Phil Perry Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I don't know if this has been on Aussie telly yet, but I watched a totally absorbing story last night where a Boeing 727 was deliberately crashed in the New Mexico Desert full of cameras and some crash test dummies to see how passengers are injured in airliner crashes. They bought a tired old Boeing 727, . . . (one of the most beautiful aircraft I have ever flown ) for £300K, and rigged it for radio control, . . . an ex-NASA guy did the design and rigging of the R/C control gear and they tested this and found it was OK, providing the chase aircraft did not depart formation more than about 150 metres. They then stuffed it with cameras all over the interior, and especially focussing on the crash test dummies, to see whehter it's best to brace hard into the seat in front, or to just sit and wait for the bang. . . They wanted to set it up for a descent rate of around 1500 FPM, and fly it into the ground in a level attiude to see how the thing broke up, what areas of seating were the safest, and measure the G forces in each particular area of the aircraft as it impacted. After a lot of messing around, the main thing being that the C-337 chase plane wasn't fast enough to keep up with the 727 whih was being flown with flap at minimum safe speed. . . and several other issues, they finally managed to crash land the aircraft, following the four crew members baling out at 2500 feet, 3 miutes prior to projected impact. The guys in the chase plane with the R/C gear managed to get it to crash OK, but it came down around 2 miles before the runway they'd made for it in the desert. . . they were whingeing that the Siaia MArchetti turboprop single they's got went Tech with a bad fuel pump, wo they had to revert to the much slower 337, and said that if they's had the faster chase plane, they might've been able to control the 727 a bit better and get it on the ground where they's planned. Being an electronics nut and radio Ham, I couldn't understand why they didn't just get an amplifier, and an external aerial on the chase plane, to greatly extend the range of the R/C gear, which was something I use for my own R/C models,. . . . but then, I didn't make the programme. . . . ( So many questions ! ) Very entertaining programme anyway, the CAA lady ( from our very own famous A.A.I.B. ) was pleased with the data they got from all the cameras, and dummies and of course the bright yellow black box. I have to say that I am very glad that the pilots didn't ride it to the ground,. . . . the frontal impact turned out to be around 12G. . . reducing to 8G in the centre of the passenger compartment, and down to 6G for the seats at the rear end, . . . they called this 6G impact " No more than you'd get if hit in a dodgem car at the fair. . . " !! The main wheels went upwards, as they are designed to do, and didn't hit the fuselage, but the Nosewheel dug in hard, and sheared the entire nose section off at around row 3 of the frontal seating, the main fuselage then ran over it,as well, . meaning the crew would not have survived the landing, neither would a lot of the frontal passengers. The amusing thing was that, after the dust had settled, the two ventral engines ( a 727 has one on either side of the tail, and one integral in the centre, fed by an S-duct intake )were still running, although they were reduced to throttle idle by R/C at 200 feet before impact. . . . and producing considerable thrust. . . even with the cockpit and all it's associated control cabling disconnected !! the fire people had to douse them with loads of water into the intakes to get them to stop !!! Very interesting programme, If you've seen it already, please forgive my pointless thread. . .! If you have not, maybe it's downloadable, dunno,. . .not a computer geek, it was on UK channel Four, if that helps. Definitely worth watching. . . Even if you are not a fan of the ubiquitious Boeing 727, and they're right, most modern jet airliners are just variations taken from that design. Lovely Aeroplane !! Phil. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yampy Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I'm almost certain that has been shown on TV here Phil. I should know , being an airliner geek I suppose , however, as I said I'm almost certain it has ... Thanks for the heads up though .. Dave C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mothra Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yes it was on cable about a month ago. For me the show was too long, drawn out with what appeared to be stage managed problems. Couldn't turn away though, just waiting to see what would happen to the big bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yes, well, I work away a lot, and don't have time to keep up with all the current goings on. . . . as you say, it WAS very stage managed, especially the bits with the fire brigade shutting down the engines, I saw one like that some years ago in India, and they tried for half an hour to shut it down with water hoses, , but the thing just wouldn't stop. Makes you proud of the type, no matter what sort of storm you can fly through, them engines are just the dogs whatsits. The actual experiment must have taken weeks to prepare, with all the control gear installations required, and the test flights which were NOT shown on the programme. . . . . Well, that's TV. . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Just Googled it: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yes I watched it, it was a drawn out a affair and as I remember the whole thing didn't work to well, the plane was radio controlled of course and they had set up an area with sensors and all there camera equipment. The time come and in she flew but it crashed short of where it was supposed to crash land, I think they still got data and video but I think it was a bit of a disaster for them not landing where in was supposed to. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Anybody riding first class whold be looking at getting their money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 That's not a real crash! Where's the fire? It's the fire and molten plastic that kill you! NASA did it better in 1984! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Right, the dozan or so G's is a piece of cake compared to smoke snuffing you out in seconds. Recently saw a program on an emergency hood for all passengers but the airlines were not too interested. Not needed often enough. Lets put the deciding "executives" in a test air crash, resusitate them and take another vote. Actually that 1984 crash was done to test a fire retardent. Didn't work too well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Actually that 1984 crash was done to test a fire retardent. Didn't work too well As I recall the test was hailed a success, as the resultant fireball only lasted 7 seconds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 ....Actually that 1984 crash was done to test a fire retardent. Didn't work too well As I recall the test was hailed a success, as the resultant fireball only lasted 7 seconds! As I recall, but may be wrong, memory's getting a bit hazy, it was to test a new fire retardent that was put into the fuel and the fuel wouldn't burn at all in that condition. Then there was an injection line to the fuel line of each engine which injected another agent which neutralised the retardent so that the engines could ignite the fuel. The radio controlled flight was botched, the plane was supposed to land directly into the 'anti-submarine spikes' on the runway but as you see it was going to miss them so they had to veer the plane at the last minute. The spikes then cut through the retardent neutraliser lines which fed the starboard engines, allowing the neutraliser to mix directly with the fuel leaking from the ruptured wing tanks and so it burnt. The demonstration was an absolute marketing disaster because the public were assured, and expected to see no fire at all. So the fireball only served to confirm the public's view of the danger of flying. But as HH says it was actually remarkable that the fire went out as soon as the neutraliser pump stopped working due to electrical/hydraulic shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 As I recall the test was hailed a success, as the resultant fireball only lasted 7 seconds! Oviously they don't use the system today. The only winners in the next a/c fire will be those who took along some snags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayavner Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I think they'll BE the snags... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Flying is perfectly safe, same as jumping out of a window. Hitting the ground , does the damage. It's OK if you do it slowly.. Smoke from the rotten type of plastic is the killer in plane Crashes that are otherwise survivable... Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damkia Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Has anyone seen...... the end of the sentence? If you have a statement to make in the heading, please do so in full.... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Has anyone seen...... the end of the sentence? If you have a statement to make in the heading, please do so in full.... Yeah, it's like threads titled "What do you think?" Adopt the position for six of the best Phil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 If you look at the new Dreamliner, the whole thing including the hostess's smile is combustible. Puts a new psychotic meaning to "come on baby, light my fire". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I've vowed never to fly in it. Been struck by lightning many times with thick aluminium around me. Don't want to try it without. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 OHHHHHHHHH SORREEEEEEEEEEE Guys,. . . . . Yerp, I see what youse means. I just fort it might add a bit of mistyque to the thread and get everyone to have a look. . . . . . ( ! ) Anyway, I might as well get a rollicking for this as well as the Moderator rollicking for all my ************************* disguised cursing in much earlier posts.. . . . . I might have guessed that you colonials would have seen the programme before us poor second class citizens here in the uk,. . . . ( lower case intentional, commensurate with our current lack of standing in world ranking. . . ! ) ADOPTING THE POSITION NOW, . . . .start whacking. . . . . . Glad that I have not been banned ( YET ) as I rather like this forum, even though you are all so b****y cruel . . . . . . ( ! ) Phil XX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Toughen up Princess! Oops, I mean sorry if we have offended you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I've vowed never to fly in it. Been struck by lightning many times with thick aluminium around me. Don't want to try it without. Nev Never been struck by lightning-I've been a good boy:yelrotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I've vowed never to fly in it. Been struck by lightning many times with thick aluminium around me. Don't want to try it without. Nev I've been struck a few times, thank God for the 'flying Faraday cage' I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I think it is inferred that God was throwing the lightning and man made the plane. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I've been struck a few times, thank God for the 'flying Faraday cage' I say! Read about two guys who were hit by lightning in a glider. All the controls welded together and it was that week the club introduced parachutes to be worn. Wonder how the Dreamliner gets around lightning strikes. Maybe there is a parachute under each seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Wonder how the Dreamliner gets around lightning strikes. BRS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now