Posts about: "Lift/Drag Ratio" [Posts: 20 Pages: 1]

I wondered about that as well. The 787 reportedly has an L/D of 21. Unfortunately, Google didn't provide me with a gear-down L/D (one data set stated landing L/D was 7 but presumably that includes landing flaps as well) but it is clear from some technical reports that it is a non-trivial reduction, maybe 44%. That suggests a gear-down L/D of 12, not taking into account headwind, change of elevation, off-optimum glide speed, etc. Obviously a higher beginning altitude and airspeed and shorter distance to the crash site that stated as well as the benefit of a flare would affect the outcome. However, the difference between an L/D of 16 and 12 given the stated beginning altitude (200 ft) and distance to the crash site (1 km = 3,280 ft) raises the possibility that the engines were still producing some thrust or were coming back on line.

Aeronautical engineer, CFI, unused ATP rating, 3,000 hours in airplanes, rotorcraft, and gliders

Thanks for those numbers. Note, however, the max 787 L/D, flaps and gear up , is reportedly 21 (best in class), which casts shade on the credibility of those L/Ds, certainly 25 with the gear down. What is your source? IF the actual L/D with the gear down and flaps 5 is somewhat lower than 16 and given that starting height and distance traveled are correct\x97and considering that the aircraft might not have been at the speed for max L/D with the gear down and the possibility of a headwind\x97then there must have been some thrust during the descent (it did look to me to be somewhat flatter in that video taken from one side than I would have expected with the gear down, a relatively slow initial speed, and no thrust) or the engines were spooling back up at the end.

Based on approximate distances and heights, the time line, the aircraft configuration, surface wind, the published L/D (gear up reduced to a guess for gear down and RAT out), and probable off-optimum speed for maximum L/D in that configuration, it's my opinion (aeronautical engineer, unused ATP rating, and glider pilot, national contests) that we can't rule out both engines being at idle or very low thrust at or shortly after rotation, rather than shut down.

In prior posts, I used approximately the same numbers and came to a similar conclusion (we can't rule out the possibility that there was a least idle thrust available after the loss of thrust), using a guess of a 44% reduction for the configuration from a max L/D of 21. Starting with the height and distance being approximate however, we also don't know what the airspeed/angle of attack was at any point in the descent versus the speed for the maximum (and unknown) L/D for the gear and flaps extended and the RAT out, the amount of headwind, the increase in L/D in ground effect (at a height less than the wingspan) over other than a smooth surface, thermal activity in a urban area, the distance gained in the flare at the end, etc.

I posted my first-cut analysis in the earlier thread.
I've had a bit more time to analyse now.
Those ADS-B data points (and particularly the rate of deceleration) are EXACTLY what you would expect to see from a total engine failure at or very shortly after TAKE-OFF
(it implies a 13:1 L/D which must be pretty close for gear down and flaps 5).
It places takeoff at 700m before the runway end @ ~185kt
Based on those, max altitude was c250ft @ 140kt (or the equivalent total energy equivalent), 500m after the end of the runway.
13:1 L/D would also get you groundspeed on impact of 120kt
Do those numbers make sense?

Exact location of house, Approx distance of 1.5 km from end of runway to crash site .

Coordinates of the camera : 23\xb003'42.3"N 72\xb037'03.5"E

The Approx Camera location of the Balcony is the Red Mark . Can the speed be calculated . Does the speed line up with the ADS B data , Does it Gain Any speed after this Balcony point ?

Co-incidently Another Witness is the Grand Mother of the Balcony Teen, she was closer to the airport as per her . she is saying that the engine was silent after it passed over (but making sound , when it was Over , RAT already deployed?? ) and made offhand comment it was gonna crash . Found that out later .

On this matter, your numbers fall within the range I earlier calculated from doppler shift on the rooftop video's audio, so yes the numbers make sense and, given the circumstances, are reasonably close together.

I also placed the relevant positional data (last ADSB, video source, resting site) into a GIS application and used this along with the audio stream duration to calculate average speed. Obviously it is necessary to correct the speed of sound for environmental conditions but even with this I wasn't happy with the early results I got. At about this time I came to a view that this information wasn't really going to help anyone much so didn't go any further.

From detail that may be retrieved here the FAA noted that Boeing made the following 'Request for correction' (my bolding to highlight why I quote this):

"Boeing explained that the RAT will remain operational as the airplane decelerates through the minimum RAT design speed of 120 knots, not 130 knots. Boeing expressed that the performance of the RAT was shown to meet the Boeing Model 787 requirement that specifies 120 knots as the minimum RAT design speed. We agree that the RAT will remain operational as the airplane decelerates through the minimum RAT design speed of 120 knots, not 130 knots..."

Again I'm not sure this is of any particular utility now, but is included here in the interests of ensuring as much factual data is available as possible.

FP.

An admittedly approximate assessment of the airplane's lift-over-drag capability, considering other conditions (head wind, ground effect, actual airspeed vs that required to maximize L/D, etc.) suggests that the engines were providing some thrust in order for it to get as far as it did. Note that simple calculations based on conversion of energy, e.g. velocity and height, to distance are even more approximate in this scenario.

I would disagree with this. Given the airspeed at 174 knots and a peak altitude of about 175 feet the aircraft had some energy for the pilots to work with. Stall speed was likely around 120 knots so they had 55 knots of airspeed and 175 feet of altitude to convert to distance.

This is my latest attempt to square the circle using all the data points and minimal assumptions. The main shortcoming of the analysis is not knowing the maximum L/D and the speed for maximum LD with the gear down, flaps 5, and the RAT extended. However, if I use a reasonable number in my opinion for the L/D in that configuration and assume that the airplane is being flown at the speed for it, it will not get to the crash site. The distance from the runway of the crash site is from a previous graphic (1.55 km); the rotation point from fdr, permalink 314; 200 feet max height above the runway being generally accepted; crash site 50 feet below the runway elevation cited previously. An average speed of 180 knots is consistent with the dimensions given and 30 seconds flight time. A flare at 50 feet will briefly increase the L/D to 20, maybe even 30 (500 feet more than shown) but still not enough to make up the shortfall, In fact, with a head wind the L/D will be lower than assumed as well as if the speed being flown is higher or lower than required for maximum L/D in that configuration. In other words, there must have been some thrust available.

Hi TT,

Can I ask a question that I guess a few observers will also want to know? Is L/D (Lift-over-Drag?) the same as Glide Slope? I.e. for an L/D of 13, does that equate to 13 forward for 1 down? If so, even at 17, it doesn't look like it would make it.

Yes - Higher numbers are better. The 787 has one of the best for an airliner, almost 21 power off.

Glide slope is expressed as an angle in degrees. L/D (lift/drag) is expressed as a ratio, such as 13:1, which is the ratio of distance flown to height lost. Glideslope = tan⁻\xb9 (D/L).

So, 13:1 is equivalent to 4.4 degrees.

Perhaps a result of being too dense, in these threads I have not understood whatsoever the discussions on L/D, best glide, AOA, stall speed, angles, whatever, as being relevant to this flight. I assume that the pilot flying was flying, i.e. stick and rudder. I give him/her the benefit of the doubt on account of being a pilot. Professional or not.

In the accident observed, the lessons learned in a Piper Cub, or lessor, apply. If you sense that you're going to smack the ground, then by God smack the ground with that part of you best engineered to take the relevant forces involved. Even pigeons understand this. This is a function of intuition. It's pointless to waste ink/electrons on the subject. In simple terms, the bottom-side of the aircraft most compressible without tender flesh involved is where a pilot should be expected to pitch to. These pilots, from a far away perspective, did it right. Proof being that someone walked away.

Two points:

1) I had seen the "50 feet below runway" referenced as well, and double-checked on Google Earth, and could not confirm this. The terrain looks reasonably level. I'd be happy to see evidence for this claim, but until I do, I'll think it's false.

2) The maximum L/D is given for optimal speed, which remains constant throughout the glide. In the AI171 case, drag is balanced not just by loss of altitude (as it is in the optimal glide), but also by loss of speed. The speed decline provides energy, and I suspect that makes up the shortfall you assign to thrust.

Note that kinetic energy is proportional to v\xb2, i.e. a speed loss of 50 knots from 180 to 130 vs 50 to 0 provides 15500 vs 2500 units of energy, i.e. 6 times as much. If you hypothetically hurl a unpowered aircraft into the sky with a catapult (and if there was no drag), hurling it at 180 knots makes it go 6 times as high by the time its speed decays to 130 knots than it could ever go if you hurled it at 50 knots. Of course there's drag in reality, and that also varies with v\xb2, so this is a very theoretical consideration intended to calibrate your expectations.

I remember that someone used some kind of tool to confirm that the aircraft could've gone unpowered for as long as we assume it did, but of course I can't find it again now. :-(

Quite. If all we had to go on was the position of the crash site it might have made sense but we have video and audio of pretty much the whole thing, plus a bit of ADSB. You could almost say that we now know how far a 787 will go when it loses all useful thrust just after rotation.

The real question is why this happened when engines and their associated systems are, by design and regulation, as independent as possible. The top runners at the moment are (in no particular order): pilot action, simultaneous hardware/software malfunction and massive fuel contamination. They are all very unlikely (and cogent technical arguments can be made against each of them) but so is the event that followed.

You overlooked that they (the pilots) were trading speed for range/time. The aircraft slowed down by around 50kts while gliding. That is a lot of extra energy to use for range. It's visible in the video that the AoA slowly increases during the glide (I don't mean the flare at the end).

There is easily-correctable available data with the aircraft's altitude at pretty much the end of the runway and it is not at 200 feet (it's around 100\xb112.5 feet).

As the aircraft visibly continues to climb past that height (and for a longer period than ADS-B data covers, if the camera's perspective casts doubt on that), it seems rather clear to me that it reached its peak height past the end of the runway.

In light of this I find the fact that people keep calculating a glide from the runway to the crash site to be a bit strange. Wouldn't the first step of any math be to try to determine where it started descending?

Thanks - I'm pretty sure that I read all the posts in both threads but missed that calculation as to the height at the end of the runway. I had originally guessed that the top of climb was 1,000 feet beyond the end of the runway (the current location is based on the referenced statement of the rotation point and an assumed ground speed, not air speed, of 180 kts). That still doesn't get the jet to the crash site, particularly if the post I relied on that it was 50 feet below the runway is incorrect. As far as the benefit of trading speed for distance, there wasn't that much extra speed to start with relative to the likely maximum L/D speed for that configuration and any slowing below it will reduce distance, not increase it, except of course for breaking the glide, i.e. flare at the end (there may have been a little benefit in rounding off the transition from climb to glide that I didn't take into account but I think it was small). My estimate for L/D based on known comparables that didn't include the RAT was actually 12, not 13, and I assumed that they were flying at the max L/D airspeed for that configuration even though it's likely that the crew didn't know what it was (and neither do I) but were following the prime directive, "don't stall". I also didn't take into account the headwind, which would reduce the maximum L/D available and require a slightly faster airspeed to make good than for no wind.

L/D of 12 would have needed the aircraft to be at 270' 1km out, 13 needs 250'.

The cctv neither confirms nor denies that top of climb could be as high as 270'. My 1km/200' estimate was conservative. I guessed 160kt average over the 7s to allow for the 25007 wind
and some deceleration.

Basically you cannot rule out loss of thrust around the time of loss of electrics.