

I think pilot training is playing a factor. A normal rotation kills too much energy. One engine can climb when you have some airspeed and get clean, but if you lose too much energy on rotation, the inefficiency of the AoA for the rest of the short flight means that engine can no longer buy you any up. I've seen too many single-engine planes going down while trying to pitch up the whole way down.

So, less aggressive single-engine rotations and energy absorbers at the ends of runways that can't get longer. This seems like the kind of thing where we do it because it removes a significant cause of people dying.

Just watched this angle a few more times: https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930

Another crash video shows the aircraft clearly descending before colliding with anything. It manages to go up a bit, so it's fast enough to get airborne. The normal looking rotation kills too much energy. The plane is then too inefficient to maintain speed. AoA goes up while energy goes down. Power available goes negative and then it's over.

>>positr+Zp
Rotation does increase drag, but you need to rotate in order to achieve the necessary angle of attack. The only way to reduce the rotation angle is by going faster than the normal rotation speed for the given weight and airfield density altitude, but doing so is out of the question in this scenario.