Did anybody watch Curiosity "Plane Crash"?

[ROB J]

It's the show on "Science" channel where they purposely crashed a 727 in the name of science.

Just finished watching it. Recorded it from yesterday. Thought it was interesting, but wanted to get feedback from some of the folks, resident aviation experts here whom might have seen it.

[Ray]

What do you need?

Ray

[Stinson Pilot]

Haven't watched it yet. I'm planning on it.

[Thanatopsis]

I watched it. Quite interesting. It presented a real good reason not to fly first class.

[edwardb]

Watched it last night. I'm far from an aviation expert, but it's been a life long interest and my oldest son is a professional pilot. (So I know how much aviation costs...). I found the show fascinating. Agreed it's a strong message for sitting in the back of the plane vs. the front. Also found it interesting that they determined the "crash position" was indeed the best option. I was amazed how much wiring and debris was in the passenger compartment after the crash. All of the other shows I've seen where they time the passengers exiting the plane is with a clean compartment. That would have taken much longer, to say the least. A strong message to sit toward the back and by an exit. Having said that, though, how many plane crashes, at least recently, were basically just hard landings like this one vs. augering in from a much higher altitude where none of that made any difference. Interesting research, nonetheless though, as they described many of the readings and pictures they collected had never been done before.

Probably the most fascinating thing for me, though, was after they described spending millions for the test over a couple of years time, the final descent of the 727 was controlled by a $300 hobby radio control transmitter in a chase plane, that had trouble keeping up with the 727 BTW. I've done the R/C hobby for years, and recognized the radio immediately. Watching the guy in the chase plane flying the 727 with the two usual R/C sticks was interesting, to say the least.

[Cobra Cory]

I had to wonder how much control he actually had with that radio. I would think the plane would have been on auto pilot most of the way. Jumping out DB Cooper style had to be fun.
I just found the whole thing sort of boring. Smack downs don't happen often and most accidents are usually much worse than even that controlled crash landing. Look at the Sioux City crash. that plane got obliterated and yet some survived. Each crash is different so how studying one that almost everyone would have survived does anything is questionable. I mean how many planes crash into a bare Mexican desert with nothing around but sand and cameras....
Each time I get into a plane I think to myself this may be my last trip. Because I doubt I would survive a crash. Most do not end that well.
Not that all plane crashes end badly....just most.

[mn12]

As was noted the most interesting thing for me was the wiring harnesses that dropped down that would have impeded exit. That said the 727 is an old bird so I don't know if that is an apples to apples comparison or not

[ROB J]

I did some research, and found out that 727 they used was built and delivered in 1977. So, for a 35 year old bird, I think she held up very well. I was amazed to see the engines still running after the crash.

[dukegrad98]

I've got the show recorded, and caught about the first 15 minutes of it while I was washing dishes.

I also found the remote-control portion of it interesting. Someone made the comment that the transceiver system only had a 50-yard range, if I heard correctly. Now...that makes no sense. Even the cheapest junk hobby radio is good for 100+ yards, and a Futaba that I had twenty years ago was good to 250+ (as far as I could ever find line-of-sight) on the ground. Am I missing something, or does the plane body somehow shield the radio waves and reduce range? Maybe I heard the number wrong. I would think air-to-air, anything within a few hundred yards should have been fine.

Cheers, John

[NiceGuyEddie]

hey John: just talked to the electrical Guru at work, he saw the show and he said the radio and receiver servos being encapsulated in the metal planes probably reduced the range. and it's the opposite, air-to-air is worse, your Futaba radio uses signals that bounce off the ground. he said hobby radios will go further to a hobby plane or helicopter, than to a car on the ground.

but he agreed the radio looked hobby-like, and not hollywood-like and/or what they use on Mythbusters. the range should be much longer, as you suggested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



absolutely fascinating. looked forward to this show for a month!

i've been fascinated with plane crashes my whole life - i would of course wish that no one would ever get hurt, but i have recurring dreams about them, i watch youtube videos of disasters, and when Avianca crashed on Long Island circa 1990 i traversed through 5 miles of woods and perhaps a few private properties to try to see it. (i failed.)

there was a Nicholas Cage movie (Knowing?) that had an unexpected plane crash with some very impressive CGI that blew me away.

i have a personal friend that works at Universal Studios, he took me around the back lot once and i climbed around the plane crash set that was used in (newer) War of the Worlds. that's a real plane.

anyway, about the show, i was amazed that the engines ran after the crash. i didn't think that what happened on the pilot episode of Lost could really happen. the cockpit wound up behind the plane, and the footage of the thrust blowing inside the cockpit was amazing.

isn't dumping most the fuel before a crash part of the disaster procedure? and if not, why didn't everything explode? they said there was still about two hours of fuel in there, so they put water into the engines to put them out. i'd guess two hours of fuel would be more than enough to cause a massive explosion in a crash.

clearly, that's not what they wanted, because they were trying to not destroy all the data, like what happened in the last attempt at this type of planned crash.

Stinson Pilot???

[Cobra Cory]

I think the guy with the remote control was very disciplined if he actually controlled the plane at all. I think it safe to assume that almost everyone on this forum would have had that thing doing barrel rolls or low passes over the camera men.....

My favorite video of an airplane that crashes and the engines actually restart and keep running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlreuXRW95g

[Someday I Suppose]

I didnt see it, but also think its interesting on the range. a 72MHZ system from 5 or so years ago will go about 2 miles out with a good receiver. Guys playing with DIY drones these days are using UHF systems with ranges of around 15 miles.

[Greg_M]

Dont' they have an App for that?

[AC Bill]

Darn I missed that show, and I planned on watching it.

I was probably watching another show, on the inaugural flight of the Airbus A 380..The builders claim that they can evacuate 500 passengers in 90 seconds from it. Now maybe in a perfect scenerio, sitting level on a runway, but after a crash ..hmm.. I doubt it.

Didn't some of the 911 conspiracy folk, figure those jets were remotely controlled? I suppose if NASA can control things on a craft on Mars, there must be better transmitters available than a Radio Shack one..lol

[Zulu]

I found it fascinating , and very interesting.

Final rate of decent was 1500 ft/min. Which is pretty strong.

Was also interested in the G forces in the front of cabin at 12 G......


As with everyone else was also surprised at the remote control they used, very similar to mine, and mine does work to line of sight, but as it is spread spectrum, maybe ground plane plays a big part in the signal.

[bhoov128]

Finally watched it last night. Very interesting. I build and fly the model airplanes as well, the controller they were using is around $450. Someday's comment about the UHF receivers is accurate, I was thinking about the same thing when watching the show. To use them your transmitter sends its signal to a UHF radio which encodes the signal and sends it to the UHF receiver aboard the aircraft, which then is connected to the stock receiver to deliver the commands. Maybe the UHF signal may not have been viable due to UHF equipment onboard the 727?

Two things that struck me were #1 - how the main gear broke and actually came forward over the top of the wing upon impact, and #2 - how thin the control cables for a jetliner are!

To see some very cool uses of the UHF systems for RC planes search youtube for team blacksheep

[Epicenter]

[QUOTE=Cobra Cory;2723174]I think the guy with the remote control was very disciplined if he actually controlled the plane at all. I think it safe to assume that almost everyone on this forum would have had that thing doing barrel rolls or low passes over the camera men.....

I started laughing out loud when I read this! I have a few hours in the 747 simulators and prior to the 911 attacks, we would fly under the Golden Gate, do barrel rolls, fly upside down... I managed to crash quite a few times as I couldn't train myself to respond correctly when I was inverted.
The other interesting point was the position remark. I helped rescue three people from a single engine crash while the plane was burning, and recall that the people looked like the Coyote of cartoons when the bomb went off in his hand. They were totally bruised from the impact. That convinced me that the tuck position is very important to protect your face and head.

[jjglennon]

Many current airliners, such as the 737 series, cannot dump fuel. The 727 could. But presumably the pretext for this "accident" was a hard landing for which no such preparation would have been made.
John

[ETriggs]

This was a very good scenario for a Controlled Flight Into Terrain where the aircraft is coming in at either too fast of sink rate or too short of the runway. There have been several crashes out there that this would give a lot of insight on.