747 down in Afghanistan

+1, factory freighters/400F's have a swing up nose...the converted freighters are the ones that only have side loading.

 

This airplane was an ex-Air France airplane, so I'm guessing (could be wrong) that it was a conversion.

 

Leaving on the -8 LAX NRT in an hour. A really sad event. I'll post some thoughts tomorrow.

 

I don't know which version of cargo it was, the ABC clip still had the wrong video of a Military plane.

 

Just for what it is worth - in addition to the Taliban trying to take credit for the crash, I have seen several left-wing lunatics on other sites saying that it is the U.S. government's fault "for being in Afghanistan" - one of them even indicating that the crew deserved to die.

Which makes about as much sense as saying the Americans on the Hindenburg deserved to die because it was a Nazi airship...

 

Bob,
I think I read somewhere that was the original reason (during design) for the upper deck cockpit.

Ease of loading, and maybe, safety if the load shifted slightly forward. Or during an 'unintended' very hard landing.

Then, they just expanded the upper deck. Again and again.

 

The extended upper deck made me think conversion when I first saw it. Not sure of any factory cargos that have an extended upper deck...just takes space better used for cargo.

Edit: Photos of the 747 back when it was with AF and now NC: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=25630%2F960&distinct_entry=true&page=1&page_limit=120&sid=473734e4a6f1474f8ad76707a517c332&sort_order=photo_id+desc&thumbnails=

Appears it was an AF pax airplane converted to cargo around 2007/2008 for AF and then sold to NA.

 

You are correct. Joe Sutter saw the potential cargo and freight versions of the original 747 but some of the early design studies had the flight deck low in the nose similar to the A380. Now it is one of the great freighters. Swing up nose support structure is an integral part of any 747.

 

For a hammerhead rotation like that, wouldn't it be the starboard engine that flamed out not port?
Again, purely armchair speculation not based on any fact or special knowledge of actual events.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GXzkruPYjQ[/ame]

 

With the situation they were in, there's a whole lotta what ifs. It could be a flame out, it could simply be asymmetrical thrust of the outboard engines, or just an attempt by the pilot to keep the nose straight with little or no airspeed, he might have been trying a wing over to get some lift back in the wings, or a dozen other related modes.

At that angle and with the lack of forward motion a compressor stall is one of the more likely events but pure speculation until we get the FDR out of the plane and get all the parametric data.

 

From the very start of the climb out, the angle was too steep and stayed steep. The left wing appeared to stall and it rolled to the right and stabilized for a moment and then the right wing stalled and the nose dropped when the airspeed deteriorated. That's the way I see it. Aft CG.

 

I think you're right about the aft CG, Bob, and sounds like there's a good chance it was a load shift that caused it. It very well might be that the stall itself caused the right wing to drop like it did, but I think it MAY be possible that they were trying to "unload the wing" to recover from their aft CG, nose high, slow speed situation. For those that don't know what I mean by unloading the wing, when you recover from a nose high attitude, you don't want to impose excessive negative G's on the aircraft, so the technique is to roll the aircraft into a bank, allowing the nose to drop, decreasing the angle of attack, thus allowing you to recover. I oversimplified the explanation, but I think you get the gist. Those poor guys never had a chance at that altitude.

There but for the grace of God, go I.......

 

Some crude math:

From the time they were banked 90 degrees in a deep stall and beginning to descend, to impact, was ~ 5 seconds.

I get a vertical speed of around 10,000ft/min on impact.

Even without the CoG issue, I wonder what sort of altitude they would have needed to pull out of the dive.

 

Just into Narita. Gotta grab some sleep...so quick post...

The key to this accident is the fact the landing gear is down. Eliminates a lot of possibilities and pretty much concludes a weight shift at rotation.

 

Lou, being a freight pilot, have you ever experienced anything like this (shift in weight)?

 

Well, with the CoG issue, as soon as they came out of the dive, they'd be nose-up immediately no matter what altitude.

No win.

 

ORLANDO, Fla., May 1, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- National Air Cargo will not speculate as to the cause of the accident involving National Flight NCR102. With our full cooperation, an investigation by appropriate authorities is under way, and we encourage everyone to join us in respecting that process and allowing it to take its appropriate course.

Here are some facts regarding the aircraft and its movements prior to the accident:
National Flight NCR102 was en route to Dubai from Camp Bastian and had stopped to refuel at Bagram Air Base.
The cargo contained within the aircraft was properly loaded and secured, and had passed all necessary inspections prior to departing Camp Bastian.
The aircraft landed safely and uneventfully in Bagram.
No additional cargo or personnel was added during the stop in Bagram, and the aircraft's cargo was again inspected prior to departure.
Please visit National Air Cargo for updates regarding this tragic accident. Media inquiries can be directed to [email protected].

****************************************
Fuel added at Bagram. Uneventful flight in and landing.

 

Hmmm, is this just PR BS? If the retaining straps were at their limit, then any additional load on them from cargo that had shifted would cause them to snap, and that would then cascade on down to the additional tied-down loads. This is of course assuming that it was load shift.

What other causes could there be? Failure of flight control surfaces? Suicidal pilot?

LouB747, about the landing gear? What do you mean? Surely they would have neglected to retract it if an emergency situation presented itself? It's a low priority, relatively speaking. So why is this significant to you?

 

It's significant because normally the PNF will raise the gear as soon as positive rate is established. I would think that they knew (maybe even prior to Vr) that the nose was coming up on it's own and both pilots were pushing on the yoke to try and keep it down. Thus no one to put the gear up.

 

I find it interesting that the guy in the car doesn't say a word.

Not oh my god, or ****, or what the...

No verbal reaction. Strange.


Kai

 

Bob / Lou ---

Will the 747 allow the gear to be raised if the flaps are still set in TO position and airspeed has not reached whatever the minimum transition point is for the 747 ???? So, I guess my question is ---- Could the gear even be raised ??

 

Yes the gear can be raised as soon as the wheels are off the ground. Flaps have nothing to do with the gear going up/or down.

 

From what I remember, the MLG can be retracted any time if the squat switch is open. I don't think that it is coupled to the flaps. Lou would be the expert on this one, however. I have watched sequential gear swings many times in final assembly and they were unrelated to flap positions but, then, breakers could be pulled to separate system functions. My knowledge is fuzzy on this stuff now so don't take me as an expert...Def. "Expert"; a drip under pressure.

 

They just lost seven members of their crew, and a very costly plane, and cargo. What would you have them say?

 

I don't know what I'd have them say, but saying anything at all is unusual.