Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Video Of Hard Landing And Tail Falling Off  
User currently onlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2728 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26331 times:

Does anyone know anything about the plane in this video? It looks like a either a DC-9 or F-100. Was this a failed test flight? Was anyone hurt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74ZXW2NlSY&search=airplanes

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26308 times:

The the aircraft in question is an MD-80 during flight testing of that model.

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8683 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26295 times:

cool video. At least it broke off on the ground, not in the air.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineBradWray From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 650 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26245 times:

When using the rudder, obviousley causing drag on one side why wouldnt the tail of fallen off then instead of just falling off from a hard landing?

Thanks, Bradley!



Hamilton: English for 'Alonso's bitch' :D
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26245 times:

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Was this a failed test flight?

Do you think?

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Was anyone hurt?

Not that I'm aware of.

If I recall the story correctly it was an FAA pilot in the left seat and a McD pilot in the right, and they came down a too high a "sink rate". Happened at EDW, IIRC...

Although the aircraft was repaired, I don't think it ever saw revenue service with an airline, and stayed with McD and was their demo aircraft for the unducted fan (UDF) engine... Scrapped in Sherman, Texas some years ago...

[Edited 2006-06-14 00:44:58]

User currently onlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2728 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26227 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
Although the aircraft was repaired,

That is scary, did you see the flex that was put on that aircraft after the tail fell off?


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26118 times:

It happened during flight test and resulted in structural mods to the fuselage.

User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26015 times:

were they specifically testing it for a hard landing or was this an accident?

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 26002 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 5):
That is scary, did you see the flex that was put on that aircraft after the tail fell off?

Shortly after this happened, I ended up at Air Florida, as did a former McD person, and we shared a crashpad near MIA with some other guys. He told us all about the incident, and that it had been videotaped. (When the video clip hit the net a couple of years ago, I'd been waiting to see it for 20+ years). He said after the pilots got it stopped, they were quite surprised to look back and see daylight out the back end....


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25980 times:

Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
were they specifically testing it for a hard landing or was this an accident?

IIRC, they were testing it for a landing based on a certain sink rate, and the sink rate increased over what they were planning on and was enough to shear the tail off...


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7553 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25938 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
Although the aircraft was repaired, I don't think it ever saw revenue service with an airlin

From what I know that aircraft is in service with American Airlines now.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
If I recall the story correctly it was an FAA pilot in the left seat and a McD pilot in the right, and they came down a too high a "sink rate". Happened at EDW, IIRC...

No, they did it on purpose, they were suppose to come in hard, it was a actual test, with the results they didn't want needless to say.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25841 times:

IIRC There were a few injuries among the crew.

Cant recall what though,


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25813 times:

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 10):
From what I know that aircraft is in service with American Airlines now.

No it is not.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25792 times:

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 10):
From what I know that aircraft is in service with American Airlines now.

Don't think so..


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Newton



http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800502-0&lang=en


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2444 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25754 times:

Here is the NTSB report of the incident. This should answer all your questions.

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR82-02.pdf

.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25740 times:

This has been posted many times before..which is fine. It's always fun to watch.

This was a test model aircraft. The hard landing was intentional. The tail falling off was not intentional. The accident understandably caused a major redesign of the tail support structure.



Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25693 times:

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 10):
No, they did it on purpose, they were suppose to come in hard, it was a actual test, with the results they didn't want needless to say.

Check out pages 2-3 of the NTSB report that someone was kind enough to link...

They had a sink rate of 700-800fpm as a target, and one of the flight test engineers mentioned it as 1,000fpm just before they hit...


User currently offlineTbnist03 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 106 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25642 times:

Geez...I cringed the first time I watched that. That's a pretty sweet video though.


Thanks



-Mike
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25571 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 13):
Don't think so.

You're right. It was written off.
Frame 48001, W.O. 6-19-80
At that time it was labeled a DC-9-80.

safe

[Edited 2006-06-14 02:40:05]


If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25539 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 18):

You're right. It was written off.
Frame 48001, W.O. 6-19-80

No, I said (to the other poster) that it wasn't flying for AA...

The aircraft was not written off after the EDW accident---was repaired, and used as a demo aircraft for GE's UDF engine....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Kirby



Search the photo database for "N980DC" and you'll see several other pictures....

[Edited 2006-06-14 02:48:05]

User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25477 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 19):
OPNLguy

I know it was you said it was NOT American.
You are on to something...W O was not in the book.
I did note that N980DC was frame 48000...a different bird.

The manufactures book said damaged beyond repair.


"N1002G...Douglas ..damaged beyond repair, Yuma, AZ 6-19-80"
safe

[Edited 2006-06-14 02:58:04]


If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25430 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 20):

"N1002G...Douglas ..damaged beyond repair, Yuma, AZ 6-19-80"

That's a different MD-80, the one the crane fell on in YUM.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800619-0&lang=en

The summer of 1980 wasn't kind to MD-80 prototypes...  Wink

[Edited 2006-06-14 03:06:15]

User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25396 times:

OHHHHHHHH yeah..now I remember that story.......thanks for rattling the memory.
 blockhead  safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 25378 times:

No prob. More than a few people have confused the two, since they happened so close to one another, and the EDW one had flown in from YUM for the tests...

User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 838 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 22503 times:

I'm impressed that the plane is responsive enough to halt that high a rate of descent in less than 50 feet (as detailed in the NTSB report CitationJet mentioned):

"The analysis of the go-around capability showed that if the go-around had been started at 50 feet it would have been completed successfully. During the engineering analysis, as the aircraft descended through 50 feet, the go-around was initiated with a 13.8' TEU elevator deflection followed 0.5 seconds later by the application of go-around thrust. With the elevators held at the position noted above, the aircraft rotated to a 11.8' noseup pitch attitude. The data showed that the aircraft would have descended 43 feet during the maneuver and cleared the runway by 7 feet.

During the DC-9-80 landing performance tests, a test pilot had made an actual go-around from 50 feet because of an excessive rate of descent (912 fpm) at that height. The aircraft was in the 40' flap landing configuration, its landing weight was 124,030 pounds, Vref was 128 KIAS, and the engine EPR's were 1.28 when the pilot began the go-around. At 50 feet, the pilot applied up-elevator and the elevators were deflected to 10 TEU. About 0.5 seconds after the elevator input, the thrust was increased to the go-around thrust, and the aircraft was rotated to a 8' noseup pitch attitude. Comparison of these data with the data derived in the go-around analysis above showed that the test aircraft's engines' thrust was slightly higher at the beginning of the maneuver. The elevator deflection on the test aircraft was the same as that used for the analysis; however, its noseup pitch attitude was 3.8' lower. During the actual go-around, the test aircraft descended 45 feet and it cleared the runway by about 5 feet. The data derived from the actual maneuver in conjunction with the data derived from the engineering analysis indicated that a successful go-around could have been made on the accident approach if the pilot had begun the maneuver at 50 feet."



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
25 Skywatch : Why was the nose gear sparking? Were the struts flexing so much that they made contact with something they weren't supposed to? It almost appears as i
26 A320ajm : The plane seemed to be alright after it had landed even after it had lost the tail e.g. it did not crash or set on fire.
27 Isitsafenow : There also was a buckle on top of the fuselege just behind the pax loading door. Those photos were published in Aviation Week a few days after the inc
28 Post contains images United787 : I would love to see those. I am surprised the tail fell off, afterall I have had numerous landings worse than that on my flight stimulator and seemed
29 Texfly101 : lololol...oh how true. That's the best thing about flight sims. Being able to do things that you know what the outcome is before doing them and then
30 Tbnist03 : Yeah, the ground around KGRR in my edition of FS9 is littered with craters...good times though...
31 Briboy : From the report: "The aircraft landed very hard, and as a result, the nose fell through and the nose wheel tires blew out." /Brian
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Video: MD80 Hard Landing, Loses Tail And Gear posted Wed Mar 31 2004 08:16:24 by Concord977
Video Of Plane Landing On Motorway posted Sun Jun 12 2005 21:34:39 by BCAL
Landing And Take Off Video From Cabin Window posted Fri Apr 16 2004 22:23:40 by BRINK777
What Do You Make Of This Landing? (Video) posted Mon Oct 16 2006 02:00:01 by BMIbaby733
Zoom Airlines , Very Hard Landing ( Video ) posted Fri Jun 16 2006 01:35:12 by MSYYZ
Where Find Photo Of Wheels Falling Off QF743(FCO) posted Thu Dec 8 2005 05:56:27 by Simpilicity
MD80 Hard Landing Video posted Mon Nov 7 2005 00:18:22 by B787
And It Is Off Again, Kind Of posted Fri Nov 4 2005 03:39:52 by Csturdiv
ATR 42 Of Airlinair (F) Makes Hard Landing posted Mon Aug 29 2005 20:49:43 by Beaucaire
Landing And Taking Off From MEX posted Sun Mar 6 2005 19:01:06 by Captaink