Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:33:16 -0800 whiteguyinchina from private IP, post #12917620 /all UPS cargo plane crash Saw the video. Seems like fire around the right engine. Odd that they couldn't get enough life with one engine. A fully loaded fully fueled jet should be able to take off with one engine right? Even a 30+ year old McDonnell douglass? Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:33:53 -0800 whiteguyinchina from private IP Reply #14137287 May they rest in peace. One thing about dying in a huge fireball is you go out quick. Tue, 04 Nov 2025 21:25:42 -0800 marlon from private IP Reply #15566714 the pilot must have saw the fire, should have aborted take-off Wed, 05 Nov 2025 12:47:02 -0800 phosita from private IP Reply #14507263 In the video I saw, the left engine (or area where the left engine should be) is afire as the jet is on the takeoff roll. An indication of engine fire on takeoff, without more, would have resulted in either (a) a rejected takeoff below V1; or (b) a continuation of the takeoff above V1. The jet can take off and fly with a failed engine above V1, by definition. A rejected takeoff near V1 is a serious, serious thing, and only done if it's clear that risking a runway overrun is going to be less bad than committing to fly. If all you've got is an engine fire and/or failure, and you're beyond V1, you just take off, and start working the problem in the air. It would probably have been routine for this crew, who doubtless practiced that in the sim a thousand times. Fire, birdstrike, contained blade-off, etc., you just work the checklists, declare, and (unless utterly urgent to be back on the ground) dump fuel to get under max landing weight. Probably would have returned to origin. There was, however, more. A photo, and let's assume it's authentic, shows an engine in the grass along the runway. In which case, holy CRAP. Still, if the engine departed the aircraft at V1 then the pilots would have had enough yaw authority to continue - and indeed you see the plane very nearly maintains centerline all the way to where it augers in. But because the jet was unable to gain altitude, we can reasonably infer that there was an at least one other engine failure. Indeed, observers seem to be noting that the #2 engine looked like it was experiencing compressor stall/some kind of damage, possibly due to ingestion of #1 debris. It also seems plausible that the left wing, including possibly hydros within it, would have been heavily damaged. wgic, the MD-11 is a three-engine jet. It can't continue a takeoff on 1 engine only, though it can continue a takeoff on two engines if there's been a failure in a third engine at V1. This is true even at max takeoff weight. By definition. Wed, 05 Nov 2025 13:12:13 -0800 marlon from private IP Reply #19531722 reminds me of the crash in India in July, but we know the pilot did it on purpose Wed, 05 Nov 2025 16:54:18 -0800 Shu from private IP Reply #15581720 I read reports of a left engine fire and then a compressor stall on the right engine past rotation. If correct, at that point there's nothing they could have done.Replies require login.
JDUnderground
118 users registered
Sign in | Register | Post width: chars
118 users registered
Sign in | Register | Post width: chars
Preview on Preview off |
Recently active users: 2tierreality Andy doublefriedchicken marlon phosita TribalBarConnection whiteguyinchina zerosugar +92 guests
Recently active users: 2tierreality Andy doublefriedchicken marlon phosita TribalBarConnection whiteguyinchina zerosugar +92 guests