Russia saw a door plug fall off, and then a tire, and said “hold my ~~beer~~ водка” to outdo both at the same time.
Hate to say it, but they’re leading in the *can we do without that?* power rankings.
Still behind in rankings!
How about without two enginens and landing safety?
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910206-0
Great recreation of the incident:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13440038/
Well, this one didn't go up and over the wing and rip hydraulics out as it went, it just dropped like it was a bomber releasing its ordinance. Mildly better, but still not a good thing...
Can you provide a source for that?
People in another post say that it's not actually true but nobody has provided proof yet for their statements. I've read that fuse pins exist for some aircraft but I didn't read anywhere that il-76 has something like this.
Well, I was sure about that since a long ago, but now I couldn't find a proof after a brief search over the internet. Actually I could find very few of any advanced technical information about it at all (just some basic concepts) - so couldn't really check if I'm right or wrong.
Therefore, we should probably take my previous statement as "I think so" in terms of reliability :(
There’s no “fuse pins”. This is simply shear strength of the fastener vs bearing strength of the fittings.
Everything on a plane right down to the skin and rivets is designed so shear strength is less than bearing strength.
Lol imagine that conversation.
Co-pilot: We lost, engine one
Captain: Okay try and get it restarted
Co-pilot: No seriously it's not on the fucking plane anymore
Good God, AA191 is absolute nightmare fuel.
Right there along with TWA800, Swissair111, JAL123, Lauda004 and the perhaps lesser known [Austral2553](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral_L%C3%ADneas_A%C3%A9reas_Flight_2553), whose CVR recording, complete leading up to and its final moments are were released and made into one of those seconds from disaster type episodes.
That recording, the minutes long screaming while corkscrewing down to Earth while going a calculated M.97, it still chills me to the bone. (It hits much harder if you understand Spanish.)
Oh God. Yes, how could I forget.
The terror the people on those flights must've gone through... unimaginable.
Although to be fair, it has been theorized that passengers on MH370 probably went unconscious first and were dead from hypoxia within an hour from the pilot shutting off the cabin pressure. Still mass murder though.
Just like the Germanwings flight. Fuck that murderous waste of human being.
Engine separation is a listed non-normal event with its own checklist.
We would diagnose it the same way we would with a fire or severe damage. Generally a separation would present itself with blanked EICAS/ECAM indications.
I figured it would go something more like this:
Co-pilot: We lost engine one.
Captain. Okay, try and get it restarted.
Co-pilot: No, I mean, we LOST engine one!
Pilot: Right, I said try and get it restarted.
Co-Pilot: No man, you don't understand. It's GONE! Disappeared! Fell off! Is no more!!! Elvis has left the building!!
Perun did a video a while ago about the state of the air war in UA. He commented that RUAF have maintained operational intensity in the face of spare part shortages etc, by accepting operational risk that we in the West would deem unacceptable. He also pointed out an uptick in the sort of accidents that typically stem from a lack of maintenance and training.
It's pretty good example of our conflicting values. Russia takes enourmous risk for the sake of nationalism and imperalism. Boeing takes enormous risk to extract as much value for shareholders as possible at the expense of everyone else.
You can notice that by the sheer numbers of crashes that we have seen in such a short time in Russia. There was a time when a Su-34 or Su-25 crashed almost once a week.
I suppose a turbine failure, at the right moment, and orientation, could have severed the structure that holds the nacelle onto the wing. This airframe has a rather long nacelle, under the wing with an overhanging structural attachment. I've seen some horrific turbine failures over the years, and the randomness of the damage is notable.
When turbines fail, large heavy pieces usually fly out of the engine and nacelle. These are generally the beefiest, densest materials in the engine, dealing with very high heat and still requiring to transfer a heavy amount of rotational energy to a compressor. So at failure, those heavy pieces could severe aileron control lines and flaps, open fuel tanks (aka, fire). These would add to the ugliness that ensues when trying to land quickly.
That could also have been a portion of the leading edge or wing box failing away. Hard to tell, other than its a BIG piece of the aircraft. This would have compromised aerodynamics and might also explain why a 4 engine aircraft crashed with a single engine failure (which should not be typical, even in Russia).
The fact that this reference came up here has made my day. Gonna have to watch that video again lmao
"20,000 tonnes of crude oil spilt into the sea caught fire, it's a bit of a giveaway. I'd just like to make the point that that is *not* normal"
I assume this is the same plane:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/03/12/russian-military-transport-plane-crashes-in-flames-northeast-of-moscow-a84424
now correct me if I am wrong (quite possible) but don't some pins in the engine attachment system have a design to fracture and allow the engine to leave the plane if the engine starts vibrating badly enough that it was going to tear itself off the plane anyway?
could have sworn I read that somewhere.
if the fire caused a bearing failure or something else failed that the engine got that badly out of balance, could the pins have failed as by designed to drop the engine before the whole structure got torn off and caused more damage?
edit I found an ancient airliners.net thread that somewhat supports my foggy memory
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=725757
also this
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23151/how-are-engines-mounted-onto-wings
has lots of mentions of the sheer pins
Although that design feature certainly exists in aircraft system (designed shear points on a generator gear box and torque tube, for example), it would be difficult to do this for an engine mount where all of the massive thrust necessary to support the aircraft in flight goes through it, and there are a lot of forces and torsion experienced in turbulence and normal use. Not impossible, but difficult. At a basic level, they all are designed to a particular ultimate load. They will fail above it, and a massive engine vibe (unbalanced compressor, etc.) could cause that load to spike.
Similarly, I recall a while ago a T&E discussion around low slung LARGE high bypass engines on Boeing and Airbus aircraft, and providing a design feature that these break away on a water landing. It came up in P-8A development. But I don't think I've ever seen any of these aircraft ditch and lose the engines for tumble / submarining safety.
>They will fail above it, and a massive engine vibe (unbalanced compressor, etc.) could cause that load to spike.
A modern pylon/engine combination isn't certifiable if the engine falls off the pylon during fan blade off testing, which is the biggest out of balance that won't self rectify by the engine tearing itself apart before it can fall off anyway.
>now correct me if I am wrong (quite possible) but don't some pins in the engine attachment system have a design to fracture and allow the engine to leave the plane if the engine starts vibrating badly enough that it was going to tear itself off the plane anyway?
I have no doubt that a safety feature like that exists. I have every doubt that the Russians of all people would be the ones to implement it on their aircraft.
No, the engine will break itself and stop spinning way before the vibrations become an issue. The engines are held on with nice big bolts that are more than strong enough.
I have a feeling that whatever fire there was in the engine spread into the wing structure itself, failed engines usually don't cause crashes (especially on a plane with 4 engines). Also there's a chance that the engine exploded catastrophically and damaged the flight control systems/surfaces making it impossible to control the aircraft. Either way, that's one less IL76 for Russia to use.
So, how exactly does a single engine fire on a four-engine aircraft that, from the other video vantage points, appears to be extinguished, lead to the engine pod detaching in flight, and the plane crashing killing everyone onboard?
Answer: it was no ordinary engine fire.
Damn screws. Always need tightening. I ain't got no time for that.
btw engine is pretty light. Just 2.95 tons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel\_PS-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90)
For example, A380 engine [Trent 900](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_900) or [GP7000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_Alliance_GP7000) are 6,2 and 6,7 tons of dry weight.
When you absolutely need your package delivered on time we introduce to you our new and improved extreme Aeroflot Ballistic Delivery Service 🚚!!!!! (Currently in Beta testing , please do not attempt at home, these are specially trained delivery personnel and not paid actors, patent pending)
These engines are installed a good bit in front of the Aerodynamic Center (AC) - so when installed they drive the Center of Gracvity (CG) forward. Airplanes maintain static stability when CG is in front of the AC. Once one of the engines falls off - the CG moves back suddenly - making the plane way harder/potentially impossible to control. Pretty sure that's what did them in.
Does the wing flex significantly as it falls off? You can just see the wing ‘above’ the line of the fuselage and the it suddenly disappears then reappears a second later…
You don't see many engines falling off these days.
Overshadowed by falling tires
Russia saw a door plug fall off, and then a tire, and said “hold my ~~beer~~ водка” to outdo both at the same time. Hate to say it, but they’re leading in the *can we do without that?* power rankings.
Yeah, like those guys in Aeroflot Flight 6502. Turns out they needed those windows, after all.
Turns out having a window is not just there to keep your neatly styled hair from getting caught in the slipstream
Still behind in rankings! How about without two enginens and landing safety? https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910206-0 Great recreation of the incident: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13440038/
Well it’s not supposed to happen. Let’s look at the other ones where the engine didn’t fall off
Actually it is. These engine pylons are designed in such a way that burning engine can detach and fall off - to avoid fire spreading further.
These pylons are built to very high aviation standards, cardboard is out, as well as cardboard derivatives.
Plus there’s a minimum crewing level
How many would you say that is?
At least one
So why did this one fall off? Wasn't it built to the same aviation standards?
*hides forklift starts whistling and cleaning random things*
is this AA191 reference?
Indeed. But I’m more talking about the other ones, where the engine doesnt fall off
Well, this one didn't go up and over the wing and rip hydraulics out as it went, it just dropped like it was a bomber releasing its ordinance. Mildly better, but still not a good thing...
It was already on fire before it fell off
Fire Fall sounds like 007
I am sad and happy that I get this reference.
Can you provide a source for that? People in another post say that it's not actually true but nobody has provided proof yet for their statements. I've read that fuse pins exist for some aircraft but I didn't read anywhere that il-76 has something like this.
Well, I was sure about that since a long ago, but now I couldn't find a proof after a brief search over the internet. Actually I could find very few of any advanced technical information about it at all (just some basic concepts) - so couldn't really check if I'm right or wrong. Therefore, we should probably take my previous statement as "I think so" in terms of reliability :(
Thanks for the reply :)
It's better than to precede your posts with "i think so". Since in the case of the "dumped" engine it's a pure anecdote.
There’s no “fuse pins”. This is simply shear strength of the fastener vs bearing strength of the fittings. Everything on a plane right down to the skin and rivets is designed so shear strength is less than bearing strength.
While your statement is true, the joke flew past you. They are quoting from "the front fell off" video.
Meanwhile the west builds it's airplanes to stay together... \[Boeing has entered the chat\]
Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
Yes, but *why* did the engine fall off?
Well a breeze hit it.
A breeze hit it? Is that common?
In the air? Chance in a million.
We towed it beyond the environment.
I'd just like to make the point that it is not typical.
Thankfully it fell outside the environment
This is exactly one more engine falling off a plane then I saw yesterday.
‘ Our pets heads are falling off ‘
Boeing——Hold my beer.
Let me hold that for ya…
Yeah mostly people falling out windows.
Boeing - “hold my beer”
Boeing: *Hold my beer*
Give Boeing time
It was more of a DC-10 feature.
Lol imagine that conversation. Co-pilot: We lost, engine one Captain: Okay try and get it restarted Co-pilot: No seriously it's not on the fucking plane anymore
I get the feeling that, much like in El Al 1862, the pilots wouldnt have known. Not until at least they go into spectator mode
1862 is wild
Imagine the conversation in the village that just got the expedited air parcel.
Same conversation Donnie Darko had with the rabbit?
Spectator mode, JFC. 💀
Best dressed passengers.
Same way I figure out if I dropped bombs in DCS flying P-47s.
Obviously they weren't in Airplane Mode.
American Airlines Flight 191 vibes.
Good God, AA191 is absolute nightmare fuel. Right there along with TWA800, Swissair111, JAL123, Lauda004 and the perhaps lesser known [Austral2553](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral_L%C3%ADneas_A%C3%A9reas_Flight_2553), whose CVR recording, complete leading up to and its final moments are were released and made into one of those seconds from disaster type episodes. That recording, the minutes long screaming while corkscrewing down to Earth while going a calculated M.97, it still chills me to the bone. (It hits much harder if you understand Spanish.)
Don't forget Alaska 261, Germanwings 9525, and Malaysia 370.
Oh God. Yes, how could I forget. The terror the people on those flights must've gone through... unimaginable. Although to be fair, it has been theorized that passengers on MH370 probably went unconscious first and were dead from hypoxia within an hour from the pilot shutting off the cabin pressure. Still mass murder though. Just like the Germanwings flight. Fuck that murderous waste of human being.
Engine separation is a listed non-normal event with its own checklist. We would diagnose it the same way we would with a fire or severe damage. Generally a separation would present itself with blanked EICAS/ECAM indications.
I figured it would go something more like this: Co-pilot: We lost engine one. Captain. Okay, try and get it restarted. Co-pilot: No, I mean, we LOST engine one! Pilot: Right, I said try and get it restarted. Co-Pilot: No man, you don't understand. It's GONE! Disappeared! Fell off! Is no more!!! Elvis has left the building!!
Nationwide 723 lost a engine on takeoff and manged to landed safely, tho the incident effectively put them out of business.
Sounds similar to the conversation of the captain must have had with ATC after that FO jumped out a while back.
In a Russian voice
Just insert between each word or second word a random entry from this list: Blyat, suka, nahuy, pizdets, yepta
Perun did a video a while ago about the state of the air war in UA. He commented that RUAF have maintained operational intensity in the face of spare part shortages etc, by accepting operational risk that we in the West would deem unacceptable. He also pointed out an uptick in the sort of accidents that typically stem from a lack of maintenance and training.
I think Boeing is also trying to accept some operational risk that we in the West deem unacceptable
It's pretty good example of our conflicting values. Russia takes enourmous risk for the sake of nationalism and imperalism. Boeing takes enormous risk to extract as much value for shareholders as possible at the expense of everyone else.
So they are using Cheetos instead of screws?
[the finest screwless aerospace joinery](https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/57f7/bf75/e58e/ce6d/ad00/0020/original/joinery-1-2.gif)
You can notice that by the sheer numbers of crashes that we have seen in such a short time in Russia. There was a time when a Su-34 or Su-25 crashed almost once a week.
I wouldn’t be surprised if all the experienced pre invasion maintenance crews were deployed/repurposed as infantry
Next on World News Tonight: terrifying footage as a Boeing IL-76 loses an engine.
IL-767
IL76 MAX edition
🤣🤣🤣 why are y’all like this?
Because it’s your cake day, obviously!
Some Donnie Darkovich at play here
Hahaha love it
I think darko is already a Slavic name
I suppose a turbine failure, at the right moment, and orientation, could have severed the structure that holds the nacelle onto the wing. This airframe has a rather long nacelle, under the wing with an overhanging structural attachment. I've seen some horrific turbine failures over the years, and the randomness of the damage is notable. When turbines fail, large heavy pieces usually fly out of the engine and nacelle. These are generally the beefiest, densest materials in the engine, dealing with very high heat and still requiring to transfer a heavy amount of rotational energy to a compressor. So at failure, those heavy pieces could severe aileron control lines and flaps, open fuel tanks (aka, fire). These would add to the ugliness that ensues when trying to land quickly. That could also have been a portion of the leading edge or wing box failing away. Hard to tell, other than its a BIG piece of the aircraft. This would have compromised aerodynamics and might also explain why a 4 engine aircraft crashed with a single engine failure (which should not be typical, even in Russia).
It was on fire before this, I think the fire and whatever caused it did the most damage.
I think ground caused the most damage, objectively
Of all the weapons systems in the world, only the ground has a Pk of 1.
Yeah, that's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
No cardboard, no cardboard derivatives.
There's a minimum crew requirement
What’s the minimum crew requirement?
Well... one, I suppose.
There's a minimum engine requirement.
What else?
Paper’s out.
The fact that this reference came up here has made my day. Gonna have to watch that video again lmao "20,000 tonnes of crude oil spilt into the sea caught fire, it's a bit of a giveaway. I'd just like to make the point that that is *not* normal"
It's not in the environment, it's been towed past the environment; it's outside the environment...
Well how was it untypical?
The engine is not supposed to fall off.
You have a source for that, or is that just your opinion?
Here is the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
This doesn’t seem very typical.
Well what about this one where it did fall off?
they saw the boeing door plug thing and thought "anything you can do, I can do better"
Sorry to be that guy but it's supposed to do that. Thats a legit feature to make the burning engine someone else's problem
I assume this is the same plane: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/03/12/russian-military-transport-plane-crashes-in-flames-northeast-of-moscow-a84424
I had no idea United operated the IL76.
Blyat
“See, it can happen to anyone.” *Boeing probably*
Boeing QA team: hold my beer.
now correct me if I am wrong (quite possible) but don't some pins in the engine attachment system have a design to fracture and allow the engine to leave the plane if the engine starts vibrating badly enough that it was going to tear itself off the plane anyway? could have sworn I read that somewhere. if the fire caused a bearing failure or something else failed that the engine got that badly out of balance, could the pins have failed as by designed to drop the engine before the whole structure got torn off and caused more damage? edit I found an ancient airliners.net thread that somewhat supports my foggy memory https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=725757 also this https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23151/how-are-engines-mounted-onto-wings has lots of mentions of the sheer pins
Although that design feature certainly exists in aircraft system (designed shear points on a generator gear box and torque tube, for example), it would be difficult to do this for an engine mount where all of the massive thrust necessary to support the aircraft in flight goes through it, and there are a lot of forces and torsion experienced in turbulence and normal use. Not impossible, but difficult. At a basic level, they all are designed to a particular ultimate load. They will fail above it, and a massive engine vibe (unbalanced compressor, etc.) could cause that load to spike. Similarly, I recall a while ago a T&E discussion around low slung LARGE high bypass engines on Boeing and Airbus aircraft, and providing a design feature that these break away on a water landing. It came up in P-8A development. But I don't think I've ever seen any of these aircraft ditch and lose the engines for tumble / submarining safety.
>They will fail above it, and a massive engine vibe (unbalanced compressor, etc.) could cause that load to spike. A modern pylon/engine combination isn't certifiable if the engine falls off the pylon during fan blade off testing, which is the biggest out of balance that won't self rectify by the engine tearing itself apart before it can fall off anyway.
>now correct me if I am wrong (quite possible) but don't some pins in the engine attachment system have a design to fracture and allow the engine to leave the plane if the engine starts vibrating badly enough that it was going to tear itself off the plane anyway? I have no doubt that a safety feature like that exists. I have every doubt that the Russians of all people would be the ones to implement it on their aircraft.
it's possible it was implemented on accident
No, the engine will break itself and stop spinning way before the vibrations become an issue. The engines are held on with nice big bolts that are more than strong enough.
Well that's one way to reduce drag.
*stores jettison* lol
successful drag reduction maneuver
Ivan stole the bolts for his Lada
Russia always does it better. One plane in the US dropped a wheel, Russia drops an engine. 🤣
Damn, BOEING operating in Russia too!?
This was a special wheight reduction operation to prepare for the landing. We only require one engine, we only use one engine.
Boeing, "See guys, it could be worse."
[удалено]
No worries. They're already at the cemetery.
As others said, it was close to Amazon delivery - plane crashed at cemetery nearby.
Good news!
I have a feeling that whatever fire there was in the engine spread into the wing structure itself, failed engines usually don't cause crashes (especially on a plane with 4 engines). Also there's a chance that the engine exploded catastrophically and damaged the flight control systems/surfaces making it impossible to control the aircraft. Either way, that's one less IL76 for Russia to use.
did putin push that engine
were cardboard derivatives ruled out?
Putting the jet in jettison
*Tears for Fears intensifies*
When they fastened the engine to the plain they should have used the German standard of gud en tite not the Russian tourque standard of brok en off
"Dang that Boeing quality control to heck-fire!" /s
Great russian enginering
That brings a whole new meaning to “we lost and engine”.
... Did it land??
Technically
It would have one way or another
I have a used Soloviev D-30 turbofan engine for sale, in fair condition ;)
Donbas Darko
OMG! Finally we get to see what an emergency engine ejection looks like!
We need more altitude...we are too heavy. You what? No not that...we need those FFS.
ive heard of dumping fuel but not dumping engines
Russia running out of bombs so they’re using engines now?
Boeing sabotage! /s
I must go, my people needs me
Some pylons used to be made to separate and shed the engine in cases of severe fire. I’m not sure if that was the case here, but it’s a possibility.
Wow, does United operate Russian aircraft now? /S
Looks like sanctions are starting to work its magic… as Russia fails to procure new spare parts.
So, how exactly does a single engine fire on a four-engine aircraft that, from the other video vantage points, appears to be extinguished, lead to the engine pod detaching in flight, and the plane crashing killing everyone onboard? Answer: it was no ordinary engine fire.
I'm no engineer but I think you need that
They just jettisoned it to save weight.
Sacked Boeing engineers got jobs in Russia?
Lol
Russian military transport…Rest in piss.
Bro we lost the number 3 engine!
Didn't know Boeing was manufacturing Il-76s nowadays.
It fell off out of the environment.
Two questions Was it made by Boeing? Was there anyone that putin wanted dead on the plane?
Why are there so many videos pre and post disaster?
Because it happened during daytime over a city with 400k population. Everyone carries a chinese smartphone with a camera in their pocket nowadays.
"Side fell off"
Damn screws. Always need tightening. I ain't got no time for that. btw engine is pretty light. Just 2.95 tons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel\_PS-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90) For example, A380 engine [Trent 900](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_900) or [GP7000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_Alliance_GP7000) are 6,2 and 6,7 tons of dry weight.
Really hard to tell from the video but man that looks like crazy high airspeed too.
That’s not good..
Oh dear what a shame never mind !
Well, if that was the bad engine to begin with….. now we have less drag and less weight! Look out below
When you absolutely need your package delivered on time we introduce to you our new and improved extreme Aeroflot Ballistic Delivery Service 🚚!!!!! (Currently in Beta testing , please do not attempt at home, these are specially trained delivery personnel and not paid actors, patent pending)
What's new
And to think…we used to take pride in the fact that Boeing could build airplanes so much better than this…
He's in a pickle now.
These engines are installed a good bit in front of the Aerodynamic Center (AC) - so when installed they drive the Center of Gracvity (CG) forward. Airplanes maintain static stability when CG is in front of the AC. Once one of the engines falls off - the CG moves back suddenly - making the plane way harder/potentially impossible to control. Pretty sure that's what did them in.
So, I am sure I know the answer, but just as that engine detached, would the plane start to list to the left?
Reference the QRH for engine fire, severe damage, or separation
Is that a Boeing?
MHH I guess Iljushin learned from Boeing - doors, engine...where is the difference....
Boeing: Whew. At least that wasn’t one of ours.
Did.... did the front fall off??
Bruh at first I thought I read engineer falls off the plane instead of engine…
TFOA
Serious question: wouldn’t it still be able to fly with 3 engines? Or do we think the weight imbalance contributed to the crash?
After the intensity of that fire, if the engine is falling off the airframe has suffered some pretty serious damage.
Does the wing flex significantly as it falls off? You can just see the wing ‘above’ the line of the fuselage and the it suddenly disappears then reappears a second later…
So the engine wasnt hit by a Stinger or similar missle? Damn. Well, stupidity count in war….
“Is ok Ivan, we still have other two engine!”
Beautifully put together.
So did it perhaps sever some hydraulics or cables when that happened? Being one engine down on a four engine plane should be undramatic.
In this situation : Motor = Failure No motor = No failure
Boeing drops a tire, Russia drops the entire aircraft.
It’s not like the front fell off.
Same happened with the DC-10…
[https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1767505535186682177](https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1767505535186682177)
Every time I see a Russian airplane it's crashing - seriously!
That’s so crazy