Stuff taken from other threads.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
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.
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Md-80 #909
"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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me the maintence record is more important than the age when considering older aircraft.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........I hope it gets scrapped and not repaired
The MD-80 landing was deliberate, sort of. I read somewhere, it was under test with the US Navy for Carrier On-board Delivery and it had to prove an XG landing. Failed.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and how do you suppose they were going to get the MD off the carrier? A Saturn V strap-on booster?
Check your sources.... Better yet, find a new one...
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800502-0〈=en
Check your sources.... Better yet, find a new one...
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sources are impeccable The FAA's story was a cover to save the Navy embarrassment - I'm told. 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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
The sun angle on the airplane is opposite from the guy's shadow, and I sure don't have his death wish!.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts