Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.
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
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.
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.
Quote:
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!!!
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.
Regarding this crash test that was done in 1984, Deliberate crash of 727 for television show 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".
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.
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).
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?
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
but the additive could not have done good things to fuel prices.
