C4 - The Plane Crash

Author
Discussion

Roop

6,012 posts

283 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
HoHoHo said:
The distance between a model and transmitter before control is lost is often further than the eye can see.

However with all the metal and other rubbish in the line of sight from both the 727 and chase plane 50m might be all you get at best yes
I totally agree, but given the massive improvement in safety that would have resulted, i see no reason why they couldn't mount a second remote (diversity) receiver on the outside of the aircraft. Even just stuck to the window on the inside world have resulted in massively improved range. Instead it was stuck in a metal box mounted to the floor in the middle of the cabin...!!!

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
Or drilled a hole in the top and stuck an aerial out...

IIRC the chase plane never flew anywhere close to 50m, so why have a bloke fiddling with a Tx that looked like it came from the producer's son's toy car?

tank slapper

7,949 posts

282 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
They were not allowed to modify the aircraft to fit extra antennae. They had to work within the certification granted to them by the Mexican authority. In any case, the solution they used appeared to work OK. It didn't appear to me that the chase plane was getting much closer than 50m anyway, so that might well have been an exaggeration for TV purposes.

Ian Lancs

1,126 posts

165 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
Some points raised on Royal Aero Society site
http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/201...
(Think it should be visible to non-members)

Roop

6,012 posts

283 months

Wednesday 17th October 2012
quotequote all
tank slapper said:
They were not allowed to modify the aircraft to fit extra antennae. They had to work within the certification granted to them by the Mexican authority. In any case, the solution they used appeared to work OK. It didn't appear to me that the chase plane was getting much closer than 50m anyway, so that might well have been an exaggeration for TV purposes.
Understood. I thought that might be the case. They definitely should have put a receiver in the window then (or several - r/c systems support multiple diversity receivers, which automatically select the best receiver based on signal quality several times a second).

Assuming it had a failsafe (surely that's a no-brainer as it's built into the r/c system), there's no way I would have let that thing fly with only a 50m range - especially when the Marchetti st itself of the apron and they had to revert to the 337. Madness IMHO...

Slight tangent - Didn't realise the 337 was so slow. Would have thought the aerodynamic advantages of a push-pull configuration, retractable etc would make it go a bit - I was quite disappointed to find it maxed out at 130kts...

TomJackUK

356 posts

171 months

Wednesday 17th October 2012
quotequote all
The could have fitted the transmitter to one of the steps at the rear exit of the plane. Then when the crew jump out of the open door, the transmitter is effectively outside of the plane, and the range massively increased. Could have, would have, should have...

Interesting program though. Despite the range issue, it seems like the crash simulated was exactly what they wanted to achieve. The brace vs non-brace issue was an interesting one.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Wednesday 17th October 2012
quotequote all
TomJackUK said:
The could have fitted the transmitter to one of the steps at the rear exit of the plane. Then when the crew jump out of the open door, the transmitter is effectively outside of the plane, and the range massively increased. Could have, would have, should have...

Interesting program though. Despite the range issue, it seems like the crash simulated was exactly what they wanted to achieve. The brace vs non-brace issue was an interesting one.
Huh?