Stuff taken from other threads.

[VH-Cheer Up]

That MD-80, fus. 909, had less than 1,000 hours, and was still in Douglas Fright Test program when an FAA pilot made that great landing.

Douglas Fright Test? Aptly named program. Upon acquisition of MD by Boeing, I believe it was superseded by the Boeing Brown Trousers Program. So-called, because excessive rotation 10kt below V1 and landing at vertical speeds of 500fpm+ seems to leave enormous skidmarks. (On the runway).

[WHBM]

That MD-80, fus. 909, had less than 1,000 hours, and was still in Douglas Flight Test program when an FAA pilot made that great landing. One broken ankle was the only human casualty. A few years later, that plane was repaired and put back in flight test program, and later sold.
Just a minor correction here but #909, although repaired, was never delivered to any customer. Swissair, who had ordered it, refused to accept it and nobody else would take it either. McDD used it for test purposes for about 10 years, then by about 1990 it was no longer required and scrapped. #917 was also lost in the other testing accident described at around the same time. Douglas built another two replacement aircraft for Swissair.

[ironbutt57]

Hey I watched that landing in Yuma AZ many moons ago...great show that was...:ok:

[Graybeard]

Speaking of painting out airline names:

In the 1970s - 80s, Continental Air Micronesia had a fleet of five 727-100 based in Guam, crewed by Continental pilots and local cabin crew and support. A pilot, freshly transitioned from the DC-9, pulled the power on short final to Truk, and wiped out the gear on the leading edge of the runway.

When Air Mike sent a crew to repair the plane, the govt of Truk said all wreckage belonged to them, just like all the war relics in the sea.

Air Mike sent a Guamanian mech to paint out their name and logo. He chewed some betel-nut, and then painted the golden tail into a sunfish...

GB

[Whitehatter]

Wasn't #909 the one McDD used in the uncowled fan testing, and eventually got filleted due to being ever so slightly bent (like the VC-10 used for the RB211 program)?

[JRBarrett]

Is it really likely that damage like that could occur unless there was something pretty seriously wrong with the airframe already? I'd have guessed the gear would collapse first and/or some pretty extensive injuries to pax before the frame would buckle like that...unless there were cracks or corrosion or something.
Something very similar happened to a USAir DC-9 back in 1992 at my local airport. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13939&key=1
It was windshear-related. Basically, the "bottom dropped out" while the crew was beginning the flare, and the aircraft hit very hard from about 20 feet above the runway.
In this incident, two PAX who were seated above the point where the fuselage broke suffered compression fractures in the vertebrae of their lower backs.
The aircraft was written off. Maintenance crews from the airline stripped the aircraft of engines, avionics, and other re-useble parts. The airframe was then sawn up into rather small pieces, and hauled away.
Jim Barrett

[Graybeard]

"Wasn't #909 the one McDD used in the uncowled fan testing, and eventually got filleted due to being ever so slightly bent (like the VC-10 used for the RB211 program)?"

Ooh, I had forgotten the UDF, or Unducted Fan. It sure made a distinctive noise going over my house at 2K feet on the approach to KLGB. Somehow, I had the UDF tied to Alaska Airlines, as it being on one of their planes, leased back. Memories fade...

There was an emergency AD sometime after the 909 crash, in which they found cracks like the beginning of the 909 break. One inservice airplane had a crack near two feet long, IIRC.

GB

[barit1]

Seems to me the maintence record is more important than the age when considering older aircraft.

You have got it right.

Take the DHC-2 Beaver for example; the newest of them is 45 years or so. Properly maintained they'll go another 45 years or more.

[ChristiaanJ]

barit1,
I totally agree. I think the last Beaver came off the line just before I left university (we had one for flight tests), which was about 1968.

It's the maintenance record that counts. A few Ju52s are still flying.

And a small outfit down the road from where I live is still fully qualified to maintain Bell 47s, which they stopped building 35 years ago.

[Centaurus]

A pilot, freshly transitioned from the DC-9, pulled the power on short final to Truk, and wiped out the gear on the leading edge of the runway.



In fact the pilot was landing at Yap, not Truk. The weather was fine but he was doing a split-arse low level circuit and was turning final at 200 ft agl when he landed short. The pilot had just come off DC10's (not DC9) and apparently pulled off the power too early and developed a high sink rate which he failed to correct. The aircraft caught fire and skidded on it's belly still burning. After it stopped the crew opened the cockpit door to get out and there was no sign of the passengers. Seems the cabin crew got them out real fast and they were waiting outside when the pilots finally abandoned the aircraft. The fire crew had only a small tanker with water and had no hope of extinguishing the blaze. In fact the nearest water point was in town a few miles away and the truck merrily drove off to refill the water and did this several times.

[forget]

........I hope it gets scrapped and not repaired :p :p :p

The MD-80 landing was deliberate, sort of. I read somewhere, :confused: it was under test with the US Navy for Carrier On-board Delivery and it had to prove an XG landing. Failed.

[The Bartender]

...and how do you suppose they were going to get the MD off the carrier? A Saturn V strap-on booster? :ouch:

Check your sources.... Better yet, find a new one... :rolleyes:

The aircraft was on a certification test flight to determine the horizontal distance required to land and bring the aircraft to a full stop as required by 14 CFR 25.125 when the accident occurred. The DC-9-80 touched down about 2,298 feet beyond the runway threshold. The descent rate at touchdown exceeded the aircraft's structural limitations; the empennage separated from the aircraft and fell to the runway. The aircraft came to rest about 5,634 feet beyond the landing threshold of runway 22 and was damaged subtantially.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800502-0〈=en (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800502-0&lang=en)

[forget]

My sources are impeccable :eek: The FAA's story was a cover to save the Navy embarrassment - I'm told. :hmm: Anyway, they intended fitting some fancy slats and flaps, and RATO to get back off. True. Ask yourself - why was the FAA doing certification flights at Edwards Air Force base?

[11Fan]

It's true, it's true.

In fact, the Air Force just attempted a carrier landing with a C-17.

Here's proof !! :O

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/C-17_landing/c-17_aircraft_carrier_landing.html

[forget]

47,530 lbs off a carrier. Easy can.:ok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt1fAy3s8fU

[Taildragger67]

Forget,

I thought lots of civvy certification flying took place at Edwards - nice long strips with not much traffic, etc??

[barit1]

It's true, it's true.

In fact, the Air Force just attempted a carrier landing with a C-17.

Here's proof !!

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/C-17...r_landing.html


It's a fake, it's a fake.

The sun angle on the airplane is opposite from the guy's shadow, and I sure don't have his death wish!.

[11Fan]

And here I figured that the obvious dust cloud would have given it away.

[barit1]

Of course, 11fan, but some folks need more than one data set to disprove a hypothesis. :)

[The Bartender]

47,530 lbs off a carrier. Easy can.:ok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt1fAy3s8fU

...and the MD80 is what? 130-140,000 lbs fully loaded? I'd love to se that.. I'd feel sorry for anyone onboard though...:bored:

[11Fan]

That's absolutely true barit1.

Never underestimate the gullibility of one's fellow.

Regards