next topic »

[on:]

They cut through the floor of the passenger compartment and attached servios to the physical control cables running to the plane's control surfaces and engines.

Using an off-the-shelf rf controller for model planes they were then able to control the pitch, banking and thrust of a real Boeing 727.
The aircraft took off with crew onboard. Six people then bailed out using three parachutes.

The pilot and a photographer remained. After switching the aircraft to remote control they also bailed out. It has to be said they did not hang about after switching to remote.

After that the plane was flown for five miles using the rf controller to an intended deliberate crash.

[Reply #1 on:]

I think I saw this on Discovery channel. The remote controller person was flying on a separate chase plane behind the 727.

[Reply #2 on:]

Yes, the chase plane had to stay within 50m of the 727 which was a bit of a problem because the top speed of the chase plane was close to the stall speed of the 727.

Amazingly you can buy a working 727 for $300k, I thought it would be a lot more.

The program is a bit of a tease because you have to watch a while to see the crash, but it was interesting.

[Reply #3 on:]

Yes, the chase plane had to stay within 50m of the 727 which was a bit of a problem because the top speed of the chase plane was close to the stall speed of the 727.

Amazingly you can buy a working 727 for $300k, I thought it would be a lot more.

The program is a bit of a tease because you have to watch a while to see the crash, but it was interesting.

As I recall I was rather disappointed in the 'crash' as it seemed to be more like a high speed landing gone bad rather then a near vertical crash I was hoping for.

Lefty

[Reply #4 on:]

No, I don't think they're aiming for a vertical crash... but they "crashed" far short from the target area.

I think they're too afraid to overshoot their designated target area and "lose" the plane.

[Reply #5 on:]

No, I don't think they're aiming for a vertical crash... but they "crashed" far short from the target area.

I think they're too afraid to overshoot their designated target area and "lose" the plane.

I had no prior idea of what they were aiming at, I just know it seemed a pretty wimpy crash from what I wished to see. 

Lefty

[Reply #6 on:]

I had no prior idea of what they were aiming at, I just know it seemed a pretty wimpy crash from what I wished to see. 

Yeah, pretty disappointed at this show too.... crash, end of show, commercial.

Their target is that large expanse of dessert they buldozzed, flattend, prepared, and aimed most of their remote cameras (of course, no camera operator will be standing behind the camera that can pan and tilt and follow the plane if the plane landed somewhere else.)
 
Ooops.... they fell short. 

[Reply #7 on:]

Was that crash for testing the fuel that was supposed to burn less in a crash?

[Reply #8 on:]

Was that crash for testing the fuel that was supposed to burn less in a crash?

Nope. They wanted to see what exactly happened to passengers in a crash. The setup was to simulate a failed emergency landing, not a full on crash. I think they hit the ground at something like 40MPH. They were trying to recreate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration, but with less fire so they could focus on what happens to the people inside the plane.

If you have an Amazon account you can watch the video here:
http://www.amazon.com/Plane-Crash/dp/B009O2YX1W/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1360722655&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=curiocity

for $2.

[Reply #9 on:]

This is more amazing than that lame Discovery show.

260 people on board, no landing gear! Happened in Poland.
There's a 45 minute feature video I saw detailing this incident more fully, but can't find it.

here's a clip instead.

[Reply #10 on:]

As I recall I was rather disappointed in the 'crash' as it seemed to be more like a high speed landing gone bad rather then a near vertical crash I was hoping for.

They wanted a survivable but fairly violent crash so that they could get information from crash dummies etc.
In the end the crash they produced would have killed 25% of the people so they probably got it right.

It seems the undercarriages on the wings are designed to shear off to avoid damaging the wing fuel tanks and they behaved as planned. The undercarriage under the cockpit was not designed to shear off but it did look as if it was then responsible for ripping the cockpit right off the plane. The crew and first class were totaled.

The passengers at the front of the plane got hit by 12g, at the rear it was 6g.

Brace position won over sitting upright, though I thought the upright dummy was a bit unlucky.
One thing that I found interesting was that the brace position did not appear to threaten peoples necks as you might think, but made them more likely to break their legs. Because the braced person is leaning over their legs the legs are not free to move up and so undergo a lot of stress and slide back under the seat.

Great that you can fly a 727 with an RF controller even if only for a few miles.

[Reply #11 on:]

Amazingly you can buy a working 727 for $300k, I thought it would be a lot more.

Then find out how many million to get it certified to fly at all much less with passengers.

The FAA: We're not happy till you're not happy.