Latest reports are hard landing and post impact fire

aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community

Translated with google:

Investigators: Lufthansa Cargo MD-11F caught fire after landing

RIYADH - The investigation after the accident, a cargo plane from the MD-11F Lufthansa Cargo will slow in Riyadh. Flight LH 8460 was an accident on Tuesday at the landing. The spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, Khaled al-Chaibari told the Saudi newspaper Al-Iqtisadiyah ":" The aircraft was placed in the landing with such force that it drifted to the left of the runway, then broke fire on board. "

He went to earlier reports from the airport to meet the Saudi capital, said to have been seen that even before the impact, a cloud of smoke on the plane. Even a spokesman for Lufthansa said on Thursday that they had no evidence of a fire prior to touchdown of the machine. The cause of the accident but was still open.

The cargo aircraft type MD-11 was labeled D-ALCQ started on Tuesday in Frankfurt and merged with the landing in Riyadh in flames and broke in two. The two pilots had been on an emergency slide to safety. They were in good health, it was said from Riyadh.

According to Lufthansa was the 39-year-old captain of the machine uninjured, the 29-year-old co-pilot had to be operated. Both should still return this week to Germany.

 

May I suggest a little correction to your writing?:
"It has a series of DESIGN FLAWS that result in 7x higher accident rate than EVERY modern, Western, transport-category jet (DC-8, 747, MD-80/90, Airbus everything, etc., etc.). Take note: the 737 is very safe up to the NG... because the new 737MAX has the same ****TY and STOOPID design philosophy that wrongly tries (unsuccessfully) to "fix" AERODYNAMIC shortcommings with software. In the case of the MD-11, the horizontal stabilizer and elevators are PLAINLY TOO SMALL, the C.G. is too far back and the Landing gear is wrongly placed in order to attach it to the structure of the stretched DC-10 original design. The MD-11 should have NEVER been certified to start with. Same situation today with Boeing trying to magically "Fix" the messed design (different moments, C.G. and relocated engines) with software written by young and inept "engineers" that know nothing about aerodynamics. Follow the money.

 

Did you ever fly an MD11?

 

You do understand that MCAS is not there to correct a aerodynamic flaw but rather provide to provide the aircraft handling characteristics that match the earlier models to retain a common type rating.

 

That's not what we've been told, we've been told at high AOA the nacelles produced extra lift and create a situation where there is not positive longitudinal stability. That's an aerodynamic problem. If it's not handling like the earlier models...it's because of aerodynamics, right?

That said, AF friends point out that various AF transports have MCAS too, so depending on your perspective, the "flaw" may just be the implementation. Everything is a compromise when it comes to designing a vehicle to meet several different goals.

 

It’s my understanding that the only way Boeing could compete with a dinosaur is by bolting on the GenX motors.
This put them further out and so on and so forth.
So it’s a software fix for an aerodynamic problem.
And apart from it being a beast I know nothing about the MD-11.

 

Wow. Lots of confusion.

Amclaussen responded to an inaccurate and misinformed 9 year old post with a rambling cacophony of incoherent comments that mix the 737 Max with the MD-11 (it's an MD-11 thread). It went downhill from there.

Boeing didn't build the MD11, and it doesn't have MCAS.

That said, as others have delved into the 737 Max...MCAS was a certification alternate means of compliance.

 

It's a widowmaker, at least by airline standards.

 

It really isn't.