TransAsia Plane Crashes in Taiwan River - Video

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 5:38 AM GMT


    New Angle
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 5:58 AM GMT
    I had to look this plane up, not your usual 13 seater 'commuter' training turbo prop. This is a very large passenger plane for turbo prop engines (89 ft long, 88 ft wing span, 70 passenger), probably need some experienced military pilots to fly these things, not some rookie getting his/hers training flying hours in as is usual with any turbo prop planes.

    Its going to be pilot error for this crash. The plane can fly with one engine but maneuverability is not like jet engine aircraft, much different with a turbo prop, any passenger plane carrying more than 50 people should be required to have at least small jet engines
    The wing design is missing the 'wing tips' to help with lift, cruising altitude for this plane 10,000 ft?


    Engine failure, engine and props made by US military contractor United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton Sundstrand


    http://www.atraircraft.com/products/list.html

    ATR-72-600-AirLeaseCorporation.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 6:19 AM GMT
    Now this is 'commuter', I once flew on one of these from Minneapolis airport to Fargo, scary-bouncy

    3223864375_c6a1e86157.jpg
    United%20Express-SkyWest%20EMB-120%20N58
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 6:50 AM GMT
    From this shot, those wings are not designed for lift on big aircraft, at all, designers put "glider wings" on a med-wide body aircraft that should have turbojet engines, with those skimpy wings, you lose one prop engine, not enough lift from the other wimpy wing.
    Once the cargo shifted, there was no getting it back, the wing flaps look too short for take off, or stopping on landing

    This plane is a horribly designed death trap, obviously with, on the cheap in mind. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Wing shape, pitch and foil, very important for flight with heavy payloads icon_idea.gif

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSy5j8-92V_iEA9S7Bi_6K

    Taiwan-Plane-Crash.jpg
    glider-intro2.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 8:49 AM GMT
    ELNathB said The plane can fly with one engine but maneuverability is not like jet engine aircraft, much different with a turbo prop, any passenger plane carrying more than 50 people should be required to have at least small jet engines


    http://www.atraircraft.com/products/list.html


    Why? - Since the DC-6 had that much capacity 60 years ago?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 5:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ELNathB saidIts going to be pilot error for this crash. The plane can fly with one engine but maneuverability is not like jet engine aircraft, much different with a turbo prop, any passenger plane carrying more than 50 people should be required to have at least small jet engines
    The wing design is missing the 'wing tips' to help with lift, cruising altitude for this plane 10,000 ft?

    You've posted thousands of stupid things on this site, but this one takes the cake.

    The most depressing element of this story is that you've returned to this site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ELNathB saidIts going to be pilot error for this crash. The plane can fly with one engine but maneuverability is not like jet engine aircraft, much different with a turbo prop, any passenger plane carrying more than 50 people should be required to have at least small jet engines
    The wing design is missing the 'wing tips' to help with lift, cruising altitude for this plane 10,000 ft?


    You've posted thousands of stupid things on this site, but this one takes the cake.



    Welcome back
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2015 2:10 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Welcome back

    Welcoming back the most banned guy on this site tells us a lot about you. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2015 2:26 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    freedomisntfree said
    Welcome back

    Welcoming back the most banned guy on this site tells us a lot about you. icon_wink.gif


    Tell you what, let's take a look at a very very tiny sample of what YOU tell us about YOU, and far too often.icon_wink.gif

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3706949/

    "Motorcycling actually kept my drinking lower than it is now."

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1177364
    Oh, I was seriously drunk, alright. And I do get happier, until I pass out. I'm told I later fell asleep against a railing there, standing up! I'm not sure I believe that, but I have no memory to counter that claim.

    The downside is that when I'm sobering up, usually the next day, I can get grouchy & mean. I'm a happy drunk, but a bitch when hung over

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1901063
    The bar was open early, so my revenge was drinking bloody Mary's until around 1 PM but I'm welcome, a special guest because of our past contributions to Iron Ladies, being allowed to partake of their free food, and yet more drink.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3473942
    Thanks, but I have no idea what I did! Whatever it was I woke up with a rare hangover this morning, and still can't remember what I ate last night (if anything), so it must have involved large quantities of alcohol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2015 5:26 AM GMT
    HikerSkier said
    ELNathB said The plane can fly with one engine but maneuverability is not like jet engine aircraft, much different with a turbo prop, any passenger plane carrying more than 50 people should be required to have at least small jet engines


    http://www.atraircraft.com/products/list.html


    Why? - Since the DC-6 had that much capacity 60 years ago?



    Its not about capacity per se, its about design robust enough to handle said capacity. Take a look at the difference in wing design from both aircraft not accounting for 4 versus 2 engines. DC-6 has separate wing attachment to either side/bottom of the fuselage while the ATR 72-600 has a single, 'surf board' wing attached to the top of the fuselage. As air flows over and under the DC-6 separate wings, it would appear that more lift is generated in this design, mounted angle AND shape which separate, allows for more flexibility and probably a smoother ride. The inflexible, small, 12" ruler shaped, surf board style single wing mounted on top of the fuselage it not getting much lift when airborne. You can visually see that the single wing is slightly tilted, into the wind, if I had to guess, 30 degrees from horizontal plane. Flaps attached to this single wing are extremely small and because its a single wing, there is no flexibility in use of the flaps, which during flight help with the yaw positioning keeping the aircraft horizontal by adjusting through radial turns. Flaps are used for take off, landing and for in flight turns. The surf board wing is found on small vintage, sea, pontoon planes, which is fine but I would not fly on a large aircraft with retractable landing gear, with a 50,000+ pound payload with this wing configuration. It just looks flimsy on this big body and troublesome with aviation lift principles. It has a small horizontal stabilizer on the tail as well

    douglas_dc-6.jpg?w=500
    atr72ext.jpg
    http://www.vintagefabrics.co.uk/images/large/k3661.jpg
    k3661.jpg
    diagram.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2015 10:18 AM GMT
    ELNathB saidFrom this shot, those wings are not designed for lift on big aircraft, at all, designers put "glider wings" on a med-wide body aircraft that should have turbojet engines, with those skimpy wings, you lose one prop engine, not enough lift from the other wimpy wing.
    Once the cargo shifted, there was no getting it back, the wing flaps look too short for take off, or stopping on landing

    This plane is a horribly designed death trap, obviously with, on the cheap in mind. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Wing shape, pitch and foil, very important for flight with heavy payloads icon_idea.gif

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSy5j8-92V_iEA9S7Bi_6K


    Interesting that you used the Boeing 727 as an example of how planes should be designed. When we compare both planes safety record:

    ATR 72
    Planes built: 754
    Hull loss accidents: 19
    crashes per 100 planes: 2.5
    Survival rate in fatal crashes: 29.7%
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/ATR-72/statistics


    Boeing 727
    Planes built: 1832
    Hull loss accidents: 100
    crashes per 100 planes: 5.5
    Survival rate in fatal crashes: 16.1%
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Boeing-727/statistics