Discovery Channel 727 Crash
10-09-2012, 04:39 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: B-73N FO
Posts: 532
And how they kept saying it was the largest plane flown by remote control after they showed the NASA 707 crash. At least the pilot said it was the largest plane flown by a hand held remote control.
Or how how one of their experts said it would slow down 5 knots after the crew bailed. In a 727 ref moves 1 knot every 2000 pounds. Do the math.
Also right at the end I heard "Traffic, Traffic" which if you have a 337 on your wing tip you might expect. The subtitle said "Descending, Descending." I've never seen a GPWS that had a "Descending" call.
Or how how one of their experts said it would slow down 5 knots after the crew bailed. In a 727 ref moves 1 knot every 2000 pounds. Do the math.
Also right at the end I heard "Traffic, Traffic" which if you have a 337 on your wing tip you might expect. The subtitle said "Descending, Descending." I've never seen a GPWS that had a "Descending" call.
The TCAS blaring "traffic traffic" and the associated subtitle was pretty funny...then again, for all they got wrong they did a better job than most shows when it comes to aviation.
10-10-2012, 07:17 PM
#23
Working Class Dog
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Spares Pusher
Posts: 1,668
Recorded it and finally watched it last night. There were a few creative liberties, but given that the shows demographic was probably -for the most part- unfamiliar with aircraft, it was not too bad.
As thurberm suggested, not having spares was sloppy. They got lucky there.
As thurberm suggested, not having spares was sloppy. They got lucky there.
10-10-2012, 09:27 PM
#24
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by 11Fan
Recorded it and finally watched it last night. There were a few creative liberties, but given that the shows demographic was probably -for the most part- unfamiliar with aircraft, it was not too bad.
As thurberm suggested, not having spares was sloppy. They got lucky there.
As thurberm suggested, not having spares was sloppy. They got lucky there.
However- it seems they thought the remote system would be able to have a much wider area of functionality than it did once they got to air testing. If you notice they started out where they thought they would be able to control it from and then moved in. Of course, that is something that ground experimentation should have covered....
10-11-2012, 10:48 AM
#30
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
5 minutes
Originally Posted by Tartan Army
I keep forgetting to set my DVR to record this. It looked really interesting in the commercials... worth watching or just hype worthy of skipping?
Post-crash, they seemed surprised that one or more engines was running near full-power....that might happen when the cockpit is ripped off, and the throttle-cables go with it....
They keep showing the same 4 or 5 five good shots, and try to add dramatic-effect by having the "safety experts" narrate with such gems as "We hope to publish these results some day," or "We have a treasure-trove of data we hope the manufacturers will use to build safer aircraft." Pardon my skepticism, but I don't see Boeing building the 797 "Crashliner" in the future.
I don't think they really learned anything earth-shattering (Pun intended). Un-surprisingly, when the front of the plane bounces 12 feet in the air before buckling, the seats forward of the wing absorbed the heaviest g-loads.
I wondered how they would work the "D B Cooper" airstair mod. Yeah, you could take the little wind-vane off, but who would put the rear stairs back UP before the landing? Ans: they just removed the aft stairs!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
