Virgin 747

[flyboy0681]

Video of a Virgin Airways 747 which landed yesterday without its right outboard landing gear. Any 747 drivers out there that can comment on how many times this has happened in the 747's 46 year history?

 

Fairly good, but bouncy landing, and considering how much pull there must have been to the left, he kept it on the centerline.

 

I've seen films of several incidents where the gear was ripped off, such as Pan Am's 1971 San Francisco incident, but nothing like this.

 

I would have thought that the remaining gear wouldn't have been able to support the added weight to the point where the tires would have exploded. Those engineers in Seattle sure knew what they were doing - and without computers.

 

[FBCK]

Nice short field landing.

[jetdriven]

All models of the 747 are designed to be landed safely on any combination of main landing gear as long as you have one gear per side. The inboard (body gear) actuates from the #1 system and the wing gear from #4 but they can all be extended by gravity.

Looks like the wing gear door got out of sequence and jammed the wing gear. Great landing though.

[rbridges]

unbelievable.  didn't scratch the plane from what I can tell.  I kept waiting for it to lean to the right.  

[Andy95W]

unbelievable.  didn't scratch the plane from what I can tell.  I kept waiting for it to lean to the right.

They're British. They've been leaning left for decades.

Timmy!

[Bluevalley]

Never had it happen to me. That is the first time I have ever seen it. It certainly isn't something we practiced in the simulator. The only gear problem I can remember in the '47, was a flashlight left in the nose gear locking assembly and it folded on landing. And you're right, Boeing builds great airplanes!

[flyboy0681]

unbelievable.  didn't scratch the plane from what I can tell.  I kept waiting for it to lean to the right.  

 

I wonder if bluehighway hit upon it, that number crunchers on the ground told the crew to dump only from the right wing so that an overweight left wing would keep it from toppling over onto its side thus reducing the risk of the right side tipping to the point where #4 and the wing tip would scrape along the ground.

 

Or not.

[jetdriven]

I doubt the QRH calls to jettison to a fuel imbalance. The limitations are 3000 lbs between tanks 1-4 (outboard) and 6k between the inboard tanks (2-3). Even if you jettisoned to a fuel imbalance, you still have more total weight and the struts compress more. I'd guess they jettisoned to standpipe level (28k, or about an hour's worth) then landed.

I had a HYD #4 failure a few years ago on the 747-200. The QRH directed lowering the wing gear via alternate means (gravity) and said to land on all available main gear, end of procedure.

Boeing builds airplanes with enough margin to land like this without damage. Further evidence is the ability to take off at max gross weight and return for an immediate landing without damage. Also the ability to fly with a couple inches of ice on the wings and tail. They just go and go.

The left wing gear came out but it did not lock. Luckily the cylinder displaced some fluid into the #4 reservoir so we were able to lock it down with the pump.

[flyboy0681]

I doubt the QRH calls to jettison to a fuel imbalance. The limitations are 3000 lbs between tanks 1-4 (outboard) and 6k between the inboard tanks (2-3). Even if you jettisoned to a fuel imbalance, you still have more total weight and the struts compress more. I'd guess they jettisoned to standpipe level (28k, or about an hour's worth) then landed.

I had a HYD #4 failure a few years ago on the 747-200. The QRH directed lowering the wing gear via alternate means (gravity) and said to land on all available main gear, end of procedure.

Boeing builds airplanes with enough margin to land like this without damage. Further evidence is the ability to take off at max gross weight and return for an immediate landing without damage. Also the ability to fly with a couple inches of ice on the wings and tail. They just go and go.

The left wing gear came out but it did not lock. Luckily the cylinder displaced some fluid into the #4 reservoir so we were able to lock it down with the pump.

 

Ever have a case where the outboard gear did not tilt?

[cliffy]

Old Saying- "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"    Nuf said re: Airbus!

There has never been a passenger injured in a Boeing that landed with no or partial gear down.  

It ain't a big deal. Does make a lot of noise though.

787 not included.That's a whole different ball game and the jury is still out. . 

[Andy95W]

There has never been a passenger injured in a Boeing that landed with no or partial gear down.  

It ain't a big deal. Does make a lot of noise though.

Are you speaking from experience, or just deducing that it makes a lot of noise?

The Boeings may be better, but the Airbus is WAY more comfortable up front, IMO. Nice tray table and no clunky yoke to get in the way.

[Bluevalley]

I'll trade the tray table for a yoke that gives me full control of the aircraft any day. Having a computer as the final authority regarding any flight control input was something I never got used to.

[N201MKTurbo]

It would be good to have redundant landing gear.

Sent from my LG-C800 using Tapatalk 2

[M20F]

I'll trade the tray table for a yoke that gives me full control of the aircraft any day. Having a computer as the final authority regarding any flight control input was something I never got used to.

Somebody can correct me but I believe the DC9 was the last one to be made with the yoke attached to the controls. Boeing or Airbus these days there is a computer between you and the control surfaces.

[jetdriven]

The 737 has real steel cables that connect the ailerons and elevators to the yoke. The hydraulic PCU's provide assist but the airplane can be flown with the electrics and hydraulics turned off.   The DC-8 and DC-9's cables fly the trim tabs. Its good except when something jams the flight control and the pilot doesnt know it.  It happend to a DC-8 in California.

[Bluevalley]

No airliner I ever flew -B707-727-737-747-757-767- had a computer limiting my ability to maneuver the airplane except the Airbus 319-320. It was called it's "laws". Flight input had to go through the computer to make sure you were not exceeding its "normal programmed" parameters. That is why I refer to it as "driving the Bus" because it felt like you are basically flying it using the autopilot, at least that's the way it felt. Most of us "old guys" (stick and rudder pilots) coming off the older airplanes didn't like it. 

[flyboy0681]

No airliner I ever flew -B707-727-737-747-757-767- had a computer limiting my ability to maneuver the airplane except the Airbus 319-320. It was called it's "laws". Flight input had to go through the computer to make sure you were not exceeding its "normal programmed" parameters. That is why I refer to it as "driving the Bus" because it felt like you are basically flying it using the autopilot, at least that's the way it felt. Most of us "old guys" (stick and rudder pilots) coming off the older airplanes didn't like it. 

 

And if there is a essential power loss? What happens to the computer then?

[jetdriven]

And if there is a essential power loss? What happens to the computer then?

I used to fly the CRJ, and it was FBW. cables go to PCU's, which actuate control surfaces. Anyways, if you lose all generators the RAT pops out and supplies AC power to the essential bus. I asked the instructor what happens if that thing doesnt work, the answer was "the flight controls freeze".  No kidding. 

At least it doesnt need gust locks when parked.

[flyboy0681]

I used to fly the CRJ, and it was FBW. cables go to PCU's, which actuate control surfaces. Anyways, if you lose all generators the RAT pops out and supplies AC power to the essential bus. I asked the instructor what happens if that thing doesnt work, the answer was "the flight controls freeze".  No kidding. 

 

 

Just what I thought. If all hell is breaking loose, I'd hate to have to rely upon the turbine popping its head out and saving the day.

 

And this does not speak of a localized fire incinerating some critical boxes without the loss of power.

[Andy95W]

I'm okay with the Airbus. At this point in my career, I care more about my schedule, pay rate, and comfort.

And if everyone still wants to play the "what if" game when it comes to redundancy, the Mooneys we fly are still single engine, aren't they?

[flyboy0681]

I'm okay with the Airbus. At this point in my career, I care more about my schedule, pay rate, and comfort.

And if everyone still wants to play the "what if" game when it comes to redundancy, the Mooneys we fly are still single engine, aren't they?

 

True dat

[N201MKTurbo]

What about us poor schmucks who ride in the back? We can't do jack no matter what happens!

[Guest]

Video of a Virgin Airways 747 which landed yesterday without its right outboard landing gear. Any 747 drivers out there that can comment on how many times this has happened in the 747's 46 year history?

 

Fairly good, but bouncy landing, and considering how much pull there must have been to the left, he kept it on the centerline.

 

I've seen films of several incidents where the gear was ripped off, such as Pan Am's 1971 San Francisco incident, but nothing like this.

 

I would have thought that the remaining gear wouldn't have been able to support the added weight to the point where the tires would have exploded. Those engineers in Seattle sure knew what they were doing - and without computers.

 

I wonder if it could be converted to a Johnson bar?

Clarence

[flyboy0681]

What about us poor schmucks who ride in the back? We can't do jack no matter what happens!

 

At least I now know what the "barking dog" sound on Airbuses is caused by.

[N201MKTurbo]

I Hope they fired the hydraulic system engineer who came up with that thing....