Prototype Ilyushin Il112V crash at moscow today
Thread Starter
Prototype Ilyushin Il112V crash at moscow today
From Captain Gratia's youtube channel:
Last edited by sablatnic; 17th Aug 2021 at 11:15. Reason: Spelling
That didn't look survivurble sadly. Loss of control due to assymetric power or was that fire big enough to affect the control systems? The text says a Prototype, so does anyone know if it is flybywire or hydraulics or cables?
No it is not Dave, twins are designed to have enough redundancy to continue flight and remain in control, but there are lots of things that can go wrong with a big fire- unable to feather the engine, loss of structural integrity, loss of flight controls, turning into the dead engine....,
or as the old sarcastic twin joke goes " there is always enough power to get you to the scene of the crash...."
or as the old sarcastic twin joke goes " there is always enough power to get you to the scene of the crash...."
Moscow Times story
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it is not Dave, twins are designed to have enough redundancy to continue flight and remain in control, but there are lots of things that can go wrong with a big fire- unable to feather the engine, loss of structural integrity, loss of flight controls, turning into the dead engine....,
or as the old sarcastic twin joke goes " there is always enough power to get you to the scene of the crash...."
or as the old sarcastic twin joke goes " there is always enough power to get you to the scene of the crash...."
The right roll would almost certainly have begun due to control runs or wiring burning through, it didn't appear that the right engine had been shut down, no evidence of feathered prop that I could see.
Sad that 3 people went in with the aircraft.
Crew was fighting an uncontained out of control fire when it rolled over which indicates it either got too slow or it had a structural failure.
The wing didn’t fold and flight controls generally have a backup.
If the right aileron doesn’t work then the left one still should and so should the rudder.
One aileron reduces your roll control but that can be augmented by rudder use.
Unfortunately it looks like they got slow.
Looks like this KingAir crash
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not understanding what you mean by that.
Crew was fighting an uncontained out of control fire when it rolled over which indicates it either got too slow or it had a structural failure.
The wing didn’t fold and flight controls generally have a backup.
If the right aileron doesn’t work then the left one still should and so should the rudder.
One aileron reduces your roll control but that can be augmented by rudder use.
Unfortunately it looks like they got slow.
Looks like this KingAir crash
#
Crew was fighting an uncontained out of control fire when it rolled over which indicates it either got too slow or it had a structural failure.
The wing didn’t fold and flight controls generally have a backup.
If the right aileron doesn’t work then the left one still should and so should the rudder.
One aileron reduces your roll control but that can be augmented by rudder use.
Unfortunately it looks like they got slow.
Looks like this KingAir crash
#
By theory as firewall valves are closed, it is estimated that the fire extinguishes, because of lacking any flammable material.
The next step is usually, fly the airplane.
I miss the flames extinguished, I missed the increase of power setting/engine sound and I missed some counteraction against the stall.
The fire drill is just basic airmanship, not leading necessarily to a crash.
Do you not understand what a fire drill require as memory item? That should be somehow generic, as the fire bell sounds, identify affected engine, then push that push button, what close firewall valves.
By theory as firewall valves are closed, it is estimated that the fire extinguishes, because of lacking any flammable material.
The next step is usually, fly the airplane.
I miss the flames extinguished, I missed the increase of power setting/engine sound and I missed some counteraction against the stall.
The fire drill is just basic airmanship, not leading necessarily to a crash.
By theory as firewall valves are closed, it is estimated that the fire extinguishes, because of lacking any flammable material.
The next step is usually, fly the airplane.
I miss the flames extinguished, I missed the increase of power setting/engine sound and I missed some counteraction against the stall.
The fire drill is just basic airmanship, not leading necessarily to a crash.
You’re assuming all of this on a poor quality long distance video.
Something about the flight path, and in particular the slow, smooth but unstoppable right roll several seconds after the fire's peak, says to me "fire damage to wing hydraulics > uncommanded asymmetrical flap retraction on starboard wing."
Rather like American 191 DC-10 at Chicago, only flaps instead of slats.
Can't be confirmed or denied by the video alone - too low a resolution (plus the wing and engine are out-of-frame several times due to camera wobble).
If I'm right (and that's a big IF, of course) I expect the tin-kickers will probably find some clues in the remains, and as a test flight, the aircraft was likely wired to the gills and there may be data that survived.
Rather like American 191 DC-10 at Chicago, only flaps instead of slats.
Can't be confirmed or denied by the video alone - too low a resolution (plus the wing and engine are out-of-frame several times due to camera wobble).
If I'm right (and that's a big IF, of course) I expect the tin-kickers will probably find some clues in the remains, and as a test flight, the aircraft was likely wired to the gills and there may be data that survived.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is reported that this aircraft was the only flying prototype of a design which first flew in 2019, noting that testing was delayed (runway repairs ?!) and that the next aircraft have significant structural weight reductions and uprated engines.
It is reasonable to assume that this aircraft had some of these modifications, and depending on resumed flying since March this year, that the flight envelope - handing qualities were not fully explored, e.g. assumed vmca, a range of configurations for a high lift wing, higher power rating. Added to which is our incomplete knowledge of the flight control system. The aircraft is reported to have an integrated digital flight-deck; so probable elect signalled, hydraulic powered controls, aileron / roll spoiler?
From the video so far, it is appears that as a result of a ‘system or component’ failure (opposed to loss of control), consequential damage from an un-contained fire, outside of the designed containment zone and/or extinguishing capabilities, i.e. not necessarily in the engine nacelle, and thence impaired control functioning.
The event - based on video #1, appears to have evolved over some time; ‘puffs’ of smoke, then fire, with uncharacteristic ‘flare’ ejections not normally associated with fuel only.
Such is speculation; but we must not classify events based on outcome or human activity, which often result in unrelated recommendations, unnecessary safety and training activity.
It is reasonable to assume that this aircraft had some of these modifications, and depending on resumed flying since March this year, that the flight envelope - handing qualities were not fully explored, e.g. assumed vmca, a range of configurations for a high lift wing, higher power rating. Added to which is our incomplete knowledge of the flight control system. The aircraft is reported to have an integrated digital flight-deck; so probable elect signalled, hydraulic powered controls, aileron / roll spoiler?
From the video so far, it is appears that as a result of a ‘system or component’ failure (opposed to loss of control), consequential damage from an un-contained fire, outside of the designed containment zone and/or extinguishing capabilities, i.e. not necessarily in the engine nacelle, and thence impaired control functioning.
The event - based on video #1, appears to have evolved over some time; ‘puffs’ of smoke, then fire, with uncharacteristic ‘flare’ ejections not normally associated with fuel only.
Such is speculation; but we must not classify events based on outcome or human activity, which often result in unrelated recommendations, unnecessary safety and training activity.
Ilyushin seem to have had no luck with their two twin turboprop types, the IL-112 (as here, high wing, high tail) and IL-114 (low wing, low tail), both designed around 1990; not apparent how much commonality they have but it must be some given they came from the same design team at the same time. The IL-114 was intended for the civil market, production was abandoned around 2010 with just half a dozen built. Certainly two of them were sat on a remote ramp at St Petersburg airport throughout 2003-08 without propellers. The IL-112 seems to have been on the drawing board for about 25 years before the first prototype (the accident aircraft here) was even completed. In the onetime Soviet style of separation of design and production, Ilyushin mostly used a plant in Tashkent, which became independent Uzbekistan, and although the aircraft were initially intended to be produced there the extended development period saw this pulled back to a plant in Russia.
I see the commander of the accident flight was the longstanding chief test pilot of Ilyushin, and would presume comments from others about not knowing about turning into a dead engine etc are somewhat misplaced.
Nikolai Kuimov - Wikipedia
I see the commander of the accident flight was the longstanding chief test pilot of Ilyushin, and would presume comments from others about not knowing about turning into a dead engine etc are somewhat misplaced.
Nikolai Kuimov - Wikipedia
Last edited by WHBM; 19th Aug 2021 at 12:01.
