It would, but the 78’s FBW handles most of the yaw. 
If the proper technique was followed then it should still go up on one engine, however if the gear is left down it probably won’t. However it’s possible the gear was just left down as there were bigger issues to worry about, such as a dual engine failure. 
This remains a mystery so far, but without stating the obvious, planes don’t just come down like that without a major issue.

Current 787 pilot initial impressions based on video clips:

Summary: High, Hot, Heavy conditions + possible intersection departure + possible inadequate flaps + no gear retract apparent

48 minutes ago, jon b said:

However it’s possible the gear was just left down as there were bigger issues to worry about, such as a dual engine failure. 

What's your opinion on the landing gear bogies being tilted in the wrong direction in the video showing the aircraft going down? Possible failed gear retraction sequence due to hydraulic issues as a result of engine failures? 

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I have the impression that the aircraft yaws to the right on takeoff, but apparently there was no significative xwind, so, if that's the case it could be caused by a loss of thrust from the right engine (?)

They may have known they were going down and made a turn to avoid obsticles

2 hours ago, jon b said:

The required flap setting would most likely on that runway would have been flap 5, however being full and in a hot climate a larger setting may have been required.

Jon, a question about the takeoff position. It appears just over half the runway was used instead of full length. If ATC asked the pilot if he could manage such a takeoff would he have to adjust the data in the CDU to reflect that? Can the CDU be programmed for less than full length?

Obviously V1 would change so I’m wondering if it calculated there was enough runway available given the temp, weight and flap setting. Looking at how late it left the ground it strikes me as very unusual.

When you suggested flap 5 would be adequate would that be based on full length or the actual takeoff position.

I was in the 787 for a very brief period of time, but the airplane performs well even in a V1 cut at max takeoff and at 47 °C. However, it may struggle initially during cleanup at a rate of climb of 500 ft/min. 

 @jon b can elaborate more on this being current in the airplane.

Something went really wrong here. Nonetheless, it's amazing to see how people start making all kinds of speculations. It would be really nice to wait for the investigation to take place. God rest these people! 

It's so odd to see a large modern airliner appear to stall calmly into the ground.  

Just awful!!

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

When you suggested flap 5 would be adequate would that be based on full length or the actual takeoff position.

Based on the rough figure of an 11,000ft runway I’ve seen mentioned. I’ve not looked into anything about this incident other than watching the 2 clips posted here above. As @LRBS says it wouldn’t be right to speculate at this stage, I’ve thus far only off the top of my head  mentioned a plausible scenario , that being the amount of large birds which are a real hazard at all Indian airports I’ve visited.

The 787 uses the lowest flap setting possible using all the runway available to gain speed and then have a better initial climb performance due to there being less drag (more economical). The V speeds on the 787 are higher than the 744 which surprised me initially as it’s much lighter.

The 747 worked on a slightly different principle of using a higher flap setting , usually 20 ,to get its huge mass airborne earlier then use brute force to overcome the drag of the higher flap.

For most operations on the 787 flap 5 is the default, once you start getting hot , high , heavy or have a shorter runway you’ll start to see those 10 to 18 degree flap settings being used( on the 789, the -8 doesn’t have as many flap settings)

To answer your question , yes , the onboard performance tool in the built in EFB has a drop down menu where runway intersections can be selected. The performance is calculated on these EFBs and is then transmitted over to the FMCs which will then indicate the “shortening “ of the runway on the take off page.

Edited June 12, 2025Jun 12 by jon b

In one vid from outside the fence it appears to have run the full length of the runway kicking up dust on takeoff to get lift.

Another video sounds as if the RAT was deployed before the crash, the RAT deploys automatically with loss of power. Hard to see in the video if it is deployed it’s too far. The preliminary report will determine this

8 hours ago, jon b said:

To answer your question , yes , the onboard performance tool in the built in EFB has a drop down menu where runway intersections can be selected. The performance is calculated on these EFBs and is then transmitted over to the FMCs which will then indicate the “shortening “ of the runway on the take off page.

Thanks Jon. My question was a general one rather than for this specific incident. Interesting how it compares to the 747 in terms of getting airborne. All about fuel saving I imagine.

just heard on the radio the last message heard from the pilots is  that they lost both power to both engines and thrust

8 hours ago, jon b said:

The 747 worked on a slightly different principle of using a higher flap setting , usually 20 ,to get its huge mass airborne earlier then use brute force to overcome the drag of the higher flap.

I always remember the take-off run at Jo’burg back in 2008. With an altitude of 5,558ft ASL and a heavy BA747 it took over 50 seconds to get airborne. Just as well the runway length is 14,500ft.

26 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

just heard on the radio the last message heard from the pilots is  that they lost both power to both engines and thrust

That would make perfect sense with the aircraft’s behaviour, and also if the reports of the RAT being deployed are true it would tie into that scenario.

Again the flaps being forgotten or a performance issue from taking off from an intersection rather than full length doesn’t seem to fit to me. If that was the case as I said earlier I would have expected the aircraft to have either run off the end or to have barely climbed , this climbing out then slowly descending as seen on the videos just doesn’t fit that scenario.

Again if I were to speculate, I’d suspect a flock of large birds is involved somewhere.

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by jon b

10 hours ago, james42 said:

What's your opinion on the landing gear bogies being tilted in the wrong direction in the video

I’ve not noticed that, loss of hydraulic pressure may cause an issue with the gear tilt. Certainly it could on the 747 but the 787 doesn’t have a gear tilt EICAS message so it may work differently, the manuals don’t cover that mechanism, so I’m not sure.

The RAT if deployed should provide hydraulic pressure to the centre system which is responsible for the gear.