The story if you are unfamilar with it: Here and here.
If the missiles had hit, what would have happened to the plane? Would it have been able to circle round and perform an emergency landing, would it blow up completely or what?
Well, given that it doesn’t say what kind of missles they were, and we’ll never know where on the plane they would’ve hit, I doubt you’ll find an answer to this question.
Well according to my Sydney Morning Herald (30/11/02) the missile was a Russian-made Strela-2M. It is shoulder-launched and heat-seeking.
It would depend on where it hit, and how much damage was done.
If it flies up an engine, blows it up, and the flying shrapnel and debris ignite the fuel tanks - KABOOM!
If it just blows up the engine, but the rest of the fuel doesn’t explode and there’s enough structural integrity for most of the wing to hold together… IF the pilot(s) keep a cool head and retain control of the airplane, there’s a decent chance they’ll land with minimal or no injuries.
Blow off the tail - everybody dies.
If it blows off, say, the outer quarter of a wing but doesn’t ignite the on-board fuel… IF the pilot(s) keep a cool head and retain control of the airplane, there’s a decent chance they’ll land with minimal or no injuries.
What bothers me most is, if this is Al-Quaeda or their close cousins, is that these folks don’t stop trying. When bombing the WTC in '93 didn’t get the job done, they sat down, thought it over, came up with a new plan, and did the job in '01. These guys now, apparently, want to SAM an airliner. Given their track record, they’re likely to get it right, eventually.
I don’t think their going to win in the end, but they sure as heck are going to screw up air travel and the viability of commercial passenger service.
Thanks, Broomstick, now another reason for people to be paranoid about flying. (And damn it, you’re probably right, too!)
The only “good” thing that comes from this is…
As they do their thing in different countries around the world, it is getting easier and easier to get everyone seriously on board about hunting them down.
This event certainly went a long way toward making the people of Kenya very hostile to putting up with Al Quaeda in their neighborhood.
[nitpick]
Jet fuels are nowhere near as inherently explosive as gasoline. IF you’re quick (and stupid) you can put out matches in a bucket of most jet fuel types.
Don’t try it with gasoline unless you have good insurance
In addition wings and engine housings are built with catastrophic engine failures in mind,
[/nitpick]
Everything you might want to know about the weapon
1.15kg of explosives, heat seeking. My guess a hit to a wing mounted engine would trash the engine but not much more.
*What’s more, twinjets are designed to fly on only one engine for extended periods of time, and oceanic routes are laid out to keep them within easy landing distance of an airport at all times, just in case an engine fails. *
Most likely point of impact.
This is a two engine plane, and the hit would have occured during takeoff. I am not a pilot, but I think the prospects would be very grim, losing power at that altitude.
These are simple tail chasing heat seekers, they would not head for the tail, but for the exhaust from the engines.
Again, I am not a pilot, but that loss of lift at takeoff speed and low altitudes, I think there would be a crash.
This missile, also called the SA-7b, is a “simple” IR seeker with a High Explosive warhead. It is first generation, early 1970’s vintage, reverse engineered from the Redeye Missile the US had in those days, and up to the early 80’s. They should be fired from the rear of the aircraft, as it appears these two were, but if there is not a positive lock before launch, chances of a hit remain low. With a the plane taking off away from you, there is not a lot of time to get a good lock before the plane is out of range (4.2km slant range).
Seems like these responses are minimizing the cumulative effects.
Yes, these engines and structural members are reinforced to withstand (reasonable) catastrophic damage, but they aren’t reinforced to withstand the structural damage implicit in a missile attack. (A contingent of Boeing engineers, in fact, has said the 777 is far more susceptible to catastrophic engine failure than Boeing officials are claiming in their videotaped studies.)
The resulting shrapnel damage, paired with low take-off speeds and the craft’s dependence on two fully functioning engines at take off–coupled with the fact that aviation fuel is quite flammable (witness the recent Corcorde tragedy that saw huge flames trailing behind it) would seem to bode ill for any passengers and crew on board.
I certainly hope so. I’ve just got to believe that sending our military helter, skelter chasing bad guys all over the world hunting town individuals on a retail basis isn’t the answer. Maybe when terrorist actions start to interfere with the operations of the money guys in Zurich, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere we will begin to get some results.
I’ve been on a jetliner that had an engine destroyed on take-off - in fact, I’ve even related the story on the SDMB. “Destroyed” as in parts flying off and smoke and fire. “Take-off” as in just after the wheels lifted off. Yes, it’s a really really really unpleasent ride. But no person on baord was hurt (Scared the crap out of us, though). Grim, yes, and arguably the worst point in the flight for an engine to go out, but it most certainly is NOT certain death.
Plenty of commercial airliners have tail-mounted engines, either one to each side, or one centrally located.
As I said, I have survived this sort of thing. The plane was able to climb, minus an engine, just very very slowly.
Also, jet fuel, as already pointed out, is NOT as flammable as gasoline. Yes, provoked enough it WILL burn or explode, but in reality it is much less likely to do so than what you put in your car. It is quite possible to blow and engine and still have a flyable airplane. (It won’t fly really well, but you only need it to make a survivable landing, not a great one)
Sorry, Tuck. Believe me, I’d LOVE to be proven wrong on this one. But we can’t afford to hide from the truth.
I certainly trust your experience. Was it a two engine aircraft as the 757 is? I do not know the survivability of this aircraft, and again, I am not casting any aspersions, I am very glad your experience left you and everyone else OK.
Yes, plenty of a/c have tail mounted engines, but this one does not, and the question was about the 757, a twin engine model, mounted below the wings.
But I see you are a pilot and know all this, sorry, I was unaware.
If I may be cynical – if it hit an engine during takeoff/climbout, you’re toast - the pilot would have just about zero chance to stomp the rudder[sup]*[/sup] enough to compensate for not only the loss of thrust from the destroyed engine, but the increased drag from the not-so-aerodynamic shape of the wreckage. Result: wing-over, kiss the ground.
And the probability of a 757’s engine being blown apart WITHOUT at least one scrap of super-heated metal puncturing the fuel tank/bladder is very low.
-
- if it was an Airbus A300-600, stomping the rudder would kill you anyway
- if it was an Airbus A300-600, stomping the rudder would kill you anyway
Hey, UncleBill I wasn’t always a pilot, you know - in fact, during the “unpleasent incident” I was seven years away from my first flight lesson. Besides, they’re good questions.
It was a three-engine airplane in my case - we lost the one on the right wing. Still, at that low an altitude (less than 50 feet) the problem is as much the fact that the asymmetry of the thrust wants to push the plane toward the dead engine as the lack of climb power - and low to the ground, a tilted airplane can result in a wingtip kissing the dirt followed by a cartwheel through the countryside. From the viewpoint of those of us inside the airplane, it was a very noticable YANK to the right of the entire airplane. If we had not been belted in we would have had people on the floor in the aisle and folks piled up against the left side of the plane. As it was, a fair amount of luggage escaped the overhead bins and went flying. As I said, it was a really horribly unpleasent ride and still ranks as my worst experience in an airplane to date.
I may also point out that this is the sort of damage sucking up a seagull does. That’s a far cry from a missile with explosives on board. The missile will do a LOT more damage.
The situation is different, but not that much different, with a twin engine, no matter how big the engines are. Airliners ARE designed so that if they lose half their engines they are able to maintain level flight, or even climb slightly. In other words, a one-engine 757 shoud be able to continue in flight, although with much reduced performance. You certainly don’t want anything else to go wrong. And it takes skill, knowledge, and practice to handle a twin engine airplane of any size that is flying with only one operating engine. This is not a walk in the park. And that’s assuming the wing is still wing-shaped - as pointed out, the aerodynamics will suffer considerably after an explosion.
Even if, for some reason, 50% engine power doesn’t allow continued level flight (high altiude, high temperature, or a combination of both might be just one such sceanario, although not the only one, that prevents CLF), the remaining engine power should allow for a controlled descent that is shallower than no power – and, as the saying goes, it’s not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the end. The less sudden the stop, the less likely there is to be injury or death.
I would also like to point out that the 747 can be glided to a safe landing from as high as 30,000 feet completely without working engines. This has been done more than once. I don’t know if it’s happened in the 757 or not, but there’s no reason to think it impossible.
The real key, when an airplane suffers structural damage (and that’s what we’re talking about here), is how much control the pilots retain. The more control they have over the airplane’s control surfaces, the greater the chance of a survivable landing.
So… to return to the opening question… it all really depends on how much damage is done to the airplane. If a missle blows a wing entirely off the fuselage all are doomed - there’s just not enough control left to land the plane. If it blows up the engine, takes out part of the wing, but there’s enough lift-generating wing left on the damaged side to balance out somewhat, and the tail and other wing still have steering control, the odds of survival go up considerably. Nothing guaranteed, but possilble. At that point, a lot depends on the skills and thinking of the pilot(s). People have landed airplanes that had suffered an astounding amount of damage. They have also managed to crash airplanes with nothing wrong with them at all.
There have been a couple incidents of civilian passenger jets shot down by various militaries. In all of those cases, there were no survivors. But, as I said, those were operations involving true military organizations – not some guys with a shoulder-fired SAM launcher. Does that make a difference? I don’t know.
Truth is, we won’t really know until it happens. I’m happy to keep this as armchair speculation. It would not distress to never have a definitive answer on this one.
happyheathen your chances are much better than that if the impact is causing engine failur with minimal structural damage. Engine failures are quite controllable during all phases of flight and reactive “stomping” on the rudder isn’t really required.
On the single engine performance side of things. Many (I think it’s all above a certain weight but I have no cites) airline aircraft must be capable of taking off with an engine out. I have actually seen a Bae 146 taking of with one engine out. The 146 has 4 engines so it’s not such a big deal and I don’t think you’d ever see anyone in a large twin take off on one engine intentionally except on testing/proving flights.
A shoulder fired missile would have to be fired reasonably close, meaning that the airliner had to have been in its steep take-off climb.
Even ignoring shrapnel damage, fuel explosions or even fire, if a 757 instantaneously lost 50% of its thrust while in such a steep climb, it would lose airspeed, stall, the nose would pitch down, hit the ground, and be a total loss.
To be certified, all airliners must be able to suffer the loss of an engine at any time during a takeoff while retaining the ability either to abort the takeoff or depart safely. Pilots are required to learn the proper procedures and to demonstrate them (generally, in simulators). Thus, no extraordinary skill is needed.
But this covers loss of engine power. It doesn’t address simultaneous loss of control (e.g. ruptured cables or hydraulics) or structural problems. My guess is that a hit from a Strela would be a serious problem – fatal in a good percentage of cases. (That was, after all, the goal of the missile’s designers.)
Ah, to be young and naive…