View Full Version : look at this sick video. i feel real queezy now

05-20-2005, 08:26 AM
wassup guys. heres a link of a video of a jumbo jet controlled crash test, made by NASA. Im really concerned about the amount of fire. I will feel queezy gettin on a plane after this.


05-20-2005, 08:52 AM
The object of that was to demonstrate a new kind've fuel that wouldn't explode in a crash. The fuel, if I remeber rightly either came in two parts or had a agent in it that was removed prior to being fed to the engine. In this instance the aircraft (a 707) was deliberately pancaked onto the runway and rail road spikes inserted into the tarmac then ripped open the fuel tanks. The fire, impressive as it is, is not the full fuel load going up only the fuel that had already been mixed/made combustible prior to going into the engines. One of the spikes ruptured the fuel line after the mixing point. Nevertheless, as a publicity demonstration it was a bust as all anybody sees is a jet crashing and bursting into flames.

There was a demonstration in the UK about twenty years ago where a diesel locomotive was driven into a nuclear fuel rail transporter at 120mph. The object was to demonstrate how tough the transporter was, the transporter survived intact but the demo was PR disaster because prior to that noone knew how utterly devastating a high speed rail crash looked.

05-20-2005, 09:31 AM
Ploughman is right about this being a test of a less explosive fuel. From what I understand, the plane in the test was crashed incorrectly. (I worded it that way just to be able to say that.) You can see in the video that the plane does not appear to be lined up properly, and that the left wing hits the ground well before it should. I believe the guy flying the plane remotely wanted to make another pass, but there was some pressure to "get it right" on that one, so he went ahead and brought her in. One of the devices which were supposed to rupture the fuel tanks on the right wing actually hit the inboard engine (you can see this in the video as well), and a huge fireball was the result. Thus, the test ended up being a complete waste of time and money.

05-20-2005, 09:41 AM
So are u telling me that someone was flying that thing? how could he survive? and surely if they were conducting a test this big they would make sure it went right. idiots! Does anyone know if fuel is less flamable in planes nowadays?

05-20-2005, 10:02 AM
Key word: "remotely."

That train wreck thing prompted a memory. In the late 1800s, train wrecks were staged as spectacles in what is now the Midwest of the USA. Thousands of people would pay a few cents to watch a couple of worn out locomotives stoked to full pressure run down the tracks at high speed into each other. By all accounts, the collisions were quite spectacular.

These ended when one entrepeneur decided to get two relatively new and high powered locomotives and run them into each other with a longer run to really get up some speed. Spectators were kept about 100 yards away from the intended crash point...and dozens were killed by flying debris.

Today, we think what we see on the movies are close to reality, and we have no clue how much information we lack.

Sometimes the spectacular wreck is more survivable than the apparently mundane. Remember that airliner that crashlanded in Iowa a few years back? They got word to a local TV newscrew before they came in, and they filmed the whole thing. The aircraft cartwheeled across the field, throwing pieces and bursting into flames, and most of the passengers and crew survived...



05-20-2005, 11:35 AM
Gee, looks like one of my carrier landings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Saw this video once before. It was a controlled test crash for a jell type fuel i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

05-20-2005, 11:59 AM
"Does anyone know if fuel is less flamable in planes nowadays?"

Not less flamable now - still very close to the same fuel they have used since the fifties. Lots of new Airworthiness Directives lately(kind of a mandatory inspection or repair issued by the government) on fuel tanks and the wiring in them to prevent unwanted combustion. Not a lot of things have been changed to prevent fuel ignition in a crash - I think because crashes are so violent that any fuel that would be completely safe would either not be usable by the engines in all conditions, or would require equipment that was too heavy and or too expensive to incorporate.

I think that money is better spent in other areas to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground in the first place.

05-20-2005, 12:47 PM
The test was conducted after the crash-land of flight - was number was it again? The Boeing with the three engines. The upper engine exploded, taking out the junction where all three hydraulic circuits met. It was only controlable by engine and manual elevator. The 2 pilots were barely able to land the thing at all.
Many people died, because the plane slid sideways, causing the flames to go right over the passenger cabin. The intense heat melted parts of the cabin away and caused a fireball inside.
Tests were conducted, to prevent this from happening, including safer materials and fuel burning with lower energy.
Some of the technological results were implemented in later planes (the biggest thing they learned from the real accident was the fact, that the burning material in the cabin caused toxic smoke that blinded the passengers inside within seconds. With no lights showing the way, many that survived the immediate crash died because they couldn't get out. So, the main thing about this crash were the internal cameras)

05-20-2005, 01:33 PM
The tri-engined plane crash You guys are referring to: Douglas DC-10-10, flight United Airlines-232, july 19 1989, crashed in Sioux City (Iowa). Casualties: 110 passengers and 1 crew member (out of 285 +11)

05-20-2005, 01:44 PM
I wouldn`t exactly say sick. It`s just a remotely flown empty Jumbo that crashes and blows up. There`s far worse than this.

05-21-2005, 03:42 AM
I still havent figured out why they teach you about life jackets and the crash posiion. A plane at that speed vary rarely makes a landing in 1 piece in disaster. Maybe it is just a con to make you feel safe. But we all know that bricks were never meant to fly.

05-21-2005, 03:46 AM
Less flammable fuel? Now there's something I can invest in. Anyone know a company making 'less flammable fuel' that I can buy shares in? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sounds like a 'sure fire' winner to me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


05-21-2005, 03:47 AM
Thanks Art-J!

Hadn't the time to look it up on google myself.

There is also a movie made about the real crash, named after the flight number.

05-21-2005, 03:51 AM
Yea, the first time I went to an airport I watched a Jumbo fly overhead really close. I saw the enormous metal object climbing slowly up, the jets roaring as they used their full force to keep it going.

To me it looked like a gargantuan battle of man against God. God didn`t want that plane to fly, but we were gonna MAKE it fly. It really felt like we were pushing a giant peice of unwilling metal to float when it would rather just stay down. A representation of man`s internal and indomitable stubborness no matter what the odds.

I got on the plane and flew anyway. Nice trip. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

05-21-2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
To me it looked like a gargantuan battle of man against God.

Nice Simile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

05-21-2005, 01:21 PM
lol thanks for all ur replies, even the sarcastic ones. I too agree that money would be better spent on investing in other things, to prevent the crash in the first place.