Given that the 727 is approaching 50 years old, is there any justification for smashing one up to gain scientific insight into accidents?

Or is it just for sensationalist TV? :suspect:

VIDEO: Boeing 727 deliberately crashed in desert for TV (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-boeing-727-deliberately-crashed-in-desert-for-tv-371267/)

The aircraft was piloted to the crash location before the pilot ejected, and the trijet then descended in a level attitude - guided remotely by a chase aircraft - before impacting hard and breaking up.
I find it difficult to believe that they were able to install ejection seats. Jumped out the back door, I would believe.

What were they trying to prove with this?

-A hard landing can overload the structure?
-Crashing is bad for Your health?
-An 1960s airliner is rather more solid than a paper aircraft?
-A firework specialist is required for a Hollywood-style fireball?

Unconvinced here...

All that would have cost a fortune.

What do you put in your logbook?

Looks like a normal FO landing to me.:p

You can get a runout 727 for under half a million. I have no idea how you'd turn it into a giant R/C airplane.

Date - Reg - Route - Comment: "Vacated aircraft at FLXXX" :ok:

Clear demonstration of
1) why to flare before touchdown
2) landing nose-gear first can cause more than just a wrinkle in the skin
3) doing the above on a soft surface will cause high forces and deceleration rates
4) TV producers may not be aware of any of the above .. or were seeking the third ...

I agree, what a waste, and I don't look forward to the shows that will use it.

Maybe it was being "flown" by a PC flight sim enthusiast and it was done to prove that flight simmers cannot fly real airliners!

With out watching the video, is sounds like top gear, fingers crossed Clarkson was onboard ;-)

Been done before.............long ago :rolleyes:

Y33N0raKZBo

The idea was to research a survivable crash.
Here is a link to a Pprune discussion about the project way back in 2009 when after two years planning a December 2009 shoot was scheduled... originally a widebody Tri-Star L1011 was planned but apparently endless discussions between authorities + greenies + lawyers bled the budget.


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/395644-uk-tv-channel-4-crash-300-seat-jet-into-desert.html

Having learnt from this exercise lets hope there is plenty of scope for a
crash of a wide bodied aircraft with engines on its wings, shot in a way suitable for an Imax presentation :ok:

I wonder what the V/S at impact was?

Also interesting (and concerning?) that the cockpit simply broke off. I wonder what the nose gear assembly looks like...

I hope they got some good data out of that rather expensive experiment. Certainly looked interesting/fun to participate in. Wonder if they will release some better footage?

From the article:
In a statement the producers say the crash "went according to plan and there were no injuries or damage to property".
No damage to property? Always heard that the 72 was built of steel and granite ...

I find it difficult to believe that they were able to install ejection seats. Jumped out the back door, I would believe.

I'm still trying to figure out where they put the ejection seat, so the pilot could "eject", as well. The pilot did not use the aft airstairs, as they were up. I guess he could have gone out of one of the main cabin doors. Using the forward cabin door he's have to have missed the wing and the aft cabin, the engine.

As for the cost of the airframe, old worn out 727s are dirt cheap to buy, as MarkerInbound noted.

Lifelong fan of the TriJets, probably from Eastern and Delta being the primary means of travel for me years ago.
Living near TPA is quieter without the L1011s and 727s screaming nearby but I miss their beauty in flight.

This crash was no way to kill a proud old gal.

As an RC pilot, I would have been more creative and shown some moves before driving her in. At least let her show her stuff one last time...

What the bloody hell was the point? I'd rather channel 4 burnt a bunch of chavs alive. That I'd support. A mindless waste of time, probably funded by endless PPI claims adverts that have driven me to the brink of.........another glass of vino.

Wonder if they will release some better footage?

The You Tube footage looks like it was shot near a local fire crew with an unauthorised camera...

The pilot did not use the aft airstairs, as they were up



Or removed for ease of escape...

A friend of mine ditched one in the Med off Cyprus a few years ago...reason 2was to make an artificial reef...

Friend of mine says an several articles in Spanish mention that the rear door and airstairs were removed.

Here is the old lady heading out to her doom. You can just make out the missing rear door.

ultimos minutos del boeing 727 salida para su aterrizaje forsozo - YouTube

There is actually a wealth of information that can be obtained doing something like this. Not sure what protocols or instrumentation they used but if you are going to spend the cash to do it, assume they did it right.

With the addition of the right equipment, you can get force/deceleration information from different parts of the fuselage so you have data on which parts of the airplane encounter the most stress from this kind of landing/crash. The test dummies can provide information on the forces encountered by passengers in different areas of the cabin.

The article also mentioned cameras which can be useful to study how things break up internally highlighting dangers that can be mitigated in the future.

I would also think manufactures of aircraft components would be eager to pay to see how their new ideas (i.e. seat designs) react in a real world crash.

Last but not least, the pilot who bailed out was probably carrying instruments from the FBI to figure out if D.B. Cooper could have survived his skydive attempt. Probably why they changed it from an L1011 to a 727 :ok::ok:

A serious, scientific crash can provide a wealth of information that might save lives in the future. However, if this was more to get the footage for entertainment purposes then I'd agree...what a waste.

Looks like it's still safer to sit at the back...

SLF speaking
PVTWith the addition of the right equipment, you can get force/deceleration information from different parts of the fuselage so you have data on which parts of the airplane encounter the most stress from this kind of landing/crash. The test dummies can provide information on the forces encountered by passengers in different areas of the cabin.
I would also think manufactures of aircraft components would be eager to pay to see how their new ideas (i.e. seat designs) react in a real world crash.How relevant would those figures be? The airframe is a design no longer in production and the manufacturing process' and materials of the last 30 years will all react differently.

If they wanted to know how a modern a/c fares then drop a 330 or 787. This whole episode strikes me as being about money. First from the TV advertisers and then from selling the 'valuable' data.

Last but not least, the pilot who bailed out was probably carrying instruments from the FBI to figure out if D.B. Cooper could have survived his skydive attempt.
I would hope that the pilot who bailed out kinda knew that the skydive was survivable before the attempt was made!!! :uhoh:

I think there was a spectacular controlled crash of a four engined jet in the 60's or early 70's, by NASA or the FAA?

1. While the 727 hasn't been built in awhile...I was under the impression that
all the narrowbody boeings starting with the 707 shared a common fuselage (not 717, which is really my beloved DC9...latest version). Something useful will
be garnered I am sure.

2. I think it would have been more spectacular if they had dropped a wing and
the thing had cartwheeled...but that will be for next time.

3. I do think this may show the wisdom of putting the motors in the tail, instead of under the wings...I gotta think if this had been a 737, we would have
seen a massive fire. Hot engine next to lots of fuel equals bwammmm.

4. ITS fine that someone make money off of this. It must have cost money
to do this thing, and you can't just do things and lose money for too long.

5. I'm sure lots of people will watch this thing...I know I will.

I don't even enjoy watching the videos of destruct testing for new types gaining certification.

I enjoyed watching this even less.

Waste.

Regarding this crash test that was done in 1984, http://www.pprune.org/7163697-post12.html (http://www.pprune.org/7163697-post12.html)
many of the early developmental crashes were done at the Naval Air Engineering Center, Lakehurst, NJ in the late 70s/early 80s using old P-2 Neptune airframes.

The test airframes were accelerated down a rail system into the test zone using pairs of J-48 engines on a retrievable "pusher engine". They may have also used the onboard J-34s for additional thrust. I was not involved in the tests, but I remember reports in the base newspaper.

Too bad they gave up after that final test:( but the additive could not have done good things to fuel prices.

I'm still trying to figure out where they put the ejection seat, so the pilot could "eject", as well. The pilot did not use the aft airstairs, as they were up.
Up, or completely removed beforehand ? There's a DC9 in use at a California skydiving centre with the rear ventral stairs removed, offered as "jump from a jet".

JvUZZYcTpQI

Up, or completely removed beforehand ? There's a DC9 in use at a California skydiving centre with the rear ventral stairs removed, offered as "jump from a jet".

Like I said above, the airstairs and door were removed. You cane just make it out in the video I linked to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5alQCrZzRs&feature=related


Crew of 4 have a softer touchdown than the 727....

Blog post here on RAeS site commenting on it...

Crashing an airliner on purpose (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/05/01/crashing-an-airliner-on-purpose-%e2%80%93-stunt-or-science/6711/)

More useful full scale test (money no object) a entire 787?

Anyone know what the biggest composite aircraft to be crash-tested has been so far? (Beech Starship drop tests ring a vague bell)

Weird question, but as the rear looks virtually undamaged, the wings still attached and the engines look superficially undamaged, at what point would one expect the engines to wind down? On impact or once fuel runs out?

LiveryMan,
this will depend on the breakup. Tearing off the cockpit will also pull on the control cables running from the separated cockpit to the engines. A jerk on the fuel handle cables might shut the engines already.

Also, some extremely violent movements of the plane (as in a breakup) could result in excessive gyroscopic forces on the engines rotors, scraping them on the non-moving parts and possibly stopping them.

The other extreme will likely be the engines running until fuel supply from the tanks is depleted (or someone coming along to flood the inlet with extinguishing agents).

Many possibilities here, I would say.

A cartwheeling crash would have made it more difficult to protect crash instrumentation and cameras as well as making the cleanup more expensive.
The idea was the crash data was relevant to an incident that was survivable.

They didn't want it to catch fire.
So bearing this in mind they are as interested in the science as the spectacle.
Without the nose breaking off it could have looked a little tame.

Care had to be taken to keep the chase plane away from the prospect of parts ejected from the engine so a cartwheel scenario would have introduced some chaos and unpredictability...like a typical crash:)

Like I said above, the airstairs and door were removed. You cane just make it out in the video I linked to.

Well of course, feel a bit silly not thinking of that, just remove the aft airstair. That would make an excellent jump platform to leave the aircraft from.

I'm a bit curious as to why there was a four person crew onboard. Did they really need a Flight Attendant that bad? :p

I'm a bit curious as to why there was a four person crew onboard.

I'm thinking of two pilots ridding the aircraft with two passengers.
When the time came to jump, the two pilots became passengers and the two passengers tandem master.
Tandem skydiving - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_skydiving)

Or something like this...:p

Also interesting (and concerning?) that the cockpit simply broke off. I wonder what the nose gear assembly looks like...

It was a freighter. The fuselage is already cut around 30 percent of the circumference. I always thought if the fuselage was going to give way, it would be at the main cargo door.

I'm guessing the fourth guy was the cameraman !

I must be missing something but I don't get the mourning of an inanimate object.


I flew the B727 for seven years and loved it but when one is broken up or crashed by remote control so what ?


If there were people in it that would be different :eek:

By MarkerInbound: It was a freighter. The fuselage is already cut around 30 percent of the circumference. I always thought if the fuselage was going to give way, it would be at the main cargo door.

Could have fooled me. All the photos of it AND the video I linked to above show no cargo door.

I`m sure that i have seen over a hundred skydivers depart out the rear ramp of a 727 on some video.

My bad, I was confusing Champion with Capital Air Cargo.

Turns out some of the maintenance staff from my old 727 job prepped the plane. The work was done a couple years ago.

Wonder if they will release some better footage?

Looks pretty boring, if you ask me. No big break-up on impact, no fireball. I bet the production crew were disappointed - no doubt they were expecting something a bit more spectacular. I expect they'll pep it up with some CGI.

I hope they returned the desert to its original condition after the crash.

Just checked youtube. It wasn`t a 727 it was a DC9 of Perris Valley parachute club. Pretty interesting