It is cheaper for National, Kalitta, Atlas, etc to do the lift. simple as that.

AMC doesn't have the airlift capability.

Yes.

Well, there you go. It's usually more than one thing.

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the load had already shifted fwd, on landing. Why? That's why. The straps were pulled fwd and stretched, creating slack in the system.

Then later, on take off, it shifted aft, more than normal, due to the landing, and created a shock load on the straps or the anchor points, due to the slack caused by the landing?

I've never flown a 747, but I have flown a lot of heavy airpanes, and high performance, acrobatic airplanes, and there are very few that can pull to 85 degrees nose up, just after lift off and not stall at about 45 nose up.

The fact that this heavily loaded, transport category aircraft went to nearly vertical, just after take off, tells me there was a lot of weight in the tail. There's just is not enough elevator authority to pull it nose up that far, even with full back stick, and full nose up trim, at that slow an airspeed. The wing would stall at well before 45 nose up and it would be coming down, not going further nose up.

Go out and try it in what ever it is you fly JB. Tell us how high you can get the nose on rotation, fully loaded, at rotation speed, just off the runway.

Something else made that airplane assume the vertical position.

Hmmm...what could it be? :rolleyes:

I'll buy that, keeping in mind one of the recorders was recovered from inside an MRAP, and vehicles wore pieces of the compartment that contained it.


I'd like a 747 guy to describe where the CVR/FDR boxes are located in a 747-428, if one is willing.

Load shifts have happened multiple times there? :confused:


As for the cause of the load shift, it's not determined conclusively. I'm not speculating as to whether there was a load shift, I'm not even debating it. People walking around the scene of the accident noticed a vehicle buried in the tail. The preliminary report is out. We have facts!

Sure, the 747 is the right airplane to move rolling stock when they are properly secured as per their technical manuals. You are also jumping to conclusions. Please note, I am in no way saying that was or was not the case in this particular accident. I am just addressing GF's concern about why straps were used.

Every aircraft has limitations, even the C-5.

As previously noted, that would be a 747, and as previously noted, more than enough control authority exists to over rotate, experience a tail strike, and damage the aft pressure bulkhead, as well as cause enough damage t leave debris on the runway.

I said nothing about load shifts.

You're attempting to make interpretations and explanations of things far outside your experience and far outside your certification.

A load shift hasn't been determined yet, either.

Once again, in case you missed it...

Statement from National Air Cargo Regarding Flight NCR102 Investigation
June 4, 2013

Despite news coverage that appears to indicate otherwise, the investigation into the crash of flight NCR102 remains active and no conclusions have been made as to a cause. We have been advised by Mr. Mohammad Afzal Ramzi, an Air Worthiness Inspector and Board Member of the Afghan Aviation Safety & Operation Board, that the investigation remains open at this time with no timeline for completion.

National Air Cargo is continuing its support of the investigation and will not speculate on any possible cause of the accident. We remain hopeful the cause will be determined through a thorough investigation of all the facts involved.

Again, where is this "preliminary report?"

You can get a tail strike, of course, that's not what I'm talking about and you know it. :rolleyes:

Once airborne, can you get the nose up to nearly complete vertical? That's what the eye witnesses said it did. There is not enough elevator authority to pull 85 degrees nose up at that slow airspeed. So something else had to make the nose go up that far.

And those stalls you were taking about, were they on takeoff or landing, or both? And how high is the pitch (and AOA) when a 747 will normally stall, at MGTW, gear and flaps out? If you fly it, you should know you will never get it to 85 degrees nose up, ever. I doubt you'd get it to 45.

Eye witness reports are always the most reliable data in a mishap, aren't they?

They are not. They are the least reliable, most variable asset to which one can turn in an investigation.

Until FDR information (if not interrupted early) is available, we've got speculation and guesswork about the pitch angle.

An extremely aft CG might very well have never allowed the pitch angle to reverse and fall through as it did, despite the aerodynamic stall.

Application of additional thrust, particularly with a nose-high pitch angle does nothing more than increase the nose-up pitching moment. What do you suppose the crew did with thrust when the nose was pointed high, airspeed bleeding off?

We don't know the cause of the mishap. Need we repeat the statement from the operator again? "Despite news coverage that appears to indicate otherwise, the investigation into the crash of flight NCR102 remains active and no conclusions have been made as to a cause."

That's the one thing I've been wondering about; if the all the MRAPs came loose and went to the back, how were they able to push the nose over at all?

It should have come down tail first, right? Perhaps it was just one MRAP that came loose and caused the quick pitch up, a stall, and they were in the process of pushing it over to recover from the stall, but ran out of altitude.