The strength of the landing gear is amazing when you think of how much force is on them when running into the soft ground, let alone the torque caused from trying to stop. Wow.
The reason people make vodka jokes about Russians is because the best vodka in the world is made in Russia.. its not intended to be racist, just funny a bit silly
Great catch! Would you be okay with me featuring this in an episode of Weekly Dose of Aviation? Of course you will be credited both in the video and in the description.
It helps not to take off with a tail wind. Look which way the smoke is blowing after it goes all wrong. You can hear the wind in the recorded soundtrack
Il-18 is a Russian plane which was an absolute superstar of this generation.A highest quality plane after all possible features.Flew by Il-18 when i was a child.
Amazing , fantastic camerawork and in the ideal position! No zooming in and out until the very end. Practically perfect....Oh and I guess the pilot did well too....
Define "take", Mr. Aerospace Engineer. Because if you think any suspension can handle vertical loading of five times the weight of a fully loaded vehicle without something giving, you're a fucking idiot. Of course a lot of airplanes DO have landing gear constructed with a "fuse" of some sort built in to help dissipate and slow down SOME of the massive and rapid weight transfer from the wings to the wheels and gear and obviously the airframe itself. But those "fuses" are also there so that its immediately obvious to the ground crew and any pilot who does a pre-flight walkaround and who knows what he's looking for that THE PLANE ISN"T AIRWORTHY until its fully inspected and repaired after a "hard landing". And just because the LANDING GEAR is "supposed to be able to take around 5 times the weight of an aircraft" doesn't mean the ENGINE MOUNT PYLONS or WING STRUCTURE will. You're basically full of shit. The "ultimate test" of an aircraft is the "design limit load test" where the most important parts that either live through any abuse or kill you with them, they WINGS or WING since even a "pair of wings" has to act as ONE STRUCTURE which is where the "cantilever" part comes in, is loaded to 150% of design limit load. Which basically means if the plane has a maximum take off weight of say 100,000 lbs, they build a carefully engineered and constructed and precisely controlled and instrumented test rig that holds the airframe down to the ground, usually by securing the landing gear to the floor or perching the airframe on stands that act as the landing gear, while a bunch of "hoists" pull UP on the wing and load it equally end to end just as it would be loaded if suddenly the plane wasn't flying and "stalled" but the wing was still supported by air underneath trying to "catch" the dropping plane. THAT is the worst-case scenario for any plane and with no engines hanging under it to help offset the lift and keep it straight and no fuel tanks to ballast it, its just a pure wing getting maximum "lift" from above with no chance the "lift" can overcome the "drag" pulling it down. To be FAA certified a commercial airliner has to make 150% of that max load, which theoretically means pulling up on the wings with 150,000 pounds of force but its a much tougher test than any real flying situation that even if possible could load the aircraft that way in. Because as the wing bends upward it becomes "stiffer" the more it bends and it also becomes shorter and its being pulled apart LENGTHWISE to a larger and larger degree. There are RUclips videos of at least a couple of Boeing planes getting the design limit load test. They test them to destruction. The rigs don't stop pulling until the wing snaps. The engineers love it and it lets them see how smart and accurate and precise they are with their calculations because they do all the "test" on paper before the real thing and have their prediction for not only the load reached before failure but where the wing will fail and how. The Boeing guys usually nail it and Boeing planes hit 154-156% of design limit load, they snap in locations where there would still be at least part of a chance of getting the plane down somewhat "safely" or at least controllably enough with a full tail section left and only ONE wing or side of the wing broken that there might be a chance to survive it. Many planes have landed safely sans all or a lot of one wing. Pretty much all American planes, of course. And military aircraft at that. But Boeing airliners ARE "miiltary" airplanes as far as those purchased by U.S. airlines and freight companies, since they're pretty much all financed in part by the U.S. government who in exchange for the "loan" gets to "commandeer" them and aircrews to fly them from their "owners" in case of a national emergency where the government needs to get lots of people long distances fast. Airlines are "common carriers". Another reason U.S. manufacturers have always overbuilt the hell out of them, along with the fact that the same people who build them fly on them and have friends and family who do. Even the overpaid CEOs. But when they test them for design limit load, another indication of just how good the engineers and people building the planes are is that the wing will snap on both sides basically simultaneously. Of course one side actually snaps first and a fraction of a second later the other side does when it gets shock-loaded and overstressed by the "shock wave" that comes to it through the fuselage and/or wing box, but it happens so fast it looks like they both go simultaneously. The videos are amazing. I believe the 777 wing ended up "deflecting" 28 feet at the tips. Meaning the wingtip ended up being 28 feet above its normal, unloaded position when the plane is intact, fully-equipped and on the ground. 28 feet. The Airbus A380 is apparently the only Airbus ever tested or supposedly tested, and it "failed" the test and only made it to around 146% of design limit load. Supposedly by only adding like 60 lbs of material to the wing it then passed a "finite element analysis" test, which means they "modeled" the second "test" on a computer with different numbers until the plane "passed". But if they used the "rig" they are supposedly doing just normal wing "flex" tests for "fatique testing" for their supposed REAL test, their REAL test was a joke. Their rig uses maybe half a dozen hydraulic cylinders to push up on the wing from below. Wings aren't loaded from below. They're loaded from above as the lower air pressure above them "pulls up" on them. Which is what Boeing's rigs do. With DOZENS of attaching points all over the entire wing. Probably about one per square foot or maybe 5 square feet, I'm guessing. Regardless, a shitload more than Airbus uses and its all set up to replicate actual loads in an all but impossible situation. But that's how you design an airplane hundreds of people will be in at pretty much any and every "worst-case" scenario it ever encounters in "real-life" which hopefull will end in it being retired when its lasted way past its designed service life. Airbus builds planes to a price and for a "planned" service life rather than a DESIGNED service life of basically "infinity" IF the plane is never pushed beyond that almost impossible worst-case load scenario. Which is why if you want to keep doing D-checks on a Boeing and tearing it half apart to replace the little odds and ends here and there where cracks and corrosion form during 12,000 or so flight hours or whatever the recommended "total and complete inspection" service point is according to the manufacturer, and you want to keep buying some expensive parts and doing expensive factory-authorized repairs AND new approved parts are available forever, you can keep a Boeing or any other American plane ever made FLYING forever. That's why DC-3/C-47s with hundreds of thousands of flight hours on their 80-year-old airframes are still flown commercially today. The fact that they're equipped with maintenance-intensive and kind of "needy" radial engines that are expensive and time-consumingn to maintain properly but WAY more expensive to NEGLECT helps. They have a TBO or "Time Between Overhauls" of maybe 1500-2000 hours, you have to rebuild them because no new ones have been built for probably 70 years and that's not something you do in a day. So those planes end up with some significant hangar time and a lot of disassembly on the wings already done and plenty of time to give them a good looking over in the well-known "weak points" they have few if any of. All it takes to keep a good plane flying forever is dedication and a little skill and knowledge and desire to find problems in the hangar rather than at altitude.
Russian aircraft are usually pretty robust in that department. They don't seem to spend a lot on runway maintenance, and often their aircraft are bought by operators flying out of third world airports with barely serviceable runways. They gotta be tough. Good news was all that dirt he plowed put the brake fire out, bad news is all that shit flying around didn't do those turbines any favors...
The US Federal Aviation Administration defines it as: V1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance.
@andaula: reverse thrust on a prop plane from what i understand involves reversal of the propeller blades pitch and so the blades always turn the same way. The prop doesn't stop and then spin the other way.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic here, but during the days of the USSR, all civilian aircraft operated by the old Aeroflot were compliant with all safety standards of the time and were on par with the rest of the world. I can return the favour and present you quite a lot of USAF aircraft incidents with failing airframes. And trust me, Russian Airforce airframe failure incidents aren't greater in numbers than that of the USAF.
performance calculation wasn't right - ASDA (Acceleration Stop Distance Available) was much shorter than they thought or they aborted the takeoff after reaching V1 speed
Thats nuts! An operating airstrip with lots of people milling around right on the edge of the runway. I certainly would not have stood recording this from that distance from the runway.
The first thing I noticed was that the smoke and dust blew PAST him after he stopped. I've done some flying and it is my understanding that you take off INTO the wind. His departure was downwind which would increase his takeoff roll.
Engine Backfire. If you listen, at about 1:23 you hear the sound of at least one engine backfiring, and then you hear the brakes. An engine backfire in a turboprop at full TO/GA power is cause for an immediate abort. The pilot was right at v2, and being that the brakes on that POS are probably in bad shape, even at the v2 limit it didn't stop in time. A great job by a great pilot... POS plane.
Cody King Also, for those that don't know, this is actually a jet engine powering a propeller, so in a traditional sense it isn't a backfire... it's called compressor surge, or N2 runaway.
Cody King Wouldn't that plane have had sufficient power in the remaining 3 engines to take off and go around for a landing? Dont certain compressor surges self correct or only require a reduction of power to correct or is that only in a turbo fan engine?? Just curious,not doubting your experience.
it's called the wagonwheel effect, it's an optical illusion in which a spoked wheel appears to rotate differently from its true rotation. The wheel can appear to rotate more slowly than the true rotation, stationary, or in the opposite direction from the true rotation. The wagon-wheel effect is most often seen in film or television depictions of stagecoaches or wagons, although recordings of any regularly spoked wheel will show it, such as helicopter rotors and aircraft propellers.
I've flown in a bunch of Russian equipment and I can say that flying in an IL is quite a reassuring experience. They're tough as hell and seriously overpowered (IL-86 is a great plane)
Don't forget that the video camera's frequency of recording makes them look like they're slower than they are. As well, he was making a turn, and you use differential power to assist in a turn. You can see he reduces the power on the left side and all the props look the same speed.
I read somewhere that ground crew forgot to take the gust locks before take-off, in this case, the aircraft cannot fly at all. It also means the pilots didn't do a proper pre-flight check. That would explain why the pilot is hangrily shaking his stick at the end : it won't do anything with the control surfaces locked...
Remember, you're watching a video. The propeller's rpm is a multiple of the video frame rate and so it looks like they've been stopped. I'm sure he used all the methods available to him to stop that plane, and in the last moments, took a turn into the dirt to avoid crashing through the barrier fence and onto the road.
Thank you very much for your kind comment and your enlightment. I am sorry if I sounded rude or something. I certainly did not mean to offend any one. Yet, you are right when you talk about my ignorance about foreign countries and languages. I would be very pleased to learn though if I had a chance. I thought Portuguese was the language spoken in Portugal and Ebolian the language of Embola but I must have mixed things up. I am sorry for that. And I will never hate, only love.
@@ՄենուաԹագավոր Most soviet aircrafts were made by Russian and Ukrainian engeneers together.It was no mantionable difference between these two nationalities at that time. Il-18 was made by ukrainian engineer Alexander Georgijewitsch Iwtschenko as well as АИ-26, АИ-10, АИ-12, АИ-14Р, По-2, Як-12, Як-18, Як-20, Ан-14. АИ-4Г, АИ-26ГР, АИ-26В, АИ-14В, АИ-7, АИ-24В, ТВ-2ВК, Б-5, Б-9, Б-10, Б-11, Ка-10, Ка-15, Ка-18, Ка-26, Ми-1, Ми-3, Ми-7, Ми-8, Як-100 и Ка-22. ТС-12Ф, АИ-2МК, АИ-8, АИ-9 Ан-8, Ан-10, Ан-22, Бе-12, Ту-95, Ту-114, Як-40 Ми-1, Ми-6, Ми-10 АИ-20К, АИ-20Д, АИ-20М, АИ-24 Ан-8, Ан-10, Ан-12, Ан-24, Ил-18 Бе-12.
Judging by the way the captain is tugging on the yoke at 2:30, I wonder if there was some sort of issue with the elevators? They went to rotate, couldn't, so aborted the takeoff?
wondered that too something with the rear elevators maybe near the tail? Bout half way down that nose should have come up and the plane gone into the air.
warren6815 On my opinion, something is fishy with controls! The speed is increesing, the NOSE DOWN ATTITUDE is increasing !!! NO PLANE WOULD TAKE OFF WITH THAT ATTITUDE !!! Angle of attack...!!!
beg to differ to a point the b 52 kinda takes off with a nose down attitude ackward yes but it works. But this type of plane the nose should have come up and off she goes something was wrong. Can't stop on a dime at that speed so they reversed the trust and just hit the brakes kinda that's why we saw the tires burning up.
Adrian Popa There are no fish near the controls. The nose is down because the pilot never tried to rotate the plane into the air. The plane didn't take off because the pilot aborted, applying brakes and and reverse pitch.
warren6815 I have 6000 flt. hrs. and all qualifications posible on IL18 V&M According to my wild gues, they did not unblocked the controls, period. NO PILOT IN HIS RIGHT MIND/SENSE, IS NOT EASING PRESURE ON FRONT WEELS IN HALF RWY ON THIS A/C. The Vr is below V1, so NO ROTATE MEANS ELEVATOR BLOCKED IN NOSE DOWN POSITION... Or you, somone, know a better explanation???
+AV8R I'm guessing that because they're not operating under FAA regulations, they think they can do any crazy unsafe thing they want. They lack a true understanding of the term, "Safety Culture".
I mean... The vast majority of airlines around the world are not operating under FAA regulations, since the FAA's jurisdiction only extends to the USA. I don't think that's the issue here, yes, the lack of regulation is an issue but there are other relevant regulatory bodies
Matthias Heindl There are other regulating bodies, but the FAA and it's European counterpart have a lot of weight and if you want to fly in the free world, you have to do it their way. I'm not complaining, I think it's a good thing.
You are SO right about that. I've just watched the video again and realized I was probably wrong. Around 1:24 you can clearly hear several "pops" which are aparently the tires blowing up from the hard breaking. Another one is heard around 1:36. But again, I'm not sure.
I think the brakes on the main landing gear were engaged. The tires on both sides began smoking near the beginning of the takeoff roll. Then the tires on the right main became overheated and burst into flame. The pilot couldn't know the tires were burning but he couldn't get up to takeoff speed because of the brakes. That could also explain why the plane pulled off the runway to the right.
@funkymonkey969: I have to agree with you. The wind is not very strong but the smoke does get blown onto the aircraft and further past it, rather then away from it. Good eye...
Only guessing it looks like the aircraft had been in storage or something the upper fuselage was covered in dust / grime. The Fire dept was on scene really fast which fuels my suspicion they were on stand by for it anyway in case of a problem. Nice job by the crew .
Oh really? That's a perfectly flyable aircraft. How about dismantling a shitload of DC-2's flying over the US? What? No? What's that? HISTORICAL VALUE? I see...
@wilsonjon feathering a prop is a procedure that is usually performed if you have an engine failure in a multi engine prop aircraft, it's basically where the prop blades are rotated so they are in line with the passing airflow, so they are not generating any thrust, but not creating much drag. If the pilots had simply feathered the props, there is no way the aircraft could have stopped in that shorter distance, from what I can tell, it looks like they were reversed
@Ivo27BG And so say all of us. Twice in the past, I have had to disable all the comments on this clip. and sad to say, all the racist comments are coming FROM one particular country. Let's stick to comments about aviation.
your guess is as good as mine, he is standing in a restricted area when he shot this. The cameraman is almost certainly an employee of "HeliMalongo" , a local operator.
You can hear the tyres bursting at 1:24. In reality they would of course had burst some seconds earlier (speed of sound being about 350m/s at 30C) as indicated by the smoke.
A lot of people believe the SuperJet 100 incident during a demonstration flight in Asia was no incident at all. Airbus doesn't need a competitor... The airframe design in the soviet union was sound. Most incidents happen due to pilot error and mis-maintenance and not due to bad design. That what I wanted to point out. I come from a family of pilots and during the soviet times the standards were very high, trust me.
Good job on whoever deployed the siren! You definitely don't want to turn that off just because everyone within a two mile radius saw what happened and is choking to death on burnt rubber.... The chaos of the situation wouldn't be complete if you didn't tool up to the aircraft at 4 mph and 226 decibels...... Finish your cigarette and texting a pic to your mother before you even think about sending your hand in the direction of the ALLOW EVERYONE ELSE IN THE DISTRICT TO FREELY COMMUNICATE switch!
Aj Ward it looks you only watch cartoons little fella ! grow some balls and watch brand new planes with engine trouble ! those type of engines are very dependable ....probably you dont know about it....cheers !
@N791AN No, i dont think that that is the reason and the chance of that many wheels bursting during take off is pretty low, I think that is when the breaks are engaged, It looks and sounds like the conditions were pretty ordinary and windy, i would suspect that the weather would be more of a reason.
I could tell that his right wheel was running low before he hit the brakes. You see leaning a bit to the right (left side from our view) on the takeoff roll.
@Alexvideoclip ... but de wind came from the tail thus very bad to takeoff! See the dust at the end of the runway, it follows the plane instead of going back...!!
Thank you very much again. You are indeed a very rare case. I always thought school was very boring too and I never liked to study or to read. I'll try to do that from now on. I'll start by reading about your country, Ebola, and hopefully someday visit it and learn some portuguese too, since that the language Ebolians speak. Have a nice day and a nice evening too.
Well the aircraft ceretainly wasn't destroyed. In fact it flew out of there a couple of weeks later, and can still regularly be seen at Luanda airport.
@N791AN Watch it again carefully.... The brakes were put on as shown by puffs of blue-black smoke.........then the tire blew out , the tire on the side opposite of the camera.The report is wrong, if that's what it says. Brakes applied, then blowout by wheels skidding, and not getting up to speed quick enough. It happened so much, years ago, that some planes had motors on the wheels, or vanes, specifically installed, to get the wheels spinning before touchdown.
I am. And I agree. Il-18 was a brilliant airplane. Still is. And that's some strong ass landing gear which was designed to forgive little pilot mistakes. Like this one. But what really amazes me is the pilot's quick thinking. He COULD have stopped on the runway (if I can see correctly) but instead he veered off into the sand to put off the burning tire. VERY well done.
I noticed - perhaps the pilots considered the very light downwind insignificant. With the short runway they may have decided otherwise - then again perhaps this direction had a better "off-runway" area? Many factors matters. Perhaps the plane was overloaded or that they didn't have full power. The brakes worked fine; flames and all.
V1 is the speed at which you may not be able to stop in time so you deal with issues in the air. At V1 you are also fast enough to climb out wthout one engine so its "balanced".
thats the tire popping, he didnt have very much lateral control of the plane and was weaving back and forth on the runway. he blew his tires from going back and forth across the runway
I don't know... I did not made the original post, but it seems as he mixed up Vr and V1, obviously it was above V1, sometimes depending on weight, pressure and temperature Vr is right above V1, say 5-10 knots, which at the acceleration rate that's being developed it takes only 2-3 secs to reach. But probably he did vacate the runway because the airplane is just not appropiate for that runway, he may be able to take-off... but in the case of an engine failure he wouldn't be able to fly(continue
The fire from the brakes is from trying to stop the plane. He did use the props to try to stop it, too. Watch the blades just after seeing smoke from the brakes. You can see the angle of the blades change. He could have been too heavy for that short of a runway or just didn't have enough runway left when he realized he needed to abort.
The pilot did a great job getting her stopped and maintaining control. I am puzzled about one thing, does this airplane have reverse thrust? Didn't seem like it.
@Alexvideoclip: what striked me is that he didn't rotate, he had no visible flaps on, and it was windy yes BUT, look at the dust around the plane at the end of the runway... he was taking off with BACK WIND!! So, he he was a bit overloaded, underpowered, with the wind in his tail... result is there! But good job on saving the plane anyway!
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The strength of the landing gear is amazing when you think of how much force is on them when running into the soft ground, let alone the torque caused from trying to stop. Wow.
on the +side, the dirt put out the wheel fire!
Pretty sure that was the brakes...not the wheels on fire!
@@tom201090 Ie a wheel fire
good one
At the same time provided much needed deceleration to stop the aircraft veering into the ditch ahead. The lucky dirt
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
"We're too heavy."
"Proceed."
"Our wheel is on fire."
"Proceed."
"We forgot the vodka at the terminal."
"ABORT!"
2:39 "Who the hell forgot to load the vodka?!?!?"
😡
Two moron racists - ABORT.
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
The reason people make vodka jokes about Russians is because the best vodka in the world is made in Russia.. its not intended to be racist, just funny a bit silly
@@Maloy7800 are you that stupid?
well thats one way to put the fire out
imbetterthanyouis 26e7
Well, if you can put out fires with sand, you could use mud as well, preventing Oxygen from reaching the points of fire.
@@sarkarkamalsayeed3866 yes you can its called smothering , or dry fire fighting
Great catch! Would you be okay with me featuring this in an episode of Weekly Dose of Aviation? Of course you will be credited both in the video and in the description.
Yeah Totally Man! Hit it!
No
It helps not to take off with a tail wind. Look which way the smoke is blowing after it goes all wrong. You can hear the wind in the recorded soundtrack
I like all your video😃
leokimvideo krienų sodinima
great point. 8000 ft seems like alot of runway, but he didn't do himself any favours by the choice of runway (direction).
wind direction is not the issue here. looks like wrong v1 calculation or stopping after v1...
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
Il-18 is a Russian plane which was an absolute superstar of this generation.A highest quality plane after all possible features.Flew by Il-18 when i was a child.
Soviet airliner, not Russian! How much Soviet aircraft was scattered across Africa and similar countries for next to nothing in the early 90s.....
+10 Aborted Take-Off
+10 Passengers Survived
There is something with these turboprop multiengine transports. They are absolutely beautiful!. Nice drift at the end BTW
Impressive responsetime on the firetruck, didn't expect that considering where they are, you can hear the sirens at 1:58 into the clip
Holy Crap! That's not what you expected when you shoot this video?! Very good pilot, well done! 5/5
Amazing , fantastic camerawork and in the ideal position! No zooming in and out until the very end. Practically perfect....Oh and I guess the pilot did well too....
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
outstanding airmanship (ironic since it never left the gnd!) by the pilots and a true testament to the strength of the landing gear and its design
The runway just wasn't quite finished yet.
wow, no landing gear collapsing
+Martin yeah, great!
Russian designs bro :D
Landing gear is supposed to be able to take around 5 times the weight of an aircraft, no shit Sherlock!
Define "take", Mr. Aerospace Engineer. Because if you think any suspension can handle vertical loading of five times the weight of a fully loaded vehicle without something giving, you're a fucking idiot. Of course a lot of airplanes DO have landing gear constructed with a "fuse" of some sort built in to help dissipate and slow down SOME of the massive and rapid weight transfer from the wings to the wheels and gear and obviously the airframe itself. But those "fuses" are also there so that its immediately obvious to the ground crew and any pilot who does a pre-flight walkaround and who knows what he's looking for that THE PLANE ISN"T AIRWORTHY until its fully inspected and repaired after a "hard landing". And just because the LANDING GEAR is "supposed to be able to take around 5 times the weight of an aircraft" doesn't mean the ENGINE MOUNT PYLONS or WING STRUCTURE will. You're basically full of shit. The "ultimate test" of an aircraft is the "design limit load test" where the most important parts that either live through any abuse or kill you with them, they WINGS or WING since even a "pair of wings" has to act as ONE STRUCTURE which is where the "cantilever" part comes in, is loaded to 150% of design limit load. Which basically means if the plane has a maximum take off weight of say 100,000 lbs, they build a carefully engineered and constructed and precisely controlled and instrumented test rig that holds the airframe down to the ground, usually by securing the landing gear to the floor or perching the airframe on stands that act as the landing gear, while a bunch of "hoists" pull UP on the wing and load it equally end to end just as it would be loaded if suddenly the plane wasn't flying and "stalled" but the wing was still supported by air underneath trying to "catch" the dropping plane. THAT is the worst-case scenario for any plane and with no engines hanging under it to help offset the lift and keep it straight and no fuel tanks to ballast it, its just a pure wing getting maximum "lift" from above with no chance the "lift" can overcome the "drag" pulling it down. To be FAA certified a commercial airliner has to make 150% of that max load, which theoretically means pulling up on the wings with 150,000 pounds of force but its a much tougher test than any real flying situation that even if possible could load the aircraft that way in. Because as the wing bends upward it becomes "stiffer" the more it bends and it also becomes shorter and its being pulled apart LENGTHWISE to a larger and larger degree. There are RUclips videos of at least a couple of Boeing planes getting the design limit load test. They test them to destruction. The rigs don't stop pulling until the wing snaps. The engineers love it and it lets them see how smart and accurate and precise they are with their calculations because they do all the "test" on paper before the real thing and have their prediction for not only the load reached before failure but where the wing will fail and how. The Boeing guys usually nail it and Boeing planes hit 154-156% of design limit load, they snap in locations where there would still be at least part of a chance of getting the plane down somewhat "safely" or at least controllably enough with a full tail section left and only ONE wing or side of the wing broken that there might be a chance to survive it. Many planes have landed safely sans all or a lot of one wing. Pretty much all American planes, of course. And military aircraft at that. But Boeing airliners ARE "miiltary" airplanes as far as those purchased by U.S. airlines and freight companies, since they're pretty much all financed in part by the U.S. government who in exchange for the "loan" gets to "commandeer" them and aircrews to fly them from their "owners" in case of a national emergency where the government needs to get lots of people long distances fast. Airlines are "common carriers". Another reason U.S. manufacturers have always overbuilt the hell out of them, along with the fact that the same people who build them fly on them and have friends and family who do. Even the overpaid CEOs. But when they test them for design limit load, another indication of just how good the engineers and people building the planes are is that the wing will snap on both sides basically simultaneously. Of course one side actually snaps first and a fraction of a second later the other side does when it gets shock-loaded and overstressed by the "shock wave" that comes to it through the fuselage and/or wing box, but it happens so fast it looks like they both go simultaneously. The videos are amazing. I believe the 777 wing ended up "deflecting" 28 feet at the tips. Meaning the wingtip ended up being 28 feet above its normal, unloaded position when the plane is intact, fully-equipped and on the ground. 28 feet. The Airbus A380 is apparently the only Airbus ever tested or supposedly tested, and it "failed" the test and only made it to around 146% of design limit load. Supposedly by only adding like 60 lbs of material to the wing it then passed a "finite element analysis" test, which means they "modeled" the second "test" on a computer with different numbers until the plane "passed". But if they used the "rig" they are supposedly doing just normal wing "flex" tests for "fatique testing" for their supposed REAL test, their REAL test was a joke. Their rig uses maybe half a dozen hydraulic cylinders to push up on the wing from below. Wings aren't loaded from below. They're loaded from above as the lower air pressure above them "pulls up" on them. Which is what Boeing's rigs do. With DOZENS of attaching points all over the entire wing. Probably about one per square foot or maybe 5 square feet, I'm guessing. Regardless, a shitload more than Airbus uses and its all set up to replicate actual loads in an all but impossible situation. But that's how you design an airplane hundreds of people will be in at pretty much any and every "worst-case" scenario it ever encounters in "real-life" which hopefull will end in it being retired when its lasted way past its designed service life. Airbus builds planes to a price and for a "planned" service life rather than a DESIGNED service life of basically "infinity" IF the plane is never pushed beyond that almost impossible worst-case load scenario. Which is why if you want to keep doing D-checks on a Boeing and tearing it half apart to replace the little odds and ends here and there where cracks and corrosion form during 12,000 or so flight hours or whatever the recommended "total and complete inspection" service point is according to the manufacturer, and you want to keep buying some expensive parts and doing expensive factory-authorized repairs AND new approved parts are available forever, you can keep a Boeing or any other American plane ever made FLYING forever. That's why DC-3/C-47s with hundreds of thousands of flight hours on their 80-year-old airframes are still flown commercially today. The fact that they're equipped with maintenance-intensive and kind of "needy" radial engines that are expensive and time-consumingn to maintain properly but WAY more expensive to NEGLECT helps. They have a TBO or "Time Between Overhauls" of maybe 1500-2000 hours, you have to rebuild them because no new ones have been built for probably 70 years and that's not something you do in a day. So those planes end up with some significant hangar time and a lot of disassembly on the wings already done and plenty of time to give them a good looking over in the well-known "weak points" they have few if any of. All it takes to keep a good plane flying forever is dedication and a little skill and knowledge and desire to find problems in the hangar rather than at altitude.
Russian aircraft are usually pretty robust in that department. They don't seem to spend a lot on runway maintenance, and often their aircraft are bought by operators flying out of third world airports with barely serviceable runways. They gotta be tough. Good news was all that dirt he plowed put the brake fire out, bad news is all that shit flying around didn't do those turbines any favors...
The US Federal Aviation Administration defines it as: V1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance.
Ilyushin go's off road
@andaula: reverse thrust on a prop plane from what i understand involves reversal of the propeller blades pitch and so the blades always turn the same way. The prop doesn't stop and then spin the other way.
Well I saw this old crate at Luanda airport less than 28 days ago so totalled it AIN'T.
It's russian built, don't forget.
What about now?
It dead yet?
@@kaz633 Most of the info says it's active, but planesporter doesn't show any info for the plans number, so it's probably dead by now.
@@maxi4492 kewl
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
Amazing capture ! Would you mind if I use part of this video , in one of my next episodes?Of course with a link back to your original video. Peace!
I don't know if you are being sarcastic here, but during the days of the USSR, all civilian aircraft operated by the old Aeroflot were compliant with all safety standards of the time and were on par with the rest of the world.
I can return the favour and present you quite a lot of USAF aircraft incidents with failing airframes. And trust me, Russian Airforce airframe failure incidents aren't greater in numbers than that of the USAF.
Shut up commie
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
Well, it looks like you are talking about..... and that is the most thorough and comprehensive explanation I have read so far so thank you sir.
performance calculation wasn't right - ASDA (Acceleration Stop Distance Available) was much shorter than they thought or they aborted the takeoff after reaching V1 speed
Thats nuts! An operating airstrip with lots of people milling around right on the edge of the runway. I certainly would not have stood recording this from that distance from the runway.
Thats exactly what happened and the aircraft is still in service
The first thing I noticed was that the smoke and dust blew PAST him after he stopped. I've done some flying and it is my understanding that you take off INTO the wind. His departure was downwind which would increase his takeoff roll.
Engine Backfire. If you listen, at about 1:23 you hear the sound of at least one engine backfiring, and then you hear the brakes. An engine backfire in a turboprop at full TO/GA power is cause for an immediate abort. The pilot was right at v2, and being that the brakes on that POS are probably in bad shape, even at the v2 limit it didn't stop in time. A great job by a great pilot... POS plane.
Cody King Source: Commercial pilot for 16 years now.
Cody King Also, for those that don't know, this is actually a jet engine powering a propeller, so in a traditional sense it isn't a backfire... it's called compressor surge, or N2 runaway.
Cody King Wouldn't that plane have had sufficient power in the remaining 3 engines to take off and go around for a landing? Dont certain compressor surges self correct or only require a reduction of power to correct or is that only in a turbo fan engine?? Just curious,not doubting your experience.
Why did the right wheels start to burn? And was engine not delivering enough power? Getting to hot? What could be the cause?
Cody King
That wasnt a compressor stall... that was the tires popping as he was stomping on the brakes for the high speed abort.
it's called the wagonwheel effect, it's an optical illusion in which a spoked wheel appears to rotate differently from its true rotation. The wheel can appear to rotate more slowly than the true rotation, stationary, or in the opposite direction from the true rotation. The wagon-wheel effect is most often seen in film or television depictions of stagecoaches or wagons, although recordings of any regularly spoked wheel will show it, such as helicopter rotors and aircraft propellers.
I've flown in a bunch of Russian equipment and I can say that flying in an IL is quite a reassuring experience. They're tough as hell and seriously overpowered (IL-86 is a great plane)
Don't forget that the video camera's frequency of recording makes them look like they're slower than they are. As well, he was making a turn, and you use differential power to assist in a turn. You can see he reduces the power on the left side and all the props look the same speed.
Near the end, it sounds like the south side of Chicago.
+newalm then where is leroy brown?
+randoMguy793 Leroy was hiding behind that green bush on the right, Looking like a jig-saw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone...
A terrible song.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So funny.
@MyEmpire91 What's there to rescue? The aircraft came to a full stop, tire fire was put out by the dirt, and the engines were shut off.
as Ace Ventura would say.. "LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLike A GLOVE!"
Adrian G Ace also says You might want to think about getting this baby detailed. 🤣😂🤣😂 ruclips.net/video/0YW1j-K1op0/видео.html
I read somewhere that ground crew forgot to take the gust locks before take-off, in this case, the aircraft cannot fly at all. It also means the pilots didn't do a proper pre-flight check. That would explain why the pilot is hangrily shaking his stick at the end : it won't do anything with the control surfaces locked...
Angola in case someone. Is wondering what country this is
Yes, and probably Russian trained Cuban pilots. Lots of Cubans still in Angola since their civil war.
South African pilot.
incongra i think some1 left behind thats wy they stop
incongra a
Elijah Eismann r z
Remember, you're watching a video. The propeller's rpm is a multiple of the video frame rate and so it looks like they've been stopped. I'm sure he used all the methods available to him to stop that plane, and in the last moments, took a turn into the dirt to avoid crashing through the barrier fence and onto the road.
Russian pilot adventures in Africa !
Thank you very much for your kind comment and your enlightment. I am sorry if I sounded rude or something. I certainly did not mean to offend any one. Yet, you are right when you talk about my ignorance about foreign countries and languages. I would be very pleased to learn though if I had a chance. I thought Portuguese was the language spoken in Portugal and Ebolian the language of Embola but I must have mixed things up. I am sorry for that. And I will never hate, only love.
Russian aircraft are made well. Sandpit saved the aircraft from serious damage.
soviet il-18 not russian !
@@ՄենուաԹագավոր Most soviet aircrafts were made by Russian and Ukrainian engeneers together.It was no mantionable difference between these two nationalities at that time. Il-18
was made by ukrainian engineer Alexander Georgijewitsch Iwtschenko as well as
АИ-26, АИ-10, АИ-12, АИ-14Р, По-2, Як-12, Як-18, Як-20, Ан-14. АИ-4Г, АИ-26ГР, АИ-26В, АИ-14В, АИ-7, АИ-24В, ТВ-2ВК, Б-5, Б-9, Б-10, Б-11, Ка-10, Ка-15, Ка-18, Ка-26, Ми-1, Ми-3, Ми-7, Ми-8, Як-100 и Ка-22. ТС-12Ф, АИ-2МК, АИ-8, АИ-9 Ан-8, Ан-10, Ан-22, Бе-12, Ту-95, Ту-114, Як-40 Ми-1, Ми-6, Ми-10 АИ-20К, АИ-20Д, АИ-20М, АИ-24 Ан-8, Ан-10, Ан-12, Ан-24, Ил-18 Бе-12.
this accident happened in Angola in Cabinda city, the aircraft belongs to the same company ALADA ANGOLA
lol pilot yelling like a trucker xD
Judging by the way the captain is tugging on the yoke at 2:30, I wonder if there was some sort of issue with the elevators? They went to rotate, couldn't, so aborted the takeoff?
wondered that too something with the rear elevators maybe near the tail? Bout half way down that nose should have come up and the plane gone into the air.
warren6815 On my opinion, something is fishy with controls!
The speed is increesing, the NOSE DOWN ATTITUDE is increasing !!!
NO PLANE WOULD TAKE OFF WITH THAT ATTITUDE !!! Angle of attack...!!!
beg to differ to a point the b 52 kinda takes off with a nose down attitude ackward yes but it works. But this type of plane the nose should have come up and off she goes something was wrong. Can't stop on a dime at that speed so they reversed the trust and just hit the brakes kinda that's why we saw the tires burning up.
Adrian Popa There are no fish near the controls. The nose is down because the pilot never tried to rotate the plane into the air. The plane didn't take off because the pilot aborted, applying brakes and and reverse pitch.
warren6815 I have 6000 flt. hrs. and all qualifications posible on IL18 V&M
According to my wild gues, they did not unblocked the controls, period.
NO PILOT IN HIS RIGHT MIND/SENSE, IS NOT EASING PRESURE ON FRONT WEELS IN HALF RWY ON THIS A/C. The Vr is below V1, so NO ROTATE MEANS ELEVATOR BLOCKED IN NOSE DOWN POSITION...
Or you, somone, know a better explanation???
did they calculate V1? and if so, why did they abort past it.....? this should not happen
+AV8R I'm guessing that because they're not operating under FAA regulations, they think they can do any crazy unsafe thing they want. They lack a true understanding of the term, "Safety Culture".
I mean... The vast majority of airlines around the world are not operating under FAA regulations, since the FAA's jurisdiction only extends to the USA. I don't think that's the issue here, yes, the lack of regulation is an issue but there are other relevant regulatory bodies
Matthias Heindl There are other regulating bodies, but the FAA and it's European counterpart have a lot of weight and if you want to fly in the free world, you have to do it their way. I'm not complaining, I think it's a good thing.
who cares guys i wish i never asked since it's starting the standard "aviation video wiener measuring contest"
Takeoff has to be be abortet also after v1 if the aircraft appears to be uncontrollable.
You are SO right about that. I've just watched the video again and realized I was probably wrong. Around 1:24 you can clearly hear several "pops" which are aparently the tires blowing up from the hard breaking. Another one is heard around 1:36. But again, I'm not sure.
The reason for aborting seems clear to me..they forgot vodka at the ramp
+2mezz they didnt have clearance for smirnoff
+imbetterthanyouis smirnoff?
/Chooêt\
its a brand of vodka
imbetterthanyouis You know the pilots aren't russian right?
/Chooêt\
that dosnt matter
thanks for full video, how far passed V1 must he have been !
i like it how the locals are all argueing about it lol
Hello friend I have super Vlogs can you be my channel's friend ? My pleasure 🥰
ruclips.net/video/0vHIpwbSSXc/видео.html
I think the brakes on the main landing gear were engaged. The tires on both sides began smoking near the beginning of the takeoff roll. Then the tires on the right main became overheated and burst into flame. The pilot couldn't know the tires were burning but he couldn't get up to takeoff speed because of the brakes. That could also explain why the plane pulled off the runway to the right.
Nice drifting Captain 👨✈️
هلا بالقحاطين هلا
@funkymonkey969: I have to agree with you. The wind is not very strong but the smoke does get blown onto the aircraft and further past it, rather then away from it. Good eye...
I can imagine the pilots: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+Z, Ctrl PLUS FUCKING Z!!!!
Only guessing it looks like the aircraft had been in storage or something the upper fuselage was covered in dust / grime.
The Fire dept was on scene really fast which fuels my suspicion they were on stand by for it anyway in case of a problem.
Nice job by the crew .
Husband: Honey, I cant find my Land rover 4X4 keys. Wife: Just use your ilyushin 18 instead!
didn't u read the info?
Oh really? That's a perfectly flyable aircraft. How about dismantling a shitload of DC-2's flying over the US? What? No? What's that? HISTORICAL VALUE? I see...
Kicsit hangos volt, ugyanakkor tette a dolgát.Budapest-Drezda vonalon.Köszönöm
il 18 hase a strong front leg, good old machine
@wilsonjon feathering a prop is a procedure that is usually performed if you have an engine failure in a multi engine prop aircraft, it's basically where the prop blades are rotated so they are in line with the passing airflow, so they are not generating any thrust, but not creating much drag. If the pilots had simply feathered the props, there is no way the aircraft could have stopped in that shorter distance, from what I can tell, it looks like they were reversed
@Ivo27BG And so say all of us. Twice in the past, I have had to disable all the comments on this clip. and sad to say, all the racist comments are coming FROM one particular country. Let's stick to comments about aviation.
your guess is as good as mine, he is standing in a restricted area when he shot this. The cameraman is almost certainly an employee of "HeliMalongo" , a local operator.
Yeah I bet the IL-18 was overloaded with vodka...I flew in a Il-76 in Angola and it was...
DHL is German.
One like this crashed in my hometown of Gander Newfoundland back in the 60s. 35 deaths and about the same survived. Pieces still remain.
who see in2018?
You can hear the tyres bursting at 1:24. In reality they would of course had burst some seconds earlier (speed of sound being about 350m/s at 30C) as indicated by the smoke.
lots of investigation officer .
Hahahaha!
A lot of people believe the SuperJet 100 incident during a demonstration flight in Asia was no incident at all. Airbus doesn't need a competitor...
The airframe design in the soviet union was sound. Most incidents happen due to pilot error and mis-maintenance and not due to bad design. That what I wanted to point out. I come from a family of pilots and during the soviet times the standards were very high, trust me.
hooray for the sand trap
Accelerate-stop distance in this case IS the runway, because there is no overrun area, paved and marked with the appropriate chevrons.
Good job on whoever deployed the siren! You definitely don't want to turn that off just because everyone within a two mile radius saw what happened and is choking to death on burnt rubber.... The chaos of the situation wouldn't be complete if you didn't tool up to the aircraft at 4 mph and 226 decibels...... Finish your cigarette and texting a pic to your mother before you even think about sending your hand in the direction of the ALLOW EVERYONE ELSE IN THE DISTRICT TO FREELY COMMUNICATE switch!
I love prop planes.Did the bearing freeze up or a tire blow out to cause a fire on the wheel area??
lol thats what happens when you try to fly garbage
+Aj Ward That's a really old plane, did you notice the landing gear is still intact?
+Aj Ward Well, it seems to me this "garbage" have done it's job like a champ!
It really is a testament to how wrong most of the dumbasses in my country were about Russian engineering.
I'm a boeing guy but russian planes are built to a much different rigorous spec then american planes.
Aj Ward it looks you only watch cartoons little fella ! grow some balls and watch brand new planes with engine trouble ! those type of engines are very dependable ....probably you dont know about it....cheers !
I can see the flaps in what looks like takeoff position, but I don't know the exact settings for this aircraft
Dont EVER fly African airlines
this is DHL air freight with Soviet made aircraft.
Lol idiot.
Fantastic footage, thank you for uploading!
@N791AN No, i dont think that that is the reason and the chance of that many wheels bursting during take off is pretty low, I think that is when the breaks are engaged, It looks and sounds like the conditions were pretty ordinary and windy, i would suspect that the weather would be more of a reason.
How do you know if this aircraft has lived though its airframe hours? Have you seen its operational history?
I could tell that his right wheel was running low before he hit the brakes. You see leaning a bit to the right (left side from our view) on the takeoff roll.
It often occured in N'Dolo (Kinshasa) where the runway is short, the air temperature is too hot and the plane mostly overloaded ...
Hey Yakoff! It's an airliner, not an SUV!!!!!
@Alexvideoclip ... but de wind came from the tail thus very bad to takeoff! See the dust at the end of the runway, it follows the plane instead of going back...!!
Thank you very much again. You are indeed a very rare case. I always thought school was very boring too and I never liked to study or to read. I'll try to do that from now on. I'll start by reading about your country, Ebola, and hopefully someday visit it and learn some portuguese too, since that the language Ebolians speak. Have a nice day and a nice evening too.
Well the aircraft ceretainly wasn't destroyed. In fact it flew out of there a couple of weeks later, and can still regularly be seen at Luanda airport.
@enzomaidana sometimes if you read the comments in the top right hand corner, it tells you "where's at"....?
@N791AN Watch it again carefully.... The brakes were put on as shown by puffs of blue-black smoke.........then the tire blew out , the tire on the side opposite of the camera.The report is wrong, if that's what it says. Brakes applied, then blowout by wheels skidding, and not getting up to speed quick enough.
It happened so much, years ago, that some planes had motors on the wheels, or vanes, specifically installed, to get the wheels spinning before touchdown.
The props look to be feathered...do they also have some sort of reversing capabilities?
It looks like the props were feathered and power set to flight idle when they went off the end. Were they ever reversing?
It doesn't matter - in Russia, reverse thrust you!
wow nice joke
The props can reverse pitch. Meaning the blades can switch so instead of pulling forward they push back and help slow the plane.
I am. And I agree. Il-18 was a brilliant airplane. Still is. And that's some strong ass landing gear which was designed to forgive little pilot mistakes. Like this one.
But what really amazes me is the pilot's quick thinking. He COULD have stopped on the runway (if I can see correctly) but instead he veered off into the sand to put off the burning tire. VERY well done.
I noticed - perhaps the pilots considered the very light downwind insignificant. With the short runway they may have decided otherwise - then again perhaps this direction had a better "off-runway" area? Many factors matters. Perhaps the plane was overloaded or that they didn't have full power. The brakes worked fine; flames and all.
V1 is the speed at which you may not be able to stop in time so you deal with issues in the air. At V1 you are also fast enough to climb out wthout one engine so its "balanced".
Holy! How did they get the plane off of the mud back onto the paved tarmac?
thats the tire popping, he didnt have very much lateral control of the plane and was weaving back and forth on the runway. he blew his tires from going back and forth across the runway
no thrust reverser or controllable pitch propellers??
I don't know... I did not made the original post, but it seems as he mixed up Vr and V1, obviously it was above V1, sometimes depending on weight, pressure and temperature Vr is right above V1, say 5-10 knots, which at the acceleration rate that's being developed it takes only 2-3 secs to reach.
But probably he did vacate the runway because the airplane is just not appropiate for that runway, he may be able to take-off... but in the case of an engine failure he wouldn't be able to fly(continue
I'm kind of wondering why the engines weren't reversing the thrust?
The fire from the brakes is from trying to stop the plane. He did use the props to try to stop it, too. Watch the blades just after seeing smoke from the brakes. You can see the angle of the blades change. He could have been too heavy for that short of a runway or just didn't have enough runway left when he realized he needed to abort.
In what country is that plane registered? Can't quite make it out where that flag is from
Angola.
Maycon Freitas Thank you
The pilot did a great job getting her stopped and maintaining control. I am puzzled about one thing, does this airplane have reverse thrust? Didn't seem like it.
@Alexvideoclip: what striked me is that he didn't rotate, he had no visible flaps on, and it was windy yes BUT, look at the dust around the plane at the end of the runway... he was taking off with BACK WIND!! So, he he was a bit overloaded, underpowered, with the wind in his tail... result is there! But good job on saving the plane anyway!
em que lugar do mundo ainda usam esses aviões??