one Wing Airplane Crash Landing

I don't know where to put this, so Mods please move to the right place.
Sorry if this has been posted before, I have never seen it on ATS,

Anyway my mother showed me this today and I said straight away "Fake" but she is sure its real, I know nothing about aircraft and I was wondering what your take on it was.
Fake or not its a great Video.

Ya thats real. It was possible to land it because of the very wide control surfaces that most acrobatic airplanes have, plus the very large prop and powerful engine helped save that pilot's butt.

As well as sheer luck.



Cheers!!!!

that was way fake. just look at the way it hits the ground and doesn't really rebound at all, that thing should've been bouncing all over the place at the very least.

It is possible, but the way it landed with just one bounce and then stuck to the ground is a bit odd, here's a link to an F-15 that landed with just one wing and was documented as true by the military.

link

Originally posted by Darthorious
It is possible, but the way it landed with just one bounce and then stuck to the ground is a bit odd, here's a link to an F-15 that landed with just one wing and was documented as true by the military.

link

Yes its a true story.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its a testament to the skill of the pilot and the rugged F-15 airframe.

Here's another link says it was believed to be done for an add but I can't find the add.

It was an add for a model plane, funny that's the first thing I thought but then saw the pilot get out and thought well then,

link

Edit: Someone was saying this was the inspiration for the video

link

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Darthorious]

freemind, that was the most amazing I've seen a pilot survive.

As someone already said, lots of horsepower, a big rudder and lots of skill (and a dose of luck).....to think of knife-edging land safely....briliiant!!!!

I have over 20.000 hours, and doubt I could have done it! I'd have been a goner!!!

The F-15 story is real but this one is fake.

This has to be one of the better fake videos. Many have remarked about the amazing quality, which is easy to explain. “Hoaxers” have had to simply up the ante with the myriad of other fakes out there.

Aerobatic planes such as this typical have a spar that runs through both wings. They are incredibly strong and the pilot is often the weakest link. Although they have tremendous power to weight ratio and can do seemingly impossible things such as hovering in midair like a helicopter, the video falls apart in key places.

source

Here's the video that's been circulating widely on the internet as fact, when in fact it is a complete fiction. At first blush, the aircraft looks real and the wing separation seems authentic. If you listen closely, you'll hear that the engine sounds are not properly synchronized, the radio chatter seems out of place and the people are definitely over-acting. But for its intended purpose, KillaThrill got a great viral advertising campaign. Congratulations! Here's another video done in a very similar fashion:

source

Another fake:



[edit on 14-2-2009 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
freemind, that was the most amazing I've seen a pilot survive.

As someone already said, lots of horsepower, a big rudder and lots of skill (and a dose of luck).....to think of knife-edging land safely....briliiant!!!!

I have over 20.000 hours, and doubt I could have done it! I'd have been a goner!!!

Yes, do validate your supposed flying hours, not to mention extensive posts on the con side of the chemtrail debate, by failing to identify CGI...

The video is fake.

Originally posted by Zepherian

Originally posted by weedwhacker
freemind, that was the most amazing I've seen a pilot survive.

As someone already said, lots of horsepower, a big rudder and lots of skill (and a dose of luck).....to think of knife-edging land safely....briliiant!!!!

I have over 20.000 hours, and doubt I could have done it! I'd have been a goner!!!

Yes, do validate your supposed flying hours, not to mention extensive posts on the con side of the chemtrail debate, by failing to identify CGI...

The video is fake.

I only started this thread to see people's thoughts on the video and may be I have missed your point but when you say "validate your supposed flying hours" it seems as if you don't Believe him? I have no reson not to Believe him, or am I missing something?

reply to post by Zepherian


Z, if it's fake (as noted by another poster) then it fooled my, at first glance.

Not sure WHY you wish to bring 'chemtrails' into this....but, speaking of "fake".....guess it's fitting into the theme, today.

Looking again, what kind of airplane is that? Looks a lot, to me, like an Extra 300 (German - built) except, instead of a tailwheel seems to have just a skid. THAT's puzzling.

Anyway, Z...thanks (again) for insulting me for no reason....looking forward to your continued posts.....

EDIT to modify what i should not have written....comments directed at another member. I was provoked, I have U2U'd the thread author to explain.

[edit on 2/14/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker



I was going to chime in earlier that the plane is in fact an Extra 300, a specialized aerobatic aircraft that is quite nimble and very light, but sports a very powerful engine and very large control surfaces. Its the choice of many aerobatic pilots.


Cheers!!!!

Hi, inquisitive persons.

Zepherian, I did U2U you for a "technical" question. B-)

I can NOT believe our contrail expert "weedwhacker" did not
see immediately that the moves of the plane's landing where those
of a **radio-controled** plane's ! ! !

There is no **inertia** in the plane's move. ANd many
other clues. . .

As for you beeing **for insulting me for no reason**,
you did not restrain yours very much for me, right ????

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FINAL message for me here: For me too, it was a fake
at FIRST glance.

Blue skies.

Originally posted by freemindmine

Tis a fake (I've been through this long ago with others, here is why):

1. There is no significant g-loading on the wing when it fails.

2. There is no rudder input when the plane is on its side with nose up prior to landing.

3. The g loadings due to the bounce landing would have collapsed the landing gear.




Anyway - going totally unconnected... interesting signature, I'm assuming your Irish?

its real these aircraft are extremely powerful, that amount of bounce wouldnt flatten the undercarraige, ive seen extras bounce harder than that, they are very light, the engine in the aircraft can hold the aircraft in a hover, amazing to see done, if someone has the link to the red bull racing site you can see the extra is the aircraft of choice, and the stunts they pull.

Wee Mad Mental

freemindmine: Wheedwhacker and I cross posts ocasionally regarding chemtrails. Wheedwhacker is always quick to jump onto the authority bandwagon, presenting himself as an aviation specialist, pilot, yadda yadda.

Note that I did not intend it to be insulting, in about as much as telling someone who is wrong that he is wrong can not be insulting

I had seen your linked video before and it is, quite clearly, fake, even without going into the debunk video another poster linked up, it has that clear surreal quality which comes from unrealistic physics, as CGI (computer generated imagery) does not yet fully replicate the physical world, although it's coming darn close.

Planes have landed with wings missing though, so the concept is not impossible. New fly by wire computer mediated flight surfaces have been designed with learning abilities, so a lot of newer generation aircraft could possibly fly with several control surfaces missing or faulty, as the aircraft would learn how to compensate in real time, giving the pilot enough joystick and throttle control to land the things. I'm recalling a tv documentary here, but I'm sure wheedwhacker, aviation expert extraordinaire[/frenchaccent] will come up with some substantive links so as to underline his vast experience.

Btw, I don't want to take this thread off topic with personal innuendo, so to avoid that, may I freely admit to being a nobody.

reply to post by kilcoo316


The picture you post shows quite a bit of loading on both wings, but G loading may not have been the cause, could have been a simple mechanical failure.

As to rudder near the ground?.....well look closely at the rudder here...



Looks like full rudder left to me, which would direct the tail towards the ground, and the nose up, in normal level flight, that would be yaw left.


Now closer to the ground, we see both the left wing aleron full up and the elevator surfaces up as well.



Had the pilot not put left aleron up and elevator surfaces up as well, that plane would have toppled over and landed on its canopy. In the video just before it lands, we see the left wing drop to the ground. The canopy, or top side is facing the camera, and is why the pilot put full aeleron left, to dip the left wing down. The plane landed on both wheels and did in fact bounce one time.


The plane ends up landing in the grass, absorbing alot of the impact, which is why the landing gear does not snap. Plus the plane was not that high up off the ground, maybe 20 feet or so, and was not moving forward that fast, all its power was directed almost vertical as the plane had nose almost directly pointed upward.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-2-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


Thank you RFBurns, for some good observations.

What you said is why I found this video compelling.

To stop all personal sniping I will refrain, and hope others do as well.

So....an Extra??? BUILT to withstand extreme G-forces.....in fact pointed out before.....sometimes the airframe can withstand more than the Human pilot. It depends on force, AND duration.

Does anyone know where this Airshow was filmed? I thought I heard an Australian, or possibly Kiwi accent. Can someone grab a frame and see the resistration number? It would clue as to what country the airplane is registered in.

Looking at the wing root.....I'm not seeing the through spar....nor the wiring to the Nav lights, nor the fuel lines from the Tank in the wing...i DO see what looks a lot llke a model airplane.....since I build and fly them as a hobby.

However, I have crashed a few models.....and cannot imagine anyone actually landing a model in the way depicted.

For many reasons....won't waste your time....

SP, either this thing was completely CGI.....or real. Let's hear from the witnesses.

EDIT....spelling....and to add, just because I fly R/C models, doesn't make me an expert. It's more like my 35 years of llying experience means that when I fly the models, I kinda sorta understand a little sumthin' about aerodynamics. Still, controlling a model from a distance is WAY different than flying an airplane from inside.....main thing to learn, is the 'reversal' effect, as I call it. It is the 'point of view' that changes when the model is coming at you, rather that flying away from you....it is a learned response, with practice.

[edit on 2/14/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by RFBurns


double post, EDIT to delete......

[edit on 2/14/0909 by weedwhacker]

I only started this thread to see people's thoughts on the video and may be I have missed your point but when you say "validate your supposed flying hours" it seems as if you don't Believe him? I have no reson not to Believe him, or am I missing something?

You are missing something. Physics.

The second half of the video is CGI. You can see it on the physics and poor lighting when it is on the ground.

Physics is part of the training for a pilots license, and anyone who thinks that a straight rudder can hold up an entire aircraft at slightly above stall speed, doesn't know anything about physics.

Its a testament to the skill of the pilot and the rugged F-15 airframe.

The F-15 derives as much as 30 percent of it's lift from the airframe, which makes a wingless landing possible, but an aerobatic aircraft is built to be unbiased, ie symetrical wings, a lift neutral airframe etc.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by aaa2500]