jazzyjembreaze

iTrader: (11)

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Have you watched the full program? They fill an old plane up with crash test dummies and telemetry then kit it out with remote controls so it can be flown from a following plane.

Then they crash it on purpose just to see what happens

Pretty cool job (although they cocked up as they missed the intended crash spot)

jazzyjembreaze

iTrader: (11)

Yes , watched it Monday night
Yea it dropped a way short of thr target
Still cool tho ,
Def want rear seats next time I fly ha ha

dpb

I saw that a while back, and thought,that's some kind if budget to spend on a tv programme!???

Leslie

I am so glad that never happened to me!

Les

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

I don't understand why it came down so hard?

Or was it because there was simply no power at all to the engines so that was the softest landing you could possibly make?

Anyway, planes with 4 engines can still fly perfectly fine if 1 fails and even if 2 failed you would still be flying with 2 engines which could make the landing softer by powering up? You'd need a massive system failure to result in no power at all....?

jazzyjembreaze

iTrader: (11)

It was crashed on purpose
The program aired on Monday ( the plane crash)
An expensive experiment indeed
Plane was remote crashed after the crew skydived out from a adapted rear fuselage .
The guy flying remote cocked up & brought it down short of its intended crash site
What amazed me was , even with the cockpit gone , all avionics , electrics smashed , 2 engines were still running & would be until the remaining 11hrs fuel was used . They had to inject water into the turbines to stall them .
Was a very interesting program

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

I know it was an experiment, but if that happened for real, surely it would have been a much smoother landing, therefor resulting in less damage?

Skoobie Dhu

iTrader: (3)

Engines in planes for descent and landing are so over-rated, try gliding with no engines over the Atlantic for 100 miles and managing a successful landing with nearly 300 passengers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

jazzyjembreaze

iTrader: (11)

Well it was in the desert , guy said plane was suffering thermal
Not helped by minimal thrust , guess that's why it came down short & hard

PaulC72

It just shows you how safe these things really are.

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

That's amazing to think it covered the last 65 miles with no engines whatsoever.

My Dad used to fly paramotors and I went up in it a few times. One evening while we were up in the sky the engine failed on us and we had to make an emergency landing. We glided for as long as we could (which wasn't long) until we could find the best suitable field to land in. I was so scared and took of my harness just incase I needed to bail or something stupid It was a hard landing but a nice relief standing on the ground afterwards.

It was a trike paramotor which looked similar to this;

Leslie

Its the last bit of the approach before you reach the runway where you often find you need the engine power,especially if a wind change has suddenly put the aircraft into the situation of landing short!

There is a very old saying which has always been dead accurate and that is that trying to stretch a glide is likely to be a huge mistake!

Les

dunx

iTrader: (3)

The plane landed short because the crappy Cessna couldn't keep up !
Even flat out the jet was pulling away at almost stalling speed.

The fancy chase plane that could keep up failed on startup that morning, very reassuring, Huh ?

dunx