I agree that there was probably some other factor they didn't mention that would
virtually guarantee the plane would hit the ground somewhere in the desert rather than fly
away. For instance, I seem to recall from my flight sim days auto-pilots usually have a
few different modes where you can set a target altitude or climb/descent rate but still push
the sticks around to guide it a bit. If the pilots set the target altitude below ground level
before they exited, it was going to "land" no matter what happened with the RC control.

That said, I think their RC control was pretty darn flaky. The comment the RC pilot
made about "remind me to hold the antenna above the dash" when they switched back
to the 337 made me think he'd experienced a few failsafes in earlier testing with it
held in his lap.

ian

I don't understand why their 337 was so slow. A 337 should be able to cruise at around 160 knots.

Originally Posted by bjaffee

Well, they had a choice not to do it at all if safety was really a factor (that and spending a good amount of time in a Mexican jail if something had gone wrong). Which is what makes me thing the situation wasn't really so dramatic as that.

Did you even watch the program? The risks were minimal. IMO this was well planned and executed. Nasa tried similar "experiment" that failed miserably at far more cost with less usable data.

Mike

Originally Posted by mike2663

Did you even watch the program? The risks were minimal. IMO this was well planned and executed. Nasa tried similar "experiment" that failed miserably at far more cost with less usable data.

Mike

Yes, I did even watch the program...did you? How was it explained that the risks minimal? I'm not saying it wasn't well planned in reality, but the program made every effort to point out how close to failure everything was in that a) the Cessna could just barely keep up with the 727, to the point where flying through thermals was an issue, and b) the radio range was only 50-75 feet.

Regarding the NASA thing, you do realize that the conditions of the test were quite different, right? NASA was testing a new kind of fuel that was supposed to not atomize before getting to special processors just upstream of the engines, preventing a fire if the fuel tanks ruptured. They set up big steel slicers to purposely slice into the wing on impact and rupture the fuel tanks. As the program mentioned, the jet landed at the wrong angle and a slicer went right through the engine, igniting the fuel. If the Discovery guys had been trying something similar (not suggesting that they should have) I doubt they would have anywhere near the precision to pull it off successfully either...heck, they didn't even make it to the "runway."

Please don't take this to mean that I didn't enjoy the show, because I did. It's just about every "reality" show you sees these days makes an effort to over-dramatize everything (including the parachute jump that went "terribly wrong" in the Jet Crash show).

Originally Posted by mike2663

The risks were minimal. IMO this was well planned and executed.

Serious question: Do you have info beyond what was shown on the program or are you basing your opinions on what was shown?

There was a talk on the project at this year's Society of Experimental Test Pilots' symposium, I'll see if I can get my hands on some for the briefing material.

IMNSHO there was not enough non-sensationalized info on the show alone to make a reasonable judgement about the risk, planning, or execution - but it's tough to expect more from an entertainment program. This was the Discovery Channel, not a peer-reviewed technical journal. It wasn't much more than a two-hour YouTube clip.

Nauga,
who wonders if there really is a pony in there somewhere

BTW, for those interested, here's some info on the NASA 720 controlled crash expiriment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control..._Demonstration

The Discovery Channel show seems to insinuate that it was a total failure, and nothing was learned, but among other things:

As a result of analysis of the crash, the FAA instituted new flammability standards for seat cushions which required the use of fire-blocking layers, resulting in seats which performed better than those in the test.[5] They also implemented a standard requiring floor proximity lighting to be mechanically fastened, due to the apparent detachment of two types of adhesive-fastened emergency lights during the impact.[6] Federal aviation regulations for flight data recorder sampling rates for pitch, roll and acceleration were found to be insufficient.[7]

1. it seems like a lot of money was invested in the project, they could have gone the extra few steps and had a much more reliable system

2. i dont hink 72 mhz would have been an option, try getting that antenna out in the cockpit

3. If the mexican government initially ok'ed this entire thing, dont you think they could have gotten an extension. This would have costed some money im sure, but nothing compared to possibly ruining the entire experiment.

2. i dont hink 72 mhz would have been an option, try getting that antenna out in the cockpit

My point about using a standard 72 MHz radio was to illustrate that you can easily run a coax cable from the Tx to an antenna mounted externally on the chase plane. Likewise, another coax cable could be connected between an external antenna on the 727 to the Rx inside the plane.

I guess I was just really appalled that they took such an "oh well, what the hell" attitude about something as critical as the radio link between the two aircraft. As stated by other posters, maybe the producers just wanted to sensationalize the whole thing and we didn't get complete information. Wouldn't be the first time Discovery pulled something like this.

Solo

I found a bit more safety info here:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...y-channel.html

I don't recall them mentioning this fail-safe device on the show:

Mexican aviation officials needed reassurances that the aircraft would not be allowed to fly without a crew on board near populated areas, which meant a flight crew had to be on board until almost the last minute. As they bailed out, the crew armed a custom-made device dubbed “Deep Six” by the team, which includes several Navy veterans, fashioned with components designed for unmanned aerial vehicles. “Deep Six” provided only pitch control, a last-ditch fail-safe that would drive the airplane down to prevent it from straying outside the designated range in case of radio failure.

Originally Posted by bjaffee

I found a bit more safety info here:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...y-channel.html

I don't recall them mentioning this fail-safe device on the show:

This pretty much covers the safety thing. Comparing this to a "reality show" is pretty far fetched.

As far as the jump went spending a night in the desert without water and proper clothing is no fun at all.

Bottom line is none of us know all the facts so in reality each are entitled to our opinion on this.

Mike

Originally Posted by HahnSolo

My point about using a standard 72 MHz radio was to illustrate that you can easily run a coax cable from the Tx to an antenna mounted externally on the chase plane. Likewise, another coax cable could be connected between an external antenna on the 727 to the Rx inside the plane.

I guess I was just really appalled that they took such an "oh well, what the hell" attitude about something as critical as the radio link between the two aircraft. As stated by other posters, maybe the producers just wanted to sensationalize the whole thing and we didn't get complete information. Wouldn't be the first time Discovery pulled something like this.

Solo

I agree, heck they could have come to rc groups and had the community here put something together for them.

Well you'd have cut cores for sure. I'm certain I have a few litres of WEST I could spare and my new vac pump works a treat.

Originally Posted by mr_editor

Well you'd have cut cores for sure. I'm certain I have a few litres of WEST I could spare and my new vac pump works a treat.

What??

Originally Posted by mike2663

This pretty much covers the safety thing. Comparing this to a "reality show" is pretty far fetched.

LOL, I take it you don't watch reality shows (or whatever you want to call them) on Discovery Channel much. The basic rule is that something is always going wrong...even when it isn't.

There's always a manufactured deadline for no real reason too. The show made it appear as if they did the entire project in 5 days. As previously mentioned, couldn't they have gotten an extension? And they have to play overly dramatic music in the background the entire show.