C4 - The Plane Crash
Discussion
The end result was little more than a heavy landing. The programme said they were aiming for a 2000fpm rate of decent on impact, but I think they managed only 1600fpm. In most accidents like this, the tail section also breaks away (Turkish and BMI) so sitting right at the back is not always the best bet. I think they were expecting a bit more damage to the 727 than they actually got in the end to be honest.
The one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
The one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
tank slapper said:
I looked at it as an experiment which was funded by the production of a TV programme.
Precisely - and as there's not much money in TV these days, they could only afford amateur plane-crashers and not professional ones. Possibly a stunt team (easy to get hold of if you're in TV) trying something new. Think 'Mythbusters' on steroids 
Sifly said:
The end result was little more than a heavy landing. The programme said they were aiming for a 2000fpm rate of decent on impact, but I think they managed only 1600fpm. In most accidents like this, the tail section also breaks away (Turkish and BMI) so sitting right at the back is not always the best bet. I think they were expecting a bit more damage to the 727 than they actually got in the end to be honest.
The one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
If anything it was the loss of electrics that kept them going. I remember years ago reading the report of the Tornado that crashed near Sandringham, a fault with the main contactor killed all the power which resulted in the HP cocks opening fully allowing the engines to run away to destruction, no pumps required. The navs description was quite amusingThe one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
I think what is needed is another programme to look at the results. When all is said and done, there was only a finite amount of time to cover the whole thing. Yes they could have made better use of the time, but don't forget that the primary purpose of this programme is to entertain, not to perform high quality science.
With regards to the type of crash; there is no typical crash. Whatever plane type, crash type and methodology was chosen, there can always be an accusation of "oh it wasn't like xxxx". What is important to me, is that it was certainly in the "it could happen" range, and demonstrated to the flying public that many crashes are survivable and don't all end up in a Hollywood style ball of fire, even in a tired old plane of ancient design. It would be interesting to compare the G loading and vertical speeds of this plane with the BA Flight 38 (Heathrow 777) incident. I bet they were not dissimilar.
On the subject of fuel cutouts, I really wouldn't trust an in-circuit inertial system. I have known too many of them fail in cars. I'm sure I read in one of the recent crash reports of one experience with pyroelectric loom cutters (intentionally) severing the harness, but before the command to turn off the fuel valves was issued (they need to be actively closed, removing power is not sufficient) resulting in an inability to turn the engine off. Maybe I am confusing it with the A380 incident. From what I can Google, the fuel pumps are mostly run from the engine themselves rather than off motors, which would make a reliable cutout system tricky.
I suppose if the engines are still running, then the threat is from the hot and spinning engine as much as the fuel pumping. By the time the impact has happened, either the engines are intact (and possibly running) in which case they are probably not a threat, or the engines have been damaged (possibly causing fire) and will stop pretty quickly anyway.
With regards to the type of crash; there is no typical crash. Whatever plane type, crash type and methodology was chosen, there can always be an accusation of "oh it wasn't like xxxx". What is important to me, is that it was certainly in the "it could happen" range, and demonstrated to the flying public that many crashes are survivable and don't all end up in a Hollywood style ball of fire, even in a tired old plane of ancient design. It would be interesting to compare the G loading and vertical speeds of this plane with the BA Flight 38 (Heathrow 777) incident. I bet they were not dissimilar.
On the subject of fuel cutouts, I really wouldn't trust an in-circuit inertial system. I have known too many of them fail in cars. I'm sure I read in one of the recent crash reports of one experience with pyroelectric loom cutters (intentionally) severing the harness, but before the command to turn off the fuel valves was issued (they need to be actively closed, removing power is not sufficient) resulting in an inability to turn the engine off. Maybe I am confusing it with the A380 incident. From what I can Google, the fuel pumps are mostly run from the engine themselves rather than off motors, which would make a reliable cutout system tricky.
I suppose if the engines are still running, then the threat is from the hot and spinning engine as much as the fuel pumping. By the time the impact has happened, either the engines are intact (and possibly running) in which case they are probably not a threat, or the engines have been damaged (possibly causing fire) and will stop pretty quickly anyway.
Flawless Victory said:
Just got round to watching this.
Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Thats awful,I remember vividly watching the news reports of this and being staggered by the loss of life. R I PStirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Edited by Flawless Victory on Friday 12th October 16:23
Flawless Victory said:
Just got round to watching this.
Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Thats awful,I remember vividly watching the news reports of this and being staggered by the loss of life. R I PStirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Edited by Flawless Victory on Friday 12th October 16:23
Apache said:
If anything it was the loss of electrics that kept them going. I remember years ago reading the report of the Tornado that crashed near Sandringham, a fault with the main contactor killed all the power which resulted in the HP cocks opening fully allowing the engines to run away to destruction, no pumps required. The navs description was quite amusing
I wonder whether a similar scenario caused this engine runaway after the citation ended up in the bay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px8awNCvQFMZad said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Wonder if it had been an engine under wing aircraft would there have been a fire?
In theory they should detach on contact and be left behind as the rest of the plane continues on. In reality though, they rarely seem to do that. You can see why early jetliners favoured tail-mounted engines. They have their problems, but in this instance it seems they were a pretty good choice.When compared to an airliner with wing mounted podded engines:
- Tail mounted jet engines are bad for weight distribution as the CG is shifted aft.
- Aircraft handling characteristics are negatively affected - CG is shifted aft, which produces a lower directional stability due to the shorter moment arm between the vertical stabiliser and the CG.
- This leads to weak dutch roll characteristics in general, and thus the inclusion of a yaw damping system to keep that under control - leading to increased weight and increased drag, so you either fly fewer miles, fewer passengers or add fuel, which increases weight again.
- modern high by-pass engines in a tail mounted configuration using the 'normal' design configuration is structurally inefficient (just like the low by-pass engines of old) and passengers are resistant to change in general so introducing a new configuration is risky for airlines and manufacturers alike. It could be done and if there are enough noise complaints then it will have to be done because engines fully shielded by aircraft structure are quiet.
- The airframe itself can majorly disrupt airflow in to tail mounted engines to the point that the engines can become inoperative either due to lack of air or due to the poor quality of the air (see early BAC 111 flight test crashes due to airframe blanking).
- Maintenance of the engines is an extra chore if you've got to get work platforms in just to get to engine height. Buried engines require extra labour to get to the engine in terms of removing tail panels, working around podded engines etc - when compared to modern high bypass engines which have massive side panels, and can be worked on from the ground.
Aircraft configurations with tail mounted engines can be useful for a number of reasons.
- By moving the engines to the tail, the fuselage can be much closer to the ground, meaning that integral air stairs can be much more easily integrated, or not required at all (although, you can integrate airstairs in to 737BBJ (and the P-8)/ACJ given the weight allowance).
- Similarly, loading and unloading can be carried out with much simplified or no ground support equipment.
- The cabin is quieter, as engine noise is generated completely aft of the cabin.
/plane-geek
Edited by coanda on Friday 12th October 20:49
50m radio control radio range. Fifty metres...? Which tard designed that installation and who subsequently signed it off...? Just finished watching this and I am amazed at the apparent discrepancy between part of the team seeming to be extremely professional and part seeming like rank amateurs.
wildone63 said:
Eric Mc said:
Back in 1984 NASA and the FAA deliberately crashed a worn out Boeing 720 as part of a programme into understanding the dynamics of a crash.
IIRC I think that crash was an experiment for some type of fuel additive to stop the fuel tanks igniting on impact,it didnt work.coanda said:
Early jet airliners had tail mounted engines to keep the wings clean for max aero efficiency (before we had CFD and someone did a bending moment / shear diagram of the wing with pod mounted engines and saw the structural benefits of such a solution).
But the Boeing 707 (and for that matter the Boeing B-47 which pioneered podded engines) predated the Boeing 727 and all other rear mounted engined passenger jets as far as I know. The first jet airliner (DH Comet) didn't have rear mounted engines either.coanda said:
On the plus side,
Aircraft configurations with tail mounted engines can be useful for a number of reasons.
/plane-geek
You forgot to mention that tail mounted jets are much easier to fly in an aysmmetric condition asAircraft configurations with tail mounted engines can be useful for a number of reasons.
- By moving the engines to the tail, the fuselage can be much closer to the ground, meaning that integral air stairs can be much more easily integrated, or not required at all (although, you can integrate airstairs in to 737BBJ (and the P-8)/ACJ given the weight allowance).
- Similarly, loading and unloading can be carried out with much simplified or no ground support equipment.
- The cabin is quieter, as engine noise is generated completely aft of the cabin.
/plane-geek
Edited by coanda on Friday 12th October 20:49
the thrust is located close to the aircraft centre-line!
dr_gn said:
coanda said:
Early jet airliners had tail mounted engines to keep the wings clean for max aero efficiency (before we had CFD and someone did a bending moment / shear diagram of the wing with pod mounted engines and saw the structural benefits of such a solution).
But the Boeing 707 (and for that matter the Boeing B-47 which pioneered podded engines) predated the Boeing 727 and all other rear mounted engined passenger jets as far as I know. The first jet airliner (DH Comet) didn't have rear mounted engines either.I get the impression that, back in those days (comet time period) the chief engineer got what he wanted, and the staff just got on with it. Fortunately things have changed these days and we have to prove ideas via an evaluative trade study process before moving towards a design. Engineering judgement still exists, but in a much less patriarchal manner (in the UK anyway).
I had the B-47 in my mind whilst writing the previous post, and did think of including it. For me it is a strong forerunner of the modern airliner wing, with its high aspect ratio, sweep back and podded engines. The B-47 was initially designed (the project that ended up in the b-47 started in '43 I think) with a straight wing until someone from Boeing got to go and look at German research on swept wings and sent message back that the aircraft should have swept wings. There were few tools (only wind tunnel and I'm not sure how good that would have been) back then that could accurately (even just ball park) analyse whether the podded position was good or not, and it seems that the engines on the B-47 were arbitrarily moved around the wing before the design was finalised. I don't know what the internal structure of the B47 engine pylon/wing mount is like so I don't know if they managed to realise the full potential of both wing bend and twist relief.
I should have rephrased the start of the bit you quoted. Reading around, and seeing that there was a specific need for three engines, good high altitude take-off/landing performance and small airport access, the tail-mounted engine solution looks pretty good, for that set of requirements. It's all down to the compromises!
Edit:-
I don't mean to say that the guys didn't understand what was going on back then - that isn't true, because you can see they've realised that the engines will be best out on clean air, and the best air is out in front of the wing. I just mean that the configuration wasn't fully optimised because of the available tools. And again, that isn't a criticism, its just the way it was - all these designs are a step on the evolutionary path of airliner design.
Edited by coanda on Friday 12th October 23:59
Boeing were aware of the bending ptroblems associated with thin, swept back wings and they did realise that mounting the engines on pylons - and as far foward of the wing leading edge as possible, would help counteract that. The other alternative would have been a much stronger and heavier wing spar.
Obviously, in 1945/46, their knowledge of the optimum position for sweepback angles and engine locations would be nothing like as good as it is today - but they had a sound understanding of the principle of what they were doing.
Obviously, in 1945/46, their knowledge of the optimum position for sweepback angles and engine locations would be nothing like as good as it is today - but they had a sound understanding of the principle of what they were doing.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff