Talk:2012 Boeing 727 crash experiment

Dubious
I've just watched a UK programme about this crash, and it prevents a very different story. It said the crash was organised by scientists, not the Discovery Channel, that the plane cost $300,000, and that its registration was N293AS. I doubt there were two such incidents, so which version is correct? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * N293AS is a former registration, the FAA registry lists it as cancelled in September last year due to the aircraft being exported to Mexico. I found a photo on the internet that shows it marked as 'MNP and it is illegal to fly an aircraft with false registration markings - given the level of oversight by aviation authorities that would have been required for this, I think it's safe to assume that it was registered in Mexico as such. Several sources used in the article state that the impetus for the crash test was the Discovery Channel, but also make clear that scientists were involved. As for the cost, is it possible that the figure of 300,000 was pounds instead of dollars? YSSYguy (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "XB-MNP" is referenced. $450,000 is referenced. Check the references. I don't see why this is "dubious" since it is properly referenced already. It can be "disputed", but it can't be dubious, since it is properly referenced. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's "dubious" because other sources say other things. That's not a criticism of you or any other editor involved. The article is already much better as a result of our collaborative editing since yesterday; we need to work together to winkle out the real facts. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the registration, both are right. The American registration (N293AS) was the registration of the plane when they bought it (as shown here.  The record clearly indicates that it was exported to Mexico.  Due to the nature of the experiment it would have been highly unlikely that they could have, for beaurcratic reasons, have crashed it/modified it, etc. under that registration.  Thus they registered to XB-MNP, which is shown in this spreadsheet. (Note, you may need to enter simply  and then manually download the spread sheet.  On the spreadsheet be sure to select the tab at the bottom labelled "XB-A-M" and scroll down to line 4838.  Note that it also lists all the previous registrations (including N293AS) and also both sources I mentioned above have the same date of construction and same serial number (21348). Thus removing the dubious tag. Ravendrop 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the cost, I'd say just remove it unless an official (unlikely) source can be found. IT really just an incidental fact anyway, where as the registration gives historical details for those so inclined to look them up.  I've seen 300k, 450k and 'less than a million'.  So there is never going to be agreement. Ravendrop 01:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good work on the registration info. I agree with your suggestion regarding the price. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I watched the Discovery Channel Curiosity episode, they explicitly stated "450,000 dollars", near the beginning of the two hour episode. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft history
This search result on Airliners.net contains 38 photos of the aircraft with notes about each photo, some of the notes contain quite good detail about the aircraft's history. Roger (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuel?
Nowhere in the article does it say anything regarding the plane's fuel. There are several bold statements reassuring us we would survive the crash, but why bother if you'd burn to death seconds later? (Compare to image of the Controlled Impact Demonstration and you'll see what I mean)

(Please understand I'm not asking for an answer here and now; just flagging up a very curious omission - is it the article or the documentary that's ignoring the fuel issue?)

213.112.135.159 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Landing gear
Seeing the results of the crash, it seems that the idea to extract the landing gear was an error on such a kind of surface. Also the vertical speed seems to be far from the one a good pilot would keep having enough length to land 'softly' and slide over the ground surface. If the purpose was to give better instructions to the pilots about the way to face such a situation and tell it to their grandsons, much more should be tested.--GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The plane was designed to crash. It was meant to be hard enough for the landing gear to break, but soft enough to prevent a fuel explosion.

CFIT?
The "Summary" in the box says "CFIT", but if I hover over CFIT, it says it's "unintentional" and the crew is "unaware" of it. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, therefore i removed the CFIT from the infobox. Saschaporsche (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Success
Isn't this the same crash test that partly failed due to the plane hitting the ground at the wrong angle? Or has this been done before? Personally I don't see much scientific merit in it at all, and it appears to have been Discovery Channel trying to create a spectacle that could be hyped on TV and draw viewers: "Watch a Plane Crash from Inside!" - all wrapped in proper quasi-scientific theater so they could pretend it wasn't just investing in a cheap old plane and crashing it for a paying audience. The conclusions are basically pointless as well. Perhaps they have some relevance in cases when a plane crashes in exactly this fashion, and not tail first, or inverted, or spinning after striking an obstacle with a wing, and IF the plane happens to crash with empty fuel tanks so the fuel doesn't ignite. I'm sure in order to get good interior views to show again and again on television they didn't want to have nothing but a huge fireball to show, so they carefully timed the crash to happen when the fuel tanks were empty, so there would be nothing but scenes of the plane breaking up from the inside. Of course in MOST crashes the fuel tanks are full, or partly full, and they almost always ignite, and when they do being in the middle of the cabin over the wings is the most DANGEROUS place to be. So it was really just a waste of time. If you are in a plane that runs out of fuel and glides in for a deadstick landing, and crashes in a mostly level but slightly tail-down attitude, now you know that you are maybe more likely to survive up front. Wonderful. Of course if your plane just nosedives into the ground, that may not be true any more. Or if it flips end over end.

Idumea47b (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Big Flo's Tomb.png