Boeing 747 test footage

[whiteboy112351]

Looks like osama bin ladan bombed this plane!!!!!

[jonstewartforprez]

The 747 test was hard to watch :/

[PS3GameProductions]

Wasn't this to test what would happen if a bomb went off in a pressurised cabin? Or in the cargo hold... Something like that anyway.

[HostileHST]

Testing my ass, that's called blowing shit up and it's fun!

[Gleavage09]

What was the point of this test?

[supersabrejet]

@Gleavage09 This test showed the effect of bombs while the cabin was pressurized, and also it helps development of better cargo pods, that are used today and can absorb the explossion of such devices.

[IdentifiableUser]

This is what happens when your table tray isn't in the upright and locked position during takeoff.

[flashkaput]

Shitter's full!

[gravylegs1]

A little duct tape and they will be good to go

[WorldAirwaysMD11]

Why did they blow up my L-1011?!?!

[TomTomTheSatNavmk1]

To check which parts are broken? how about all of them!

[Mirikashitakuari25]

Yeah then imagine them explode mid air then debris started falling in your head. .

Now thats one terrifying act. .

[MrRey84972]

that's what happened when an airplane have a bomb on board and just exploded.

[HellzNord]

that would not turn out well in the air lol

[TRcupcake]

holy CRAP!!!!!!!!

[plasticspastic201]

tinfoil tubes

[mercedesbenzrules]

I would love to be the guy that asks "What's on the agenda for today?" and is told, "We're blowing up million of dollars."

[taylorgpa]

Was anyone hurt in the plane?

[TRcupcake]

@taylorgpa no but the plane was hurt!!!!!!!!!!

[muzzster1970]

M u s l i m s jerk off to this....

[appleintosh]

@thisisyourwakeup /watch?v=wZZHCm59gy4

Watch this and the other parts.

[Starfish99100]

SCARY! High explosives make planes look flimsy. Tanks too, for that matter. Those old, worn-out planes were going to be scrapped anyway. Scrapping isn't waste. It's reusing resources.

[gizwoz14]

why does it say in the title that its a 747 when it clearly isnt

[thisisyourwakeup]

shows how fragile aircraft are

[escobar12levi]

LOST

plane

[escobar12levi]

LOST

[beeroosterm]

Which parts are broken? What fucking difference does it make?

[theknightlynews]

Why did they have to waste an L-1011 like that. Couldn't they find a DC-10 to test on?

[Teratorry]

@theknightlynews why dc-10?

[taran245]

@Teratorry it wasent it was an l 1011 cant u tell the difference its pretty simple

[Teratorry]

@taran245 i said why dc-10 because i commented on another status which said" Dont use the tristar use the dc-10!!!" and i said why dc-10?

[43kingtiger]

@theknightlynews L-1011 are shit. most people think so

[theknightlynews]

@43kingtiger The van with the men in white cloaks will be by to pick you up.

[Pvjinflight]

@43kingtiger At least they have better safety record than DC-10

[1999sebring]

@theknightlynews why didn't they just use a computer model and stick either the l1011 or 747 in my front yard I promise I'd keep it washed and waxed lol

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews Saudia Flight 163 and FedEx Express Flight 705 would like to have a word with you.

[theknightlynews]

@Kohdok Where do you store such a large strawman? You must have a very large barn.

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews A strawman that big has to have SOME truth behind it. The L-1011 is not much better than the DC-10. Your precious, invincible L-1011 once suffocated a full plane with smoke and your much abhorred DC-10 performed maneuvers never thought achievable by commercial aircraft to prevent a murder/suicide attack. Both suffered a similar number of incidents. The DC-10 probably had more because there were nearly twice as many in the sky. Compare the DC-10 to the 707 or the 747.

[theknightlynews]

@Kohdok Saudi air crew didn't open the doors soon enough and smoke overcame everybody. Terrible tragedy. Almost as bad as blowing up an L-1011 when they could have used a DC-10 instead.

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews Either way, the Boeing 767 which, after removing Grand Theft Airplane, suicide and terrorism (5 of the 13 hull loss incidents can be chalked up to those), has a better safety record than either of those airplanes.

[theknightlynews]

@Kohdok No L-1011 was ever lost due to design failure. Nikki Lauda wish that were true of the 767. At any rate, such a shame they blew up an L-1011 when they could have used a lesser aircraft for that test.

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews *Drops Eastern Airlines flight 401 report on the ground.* An $11 light bulb and an overly sensitive joystick contributed to this accident. Many L-1011 pilots came forward to report the problem once the crash happened.

Design. Failure.

[theknightlynews]

@Kohdok

401 was caused by the pilots flying the plane into the ground. lol. Pilot error. There was nothing wrong with the plane but a burnt light bulb. But you know that already.

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews Yes. Because the crew was focused on one faulty system, they failed to notice the other faulty system which caused them to crash the plane. The problem with the control stick turning off the autopilot with little provocation was a known problem, but most pilots were attentive enough to correct the fault. It just took one pilot to not pay enough attention. The L-1011 was a ticking time-bomb before 401.

[theknightlynews]

@Kohdok The autopilot disconnecting with a slight push is common to many airliners still today. The autopilot disconnect horn sounded and they ignored it. The fact remains that 401 crashed due to pilot error, not mechanical failure. 401 inspired CRM. At any rate, google L-1011 vs DC-10 and read what pilots have said. Trying to argue that the L-1011 is not as good as the DC-10 is bizarre. As the old saying goes, Lockheed should design 'em, Boeing build 'em, and McDonnell Douglas sell 'em.

[Kohdok]

@theknightlynews Lockheed doesn't make passenger liners anymore (Only 250 L-1011 sold), and McDonnell Douglas has been absorbed by Boeing, so at least part of that has happened.

[phillyslasher]

@theknightlynews The L-1011 was such a wonderful plane through and through. What a marvel it was, it's a shame that Lockheed didn't stick around in the jet airliner business. But I will say, the DC-10 despite it's teething troubles early on turned out to be a reliable aircraft after refinement of course.

[yoyoyoyoshua]

@theknightlynews well then what would be the point cause there testing what would happen to a 747 and L-1011 if a bomb exploded in it.

[theknightlynews]

@yoyoyoyoshua NO, they are testing a generic airliner. Makes no difference to them if it's an L-1010 or DC-10. The test results would be the same.

[yoyoyoyoshua]

@theknightlynews ok damn you don't need to get your panties in a bunch.

[theknightlynews]

@yoyoyoyoshua Please explain how my panties are bunched to you.

[elviscash56]

@theknightlynews I thought all the DC-10s had already blown apart by themselves...

[Fordgirl]

@theknightlynews Bugger the L-1011 why'd they have to blow up a 747. That's as bad as a remote controlled 707 they ploughed into the ground.

[ROFL0SAURUS]

@theknightlynews They were too used to seeing DC-10s breaking up into pieces

[Pilot853]

@theknightlynews Dude, both of those planes are crap

[upiluften]

@theknightlynews Haha!

[noonedude101]

@theknightlynews

Because they're built totally different....

[theknightlynews]

@noonedude101 not for the purposes of this explosion test they aren't.

[noonedude101]

@theknightlynews

Yes they are. They're trying to assess where people will die.

[theknightlynews]

@noonedude101 You need to read the video caption again. Nothing about finding out "where people will die". The purpose of these tests is to test how luggage containers may or may not contain an explosion. The test has nothing to do specifically with a 747.

[arumdevil]

@noonedude101 I think it's safe to say more people will die elsewhere than will die on planes.

[southwest1998]

@theknightlynews No because they were doing an investigation for a 747 crash

[theknightlynews]

@southwest1998 If that was true, why did they blow up the L-1011? They were doing a generic test, and they could have used any airliner for that test, that's my point.

[southwest1998]

@theknightlynews not to sure why they used a L-1011 but i do know that the plane they tested on was completely useless, but as you can see it is very similar to a 747 wich was the plane that had actualy crashed previously due to an explosion in one of the center fuel tanks.

[theknightlynews]

@southwest1998 This test had nothing to do with any investigation into TWA 800. This was to test how an aircraft responds to a bomb in the cargo hold.

[juantrippe82]

@theknightlynews Or a Tupolev!

[vroomba03]

story is.....if a bomb goes off YOUR SCREWED

[killabb24]

Dont planes have like 2-3 inches of steel of some sort of hard meta??? cuz looking at the second plane blow up the metal looks like paper XD

[naltrexone23X]

@killabb24 If the plane were made of armor, It wouldn't be able to fly

[killabb24]

@naltrexone23X Yh I know but you know when you get on the planes you see like an inch of some really hard metal... just looking at this amazes me because that hard metal looks like paper flopping around :P

[azkiid]

@killabb24 Inch of hard metal ! LOL Aircraft fuselages are made of a aluminum frame work with a aluminum skin riveted to it. :P

[CYN9804]

the first plane shown is. the second is a L-1011 tristar i think

[citroeno]

@CYN9804 So thats 2 aircraft they wrecked

[Weirdo10o4]

it's a space station!

[alzapiedi]

What is it then Captain?

[tdjocky]

fuck i love test videos

[danimandy]

no comments? im the first =-)