The F/As in the aft couldn't have been happy after this doozy
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...eos/MD-80.mpeg

I wouldn't want to have been on the pottie during this one!! This would have been a severe downloading.

Does that require a report to the NTSB?

All I could say was, "Whew. Good God amighty!!!!

I think this was an MD test flight gone awry. I think I read somewhere the reattached the piece and the plane flew again. Does anyone know the real story behind the video and where the plane may have wound up?

That airplane would not be airworthly if they just reattached the tail. Not only would the tail section be weak, but take a look at the fuselage during that video. That thing almost snapped like a toothpick.

I understand that, during certification testing, one of the first MD-80s (then called the DC-9-80), departed the runway at Yuma and broke its back in a ditch. The Marines loaned Douglas a crane to recover it. An FAA guy was at the controls.

Ryan,

I kind of figured (but did not post) that the A/C would need substantial looking over- besides taping the tail back on!

I'm not a pilot, but in the video the rate of descent sure looks high. I suppose it was some good luck the landing gear stayed put and they rolled out.

Either way it's interesting- though not fun- to watch.

OA84

Having worked as an aerospace engineer for Adam aircraft, I was involved in a lot of the stress tests. The landing gear is probably one of the most solid features on any aircraft (along with the wing). We would test the landing gear with a solid mass (Evenly distributed to match the approximate density of the aircraft), and then drop it from 20 meters(60+ feet) to test the gear at a 1200ft/min rate of descent. However, I am almost positive that any fuselage would snap at 1200ft/min, and that is probably why we always used a solid mass.

My friend Jay, owner of the Alexis Park Inn (best crash/weird incident page on the Net BTW) says: "This was an early DC-9/MD-80 certification test. After this little demonstration they beefed up the tail section -- for obvious reasons!"
And the NTSB had this to say about the matter: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/Photoga...t/AAR82-02.pdf

During a landing distance certification at Edwards AFB in May 1980, the ATP engineering test pilot was using a HUD doing some exotic pitch v. descent stabilization concept using only power to control sink rate (??? Ok for stabilizing approach but - no flare?). Keeping the pitch attitude fixed & stable all the way to touchdown (???) for some reason I don't understand. Basically he intentionally didn't flare much if at all, only tried to flare 1 second before touchdown - I mean impact- and never broke the sink rate. Until the sink rate broke his nice airplane.