That too is on the site, whose link I posted above. There are clips of all types - including the LOW fly by of a Spitfire while Alain de Candanet does a piece to camera. :shock:
Bob
Plane looses tail in landing
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
The original incident was a long time ago, but as I recall from the Aviation Week coverage at the time, this was not INTENDED to be a heavy landing test, but a test to show that the aircraft could be landed with both hydraulic systems inoperative.
What had happened was that as the DC-9 grew and grew, eventually into the MD-80, it still used a duplex hydraulic flight control system with manual reversion. Eventually, the FAA told MDD that, if they were to continue to develop the aircraft based on the original DC-9-10 type certificate, they had to prove the capability for manual reversion.
The results are there for all to see. However, it didn't end there - the FAA required a repeat of the test - I think it's fairly obvious why
and the USAF asked that they not repeat it at EAFB :tuttut:, so the circus went down the road to the USMC station at El Toro.
The second time was nearly as good - the aircraft again broke its back, but there was somewhat less damage - still an effective write-off, though - and the FAA reluctantly acknowledged that a landing with purely manual control was just about feasible. There was the question raised at the time that if two test pilots (FAA & MDD) couldn't land it without spectacular damage, how could average line pilots do so?
The basic problem was that the aircraft couldn't be flared without both pilots pulling their hardest (possibly with feet braced against the panel), so it was hitting with about 500-600 ft/min rate of descent - a "carrier landing", for which the DC-9 is not really capable!
Kevin
What had happened was that as the DC-9 grew and grew, eventually into the MD-80, it still used a duplex hydraulic flight control system with manual reversion. Eventually, the FAA told MDD that, if they were to continue to develop the aircraft based on the original DC-9-10 type certificate, they had to prove the capability for manual reversion.
The results are there for all to see. However, it didn't end there - the FAA required a repeat of the test - I think it's fairly obvious why
and the USAF asked that they not repeat it at EAFB :tuttut:, so the circus went down the road to the USMC station at El Toro.The second time was nearly as good - the aircraft again broke its back, but there was somewhat less damage - still an effective write-off, though - and the FAA reluctantly acknowledged that a landing with purely manual control was just about feasible. There was the question raised at the time that if two test pilots (FAA & MDD) couldn't land it without spectacular damage, how could average line pilots do so?
The basic problem was that the aircraft couldn't be flared without both pilots pulling their hardest (possibly with feet braced against the panel), so it was hitting with about 500-600 ft/min rate of descent - a "carrier landing", for which the DC-9 is not really capable!
Kevin
A little video I made with the DC9 clip in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnIVvKnJIOs
Not too sure if I posted this on here before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnIVvKnJIOs
Not too sure if I posted this on here before.
Onwards and Upwards!!!!!!!!
Jetty!
If God had of meant us to fly, he would have given us wings! He did, it's called an aeroplane!
Jetty!
If God had of meant us to fly, he would have given us wings! He did, it's called an aeroplane!