Attention: Pilots on 986forum

[Frodo]

My father-in-law and I are trying to figure out if this is for real or not. We've both flown before: he being licensed for several years before allowing it to lapse (in part due to age---he's now 75); I took lessons for awhile in high school, soloed several times but never got licensed (it got expensive, and I had other things on my mind at the time). We can't decide.

What do you think?

If it's for real, it's far and away the most phenomenal piece of flying I have ever seen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i21pDT3jips

[Paul]

WOW!!!

If that is for real, simply amazing!!!

[Topless]

The things people can do with digital animation. Nope! Never happened. Fun to watch though.

[Paul]

I think the lost of a wing full of fuel would have caused a fire.

If that happened while I was flying, it would be a BOKMAGB.

[Lil bastard]

Not bad... but NOT real.

[nola911]

I saw this yesterday for the first time. Great video, but it was pointed out to me that at :55 seconds, the rear wheel disappears and then quickly reappears.

[Frodo]

Quote:

"I think the lost of a wing full of fuel would have caused a fire.

If that happened while I was flying, it would be a BOKMAGB."

Posted by Paul.

I don't know much about stunt planes...would they (and this model in particular) have fuel storage in the wings??

Also---I figured out the KMAGB part, but what is the BO prefix part?

Re-watching the vid, I've decided that right when the craft goes from largely vertical to (seemingly magically) onto its landing gear, it looks a bit contrived. The bounce looks phony to me, and it's also when the focus too-conveniently gets a bit blurred, if only briefly. Could this be footage of a model (radio-controlled) aircraft?

My father-in-law also sent a link with some amazing radio-controlled flight. Check out:

www.video.shutupandfly.com/3DPracticeDan04.WMV

...especially the vertical, zero velocity hovering by these, fixed-wing aircraft.

[bigb]

Impressive at first, but clearly fake

[Topless]

Originally Posted by Frodo

Quote:

"I think the lost of a wing full of fuel would have caused a fire.

If that happened while I was flying, it would be a BOKMAGB."

Posted by Paul.

I don't know much about stunt planes...would they (and this model in particular) have fuel storage in the wings??

Also---I figured out the KMAGB part, but what is the BO prefix part?

Translation: Bend over and kiss my arse goodby.
Yep. Most have wet wings in addition to a fuselage fuel tank. Here is the Kirby Chambliss Edge540. Amazing pilot and complete loon.
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Edge%20540.htm

[rick3000]

I am not so sure this is fake. My dad and uncle (who are both pilots) where telling me about something similar to this happening at an air show a few months ago. It could very well be real, but I am no expert.

[FTD]

Certain aspects of it actually made me laugh because of the hokey aspect. My biggest grin is how the wing just so nicely, cleanly and quickly ejected away from the plane, and the plane did not respond to any laws of physics by such a sudden shift in weight and force. Think of this: if you are holding up an object above your head with both arms, and suddenly you lose an arm or a leg, there would have to be a peiod of adjustment to realign the distribution of weight and force to keep the object above your head. I do not see this shift / recovery in this vid. There were a couple of other giggles too.

I think the solid indication that this is fake: notice the landing - the missing wing reappears.

[boxster_s_boy_34]

That's definately not real. The only airplane that I can think of that only needs one wing to land is the A-10. The bounce is also hokey and if you look close enough at the paint in the end, it definately looks like a model. Pretty good for a doctored up video though.

[Mike_Yi]

Originally Posted by boxster_s_boy_34

That's definately not real. The only airplane that I can think of that only needs one wing to land is the A-10. The bounce is also hokey and if you look close enough at the paint in the end, it definately looks like a model. Pretty good for a doctored up video though.

Actually, an F-15 once landed with only one wing. There's a video on YouTube from a documentary about it.

This is a promotional stunt, and NOT real. The problem is that when he's knife-edging it with all that power, what is he using to coutneract the torque? Not the one wing/aileron. That wouldn't be enough.

[Lil bastard]

Well, it's an aerobatic plane so the wings likely are not 'wet' (containing fuel).

But, for the plane to be even slightly manageable, it would need to have a greater power:weight ratio, something single piston-engined prop planes are not known for.

True, it lost some weight when the wing tore off, but it also lost a ton of (if not all) lift, basically making the plane even heavier.

In order to have even an instant of control, the pilot would have to be walking the pedals like a stairclimber and the working the stick like a rowing machine, but there are no violent movements of the control surfaces. It's likely that the flaps and ailerons on each wing were mechanical (cables or push-rods) with no redundancy. With the wing separated, such a system would have either jammed or torn loose.

At that altitude, the engine could not make max power, so there would be little chance of keeping it in a prop-up attitude. It would have suddenly become so nose heavy that it would auger-in before the pilot had time to react.

The photographer could not keep the plane 'in frame' when it was airborn, but magically kept it center frame for the 'landing'.

Finally, and maybe most convincing that it's fake - there is absolutely no record of this incident in the files of the NTSB going back to 1999. If such a thing occured, the pilot, and the Tower, would have been required to report it. The plane type would have been grounded until the cause of the wing separation were discovered, and a fix implemented by NTSB order, or the type de-certified.

In fact, the only incident of wing separation on an aerobatic plane in the NTSB files occured on Feb. 5, 1975, and it was a two-seater aircraft. The pilot was able to evacuate through the windshield and parachute safely to the ground while the back-seater couldn't and was killed in the crash.

Personally, to me the thing looks and sounds like an R/C model.

[Mike_Yi]

I agree with everything you said, except....

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

At that altitude, the engine could not make max power, so there would be little chance of keeping it in a prop-up attitude. It would have suddenly become so nose heavy that it would auger-in before the pilot had time to react.

Why wouldn't the engine be making max power? He was at most a couple of hundred feet in the air. There isn't much of a decrease in air density at those kinds of altitudes. You are right, it's not making max power, but the reduction in power due to air density is nil.

I would not necessarily be nose heavy. It all depends on where the center of gravity of the plane lies before and after. Assuming it had a rearward CG to maximize maneuverability, the CG would have still been in front of the center of lift or very, very close to it. Therefore, the loss of the wing would not necessarily move the CG outside of the CG envelope. I may have moved it forward, but it may not have. The leading edge of the wing is bigger, and therefore heavier than the rear. However, the rear has the control surfaces and controls, which would also add weight. So the loss of the wing could have very little impact on the CG.

It sounds like an Extra 300 to me. I suspect that the plane was flown normally and the video edited to make it look like the wing was missing. When the plane "landed" the camera suddenly bounced all over to make it impossible to see the picture clearly. I suspect there's a little bit of photochopping in there combining a knife-edge flight with another, normal landing to get the effect.

[fragdude]

The look of the plane (i.e. shadows, color, etc.) is blatantly fake. The way the camera goes into and out of focus is unreal as well.

Two other things that make it fake is the way the camera shakes when the guy is "walking" towards the camera, it would move like that. And the guy running at the plane was obviously running at a blue screen. and the clouds in the sky are oddly still...

[Topless]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

Well, it's an aerobatic plane so the wings likely are not 'wet' (containing fuel).

Actually most modern aerobatics have both a fuselage tank and wing tanks. A few spec. sheet links FYI:

http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Extra%20300S.htm
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Edge%20540.htm
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/MX2.htm
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi%20Su-31.htm

[Lil bastard]

@Topless& Mike Yi,

Good Points

[Jeph]

My favorite part is the tiny little snap noise you can hear right when the wing breaks. Listen carefully.

That cracked me up.

Another thing... must have been some air show... I think I heard 2 people fret when the wing came off.

[renzop]

Another nail in the coffin - look at the wing joint after the break - no sheared metal.