View Full Version : Ro - fecking - tate!


BOTFOJ
30th Jan 2006, 08:37
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/995911/M/

Note in tech log: seat cover change required



steinycans
30th Jan 2006, 09:48
"now do you believe me when i say wind direction is given as 'from'?"

GearDown&Locked
30th Jan 2006, 09:49
The most impressive stupid and irresponsible thing I've seen comming from "pro"(?) pilots... :yuk:

GD&L

Truckmasters
30th Jan 2006, 10:37
Was that 20,000 pounds or kilograms of freight?

G-CPTN
30th Jan 2006, 10:40
More flap! MORE FLAP! Flap MORE!

West Coast
30th Jan 2006, 12:12
Get rid of those hairdryers and sling some engines under that beast.

steinycans
30th Jan 2006, 14:12
comrades checking the gradient from departure end
==============
reverse engineering taken to a new level
==============
pre t/o brief:
if an engine fails after rotation, what will be your actions?
i will switch the other two engines on

SLFguy
30th Jan 2006, 14:39
"I don't fcuking care what you did in the sim!!"

wileydog3
30th Jan 2006, 14:44
You guys obviously never flew the KC-135A model with the water injected engines. Looks fine to me...

G-CPTN
30th Jan 2006, 14:48
"I don't fcuking care what you did in the sim!!"


Been there, done that taking-off from Plockton in a B747 (don't know HTF they got it in :ok: ). Worked a dream as the Jumbo paddled across the water just like a swan.

Flash0710
30th Jan 2006, 15:29
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/312682/M/
More coal dimitri.....:ooh:

Romeo Delta
30th Jan 2006, 15:32
Used to work baggage under S concourse at SEA (way back in the day), and used to watch the CO 742's fully loaded to Tokyo take most of the long runway to take off. A couple times I was sure the mains barely missed the approach lights at the end of the runway. :ooh:

I'm sure it was just an optical illusion, though. :cool:

I.R.PIRATE
30th Jan 2006, 15:34
You guys obviously never flew the KC-135A model with the water injected engines. Looks fine to me...

I try to avoid flying the 'A' model of anything

Huck
30th Jan 2006, 15:47
I used to park my car in the employee lot at the end of 27R in Atlanta.

When Kiwi was headed for the west coast in their old 727-200's with the dash 7 engines, all the car alarms would go off....

Marvin the Robot
30th Jan 2006, 15:57
"I thought you had control!"

Flexable
30th Jan 2006, 15:57
If you look at flaps config...look more like ldg doctored pics:confused:

G-CPTN
30th Jan 2006, 15:58
Guess that's the NOISE, Huck. When Bryanair used to use the 200s out of EGNT they sounded like heavyweights ripping the sky apart (707s or B52s) - but that was maybe because they were keen to get back to Eire quick before the bars closed.

Jerricho
30th Jan 2006, 15:59
"My turn to wash the plane?..............right then!"

Romeo Delta
30th Jan 2006, 16:19
If you look at flaps config...look more like ldg doctored pics:confused:

A lot of people have been saying this, but looking at other t/o pics of the IL86 on A.net, it appears that's the normal t/o flap config. Prolly just a particular quirk of that a/c.

Jerricho
30th Jan 2006, 16:30
Nah, I call bullsh*t.

Everyone knows there's no such thing as runway "60"


:}

Astrodome
30th Jan 2006, 18:04
Obviously former Soviet Air Force pilots previously assigned to aircraft carriers.

Onan the Clumsy
30th Jan 2006, 18:14
Like a lot of pictures, it's what yu DON'T see that's important, and what yuo don't see here is the mechanic changing the two front tyres.

tilewood
30th Jan 2006, 19:01
There doesn't appear to be any aircraft shadow on the runway,
and the flaps appear to be in landing config.

I may be doing the photographer a dis-service but it does not ring true
to me.

Impressive.......yes!!

Send Clowns
30th Jan 2006, 19:29
Don't know the aircraft, so don't know the flap configurations (we can presume a short runway but unobstructed climbout, so max TO flap!) but there definitely is a shadow on the runway. Damned good photoshop if it is.

Jerricho
30th Jan 2006, 19:30
As I said in the thread on R&N, why aren't there any subsequent photos of it over the water and alike. That would have been more impressive.

Romeo Delta
30th Jan 2006, 19:45
Regarding flap position, I refer to my previous post. In case that doesn't sway you, perhaps some visual evidence is in order:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/961597/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/927848/L/

I think the flap position is simply that way for the IL86.

And I agree that there is a shadow. It's not a bold shadow as if there was bright sunlight, but it's there.

I also agree that following pics of the climbout over the water would have been very impressive.

I'm keeping an open mind. There are some great photoshoppers out there. This could be real. But then, it may not.

Jerricho
30th Jan 2006, 19:47
Great photoshoppers? Just ask our friend Farrell ;)

wileydog3
30th Jan 2006, 19:52
I try to avoid flying the 'A' model of anything

Sometimes you don't have the luxury.

At max weight of 297,000 you had 4 tiny J-57s huffing and puffing to lift that beast. It is easy to see why the SAC runways were all over 11,000ft.

On the other hand you had the H model BUF which had 8 TF-33s AND two HoundDogs hanging off the inboard station. Max weight and could go with a 35kt tailwind.

I also flew the O2A, early Lear 23s, 727s powered by -7 engines.. so a mix of good performers, not-so-good performers and in between.

Loose rivets
30th Jan 2006, 21:50
I would have expected to see a distortion of ground image, looking through the hot gasses of engines on full noise.

eal401
31st Jan 2006, 06:22
Most A.net photos ARE photoshopped in some form anyway! Not the place to go for "real" images.

Devlin Carnet
31st Jan 2006, 08:39
Does that type normally have three sets of main gear?

MagnusP
31st Jan 2006, 08:42
Is that thing taking off or landing? I think we should be told. ;)

R4+Z
31st Jan 2006, 08:48
If it was landing they would have overshot just a tad don't you think?

:eek: :eek:

BOTFOJ
31st Jan 2006, 09:14
Sam Chui has put a post on A net with the whole sequence of his photos.



http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate1.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate2.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate3.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate4.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate5.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate6.jpg
http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate7.jpg


thread located here
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2577301/

Sky_Captain
31st Jan 2006, 09:49
Well the russians did out do the chinese, but at least the chinese tried the same in something bigger:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/041994/M/


:oh:

GearDown&Locked
31st Jan 2006, 10:27
The reader of these transcripts is cautioned that the transcription of a CVR tape is not a precise science but is the best possible product from a group investigative effort. The transcript, or parts thereof, if taken out of context can be misleading. Therefore, the CVR transcripts should only be viewed as an investigative tool to be used in conjunction with other evidence. Conclusions or interpretations should not be made using the transcript as the sole source of information.


"Pull up Dimitrii... pull pull pull pull"
"I'm pulling I'm pulling!"
"Pull more pull more"
"I have the control column inside my stomach already, sir!"
"Not enough Dimitrii... put yer feet on the panel and puuullllll"
"I'm pulling I'm pulling!"
"Thats it! pull pull pull pull ... phew whats that smell ? - ding dong - Svetlana? Did you secured the toillet doors? It stinks in here!! "
"Oh yes Comrade Captain Sir."
"Well... ok then"
"ding dong"
"Comrade Captain Sir?"
"What?! I'm busy"
"We forgot to bring the diapers Comrade Captain Sir..."
"Svetlana... "
"Comrade Captain Sir..."
"Do you like Siberia?"


GD&L

Capt.KAOS
31st Jan 2006, 10:50
If you look at these pics (5 and 7) it seems that from that perspective the a/c is actually positioned left from that runway? Now I've been to HKT many times and I'm sure there's only one runway...

http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate5.jpg


http://samchuiphotos.com/Sydney/HKTVasoIL86rotate7.jpg

Bahn-Jeaux
31st Jan 2006, 12:40
If you look at the series of 6 consecutive pics, you would imagine them to all be from the same position but the runway moves around too much in each shot and I would'nt have thought there would be any time available for repositioning to the degree indicated.
I vote photoshop

Send Clowns
31st Jan 2006, 13:13
Why do you say that, Ban-Jeaux :confused: As far as I can see the camera just pans round to follow the aircraft, the runway is in perfectly consistent position. In fact it is evidence against photoshop, unless you can think of a reason someone would have 8 different photos of the same empty runway! Most people would keep using the same background.

Kaos - I think it is just lower than you are imagining. Check out the shadow on the first one. It is so indistinct it would not be visible if the aircraft was higher and towards the camera, its position indicates the aircraft is over teh runway. The aircraft is genuinely only just lifting.

BALIX
31st Jan 2006, 13:48
Jeez, I think some of you guys are in denial. You don't want it to be true and are trying your hardest to find evidence that suggests that it might not be quite genuine. Well, I've looked at the seven differnt images in sequence and have seen nothing that suggests that they are doctored.

Unpalatable as it might be, that aircraft was a cat's whisker away from disaster.

Jesus, I'm sounding like the fecking Sunday Mirror now... Nurse, nurse!!!!!

I still vote for genuine photos, though...

G-CPTN
31st Jan 2006, 13:59
Unpalatable as it might be, that aircraft was a cat's whisker away from disaster.

Can you truthfully say that? Perhaps the pilot was 'sandbagging' and had been holding it down?
(Looks at sequence of photos for elevator angles . . . )

BALIX
31st Jan 2006, 17:22
Can you truthfully say that? Perhaps the pilot was 'sandbagging' and had been holding it down?
(Looks at sequence of photos for elevator angles . . . )

I refer the honourable gentleman to the sentence that followed the above one:

Jesus, I'm sounding like the fecking Sunday Mirror now... Nurse, nurse!!!!!

Thankfully, the medication is working :eek:

It looks like a hairy take off, it might be normal operation for an IL86, I dunno. Don't get many of 'em in Prekkers so I don't see them first hand.

+'ve ROC
31st Jan 2006, 19:03
i just showed this to mrs roc and she says "oooh the sea does look a bit funny doesn't it"

ahem

mutt
1st Feb 2006, 05:23
GlueBall, if you are going to quote facts, please make sure that they are correct :)

No civilian transport category jet cetificated anywhere in the world is certified to take off with more than 10kts tailwind.

Mr Boeing certifies some of his products with a 15kt tailwind!!!

Mutt

Hermano Lobo
8th Feb 2006, 09:52
"I said rotate Tovarish not debate !":}

What are you lot complaing about ?

1) There is a curve to the Earth
2) The beach is lower than the runway
3) He didn't 'sink' like aircraft carrier take-offs
4) There are no obstacles to clear
5) He can maintain 300ft for 50 miles
6) Vaso supplies its crew with spare underwear
7) There is no longer the 'reward' of the Gulag
8) The IL-86 is underpowered in hot conditions
9) He wanted to show-off and wave to his Thai girlfriend on the beach
10) The prat got away with it

Does anybody know if the IL-86 is underwinged or just underpowered ?

Does the shadow at the end of the runway indicate a genuine photo ?

Any comments from Trident 1 pilots ?

BRL
8th Feb 2006, 10:03
"But Captain, at training school they told us to land on the piano keys......."









I take it the door is this way <----------

strafer
8th Feb 2006, 10:35
Are you sure it wasn't just an excellent reverse landing?

bear11
8th Feb 2006, 11:58
What is it about russian jet engines and hot conditions? Heard this before from pilots who flew older Russian jets who said they had to wait til the dead of night to take off from places like Dubai and barely scraped out, but that in very cold conditions, the same engines were super. Any care to enlighten?

Romeo Charlie
8th Feb 2006, 12:32
Dunno, but here's a guess....

Many older Russian aircraft had knackered engines with worn turbines. Thus they were less efficient and 'sucking' in air so in hot climes with warm less dense air they really struggled. At night with the cooler, more dense air they were ok.

As I say, just a guess - anyone else care to comment?

slim_slag
8th Feb 2006, 12:46
One has flown aeroflot's older Ilyushin fleet on a few occasions. It's certainly true that you can watch the grass at the departure end of the runway go past and it's still at at window height. What you need to do is pay a few extra dollars to go business and make use of the excellent vodka trolley. Seats were crap, and it was entertaining watching the hairy armed stewardesses attempting but failing to provide decent service (no different to our other favourite airlines I guess :)), but it would dull the fear factor. Now they have western jets it's just not the same.

Lord Snot
8th Feb 2006, 14:07
Maybe the Russians decided on the "Improved Climb" scenario for that take-off and got carried away, using every inch of the runway. But they forgot the DER leads to ocean, not normally known for containing significant obstacles.

My only other theory is during the take-off, the capt's wallet got jammed between the seat and the prong.....

LongWayHome
8th Feb 2006, 19:38
Hey!

Any of you ever been in that "situation" before? Remember "WAT"?

answer=42
8th Feb 2006, 21:05
Never flown in an Ilyushin but did fly in a Yak-42 a couple of years back (what joy). One of the things I remember was that the take off and climb were at a subjectively much steeper angle than a western plane. This was apparently normal practice.

Say again s l o w l y
8th Feb 2006, 22:43
I can't see the problem.
It's the perfect reduced thrust Take Off. The bean counters must be so proud!