what a pilot!

[Kevboy]

Ho!

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

Kevboy.

[Roger]

Incredible:isadizzy:

[n4gix]

<!--StartFragment --> Oh well. It's a fake...
http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html (http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html)

[chinookmark]

Awesome pilot. Pretty good 3D artist, too. :173go1:

[Arkycharlie]

kb, you almost had me there. Great video!!!!!

well, you did have me there for a minute.

[Big_Stick]

<!--StartFragment --> Oh well. It's a fake...
http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html (http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html)

I'm a pilot. I watched this video several times very carefully and I can find no inconsistencies. The maneuver the pilot made is entirely possible. He stopped using the wings to create lift, instead hanging on the prop and using huge amounts of rudder until the last possible instant, when he performed a partial hammerhead and executed a controlled crash landing at a 90-degree angle where the wings were not needed for lift. Look at the angle of the fuselage to the ground, and consider that the prop was providing all the lift (along with the surface of the fuselage) just before the pilot executes a quarter-roll (using the one remaining aileron and rudder).

Some have said that torque roll would be uncontrollable. Not so. Throttle and rudder, along with the remaining aileron, would be sufficient. Planes like this have enormous amounts of control authority, more than enough to compensate for the loss of a wing, and the power/weight ratio is exceptional, and would be even more favorable with one wing gone. Also consider the huge reduction in drag with only the one wing. A good pilot, used to cross-controlled and uncoordinated flight such as is often the case with acrobatics, could pull it off.

And it's entirely possible to land a very light taildragger like this one in a very short distance, I've seen it done many, many times.

The computing power to pull off an animation like this would be extraordinary and far beyond the reach of the average Youtuber. "Flyboys" probably has the most sophisticated animation of this type and when compared to real flight (as in "The Blue Max", for example) "Flyboys" is obviously animated.

Update:

Doing a further web search reveals no factual evidence that this video is a fake. The websites that have addressed this use the pilot's credentials to "debunk" the video but no one has produced any forensic evidence that it is a fake, and the maneuver is certainly possible.

Some have compared the plane's behaviour to an RC model and tried to conclude that because an RC plane probably would not have behaved like that, the video is faked. Flight dynamics for a full-size plane are radically different as is the comparison to a pilot in the plane and one on the ground.

[Tweek]

Usually if you see very shaky camera work, and it's constantly in and out of focus, you have reason to suspect it's CGI. I'll admit, I thought it was real until the actual landing. Although there may be no arguements against this video, in terms of physics, aerodynamics, or whatever else, it's the actual images that give it away.

[Big_Stick]

Usually if you see very shaky camera work, and it's constantly in and out of focus, you have reason to suspect it's CGI. I'll admit, I thought it was real until the actual landing. Although there may be no arguements against this video, in terms of physics, aerodynamics, or whatever else, it's the actual images that give it away.

Many other real pilots aren't dismissing this as fake. Read the AvWeb blogs. Again, the computing power necessary would be the kind only possessed by Pixar or ILM. The focus is not an issue; that's exactly what one would expect from an autofocus videocamera, either digital or analog.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_ViralVideo_KillaThrill_LostWingLa nding_199096-1.html

[CodyValkyrie]

In my professional opinion, it is a fake. Why would it not be if it was made as an advert? The point is, if it was real, we would have heard about it in major news outlets, not through the internet.

Now, about why I professionally think it is fake:
-The audio sounds dubbed
-Acting is a bit over the top
-Sounds don't necessarily sync correctly
-Why can the camera man not keep the plane in view until it is RIGHT upon him?
-The blurs, etc, are all easily editable via Vegas or other editing programs
-The color hue is not natural. Most cameras will not produce that hue, it is edited to look that way.
-I have a hard time believing any pilot would be able to respond THAT quickly... hence all the real crashes at real airshows
-If this was in the U.S. which the speaking suggests, no person would be that close to the runway
-The person that runs out is just some bystander? I find this hard to believe, especially if as suggested they shouldn't be this close
-The plane has that CGI look to it. More shine than it should have in real life, glowing edges, etc.
-The landing gear doesn't appear to compress and sustains no damage. I find this also incredibly hard to explain.
-Most hand held cameras won't offer that kind of quality and still cause so much blurring, etc
-Has anyone heard of this pilot?
-No tail numbers
-Silly bounce when landing
-A very suspicious break of the wing with no discernable debris (other than a wing).

I am 99% sure this is a hoax. It just looks, sounds and appears to be. I would like some substanant proof that it is real. Aerodynamics aside, as this is at least SOMEWHAT possible (even though I still believe it LOOKS fake and like CGI), how could something like this take place and the only known outlet be simply a video?

Now, for the processing power required... Give me a break guys. This can be done with Lightwave and Adobe After Effects or Vegas (if done with a steady hand and some good effects addons). Work like the "big boys" make at Pixar can be harnessed from a home computer. Manbird is a good example. He creates tons of UFO videos that are created using these techniques that people call "real" all the time. He is using a machine less powerful than mine. This isn't a matter of processing power, but more of an issue with rendering time. A video like this would take me 6+ hours to render and probably 50+ hours to create depending on what resources I had available.

[CodyValkyrie]

More food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNIhBlyepc&NR=1

[kilo delta]

It's a reasonably decent fake video....right up to the point of the landing where it all goes monty python.:costumes: As noted above.....even relatively outdated computers can produce video's of this calibre, providing you've some good (although not necessarily hugely expensive) software. Faster systems will render the effects quicker.
The video originates from this piss-take website... http://www.jamesandersson.com/ .....have a look at the interview with the pilot:icon_lol: :)



EDIT: btw we all know that it's only the Israeli's that can land a one winged plane sucessfully ;p

[CodyValkyrie]

edit: Btw we all know that it's only the israeli's that can land a one winged plane sucessfully ;p
indeed!

[Big_Stick]

Just to have a little more discussion on this...

First off, the reactions of intense skepticism are common. Any time someone pulls off a seemingly impossible or amazing maneuver, credit is given grudgingly or not at all. I recall many years ago I had to avoid another rider on a racetrack who had crashed right in front of me. I missed him by barely a foot by kicking out the rear tire (they call it "backing it out") in a series of controlled slides which I confirmed by inspecting the track after the accident. When I blogged about it, the hate mail was voluminous. "You couldn't do that, you're just making it up..."

The main arguments seem to be:

-the plane rotates in the wrong direction after the wing loss

This can't be successfully argued because it's not a glider, it's a powered plane and it would be dependent on the amount of power applied as well as the rotation of the prop and the position of the control surfaces. This argument just does not hold water.

-a sane pilot would have bailed

Not if he wanted to spare lives on the ground. And the plane is too low and and the pilot has his hands full controlling the plane. There would have been no time to bail out.

- the sound is not synched and the voices are dubbed actors

The sound is not going to be synched because there is a time delay from the location of the plane to the camera mike. Also, much of the sound is from the prop, not the engine. Some say it is really an RC plane and some say it is CGI, and others say is is a combination of both. It looks genuine to me and those few pilots who do seem to understand what is happening in the movie agree. What really caused me to believe it was real were the final control surface movements just before the landing, which can be seen in great detail.

Watch it again, very, very carefully and note the way the wing separates. It first begins to break away as the plane is rolling to the left while climbing, causing the plane to start to go out of control. But the most telling evidence to support the genuine nature of the video is in the examination of the control surface movements in the final seconds before the landing...they are EXACTLY correct for the maneuver, in every detail.

As the plane comes in on a knife-edge, the fuselage is angled upward at about 20 degrees, with the prop providing almost all the lift. The rate of descent is fast but not beyond what the landing gear can handle. The pilot correctly positions the remaining wing above the plane, knowing that the missing wing actually provides more ground clearance to allow this maneuver a greater chance of success. The elevator is a few degrees up, and the rudder is kicked out to the left, with plenty of power on. The prop blast on the left rudder is what is causing the nose to angle up and provides enough vertical thrust to allow for a controlled descent. Watch the remaining aileron, which, by the way, spans the full length of the wing. The pilot is using this to control torque from the engine. This single remaining aileron is about three times the surface area of both ailerons on a typical training aircraft. Watch it move, especially after the plane lands.

In the split second before the plane lands, the pilot reverses the rudder, kicking it hard right to level the fuselage, making it parallel with the runway. At the same instant, he cuts the power and rolls in maximum left aileron while applying a little up elevator. All of these movements happen simultaneously and can be very clearly seen in the video. The aircraft responds precisely as it should; the fuselage shifts to become level with the ground, the wing rolls left to level out (watch that massive aileron at full deflection), and because it was at just the right altitude, drops onto its main gear with one good bounce. The reason the plane does not "nose over" is because as soon as the mains hit and bounce, the pilot gives another blast of power with some elevator to get the tail back down and then cuts the power. That's standard procedure. The pilot's final actions are to prevent a ground loop, and we can see that the plane begins to ground loop into the remaining wing, exactly as would be expected due to the extra weight and drag on the left side.

[CodyValkyrie]

I'd put $800 that the video is fake.

Here is some more evidence that leads me to believe it is all fake.

1) James Andersson is not listed, nor was ever listed as a Red Bull participant.
2) On James Andersson's website Red Bull is listed in links everywhere
3) The interview shows a very uninformed pilot: http://www.jamesandersson.com/video01.html
4) The site only has videos pertaining to the incident. Photos are however easy to doctor. Coincidental perhaps?
5) His schedule shows several events all of which do not list him as a pilot.

Again, I'll put $800 down that it is fake, and I'll laugh it all the way to the bank when this is finally debunked by the developer.

[Big_Stick]

It is interesting that the plane shown in the video is exactly the same plane shown in the promo stills on Andersson's website. It is the same in every detail, including the full-span ailerons, which are unusual.

Now, are the skeptics here saying that this was a full-size, RC aircraft that actually did make this impressive landing, but without a pilot? Or are they saying that it was a scale model? Or that the entire thing never happened and was done with CGI? Freeze the plane in the final seconds and it can be seen that this is Andersson's unique plane, down to the last detail, and the control motions are perfectly accurate. This kind of continuity is astounding, far better that seen in the big-budget aviation movies where it is common to see edits between a non-flying Zero and a flying Texan, for example.

I would like to see a link to an example of CGI work that has this apparent level of accuracy and authenticity.

To respond to the comment that Andersson is not listed on the Red Bull website, I would say that it is not common for every person who attempts to qualify for position, regardless of the type of racing event, to be listed on the primary sponsor's website. Normally, only the first-string competitors are listed. There are a lot of images of Andersson's plane, the G-300, on his site and they match the one in the video to a "T". Plenty of pilots attempt to qualify but only a few do. Andersson is what is known as a "privateer" racer and Red Bull is not one of his sponsors, but that does not keep him from entering events sponsored by Red Bull. Anyone familiar with motorsports would know this.

[Tweek]

One more thought - do pilots usually do lomchevaks during air races? Can't say I've seen it before!

I stand by the fact that it looks like a CGI, therefore I have reason to believe that it is. The appearance of the aircraft when it gets close just isn't right. And like I say, shaky and blurry camera work is a trait of CGI works, simply because it masks any imperfections in a CGI image. Yes, real videos are sometimes similar, but you see many fake videos such as this one employing those very techniques.


-a sane pilot would have bailed

Not if he wanted to spare lives on the ground. And the plane is too low and and the pilot has his hands full controlling the plane. There would have been no time to bail out.Seems a bit of a risky way to land it, by pointing it at the crowd first and then turning tightly to land nearby, if he was truely trying to spare lives! Surely heading for a nearby field, or the opposite side of the airfield would have been a much safer bet? Even if I was currently in full control of a one winged plane, I wouldn't trust it for very long, especially in tight negative-G turns, like his turn onto 'final'.

I'd join you in that $800 bet, Cody!

[chinookmark]

I'm putting my money on the video being fake. I'm not arguing that it couldn't happen, just not in that youtube video. The beginning looks real, and I'd even believe that a a well trained stunt pilot with quick reactions could bring the plane into knife edge flight. But during the final pass before "landing", the camera is TOO locked onto the plane, just like a padlock view, and the shine is all wrong -- CGI or sim. Then there's the wing break -- no fuel, debris, torn covering, or control rods hanging out. CFS2 had better wing breaks. And finally the landing. A somersault? Really? Either the gear would have broken, bent, or dug into the ground. The flip would have stayed closer to the ground, or taken longer. I'm not buying it.

[CodyValkyrie]

Now, are the skeptics here saying that this was a full-size, RC aircraft that actually did make this impressive landing, but without a pilot? Or are they saying that it was a scale model? Or that the entire thing never happened and was done with CGI?
It could be either or, a mix, or whatever. Any of the above could be done and mixed with near impeccable editing which would leave the viewer guessing, which is the case.


Freeze the plane in the final seconds and it can be seen that this is Andersson's unique plane, down to the last detail, and the control motions are perfectly accurate. This kind of continuity is astounding, far better that seen in the big-budget aviation movies where it is common to see edits between a non-flying Zero and a flying Texan, for example.
More than likely the team budgeted for a simple model which was overlayed with programs like After Effects, LightWave and/or 3DS Max. Either way, if they have a single model, they have a single model they can overlay on pictures as well. The model won't change unless they want it to. You can take a simple model in 3DS Max and overlay it on a background if you wish and just snap some pics. There are plenty of other programs that can do this. Adding the smoke is easy as well with the right editing tools.


I would like to see a link to an example of CGI work that has this apparent level of accuracy and authenticity.
You just saw it ;)

Actually, there was a movie some time back about a 747 landing on a freeway. If it wasn't for the quirkly video itself, most would have thought it real. Obviously the editer/modeler team knew enough about flight dynamics to make it seem possible, a point that I won't dispute. However, technically speaking, you could do this same thing in FSX, 3DS Max, LightWave and After Effects. You wouldn't have to worry about some of the aerodynamics because the simulation would take care of that for you... of course, FSX aerodynamics... *shrugs*

Here are some examples of what CAN be done with Flight Simulator and some good editing tools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsHvHv2TfZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehHJiJFfGI8&feature=related

[BananaBob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZo1KBPKa7c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLTvwQjOG0

That looks pretty real too, but it's CGI also. They've mixed real life scenes with CGI in the above video. This is one of my early edits, I think I could do a lot better now as this is pretty old now, especially the windows, but the plane is from FS9 and the rest is real, should fix up the cockpit now though, LOL. :d

[Big_Stick]

The plane, when it lands, is exactly the same aircraft in every detail from the closeup knife-edge to roll-out. The canopy opens and a full-size man gets out and another full-size man runs toward the plane. How is this explained? There is not a single inconsistency, including the control surface movements. The plane in the video is the same plane, from beginning to end.

And of course a full-size plane can bounce like that on a hard landing. Ever see a carrier landing?

I would like to see another, confirmed hoax video that would prove the quality and content of the killathrill to be similar and reproducible using the CGI and RC/blend technique. The RC video posted earlier only serves to prove that the maneuver is possible.

[CodyValkyrie]

The plane, when it lands, is exactly the same aircraft in every detail from the closeup knife-edge to roll-out. The canopy opens and a full-size man gets out and another full-size man runs toward the plane. How is this explained? There is not a single inconsistency, including the control surface movements. The plane in the video is the same plane, from beginning to end.
So? This is because it is quite possibly the same model used throughout the whole video. As for the man getting out of the cockpit, that is a keying effect. It is very possible and easy enough to do in a video via editing.


And of course a full-size plane can bounce like that on a hard landing. Ever see a carrier landing?
And it lands and stops like it is on a carrier too, with a wing missing... ;)


I would like to see another, confirmed hoax video that would prove the quality and content of the killathrill to be similar and reproducible using the CGI and RC/blend technique. The RC video posted earlier only serves to prove that the maneuver is possible.
It serves to show that it is indeed possible with an RC model... and it crashed for the most part. I however am not stating that it was all done with an RC model. I actually believe the whole thing was done in CGI. Hard to tell though.

I think BananaBob's video is suitable to show a good technique of blending, along with the ones I provided.

You must remember, I am a video editor. What I am telling you is that this is all indeed possible with the right tools and on a decent computer. If I thought from my editing video perspective this was real, I would have said so.

Now, what I don't know is what part of the video is real, if any. I'm having a hard time distinguishing different parts, for example before the landing the plane looks a lot more real. This however may have to do with the fact that the backgound color is a blue hue, which lends itself better to this type of editing. Simply put, I don't know where the CGI begins, if it isn't all CGI. Hell if I know but there are many ways to skin a cat.

[Lewis-A2A]

Of course its fake its blatantly CGI,.. if you want believeable cgi see 'merlins'

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=l1RV4O9vUqU

:kilroy:

[SkippyBing]

The landing bounce looks cartoonish at best, and the tail wheel looks fake for the landing run. It's also a bit odd that the plane seems to be running alongside a tarmac strip for the landing run which would be just where the right wing's shadow would be, certainly an easy way to mask editing it out. Also the man who shouts 'Run!!!' as the plane is heading towards the camera is still around to say 'Amazing' seconds later.
As to getting the CGI model of the plane the same as the aircraft edited in before/after the incident, well that's not hard if you're working with the real aircraft I mean how do you think FS models are made?
As for the continual hunting of the focus in the video, I've never seen a camera do that for real and I've done a fair bit of videoing surface to air and air to air.
I certainly don't remember seeing his aircraft at the London Red Bull Air Race, and he's not in the program I've got either. Bear in mind you need a special license from Red Bull to compete in these events, it's not just a case of turn up and race.
All in all there're too many little niggling doubts about this and as Cody said if this had been for real just about every paper on the planet would have had an article on it.

I actually think the Merlins video is more convincing!

[Roger]

Of course its fake its blatantly CGI,.. if you want believeable cgi see 'merlins'

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=l1RV4O9vUqU

:kilroy:
Nice to see "Tochy's" Merlins again.

I have searched the web for a news-story to corroborate the video and have found none. I wanted to believe that a pilot had actually saved himself through extraordinary skill and coolness of nerve but it seems that it may have been a hoax.

[kilo delta]

Besides , with the skills necessary for a landing like that..... I'd reckon the pilot would be a dab hand at the auld Accusim!:kilroy:

:costumes::ernae:

[Big_Stick]

Besides , with the skills necessary for a landing like that..... I'd reckon the pilot would be a dab hand at the auld Accusim!:kilroy:

:costumes::ernae:

Good one!

Let's stipulate a few things. I think we can agree there is no question that a plane can be landed with one wing missing. It's been done and documented. We just saw the RC video of a very similar one-wing landing which Cody linked for us. There's documented proof of an IAF F-15 having done so as well, and I just watched it. So no one who's researched it even a little will disagree with the fact that this sort of thing is definitely possible and has been done before.

Apparently this happened quite recently and there is little in the news about it. If you look at the film there don't appear to be many spectators at all, it seems to be a practice acrobatic session. (Keep in mind that Andersson never claimed to be one of the twelve Red Bull pilots, only that he participates in certain Red Bull events). So if it's a fake, it's an incredibly good fake of something that could have happened exactly as it's shown.

There are plenty of posts and comments all over the web now stating with great certainty that it's a hoax, but a few exist from folks who are familiar with these kinds of planes and they tend to support the authenticity of the video. These come from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081030140510AAqZPAb

--------------------------------------------

Typically on this type of highly aerobatic small aircraft:

The fuel tank is in fuselage.
They don't use control cables for ailerons. They are controlled by torque tubes operating through a sliding universal joint at the wind join.
Ground shadow shows no right wing.
Wings on this type aircraft are removable, usually held on with one or two bolts and a couple of pins to take the wing pitching moment. The bolts are there to keep the wing from pulling out of the spar tube.
Center of gravity is usually set way aft on these aerobatic aircraft to give quick and high response, around 40% of wing chord. The cg would not move very much with the loss of a wing since it is already distributed fore and aft of the cg.
If a model was used, then it was an exact duplicate of the final full scale airplane.
They use large control surfaces with large throws, thus the ability to do sustained straight and turn knife edge flight (where the wing has no lift at all) using fuselage lift alone.

I cannot say one way or the other if it is fake. I see nothing in the video that would indicate that it is. As far as I know, it has only been filmed once occurring on an RC model.

That being said, if it really happened, I would imagine it would have been all over the news, and the news people would have set up several satellite dishes outside the pilot's house.

Finally, I reckon the pilot got out quickly because of the smell in the cockpit. LOL

I am a retired Flight Test Engineer for Aerodynamics and Stability/Control plus 45 years of RC flying.

---------------------------------------

From a pilot’s perspective this video looks extremely real. I am an airline pilot with about 20,000 hours of flying time, and to me this is spot on. To an untrained eye it made seem that it is defying the laws of physics. However it is not. Let’s take a look at this one at a time: the reason the landing looks unnatural is because of the amazing reflexes of the pilot and the enormous control services that he controls. If you look carefully just before the airplane rights itself for landing you can see the Aileron the left-wing being displaced dramatically. This forces the left-wing down at an incredibly fast rate. This is completely consistent with what you saw on the tape. Additionally, if you look at the tail and rudder displacement you’ll also notice that his controls are perfectly placed for a knife edge pass as well as that quick motion when he rights the aircraft just before touchdown. The knife edge pass uses the body of the aircraft as a lifting surface which, in addition to the large amounts of thrust/lift created by the propeller, was why he was able to maintain flight. This is done all the time when aerobatic aircraft. The reason that he appears to bounce like a ball is because of the way the landing gear is designed. The “V” shaped metal struts along with high performance tires take a tremendous amount of G force, and is able to provide some “give” when the aircraft touches down. That is why the aircraft bounced instead of collapsing the gear. If I were the pilot, I too would have tried to get out of the aircraft as soon as possible. The possibility of fire is always present after an incident like this, and the best place to be if that occurs is away from the aircraft. That's the way we're trained. The reason there was not fuel pouring from the right side of the aircraft was largely due to the fact that the fuel tank is not in the fuselage, but in the wings themselves. So, when he lost his right wing, he also lost his right fuel tank. He may have had his fuel cross feed valve set to the left wing which would have minimized/eliminated any fuel coming from the exposed fuel lines. (these lines are quite small, and leaking fuel wouldn't be that noticeable at this distance if ruptured) The swinging of the aircraft to the left 90° was an intentional, and very rational, course of action. He was trying to slow down the aircraft as soon as possible without ground looping it. With the “tail dragger” type of airplane this can be done at fairly high speeds. All in all, this video looks completely authentic and in keeping with known laws of aerodynamics to an aviator of 30 years. Hope that helps

These are both written by careful observers with plenty of experience with the real thing. Both corroborate what I had posted earlier, and the second strongly supports my observation of the control surfaces. Keep in mind that the fuel lines would have quickly severed, and any fuel would not have been under pressure so fuel would not have been pouring out as some have suggested. There are no electrical lines as these planes are not equipped with lights and only minimal radios or other equipment. CFS2-style wing breakage, with all kinds of spars sticking out, is a video-game effect. Real planes don't have wings that are attached like that, as was stated before, it is usually just a couple of big bolts. There have been many civil planes, including jets, that have lost engines in flight. The bolts sheared and that was it. In many cases the pilots did not even know the engine had departed the plane.

Another claim is that the prop would never stop spinning so quickly. Wrong. With a high-compression, high-performance engine and a very light prop, the engine would stop turning almost instantly, exactly as we saw. Andersson's website says he's modded the engine to make up to 475 HP which would explain that, although the stock 350 HP version would be about the same. As for the plane being quickly "whipped" around to the left right after landing, that's completely unremarkable. I've seen it done almost as quickly by a pilot in an F6F Hellcat. Training would of course account for the pilot's readiness in promptly cutting the fuel supply to the engine (that accounts for the instant cutoff) and opening the canopy. This is standard emergency procedure for any plane after an emergency landing.

Another misconception is that this occurred at a Red Bull air race. Clearly it did not and neither the killathrill website nor Andersson's website make that statement. It is Andersson, practicing acrobatics at an unspecified airfield and event.

If this is a fake, it is astonishingly good to the last detail. I suspect we will know soon enough whether or not it is genuine, but a good number of aviators with actual hands-on experience seem to be convinced of its authenticity.

[deathfromafar]

Totally a fake. As noted, the plane rolled the wrong direction at wing separation. Normally when you lose a wing on a aircraft with critical stability, it will began a violent and accelerated spin towards the missing wing from the lift asymmetry. No amount of aileron or rudder input/moments will be able to overcome that once it starts. Case and point, Rick Massegee's accident in 1996 in a SU-31 due to wing failure. He never had a chance to get out at that altitude and spin rate. Clancy Speal's fatal accident in his Pitt's when the wing came off. When we see pilot's like Sean Tucker and others perform slow speed knife edge passes, they had to carefully set up the maneuver and work hard to maintain the critical attitude and power needed to stay stable. If you lost a wing it would be impossible to enter such an attitude once the lift asymmetry took full effect and the aircraft entered a spin. As to the IAF F-15 incident but he already had a significant amount of forward speed and airflow going for him. Had he been at high AoA or in a steep or unusual attitude, he would not have been so lucky. Not to mention, the F-15's horizontal stabs are large enough to be full sized wings on many aircraft. That had a very significant role in helping the pilot to regain control and land his plane.The other thing you must remember, R/C aircraft are capable of many things real aircraft at weight are not. lastly, the other thing I took note on in the video is how come the wing didn't drop and drag the ground after touchdown with the weight of it all to one side? No impact or ground loop at all. The other thing is the highly unnatural deceleration of the plane right at touchdown. There are way too many inconsistencies scattered about this video. Like it or not, it is 100% a fake.

[CodyValkyrie]

Well, I have 3,718 hours as a 757 first officer and a degree from the University of Portland on Aerodynamics and Aerospace and Aerospace Safety. Graduated class of 1999. I can certainly say it is not.

Ok, ok ok... I don't have that. But it sounded good right?

Sorry, just poking at the fire.

[SkippyBing]

I'd say my main grounds for thinking it's a fake are to do with the nature of the footage, rather than the actual events themselves. In some ways I put this down to a generational thing, I remember a few years back my Dad seeing some screenshots on a web forum that I was looking at, it took me a lot to convince him they weren't real. To me I could tell without thinking about it because I've been brought up with computers and CGI in films, whereas to my Dad it's not something he's been exposed to continually so he doesn't pick up on the various clues that I'm picking up almost sub-consciously. Likewise I have less tech savvy friends who're more easily fooled by that sort of thing, this is probably an indication I should get out more!

[Tweek]

I'd say my main grounds for thinking it's a fake are to do with the nature of the footage, rather than the actual events themselves. In some ways I put this down to a generational thing, I remember a few years back my Dad seeing some screenshots on a web forum that I was looking at, it took me a lot to convince him they weren't real. To me I could tell without thinking about it because I've been brought up with computers and CGI in films, whereas to my Dad it's not something he's been exposed to continually so he doesn't pick up on the various clues that I'm picking up almost sub-consciously. Likewise I have less tech savvy friends who're more easily fooled by that sort of thing, this is probably an indication I should get out more!

I'm thinking in much the same way. Even if every last detail was thought of and put into the video, it simply does not look real. Obviously I can't put that into hard facts, but there's no way I'm going to be convinced that the aircraft is real. I wouldn't even go as far as saying it's a model (at least when on the ground). CGI.

A couple of screens in similar lighting, one is clearly real (not the same aircraft):

[CodyValkyrie]

Am I still the only person that notices that there are no tail numbers? No tail numbers, the plane doesn't exist.

[kilo delta]

Note the lack of aircraft nationality markings on the KillaThrilla aircraft...eg N123AB, G-KILA :isadizzy:. .... Possibly a CIA bird?:d :)

[kilo delta]

oops...Cody beat me to it while I was posting

[X_eidos2]

Here's a link to Tochy's website that has links to all of his aircraft videos. The landing of the one-winged race plane looked very similar to one of Tochy's videos.

http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/~suppon/ (http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/%7Esuppon/)

Someone would be hard pressed watching one of Tochy's clips not to think that they were videos of real aircraft.

It's a lot of clever work - but if you look close, there are a lot of clues that not only is the aircraft video of the crash contrived, but so is the interview video and the web page with the pilot bio. It's a complete package, which makes the deception that more believable.

[GT182]

Gotta agree with Cody...it's a fake. Plus no registration numbers anywhere from any nation, And not a thing on the news about it happening. That alone is a dead giveaway. Bogus as all h3ll me says.

[Bone]

The plane went into a spin, then transitioned to an inverted spin, that ended up as a flat inverted spin...and with each spin rotation the rate of the spin increases with a corresponding increase in centrifugal force. Recovery from that abortion at such a low altitude would have been impossible with one wing. I don't know everything, but I have 16,326 hours of profesional pilot experience that has honed my sense of smell...and I smell b*llsh*t.

[Big_Stick]

Now, what I don't know is what part of the video is real, if any. I'm having a hard time distinguishing different parts, for example before the landing the plane looks a lot more real. This however may have to do with the fact that the backgound color is a blue hue, which lends itself better to this type of editing. Simply put, I don't know where the CGI begins, if it isn't all CGI. Hell if I know but there are many ways to skin a cat.

What I am sensing here is that most guys just don't like the idea that someone was able to pull off such an amazing stunt. It just chaps the hide. You are saying you believe the video is faked, but are not sure what parts are fake and what parts aren't. Is the last shot, with the man running up to the plane, and the pilot opening the canopy, a fake? Or is that shot real and the landing fake? We have a lot of folks here stating their credentials as CGI and video editors; let's get a forensic analysis. It's easy to scoff at something and call it fake. Show why. A good number of experienced pilots are saying it is absolutely possible -- and explaining why in considerable detail -- and when you consider the perfect synchronization of the control surface movements with the landing (to which no one has responded) it would take quite a team of folks to make a superb hoax video of this nature, what with building in all of those details to such perfection.

The absence of a report in the news media does not establish fakery. And hoaxes appear in the media and are presented as real, as well. It will be interesting to see what eventually turns up. If it's real or not, the facts will come out in time.

[Bone]

It's been proven that some planes are able to fly (marginally) with one wing, and the knife edge flying the plane does before landing is definately doable...but you need two wings to recover from a spin, or a spin chute.

I think the biggest mistake made in this clip was having the plane spin to the left, into the direction of the remaining wing. A spin occurs when one wing stalls and the other one doesn't, and the plane spins in the direction of the stalled wing. Ergo, If the left wing stalls then the spin is to the left, and if the right wing stalls the spin is to the right. Since the right wing sheared off that would be the aerodynamic equivilant of a stalled wing, and the spin should have been to the right.

[ryanbatc]

lol yeah thats totally fake

The landing at the end would have surely wrecked some part of the plane....

[PRB]

I’m leaning 75% likelihood of trickery. Only because the film looks like a fake, feels like a fake. It has that UFO video look to it… The guy screaming “ruuuunnnnn!!!” at the end was priceless. Two other things. Look at the shots of the plane on the ground after it comes to a stop. The shot is carefully cropped so that you cannot see the other wing (or lack there of). Convenient, no? And the in and out of focus thing is just silly. You’d have to do that on purpose, or create the effect afterwards on the computer. Usually done for “special effects.” And finnaly (ok, that's three things), the lack of corroborating evidence is suspicious. Has anyone else who was there come forward? Any other photos? Just another red flag...
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
The 25% holding out comes from Big_Stick’s comments. Such a feat may indeed be possible with that type of plane. I just don’t think it was done on that day. Not because I doubt the skill of air racing pilots in general or this one in particular.

[An-225]

Looks fake to me...

I have no doubt such maneuvers are possible...I have seen R/C planes doing high alpha stunts like this...

The lighting is WAY off. I feel like I'm looking at a render in 3DMax or Blender. Even the person running towards the plane looks fake, and the person opening the canopy...has that FS animation feel (notice how slowly his arms push the canopy open).

[azflyboy]

Throwing my hat in the "it's a fake" ring.

In addition to the aircraft rolling the wrong way when a wing falls off, there is a very clear CG look to the airplane after it lands, as well as a couple of occasions where the camera loses focus that are pretty obvious splice points, since there's no real reason for the camera to suddenly lose focus there.

From what I can tell, the airborne shots with two wings are likely a real airplane, with a transition to a CG airplane or model when the wing falls off (where the camera loses the airplane momentarily). The rest of the flight is likely a model, with a transition being made to a CG airplane right before touchdown (where the camera loses focus), and another switch to either a real airplane or composite CG shot made when the airplane turns away from the camera right at the end.

Other people have mentioned the lack of any registration and the bizarre interview with the pilot, which are also pretty clear indicators of a fake.

Also, professional aerobatic pilots never perform maneuvers aimed at the crowd line, so I can't see why the pilot would have landed instead of just bailing out, especially since a one-winged airplane isn't going to glide any real distance horizontally and will likely spin straight down.

[AckAck]

What I don't understand is why everyone feels that any of the shots have to be ALL real or ALL fake. I doubt the authenticity of the video- if we are going percentages, I'll say 99%. I also believe that it is possible to do everything shown (while not paying attention to which way the aircraft rotated when the wing came off), I just doubt that is was done here.

I also think that it is a heck of a lot easier to take existing footage and edit a wing out of it, rather than creating an entire video in CGI, which is what most people seem to be advocating. If you watch the History Channel's segment on the IAF F-15 that lost the wing, that is what they have done - taken stock footage of F-15s (most of the time, although there are F-4s in there too, along with an F-100 playing the part of the A-4!?) and edited out the wing that is supposed to be missing - either be covering it in "fuel spray" or "smoke" for the interior shots, and just replacing it with a section of blue sky for the exterior shots. I think that is what has been done here, except for also replacing a portion of the wing root with a piece of the "fuselage", as necessary.

The only part I am willing to say is complete BS and CGI is the landing. I think the righting and leveling is actual (except for editing the wing, of course), while from the bounce to the weird pitch down and second bounce (while everything is out of focus and moving way faster than it actually would) is either CGI or edited, and the ground roll and loop is actual again, but with the wing edited out and the shadow replaced or edited to remove the wing shadow. The shadow looks bogus (way too smooth and not reflective of the varied heights of grass blades) until it goes out of frame as the plane spins around (conveniently eliminating any editing needs for the last 10 seconds of the video.)

Plus, I think I'd have had my engine off a long time before he did. Like as soon as I hit the ground, instead of taxiing onto the grass first.

Interestingly, you can hear the wing break as soon as it breaks, so the engine sounds being out of sync because of the distance would also cause the wing break to be out of sync as well...but it isn't.

Brian

[Pepere]

The pilot does not seem very shook up/upset in his interview? :mixedsmi:

David

[CodyValkyrie]

What I am sensing here is that most guys just don't like the idea that someone was able to pull off such an amazing stunt. It just chaps the hide. You are saying you believe the video is faked, but are not sure what parts are fake and what parts aren't.
The landing shot is absolutely faked. From the knife edge to the pilot opening the cockpit.

It is all parts prior to that of which I am struggling with. I'm curious if they did an RC mix on this, possibly building a 3d model of the RC plane. I'm certainly not ruling out that it was entirely done with CGI, but I am open to the possibility that it was. The quality of the former shots before the landing are certainly much better than the rest of the footage in my opinion from a lighting perspective.

Anyways, I digress. I threw my hat in the ring a long time ago. I think everyone is clear on my particular stance ;)

[heywooood]

regardless - its a great video...if in fact it is two vids or three spliced and edited together its still a great piece of work.

I've seen and heard those planes from very close up at the local RedBull Challenge this past spring and they are mighty powerful and extremely torque-y - he 'appears' to use the torque to perfection in both timing and control, countering the obvious loss of lift on the right side of the plane whilst utilizing that types' fairly significant elevator and rudder authority.

I'm not saying I don't believe it was done, afterall propagating a hoax on the internet is not something new - nor an indictment on the character of anyone but the perpetrator...but it is a great piece of video.

Either way - it was an outstanding effort either by the pilot - or the film student

[CodyValkyrie]

Did a little further investigating....

Why is he not wearing a helmet? Most pictures I see of the pilots in the Red Bull Air Race are wearing helmets... Not always however, so this is not substantial proof.

The video clearly shows an Extra type plane with no spades underneath the ailerons, and the ailerons themselves are the full length of the wing.

http://www.birch.ch/images/StRambMS406+Extra30.jpg

The above picture is of an Extra 300L.

On the pilot's webpage it says the following:

The aircraft is based on an old G-300 with a modified Boxer engine which, thanks to an improved gas flow system, ignition and additional oil cooler developed by James himself, possesses an increased power of approximately 475 hp. Alas, the process of certification is still ongoing so that during competitions you will see a regular aircraft with 350 hp and a Hartzel propeller. Extra never made a G model of the Extra, and furthermore that nomenclature "g-300" does not fit with the extra line. The only Extra flown on the Red Bull 2008 circuit was an Extra 300SR flown by Ivanoff of France according to the official Red Bull page. Furthermore.

The Extra 300SR is a modified extra designed for use at the Red Bull Air Races.

Furthermore, the Extra 300SR only produces 340HP, the only 350HP plane is the MXS (at least according to Red Bull), which doesn't add up in the quote from the website above. Most standard Extras only come in a 300HP variant anyways.


Further optimisations (enlarged control flaps and reduction in weight to a basic weight of 650kg) improve the airplane’s flying capabilities in order to perform even better stunts and choreo-graphies.Besides the bad spelling....

Control flaps? Ok ok.. they are talking about Ailerons. So, this somewhat rebuts what I discussed... however, the plane isn't certified by their account. So why would all the photos show said plane with enlarged ailerons in a race as well as the video itself if it isn't certified to fly?

How much proof do we need that the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash?

To Heywoood, I don't disagree. Pretty cool video.

[SkippyBing]

There's also the rather dubious line in his biography about being in the RAF for a year and a half before leaving due to low sortie rates. Considering at least the first 6 months are taken up with initial officer training at Cranwell with leave etc. he wouldn't have actually finished the first flying training course, besides which the UK Armed Forces tend not to let you just leave.

[Tweek]

Also, if this was a public event, why are there not more videos of it? Usually when there's crash videos, or similar incidents, there's several views of it from different people, especially nowadays with camera phones and the like.

Again, it doesn't disprove the fact that it's real, but it's yet another suspicious coincidence that would point towards it being a fake.

[Woodstock]

has anybody searched in the FAA accident archives???? should be quite simple...no entry, no accident... just my 2 (euro)cent...

Woodstock

[Big_Stick]

has anybody searched in the FAA accident archives???? should be quite simple...no entry, no accident... just my 2 (euro)cent...

Woodstock

The video wasn't shot during an air race or air show; it's a practice session. Notice the complete absence of spectators. Also, it's most likely in GB, not the USA, or somewhere in Europe, so the FAA would not be involved. Also, a demonstration plane like this, flown only in controlled airspace, would not require any tail number. The planes are disassembled and shipped from show to show, not flown cross-country.

The G300 is an actual aircraft, very advanced, and it is not made by Extra, it's made by Akrotech. See here:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/s020a.pdf

As it stated on his site, he put this one together himself and it's highly modified. That's not at all unusual.

How is the landing absolutely faked? Is is 100 percent CGI or an RC plane? How was it possible to have the two people in the last shot? Is that the real plane, edited in?

[expat]

That's an R/C model.

[Big_Stick]

Did a little further investigating....

Why is he not wearing a helmet? Most pictures I see of the pilots in the Red Bull Air Race are wearing helmets... Not always however, so this is not substantial proof.

The video clearly shows an Extra type plane with no spades underneath the ailerons, and the ailerons themselves are the full length of the wing.

http://www.birch.ch/images/StRambMS406+Extra30.jpg

The above picture is of an Extra 300L.

On the pilot's webpage it says the following:
Extra never made a G model of the Extra, and furthermore that nomenclature "g-300" does not fit with the extra line. The only Extra flown on the Red Bull 2008 circuit was an Extra 300SR flown by Ivanoff of France according to the official Red Bull page. Furthermore.

The Extra 300SR is a modified extra designed for use at the Red Bull Air Races.

Furthermore, the Extra 300SR only produces 340HP, the only 350HP plane is the MXS (at least according to Red Bull), which doesn't add up in the quote from the website above. Most standard Extras only come in a 300HP variant anyways.

Besides the bad spelling....

Control flaps? Ok ok.. they are talking about Ailerons. So, this somewhat rebuts what I discussed... however, the plane isn't certified by their account. So why would all the photos show said plane with enlarged ailerons in a race as well as the video itself if it isn't certified to fly?

How much proof do we need that the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash?


As mentioned in my other post:

The G300 is an actual aircraft, very advanced, and it is not made by Extra, it's made by Akrotech. See here:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/s020a.pdf (http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/s020a.pdf)

"Control flaps" is a term sometimes used in the UK, it's deprecated here in the US but still understood to mean control surfaces. "Gills" is the British substitute for "cowl flaps" as another example.

Many planes are not certified, including home-built and warbirds. Certification is not required to test a plane, it's required to manufacture and sell or use the plane under certain commercial circumstances. The best certification this type of plane could receive would be "Experimental" in the USA, but GB likely has some other requirement.

The lack of a helmet is not unusual; we see plenty of pilots show up in serious aerobatic planes, out for a weekend flight, without helmets at one of our local airports which has an aerobatic area nearby. A helmet is a darn good idea, especially for the passenger (who cannot compensate for unexpected moves) but they are often not worn during casual or practice sessions.

Some of us need more info than others. I'll be watching this thread for more developments.

[jbDC9]

Big Stick, no offense intended, but it's kinda funny how you keep defending this video... it's just fake in so many ways as others have listed above. And the landing? It's just silly, looks like a cartoon. It just looks all wrong... even my wife, a non-pilot, watched it and said "oh yeah, that's fake."

Just an opinion from a 17,000+ hour B-737 captain with a Van's RV-8 in a hangar at the local 'drome.

[chinookmark]

Has anyone here used an R/C simulator? All this talk about RC and CGI got me thinking. It was mentioned a few times about the airplane just not looking right, and the shine being strange. The shine looks to me exactly like the shine in Realflight G4. I've got RFG4 at home (I'm in Iraq right now), so I can't make a video. But if someone has Realflight G3, G3.5, or G4, check it out.

Realflight G4 demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfOP066lX5s&feature=related

[CodyValkyrie]

Stick, with so much going against it, what do you have going for it other than "plausible" aerobatics? Even if everything you said is true, that is one hell of a stretch, don't you think?Again, if his plane is not certified for use and he stated that he was using his underpowered 350HP plane, why is there no record of such a plane in the circuit and why are all the pictures showing his modified version, even in races?The guy doesn't exist. The pictures are all staged. Nobody heard of him. The plane is not real. The video is fake.Believe what you want, but me, like most everyone here agrees. I do find it strange that you are willing to dismiss someone like myself who does this for a living ;)

[CodyValkyrie]

Has anyone here used an R/C simulator? All this talk about RC and CGI got me thinking. It was mentioned a few times about the airplane just not looking right, and the shine being strange. The shine looks to me exactly like the shine in Realflight G4. I've got RFG4 at home (I'm in Iraq right now), so I can't make a video. But if someone has Realflight G3, G3.5, or G4, check it out.
Funny you say that. Just before I saw this video I was at an RC shop playing with this simulator. It was fun! I want it. They had to kick me off of it.

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

Look at His web page, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its a Hoax...


James Andersson, son of a Swedish model and a British pilot, was born in Uppsala, Sweden, on a stormy October night.

Sounds alot like Snoopy... "It was a dark and stormy night" lol

also



Jimmy’s aircraft shows an irregular throttle response during training, hence his initial decision against further participation in flight events and competitions.

can anybody say "Convenient" and later he goes on to say...
little later it turns out that this was the right decision: The fuel pump had been assembled incorrectly causing an irregular supply to the combustion chambers which could have led to engine failure in the upper G-force area during flight maneuvers.

Why didn't his engine cut out in the video, that probably would have put alot of stress on the fuel system...

Just my 2 cents

-Conrad

[Big_Stick]

Stick, with so much going against it, what do you have going for it other than "plausible" aerobatics? Even if everything you said is true, that is one hell of a stretch, don't you think?Again, if his plane is not certified for use and he stated that he was using his underpowered 350HP plane, why is there no record of such a plane in the circuit and why are all the pictures showing his modified version, even in races?The guy doesn't exist. The pictures are all staged. Nobody heard of him. The plane is not real. The video is fake.Believe what you want, but me, like most everyone here agrees. I do find it strange that you are willing to dismiss someone like myself who does this for a living ;)

A lot of people saying it's a fake, but producing no proof or even substantive evidence, does not constitute anything going against it but the preponderance of skeptical rhetoric. I posted my own factual observations as well as those of several other real-world pilots regarding the perfect synchronization of the control surface movements and many other factual details which suggest it is not a fake. It's proven that a plane can in fact fly and land with only one wing attached, as your own link to the video of the RC plane showed (unless that was also a fake). On the other hand, despite the large number of video and CGI experts weighing in here, not a shred of forensic evidence to suggest the video is a fake has been presented. Show us some frame comparisons, pointing out inconsistencies and explaining just how the hoax was perpetrated.

Simply because "most everyone here agrees" doesn't establish fact, only mob rule. I'm sure you are very good at your profession but that doesn't prove this video is faked in any way.

Regarding your comments on the G300, 350 HP is not "underpowered", that is in fact a huge amount of power for a plane weighing around 1500 pounds wet, and is the standard output for the installed engine. The 475 HP figure was for the modified version. The plane does exist as the link to Akrotech establishes. Some seemed to be misled as to what "certification" means and I explained that it was only necessary for manufacture and sale of the aircraft, not for conducting private tests. It's clear this incident happened at a fairly deserted airport, as I mentioned earlier, during a test. The absence of any kind of crowd is very clear from the movie. Regarding the Andersson website's juvenile descriptions of the pilot, plane, and his exploits, they are indeed fluff pieces but hardly prove anything other than that the person who wrote them intended them as such.

The movie may indeed be partially or fully faked and I readily admit it, but to my eye, and based on a technical analysis of what the plane actually did, it appears more real than a hoax. The only reason I am still watching this thread is in the hope someone might post something substantive about its authenticity or falsity.

[Big_Stick]

Look at His web page, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its a Hoax...



Sounds alot like Snoopy... "It was a dark and stormy night" lol

also


can anybody say "Convenient" and later he goes on to say...

Why didn't his engine cut out in the video, that probably would have put alot of stress on the fuel system...

Just my 2 cents

-Conrad

The information provided is indeed vague and fluffy, but that would be consistent with a website geared toward attracting fans, not techies. However, the explanation of the problem is correct. Low pressure in the fuel system would cause the engine to stutter or lose power during high-G maneuvers. That's factually accurate.

As posted earlier in this thread, the engine would not necessarily quit after the loss of a wing, even a wing tank. This plane, in all likelihood, had a fuselage tank and the loss of a wing would not have had any effect on the power. The fuel systems in these kinds of planes are designed not only to operate inverted, but under both high positive and negative-G conditions. If the central or left wing tank was selected, no adverse effect to power would be experienced.

One thing that seems clear is that James Andersson is not the most reliable pilot, and in fact the killathrill site makes that clear. He's apparently quite the "maverick" and has been repeatedly disqualified from various events and is known for pulling stunts outside the norm.

Again, he is NOT one of the Red Bull pilots, he's a privateer and the absence of his name from the roster of the 12 top finishers does not mean he did not enter or attempt to qualify at any particular event. Certainly the websites would want to hype up the idea that he's somehow involved with the Red Bull races, but they don't state or even imply that he is on the Red Bull team or that he's ever so much as placed in the top 12.

I'm sure the facts will eventually surface. What I'm going on is that what is seen in the video is physically and technically possible (not just plausible) so to my eye, there is no clear reason to dismiss it.

[Mr.Mugel]

Looking at how much interest this video gathered here, I just want to throw my opinion into the pot, too. In my opinion this is a fake, in which CGI has been put over a real clip at the airport without any airplane, neither a real one with both wings, nor a R/C plane. Why would you use an R/C plane and add such lighting in there, makes no sense to me, or why would you add that lighting to a real clip? And for sure this is no real world lighting, there´s no argument for me about that.
Than look at the smoke line behind the aircraft while it flies straight at the beginning of the movie, totally innatural for me, too. Or look at the prop while it quits rotating, looks 100% rendered to me.
Than there´s the physics, overall after seeing what these planes can do, I wouldn´t say it´s impossible at all, but some points just look wrong for me, even as I am no real world pilot except for some little time behind GA controls while flying straight out. Why would the plane level out and than fall into the direction of the remaining wing, could be possible that the pilot got it wrong and moved rudder and aileron into the wrong direction, there´s no other reason for the plane to go that way for me. And even if there would be no fuel in the wing tanks at all, the wings still have some weight, which would cause the airplane to impact lopsided at that rate of descent.

This reminded me about R/C sims, too, they really look a bit like this these days...

It is interesting to see you defend this one Bigstick, and I don´t want to offend you by any means, there´s allways multiple opinions and I just wanted to express mine.

[Big_Stick]

Big Stick, no offense intended, but it's kinda funny how you keep defending this video... it's just fake in so many ways as others have listed above. And the landing? It's just silly, looks like a cartoon. It just looks all wrong... even my wife, a non-pilot, watched it and said "oh yeah, that's fake."

Just an opinion from a 17,000+ hour B-737 captain with a Van's RV-8 in a hangar at the local 'drome.

It's the non-pilots who seem to be most inclined to believe it's a fake. I'm sure you read the entire thread and saw the post by the 20,000 hour pilot and the flight test engineer who both thought, as I do, that it was genuine. I'm not falling into lock-step with the majority opinion, but I'm pleased you gleaned some humor from my stance.

The ad hominem attacks have started, thinly-veiled in some cases, as they ever do. Only reason I keep an eye on this thread is because someone may actually post something substantive here that will help sort this out, rather than barbs or guesses.

[Big_Stick]

Looking at how much interest this video gathered here, I just want to throw my opinion into the pot, too. In my opinion this is a fake, in which CGI has been put over a real clip at the airport without any airplane, neither a real one with both wings, nor a R/C plane. Why would you use an R/C plane and add such lighting in there, makes no sense to me, or why would you add that lighting to a real clip? And for sure this is no real world lighting, there´s no argument for me about that.
Than look at the smoke line behind the aircraft while it flies straight at the beginning of the movie, totally innatural for me, too. Or look at the prop while it quits rotating, looks 100% rendered to me.
Than there´s the physics, overall after seeing what these planes can do, I wouldn´t say it´s impossible at all, but some points just look wrong for me, even as I am no real world pilot except for some little time behind GA controls while flying straight out. Why would the plane level out and than fall into the direction of the remaining wing, could be possible that the pilot got it wrong and moved rudder and aileron into the wrong direction, there´s no other reason for the plane to go that way for me. And even if there would be no fuel in the wing tanks at all, the wings still have some weight, which would cause the airplane to impact lopsided at that rate of descent.

This reminded me about R/C sims, too, they really look a bit like this these days...

It is interesting to see you defend this one Bigstick, and I don´t want to offend you by any means, there´s allways multiple opinions and I just wanted to express mine.

Now that is gentlemanly and well-put. I would remind my growing list of detractors that I have already stated that the clip may indeed be faked, but if fake, it is masterful and I would like to know, in forensic terms, precisely how it was accomplished.

Some of your concerns, such as the fuel supply and control issues, have been addressed in my previous posts, but as I mentioned, a fuselage tank would be unaffected by the wing loss, and skillful application of power along with the huge amount of control authority available with this plane (the Akrotech G300 has enormous, full-span ailerons and a dramatically oversized rudder and elevator) would account for the pilot's ability to regain control. As far as the direction of rotation, bear in mind that this type of plane is designed to fly inverted equally well as it does upright. Thus there is no appreciable "dihedral" effect. With neutral ailerons and little or no power applied, the plane would be apt to roll in either direction, depending upon the angle of attack of the remaining, left wing (not the attitude above the horizon). There is nothing about the behaviour of the plane in the video that is not consistent with the normal envelope of flight dynamics for this sort of plane.

[Big_Stick]

What I don't understand is why everyone feels that any of the shots have to be ALL real or ALL fake. I doubt the authenticity of the video- if we are going percentages, I'll say 99%. I also believe that it is possible to do everything shown (while not paying attention to which way the aircraft rotated when the wing came off), I just doubt that is was done here.

I also think that it is a heck of a lot easier to take existing footage and edit a wing out of it, rather than creating an entire video in CGI, which is what most people seem to be advocating. If you watch the History Channel's segment on the IAF F-15 that lost the wing, that is what they have done - taken stock footage of F-15s (most of the time, although there are F-4s in there too, along with an F-100 playing the part of the A-4!?) and edited out the wing that is supposed to be missing - either be covering it in "fuel spray" or "smoke" for the interior shots, and just replacing it with a section of blue sky for the exterior shots. I think that is what has been done here, except for also replacing a portion of the wing root with a piece of the "fuselage", as necessary.

The only part I am willing to say is complete BS and CGI is the landing. I think the righting and leveling is actual (except for editing the wing, of course), while from the bounce to the weird pitch down and second bounce (while everything is out of focus and moving way faster than it actually would) is either CGI or edited, and the ground roll and loop is actual again, but with the wing edited out and the shadow replaced or edited to remove the wing shadow. The shadow looks bogus (way too smooth and not reflective of the varied heights of grass blades) until it goes out of frame as the plane spins around (conveniently eliminating any editing needs for the last 10 seconds of the video.)

Plus, I think I'd have had my engine off a long time before he did. Like as soon as I hit the ground, instead of taxiing onto the grass first.

Interestingly, you can hear the wing break as soon as it breaks, so the engine sounds being out of sync because of the distance would also cause the wing break to be out of sync as well...but it isn't.

Brian

Cutting the engine would be the last thing you'd want to do. The knife-edge maneuver requires power, and as a glider, the one-winged plane would have been as controllable and aerodynamic as a brick. The engine is what saved the plane, RC or real. Indeed, it may be a real video where the wing was edited, but the plane is so close to the ground just before it lands that the right wingtip (if actually in place and only edited out) would have struck the ground.

Some have said that the ground roll was extremely short, but it's not. The plane rolls out for a couple of hundred feet after the bounce. The blurring may suggest edits, but but again, those blurs are pretty typical of the handheld video cams I've used when set to autofocus. As soon as the plane moves out of the cone of focus, the lens goes back to infinity.

[Big_Stick]

Here's someone who's said it better than I, and this reflects my current opinion of the clip:

"Why would the wing fall off on a routine snap roll?"
Perhaps you could ask the same question about the F-117A that lost a wing during an air show in Baltimore in 1997?
Or you could ask it about the Zlin aerobatic aircraft that Neil Williams successfully landed after the spar broke and one wing began to fold upwards. He flew it inverted to hold the wing in place, then did an ultra-low-level roll and landed. See his own report of it here: http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm (http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm)
Having seen Sean Tucker fly by sideways hanging from his prop in a pass that looked very much like the final pass in the video, I certainly think what the video shows is possible, but is the video a fake? I honestly don't know. If it's real, I'm very impressed by the pilot. If it's fake, I'm very impressed by the CGI artist. Either way, someone is *very* good.

(from the AvWeb site).

[CodyValkyrie]

Now that is gentlemanly and well-put. I would remind my growing list of detractors that I have already stated that the clip may indeed be faked, but if fake, it is masterful and I would like to know, in forensic terms, precisely how it was accomplished.

I can explain this. Have a model built to specifications of your desire. Perhaps based on an RC model, perhaps not. Either way, consistancy is key here. Make your screenshots of the model in flight and do some photoshopping. Easy enough.

Regarding the video, it could be done two ways. Record an RC and adjust the video using LightWave and After Effects to add things like smoke, etc. Alternatively, which is how I believe the second half (the landing) was surely done, animate the model in 3ds MAX, using keying effects for the pilot exiting the cockpit possibly utilizing green screen or blue screen technology for the personel using a variety of software tools freely available on the market, place it on a backdrop of your choosing. Once the film has been created, utilize post editing effects to create blurring, color hues and other masks to edit out any abnormalities that were not found prior.

This is not rocket science.

As to the aerodynamics, what is to say they didn't study up a bit, watching videos like the ones we provided to simulate the situation? Simply animate the model to give a similar experience and viola! Developers do this all the time when they animate their models for FS addons, what is to say that someone else couldn't do it with 3DS Max for a video like this? All you need is a bit of background in planes and a bit of proofing to faux this.

It is already known that creators have produced similar content in the past:

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

Anyways. I think I have said my point to death. Convincing you is like pulling teeth, and what do I gain from doing it?

[CodyValkyrie]

Furthermore, you ask me to waste my time making substanant proof that this is false. I say you provide us with substanant proof that the plane, guy and incident REALLY did happen and is not a viral ad campaign.

Isn't that fair? Why should I waste all my time making something to prove to you otherwise, when you are not returning the favor except repeating what others have said, who you cannot verify their background on some website.

Where is YOUR proof and biography?

[Tweek]

I can explain this. Have a model built to specifications of your desire. Perhaps based on an RC model, perhaps not. Either way, consistancy is key here. Make your screenshots of the model in flight and do some photoshopping. Easy enough.

Regarding the video, it could be done two ways. Record an RC and adjust the video using LightWave and After Effects to add things like smoke, etc. Alternatively, which is how I believe the second half (the landing) was surely done, animate the model in 3ds MAX, using keying effects for the pilot exiting the cockpit possibly utilizing green screen or blue screen technology for the personel using a variety of software tools freely available on the market, place it on a backdrop of your choosing. Once the film has been created, utilize post editing effects to create blurring, color hues and other masks to edit out any abnormalities that were not found prior.

This is not rocket science.

As to the aerodynamics, what is to say they didn't study up a bit, watching videos like the ones we provided to simulate the situation? Simply animate the model to give a similar experience and viola! Developers do this all the time when they animate their models for FS addons, what is to say that someone else couldn't do it with 3DS Max for a video like this? All you need is a bit of background in planes and a bit of proofing to faux this.

It is already known that creators have produced similar content in the past:

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

Anyways. I think I have said my point to death. Convincing you is like pulling teeth, and what do I gain from doing it?

Well put. There's absolutely no arguement in saying there's no inconsistencies in the model. If, for example, I filmed a few clips in RealFlight (which, I have to admit, did go through my mind aswell), using the same model, why would it keep changing between frames? Just because it's using a simulator, or a CGI image, that doesn't mean the plane is just going to keep changing in appearance. Do your aircraft in FSX suddenly omit registration numbers, propellors, aerials, or whatever, when you're flying along? Of course not. Why would this be any different?

The basis of your (Big_Stick) arguement seems to be 'it can be done in real life'. But so what? Someone could make a CGI video of a dog barking. Would you argue the point that it must be real because 'dogs really do bark'?

I understand you're trying to provide an alternative viewpoint, but you really are fighting an uphill battle. If we had a way of proving it, I really would put that $800 on the line, to say it's a fake, but I don't know of anyone who'd even think about completing the deal on the other end.

[n4gix]

This is rediculous...

Someone explain how at 1:07 into the clip, the a/c is inverted and the LEFT wing is missing instead of the RIGHT???

[BananaBob]

When I saw that Feng had responded to this in the FS2004 section and after watching it a couple times, I knew this was mostly fake and mixed with reality and CGI and when someone who has worked on movies such as Transformers, I'll trust Feng's judgment and my own.

This is also just a peak into the future and the problems with convictions using video as proof, if people are so sure this is all real, that is truly a scary view of what will happen in the future when CGI will be much better than this and harder to spot.

[CodyValkyrie]

Banana, you just gave me an idea for a video... Thanks.

[Mr.Mugel]

Yes, what you say is true, but you might have understood me wrong, even if there is no fuel, fuel just ment as weight, in the wings, shouldn´t the gravity pull the remaining wing down at that rate of descent during the touchdown, causing the gear on the side with the remaining wing to deflect further and with that pull the plane out of the straight and level situation in the movie? I had another weak point, but I keep forgetting it.

It´s really interesting to see how this goes on and on. I guess that there is no "proof" that can convince any of us, of the opposite that he is allready thinking, this seems to really be a matter of opinion. For me it is a sure fact that it is CGI, I wouldn´t even call it a fake any longer, it´s just a different kind of movie... And even if I think that the lighting is strange, and unnatural, it is still great editing work, I can´t do it myself, but I know what can be done, there was a rather bloody "Ice Age" style CGI movie for example, which was of quite the same visual quality as the movie itself, but I guess the real movie was made by far more people.

[SkippyBing]

Just to backtrack a bit, you can't fly an aircraft in the UK without a registration and we do not have an equivalent of the FAA's Experimental category. The UK CAA have exactly 0% sense of humour about this, hell they don't even like issuing out of sequence registrations that much and the Red Bull sponsored Sea Vixen had to carry it's registration despite being the only flying example and painted in a rather striking blue and silver paint scheme, with massive Red Bulls on it.
Now, in an apparently standard aerobatic display the wing falls off an airplane, surely there should be some rather important signals from the design authority grounding the aircraft until a thorough investigation has been made, and subsequently a list of inspections to be carried out on all similar aircraft prior to them being declared airworthy again. If you can produce these, which should be fairly trivial if it actually happened, I'll admit it was real and really badly filmed. If not based on everything I know about flying and CGI I'm calling it a fake.

[Bone]

It's the non-pilots who seem to be most inclined to believe it's a fake. I'm sure you read the entire thread and saw the post by the 20,000 hour pilot and the flight test engineer who both thought, as I do, that it was genuine. I'm not falling into lock-step with the majority opinion, but I'm pleased you gleaned some humor from my stance.

The ad hominem attacks have started, thinly-veiled in some cases, as they ever do. Only reason I keep an eye on this thread is because someone may actually post something substantive here that will help sort this out, rather than barbs or guesses.

You must have missed my two posts.

[SkippyBing]

Some more analysis http://aido3n.blogspot.com/2008/10/c-the-best-pilot-ever.html

[jdhaenens]

Geez this is getting painful. Just tell us what they're selling and make it stop!:costumes:

[SkippyBing]

Clothes, they're selling clothes. A bit chavey for my liking but there you go!

[Quixoticish]

It's fake? Why? Because it's obvious that it's a fake, at least I thought it was? I must admit I'm rather amused by the controversy and debate this video has prompted, but then this means that the viral advertising has indeed worked and the video has been plastered all over the internet with people debating it's authenticity.

Every little detail from the reflections through to the acting, sounds, animation, it all adds up to make a fake. A good fake, but an obvious one in my opinion. Oh, and that last little bounce before it comes to rest on it's wheels, it just looks a tad unbelievable. I'll stick good money on it being a fake to be honest.

Oh, and if you want proof it's fake and part of a viral marketing campaign:

http://www.killathrill.de/start.action

I know this link has already been posted but... seriously. The answers are all on there, it's quite wittily put together and full of humour. This viral marketing thing is nothing new and it amazes me that people are still debating its authenticity. But then as I've previously stated I suppose this means it's done its job ;)

I think it's time for an internet meme:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/2365167051_bb2e044365.jpg?v=0

[Big_Stick]

Furthermore, you ask me to waste my time making substanant proof that this is false. I say you provide us with substanant proof that the plane, guy and incident REALLY did happen and is not a viral ad campaign.

Isn't that fair? Why should I waste all my time making something to prove to you otherwise, when you are not returning the favor except repeating what others have said, who you cannot verify their background on some website.

Where is YOUR proof and biography?

Ah yes, the pack has formed and is circling the prey, snarling and slavering at the smell of blood.

The only argument presented for the falsity of the clip is a circumstantial one. The analogy to barking dogs could as well be used to support the obverse conclusion.

[Big_Stick]

It's fake? Why? Because it's obvious that it's a fake, at least I thought it was? I must admit I'm rather amused by the controversy and debate this video has prompted, but then this means that the viral advertising has indeed worked and the video has been plastered all over the internet with people debating it's authenticity.

Every little detail from the reflections through to the acting, sounds, animation, it all adds up to make a fake. A good fake, but an obvious one in my opinion. Oh, and that last little bounce before it comes to rest on it's wheels, it just looks a tad unbelievable. I'll stick good money on it being a fake to be honest.

Oh, and if you want proof it's fake and part of a viral marketing campaign:

http://www.killathrill.de/start.action

I know this link has already been posted but... seriously. The answers are all on there. This viral marketing thing is nothing new and it amazes me that people are still debating its authenticity. But then as I've previously stated I suppose this means it's done its job ;)

How is that link "proof" of anything other than the fact that killathrill has a website? Unless something has changed in the last 12 hours, there's nothing there that suggests the video is a hoax.

If it's such an obvious fake, than why do you later state it is a "good" fake? Wouldn't a good fake be one that would be convincing? Which is it, obvious or good?

[Big_Stick]

Here is another reasonably thoughtful post on the topic from another who agrees it may be real. This again addresses the suggestion that the plane rolled the wrong way. I previously explained this in a similar fashion. None of my comments are intended to convince anyone of anything, only to show that not all who watch the clip are immediately convinced of fakery. The discussion below of the aerodynamic principles involved is exactly correct.

----------------

On these fully aerobatic aircraft the wings are perfectly symmetrical in cross section and will provide lift as long as the chord is at an angle to the apparent airflow across the wing, and the lift will always be provided away from the chord's angle with the apparent wind. Even a flat-bottomed wing will gain altitude when inverted when the angle of attack is high enough. Also, such aircraft have fuselages designed as symmetrical lifting bodies to sustain altitude in knife edge flight. I've seen 1/4 and 1/3 scale aerobatic models landed with one wing gone on several occasions, but it takes a very skilled pilot to do so. I've even seen a plane landed with both wings gone simply by hovering it down like a helicopter, though it was spinning at a pretty good clip from torque reaction. I have no doubt a full scale version would be equally capable of knife edge to the runway, then a quick roll to upright attitude just befor contact. I think the video is real.

This is from http://www.twtex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33754

[N2056]

This has been an interesting thread, but now it's starting to go south...and I'm out of popcorn :banghead:

Maybe time to call it done before it gets bad?

[Big_Stick]

This has been an interesting thread, but now it's starting to go south...and I'm out of popcorn :banghead:

Maybe time to call it done before it gets bad?

You want to suggest we close the thread? Why? I'm not complaining and I'm the only one who's been insulted. We have like 20 people insisting it's a fake and essentially insinuating I am mentally addled not to fall in line with the groupthink. Doesn't bother me so why suggest we close it? Is it because I'm a maverick? If this film is a fake, I really do want to know how it was done, step by step, because it is amazing. If the plane was an RC aircraft, the pilot was astonishingly good. If it was done in an RC simulator, it's still very, very impressive. Seems to me that the discord stems from the fact I won't capitulate to the opinion of the masses and nothing else. Why the headbeating icon? Someone here must be capable of a good analysis of how it was actually done.

I have a very specific question for anyone who has the time to explain something here. I could easily buy the idea that the initial footage (if I may used that anachronistic term) is of an RC plane. I could accept this RC plane being the subject of the film (again, an anachronism) up to the point where the plane has landed and rolls out.

What I want to know is how the fakery was accomplished so convincingly with respect to the foreground and background scenery flashing in front of and behind the aircraft. The second thing I would like to know is how the final shots of the aircraft during the rollout were done, with the actual human beings in the cockpit and running across the tarmac.

Lastly, I would like to know if anyone feels that this G300 does exist and was seen as the "real" aircraft in the final shots. This, to me, is the greatest bugaboo. If the plane really does exist and is seen in the final moments, spliced to the earlier shots of a brilliantly flown RC aircraft, that would negate arguments that Andersson is no pilot and his plane doesn't exist.

[Tweek]

Lastly, I would like to know if anyone feels that this G300 does exist and was seen as the "real" aircraft in the final shots. This, to me, is the greatest bugaboo. If the plane really does exist and is seen in the final moments, spliced to the earlier shots of a brilliantly flown RC aircraft, that would negate arguments that Andersson is no pilot and his plane doesn't exist.

The fact that there's no registration number would lead me to believe that it doesn't.

And I also believe that it's a CGI aircraft throughout. Just look at the smoke at the beginning of the video. It's clearly in full flow, but looks far too thin to be representative of real smoke (i.e. diesel oil injected into a hot exhaust). Just compare it to any other video of an aerobatic aircraft. I suppose it's possible that they added it to footage of an R/C aircraft, but it'd be far more convincing to simply add a smoke canister to the model.

[Big_Stick]

Here is another juicy tidbit to chew upon.

Someone is claiming the Akrotech Giles G300 was only produced as a single prototype but is available as a large-scale RC aircraft...

http://www.fun-key.com.hk/giles120.htm

Here is an article on the actual, flying G300 which is good reading in and of itself:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/2001/Jan31/frontfull1.html

Here's a good image of the actual G300:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=119519

The RC plane shown above has a six-foot wingspan. Is it possible someone used one of these as the flying aircraft, after spending a long time painting it to look exactly like the real aircraft in the final shots? Or is the aircraft in the final shot also the RC, with the people somehow edited into the shot?

One thing that raises eyebrows is the three-bladed prop on the "real" aircraft as compared with the normal, two-blader on the RC unit. The blades on the "real" plane are perfectly to scale and the prop stops exactly as it would on a real plane.

If this is a large-scale RC plane, the flying is incredible. But how to explain the final shot of the real aircraft? Also, the detail on even the largest-scale RC model does not match that of the aircraft shown in the clip.

Call me curious but I would like to know how this was done if it's indeed fake. I could buy part RC, part real plane.

[N2056]

You want to suggest we close the thread? Why? I'm not complaining and I'm the only one who's been insulted. We have like 20 people insisting it's a fake and essentially insinuating I am mentally addled not to fall in line with the groupthink. Doesn't bother me so why suggest we close it? Is it because I'm a maverick? If this film is a fake, I really do want to know how it was done, step by step, because it is amazing. If the plane was an RC aircraft, the pilot was astonishingly good. If it was done in an RC simulator, it's still very, very impressive. Seems to me that the discord stems from the fact I won't capitulate to the opinion of the masses and nothing else. Why the headbeating icon?

First off, the headbeating icon was because I was out of popcorn.

I only bring up closing a thread when I start seeing phrases like 'personal attack' start showing up in posts. You made a statement to that effect in reply #80, which is why I said something, but after my post you edited it out.

I'll leave it at that.

[PRB]

Big_Stick,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
If I may… There have been two fundamental reasons given why people believe this video is a fake. 1) No pilot (or plane) can do that, and 2) the technical aspect, photo editing, CGI techniques, etc.
<o:p></o:p>
The first argument you’ve addressed thoroughly, and I believe that such a plane, with a skilled pilot at the controls, could possible pull off such a remarkable feat of flying skill.
<o:p></o:p>
But the majority of the posts supporting the fakery side of this are based on the second argument, not the first. You seem to be hanging onto the posts based on the first argument, and continue to focus on the fact that a real plane and pilot could actually do this. You’ve pointed out a couple of times that us skeptics out here are all non-pilots, implying that this makes us less qualified to comment of this than real pilots. This assumes we’re basing our case on the first argument. But I, at least, am not.
<o:p></o:p>
The circumstantial evidence of fakery presented here, based on argument 2, while circumstantial, is sort of huge, but you have conceded it and dismissed it at the same time by saying, “yes it may be fake, but you have to prove it.” Then you return to argument 1.
<o:p></o:p>
But as James Randi has said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and as logic dictates, one cannot prove that something didn’t happen. The burden of proof here lies with those who claim the event happened as depicted in the video. I don’t mean to suggest it’s up to you to prove it happened. You’re not the one claiming it did, just pointing out that it could, which I accept. The people who need to provide more evidence are the original claimants. How about just one single photo of the plane, on the ground, after the landing, without a wing, with a real person standing next to it? Wonder why there are none?

[Big_Stick]

Apparently the only G300 ever built was destroyed when the pilot, Marta Bohn-Meyer (who was also an SR-71 flight crew member) was apparently knocked unconscious when the canopy came loose.

http://differentriver.com/archives/2005/09/19/sad-news-from-nasa/

The wreckage of the plane was turned over the insurance company and its disposition is unknown. However, this doesn't mean much; Andersson's website says the plane he's flying is "based" on the old G300 design. Plans for this plane are apparently readily available.

I am intrigued by the image #11 on the Andersson website, which shows the underside of the modified G300. It looks quite real, especially the smoke. Image #3 appears to be the same plane but in a different livery.

[Big_Stick]

Big_Stick,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
If I may… There have been two fundamental reasons given why people believe this video is a fake. 1) No pilot (or plane) can do that, and 2) the technical aspect, photo editing, CGI techniques, etc.
<o:p></o:p>
The first argument you’ve addressed thoroughly, and I believe that such a plane, with a skilled pilot at the controls, could possible pull off such a remarkable feat of flying skill.
<o:p></o:p>
But the majority of the posts supporting the fakery side of this are based on the second argument, not the first. You seem to be hanging onto the posts based on the first argument, and continue to focus on the fact that a real plane and pilot could actually do this. You’ve pointed out a couple of times that us skeptics out here are all non-pilots, implying that this makes us less qualified to comment of this than real pilots. This assumes we’re basing our case on the first argument. But I, at least, am not.
<o:p></o:p>
The circumstantial evidence of fakery presented here, based on argument 2, while circumstantial, is sort of huge, but you have conceded it and dismissed it at the same time by saying, “yes it may be fake, but you have to prove it.” Then you return to argument 1.
<o:p></o:p>
But as James Randi has said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and as logic dictates, one cannot prove that something didn’t happen. The burden of proof here lies with those who claim the event happened as depicted in the video. I don’t mean to suggest it’s up to you to prove it happened. You’re not the one claiming it did, just pointing out that it could, which I accept. The people who need to provide more evidence are the original claimants. How about just one single photo of the plane, on the ground, after the landing, without a wing, with a real person standing next to it? Wonder why there are none?

Well put. Indeed, the search for information may well result in the debunking of this as nothing more than a very good hoax. I would respond to your description of the second argument as completely accurate, but self-defeating. The fact that something can be done through CGI that appears to be real -- let's say almost anything, to be fair -- doesn't mean that anything that seems unbelievable is just CGI. I would take the opposite argument to that presented by someone earlier in this thread. It was stated that younger viewers would be far more likely to peg the clip as a CGI fake because they are used to it. Yet, incredible saves and amazing coincidences happen often enough that reasonable people should at least take into consideration that while it may be unlikely, it could be true. Dismissing every astonishing feat or event just because it could have been created with CGI, as younger viewers seem to be wont to do, is no better a position than accepting most or all amazing feats as fact.

I'd like to see more info on this. I'd like to see someone familiar with this kind of video editing answer the three questions I asked earlier. I can see the first portion being RC, but the plane on the ground, with the open canopy, does not appear to be an RC model (I've been comparing images of the real G300, Andersson's supposed plane, and the RC versions).

[Pepere]

When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?

[icarus]

in a second movie he lost also other wing, the wheels and his credit card.


When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?

the man at special effect forget to add them.

[modelr]

When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?


Why should there be? It doesn't touch down in a slide. The wheels are pointed straight ahead. I live near a grass field, I've landed on them. I only thru grass when there was a large crosswind involved and I didn't get it straightened out properly.

Big Stick, I'm on your side. I've also closely studied the video, looking at each argument. I'm a large R/C pilot, who goes to a lot of large meets, sees the experts, does home video with an inexpensive Sony, has some real time hours, owned an ultralite for years, goes to airshows where these types of aircraft are flown, etc. I have no experience in CG, but I can usually (not always) spot the fakery. So, I also argue from the "it's possible" point.

Why didn't he bail? You know how long it takes to get out of one of those?? Ain't happening at under 1000 feet. Those don't have ejection seats.

Someone mentioned it looked like the wrong wing was shown when he was inverted. I almost answered "hey, you're right." However, after a close, as close to frame by frame exam as Windows Media Player (which I use) would allow, the shot is not of him inverted, he's in a knife edge, after stopping the spin. His movements/corrections are exactly the ones I would use in an attempt to save an R/C. Yes, I've lost a wing before. No, I didn't save it, but I was close. The plane I flew was not as manueverable as this one.

Questions about fuel weight in the remaining wing would cause different gyrations. True, but these aircraft don't have wet wings. They have a 5-10 gallon tank in the fuse, right under the cowling, over the pilots legs. No CG shift, and very little sloshing. ONLY enough fuel for 15 min at full throttle, maybe. And, the wing separation point is correct. These aircraft have a large tube running thru the fuse, and both wings have tubes to fit inside. They are held on with locking pins.


As said before, if this is CGI, it's darn good. But from who watches these kind of planes, it's totally believable.

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

in a second movie he lost also other wing, the wheels and his credit card.
So now he has a tricycle that he can neither pay for or drive? :d

[icarus]

So now he has a tricycle that he can neither pay for or drive?

lol:d

[CodyValkyrie]

What I want to know is how the fakery was accomplished so convincingly with respect to the foreground and background scenery flashing in front of and behind the aircraft. The second thing I would like to know is how the final shots of the aircraft during the rollout were done, with the actual human beings in the cockpit and running across the tarmac.
Blue/green screen technology, model animating and key framing. If that doesn't mean anything to you, I'm not going to bother explaining it any more.



I'd like to see more info on this. I'd like to see someone familiar with this kind of video editing answer the three questions I asked earlier. I can see the first portion being RC, but the plane on the ground, with the open canopy, does not appear to be an RC model (I've been comparing images of the real G300, Andersson's supposed plane, and the RC versions).

Isn't this what I have been trying to tell you? I'm telling you pretty much exactly how it was done. There are even SEVERAL ways you can do it! Going into full scale technical description of pan/crop editing, post fx and filter application etc is WAY beyond the scope of this conversation. There are even third party filters that convincingly animate like an amateur camera with no editing required by the maker.....

I'm not going to wait on bated breath for you to believe me however.

[AckAck]

Plus, I think I'd have had my engine off a long time before he did. Like as soon as I hit the ground, instead of taxiing onto the grass first.


Cutting the engine would be the last thing you'd want to do. The knife-edge maneuver requires power, and as a glider, the one-winged plane would have been as controllable and aerodynamic as a brick. The engine is what saved the plane, RC or real.

OK - I'm being misunderstood here - I'm saying the engine should have been cut as soon as he was on the ground, not after he had taxiied to a stop. I understand that the engine would be what kept him aloft and made any of the maneuvers possible.

Not that this is pertinent to this discussion, just wanting to clarify what I meant.

Brian

[jimdbird]

I thought that video style looked familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o


Cheers,
Jim

[Wozza]

One of my fav fake vids this guy knocks out some funny stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivSgzxFcdg
Wozza

[tigisfat]

it seems to may that the biggest thing wring with most animations is the motion. I have only an idea of what it takes to produce something that detailed and rael looking in a video, but you get no credit from me if you're trying to pass something off as real and it moves like a horrible animation. There are many fake airplane videos on the web, and the horrible animation immediately sets them apart.

[Big_Stick]

First off, the headbeating icon was because I was out of popcorn.

I only bring up closing a thread when I start seeing phrases like 'personal attack' start showing up in posts. You made a statement to that effect in reply #80, which is why I said something, but after my post you edited it out.

I'll leave it at that.

I edited the post because I myself did not want anything that could be perceived as fanning the flames any more than just having an opinion contrary to the majority. That's bad enough. I think maybe you are right. I've gotten a couple of supporters, but there is probably nothing more to be gained here. The line has been drawn in the sand and no one is budging. I do have one for you, though...is this also a fake? You decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCePw1xikDA

[tigisfat]

wow, that's hard to tell. It has a fakeness to it, in terms that the perception of depth seems to be off. It certainly could be real, but if it's not, my hat is off to the maker!

[simkid22]

Why doesn't the grass move? Even if the tires don't make divots when it contact, the tires still push grass down from the weigh of the plane. If that's too small of an observation, why doesn't the thrust from the prop have any effect on the grass? Throughout the movie the grass remains static. For its height, I'd like someone to find some grass that doesn't bend to the wind.

http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/144434/fokker-super-universal-taxis-on-grass-strip.html

I have no doubt that its possible to do exactly what is show in the video but now days, everything has to be take with a grain of salt.

[kilo delta]

Why didn't he bail? You know how long it takes to get out of one of those?? Ain't happening at under 1000 feet. Those don't have ejection seats.

.

Not as long as you'd think! Look at Eddie Goggins escape from his damaged Extra at the fatal midair that occurred during the Malta Air Races in 2007.

With regard to this fake video.... note how the shadows are completely off after the aircraft "lands".

[simkid22]

The main reason I think everyone keeps saying its fake is the problem associated with the "uncanny valley" problem; a problem that has plagued many video game developers for a while now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

Then again this (for me) blows past that barrier:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4557935.ece

[simkid22]

note how the shadows are completely off after the aircraft "lands".

Something is up with the shadow

The two faces of the hanger are lit but the overhang casts a slight shadow so the sun is overhead slightly closer to or behind the camera. The shadow on the wheel covers is almost accurate for this. If the position of the wheels is similar to that of the G202 (cant find pics of the 300)
http://www.inverteddownunder.com/images/Giles-side.jpg
then light from over head would illuminate the wheel cover. The problem is that the shadow from the wing should be directly under the tip. At the current angle the sun would be off to the left somewhere thus causing the hanger doors to be in the shade or the wing to cast a shadow completely over the wheel cover. The shadows seem to be mutually exclusive for the angle of shadow off the wing. (if you wanted to you could roughly determine the angle of the sun from the shadow on the hanger to really show that they conflict)

[Bjoern]

The reflections, camera "focusing" (could also be straight from a "Dogfights" episode) and landing look totally unreal, so it's more of good CGI work than good pilot work.



http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle4557935.ece (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4557935.ece)Good for starters, but the eye movement and blinking are too unnatural to be perfectly creepy.

[Tweek]

I do have one for you, though...is this also a fake? You decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCePw1xikDA

It's not. The depth perception may be a bit misleading, but I can see no reason why that would be a fake.

[Pepere]

Why should there be?

He hits the ground kind-a-hard?

David

[Big_Stick]

It's not. The depth perception may be a bit misleading, but I can see no reason why that would be a fake.

It's actually genuine, the real thing. Take away a right wing and you have the same thing we saw in the killathrill clip.

This video showing an actual knife-edge so close to the ground with a full-size aircraft shows that it can be done. Bear in mind also that the additional lift caused by ground effect, even on the fuselage as a lifting body and on the propeller blades, would be significant. For those who think the bounce is unrealistic, consider ground effect as well, along with the force with which the plane strikes the ground and the fact that this type of landing gear has no damping at all. These planes are made withstand +8/-6 Gs, and they are built tough. I've bounced a landing or two myself, and seen student pilots bounce at least half this height on a normal landing attempt.

I'm of the mind that the killathrill movie may well be a large-scale RC model. The problem, though is that when the canopy opens and the people come into the video, it looks like a real aircraft. The RC model wouldn't have a canopy that opened like that, so it would have to have been modified (no real problem there). This may be actual flight, but done with a large RC model. Bloody brilliant work, if it is.

Two things that I just noticed that suggest a real aircraft, RC or full-size, are the the "pumping" of the rudder pedals during the knife-edge just before the plane is righted (watch the lateral "wag" of the tail as the pilot feels for just the right amount of control). That's exactly how it would be done, feeding control in and out, just like you would "pump" the elevators when coming into ground effect during a normal landing. In this case the pilot is using the rudder as an elevator and the fuselage in in ground effect.

The second thing I noticed is the way the left aileron moves slightly up and down just after the plane rolls to a stop, right before the engine is cut and the canopy opens. This is a very small but very important detail, because it shows that the pilot jostled the stick in order to reach the fuel cutoff and/or canopy release. I can understand attention to detail, but this is something that even the most assiduous hoaxter would probably not think to put in. To me, it suggests a real aircraft, as an RC pilot would not need to move the stick, intentionally or unintentionally, to cut the engine or open the canopy. It looks very, very natural.

The curious thing to me is that even after all the web buzz, no one has managed to debunk this effectively. I've searched high and low on the web and the arguments presented are the same as we've covered here. You have one side flatly stating it's an obvious fake and citing circumstantial evidence, with a small but cogent group of pilots and/or RC fliers believing it to be real, or at least a real RC aircraft.

[Big_Stick]

He hits the ground kind-a-hard?

David

Pretty hard, but these planes are made to withstand loads of +8 G, with a load factor of 1.5 (12 G). It's a light, tough plane. If it's real, a rebuild of the gear would be in order but it's not far-fetched to think a plane like this could withstand at least one very hard landing.

The hard landing is another reason why I am inclined to think the movie genuine, or at least a genuine RC. If it was CGI, they could have had the landing any way they wanted, and made the pilot out to be even more of a hero by executing a smoother, more believable landing. In fact, this seems to present an even stronger argument for the clip's authenticity. A prankster should have known that anything outrageously unbelievable would immediately call the clip into question. That landing is not all that unusual in the world of bad or hard landings and you can see many a carrier aircraft bouncing like that and surviving. A bounce half that amount would have raised no eyebrows. Combine that with the aileron movement (indicating stick motion to locate and operate the fuel cutoff and canopy release) and the precise coordination of the control surface motions during the landing, and it looks very natural. If a hoax, it's a masterwork in terms of detail.

[Big_Stick]

The reflections, camera "focusing" (could also be straight from a "Dogfights" episode) and landing look totally unreal, so it's more of good CGI work than good pilot work.


There are plenty of clips of aerobatics on the Web where the autofocus moves in and out and the plane is lost to the camera for seconds at a time. I've filmed a few of these myself and it looks about like my crappy camera work. When the subject is lost the AF will default to infinity and then attempt to refocus when the plane comes back into view. Nothing at all unusual about that.

Here is an EXCELLENT clip (pardon my shout) showing a very similar maneuver, and it's genuine. I noticed some amazing similarities between this one and the Andersson landing:

1. The pylon design is exactly the same, white with blue tips.

2. The pilot in this clip cuts the smoke at the top of his climb, just as the KillaThrill plane does. (I first thought this suspect but the video here shows it to be standard procedure.) When the plane starts to tumble and the KillaThrill pilot ostensibly realizes he has a problem, he does not turn the smoke back on, which makes sense as he would have been busy with other things.

3. The scale of the planes are the same relative to the pylons and other objects.

4. The propeller animation is exactly like that on the KillaThrill plane after it lands, showing nothing unusual there, either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkYGzMW7p74

[Big_Stick]

This clip is an example of how a genuine home movie of an aerobatics display can look pretty crappy. The plane is lost from view and focus numerous times and it's shaky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ8HVuzRPMg

It's the same pilot as in the previous clip, Hungarian Zoltan Veres.

[Ojisan_alpha]

Folks,

on a German aircraft forum some guy reported that he actually saw the filming of this spot. They used a huge model aircraft (about 9 ft wing span). The missing wing was edited out of the clip, but otherwise the flying was genuine.


Andreas

[Big_Stick]

Folks,

on a German aircraft forum some guy reported that he actually saw the filming of this spot. They used a huge model aircraft (about 6 ft wing span). The missing wing was edited out of the clip, but otherwise the flying was genuine.


Andreas

I can readily accept that. The flying is genuine, the video is a hoax. (Flight dynamics are exactly the same for model airplanes as for the real thing, only the scale is different). As the other several clips show, the maneuvers are also possible for a real aircraft.

How were the final shots done? By somehow editing the real pilot into a model, or do you think that the full-size aircraft actually exists?

[Big_Stick]

Folks,

on a German aircraft forum some guy reported that he actually saw the filming of this spot. They used a huge model aircraft (about 9 ft wing span). The missing wing was edited out of the clip, but otherwise the flying was genuine.


Andreas

BTW, is this the site?

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2008/11/was-fr-ein-pilot.html?showComment=1225727580000 (http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2008/11/was-fr-ein-pilot.html?showComment=1225727580000)

[Big_Stick]

I spent some time translating posts from the German site.

The debate is identical to ours. Many insist it's a fake, whilst several real/world pilots argue its authenticity.

My new sig came from one of the posts, via freetranslation.com. Sounds Yoda-ish.:costumes:

[Ojisan_alpha]

BTW, is this the site?

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2008/11/was-fr-ein-pilot.html?showComment=1225727580000 (http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2008/11/was-fr-ein-pilot.html?showComment=1225727580000)



Nope, I think it was either at www.segelflug.de (http://www.segelflug.de), www.streckenflug.at (http://www.streckenflug.at) or www.flugzeugforum.de (http://www.flugzeugforum.de).

I have to admit that I'm too lazy to find the posting in question.... ;)


Cheers
Andreas

[CodyValkyrie]

Many insist it's a fake, whilst several real/world pilots argue its authenticity.
Are you saying that us real world pilots who disagree have no say or our input isn't as important?

Boy, this thread has me really puzzled. I simply cannot believe that the obvious and proven methods of creating a video of this sort, not only the absolutely cartoonish look of the landing it is being believed to somehow be a REAL video.

Perhaps professionals who think it is fake are not important.

:banghead::isadizzy:

I have wasted enough time in this post. Believe what you want.

[BananaBob]

People will see what they want to see, this only fortifies my understanding why people believe in Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster, LOL I knew it was partially fake the first time I watched it but watched it a second time to just be sure, I'll also take the word of professionals who work in this field, such as Feng, any day of the week. This is all over the net now and is exactly why they made this film, for free advertisement and we've all fallen for it. Finito.

:ernae:

[Tweek]

Believe what you want.

It seems that's what it's boiled down to. I too fail to see the need to keep explaining my point, as I obviously need hard concrete evidence for it to set in (not that we've been provided with anything on the contrary).

Still, at least I'm safe in the knowledge that I'll be able to say "I told you so" when and if it's ever debunked.

[HatulBitzot]

To my opinion this video is a mixture of a real aircraft and a quarter scale radio controlled model. The maneuver can be done with a radio controlled model.

I support my opinion by the following two facts:
T
he clean cut of the wing - it is more like a model aircraft wing that is disassembled from its connectors. You have to have such arrangement in order to put the model to your car.

As far as I know the cable system of the ailerons is connected to both of the wings. Losing one wing will make the other wing aileron unusable.
Only a model that was specially designed can make it like it is shown in the video.

Anyway if you forward the video frame by frame you can see the point when the stable puppet head turn to be human.

[Big_Stick]

To my opinion this video is a mixture of a real aircraft and a quarter scale radio controlled model. The maneuver can be done with a radio controlled model.

I support my opinion by the following two facts:
T
he clean cut of the wing - it is more like a model aircraft wing that is disassembled from its connectors. You have to have such arrangement in order to put the model to your car.

As far as I know the cable system of the ailerons is connected to both of the wings. Losing one wing will make the other wing aileron unusable.
Only a model that was specially designed can make it like it is shown in the video.

Anyway if you forward the video frame by frame you can see the point when the stable puppet head turn to be human.

The wing would in fact be removable by no more than two simple bolts. If just one were not tightened, and failed, the wing would rip from its mount as shown. These aircraft are routinely disassembled and crated for shipping and wings are removed for this purpose.

These aircraft don't use cables, they use control rods, like the Fw190. When they are disassembled, the rod is simply disconnected at the wing root. They don't have landing flaps so there is no other control system to be disconnected from the wing other than the single control tube.

Were the wing to break off due to a failure of a bolt, the control rod would simply break off cleanly at the wing root.

None of this proves or disproves the clip's veracity, but it does remove these objections to its possible truthfulness.

I personally would like to say I enjoy this discussion and regardless of the eventual outcome we certainly are finding a lot of interesting technical points to discuss. One thing that is missing is a good, detailed discussion of how such a film would be made, that is, something that could be understood by a person unfamiliar with the intimate details of that sort of thing, along the lines of what an expert witness might provide to a jury.

[BananaBob]

Ok, I watched it a 3rd time and have two shots for you within a second apart, these are the kind of things that make a video look fake and this is just one example. A. Look at the thickness of the edge of grass next to the tarmac, way too thick and off scale for a plane that big, B. Now in this shot, the scale is more appropriate to the size of the plane.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9069/fake1yf9.jpg

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9396/fake2mq1.jpg

[BananaBob]

And look at this one, now c'mon, Bigfoot in the foreground is waaayy too big, LOL :costumes:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9743/fake3kp8.jpg

[Quixoticish]

How is that link "proof" of anything other than the fact that killathrill has a website? Unless something has changed in the last 12 hours, there's nothing there that suggests the video is a hoax.

If it's such an obvious fake, than why do you later state it is a "good" fake? Wouldn't a good fake be one that would be convincing? Which is it, obvious or good?

You'll have to excuse me to be honest. In a moment of madness I dipped my oar in when I really shouldn't have bothered.

I'm quite happy and content in the knowledge that it is most certainly fake, a heavily CGI'd viral marketing video for a clothes website.

Have fun chaps, and keep in mind the piece of advice that compares arguing on the internet to running in the special olympics. :mixedsmi:

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Must admit though it is a great video !! :applause::ernae:

Laughed me Six Off on the 737 Video - The Kid Dancing in the Doorway, what a riot.

Just now Noticed the Bigfoot good one Bob - ROFL !!

HatulBitzot - Beautiful Dog, Reminds me off my Shepard/TimberWolf Mix - He was a Huge Beast All Tan !!


Cheers !!

[kilo delta]

And look at this one, now c'mon, Bigfoot in the foreground is waaayy too big, LOL :costumes:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9743/fake3kp8.jpg


LMAO:costumes::costumes:....them Bigfoots (Bigfeet??:d) get everywhere. :applause::ernae:

[BananaBob]

Another thing, the grass does not move or show any type of depression as it exits onto the tarmac, plus when the plane touches down, there is forward momentum that would take the plane onto it's nose but magically the back end sticks to the ground like a super magnet drew it there, the CGI head doesn't even so much as bob or sway during this violent landing, the gear legs don't depress or bend and watch the right front wheel skirt when it gets near the tarmac and when it goes onto the tarmac, really fake and again, the grass is way off scale. That's my proof if you can explain all this, I'm all ears.

[BananaBob]

And more proof. The white stripe on fuselage being gone on the final plane is also a dead giveaway, LMAO! Debunked.

http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view4420766.html

[simkid22]

I cant believe that I didn't notice the difference in the length of the engine cowling!

[kilo delta]

Now.... here is a REAL aviation video clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivSgzxFcdg ;p :costumes::kilroy:

[BananaBob]

It seems that's what it's boiled down to. I too fail to see the need to keep explaining my point, as I obviously need hard concrete evidence for it to set in (not that we've been provided with anything on the contrary).

Still, at least I'm safe in the knowledge that I'll be able to say "I told you so" when and if it's ever debunked.

Yep, like I said, there were just too many things "off." :ernae:

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

Yep, like I said, there were just too many things "off." :ernae:
Actually, I after watching that vid, I am now convinced that it is totally absolutely, indisputably...............
....
....
REAL

::Sarcasm off:: :d

[BananaBob]

Those that thought this was real, please, if you ever get called for court duty and you have to make a judgment based on a video, opt out. :mixedsmi:

[Bone]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz zzz

[Big_Stick]

Ok, I watched it a 3rd time and have two shots for you within a second apart, these are the kind of things that make a video look fake and this is just one example. A. Look at the thickness of the edge of grass next to the tarmac, way too thick and off scale for a plane that big, B. Now in this shot, the scale is more appropriate to the size of the plane.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9069/fake1yf9.jpg

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9396/fake2mq1.jpg

Ever see how tall the grass grows in a climate like GB, Oregon, or Washington? It can get a heck of a lot taller than that. Maybe it just hasn't been mowed for a while. Or do faked videos always feature perfectly manicured runways?:costumes:

[Big_Stick]

I cant believe that I didn't notice the difference in the length of the engine cowling!

Isn't this exactly the kind of forensic evidence I've been asking for? Finally, someone takes the trouble to actually present something concrete.

Now the question is, is this an RC aircraft in the air, spliced to a CGI or full-size aircraft on the ground? Seems to me if there were any CGI, the planes would be a match since building a CGI plane would entail duplicating the RC plane. If the entire thing is CGI, then there should be no mismatch.

Again, this image seems to show that the film is a hoax, but what kind of hoax? How was it done?

I can see that the aircraft on the ground was merged with the flying aircraft right after the landing bounce. Now, we've been talking about this for two days and finally someone has analyzed the film (someone outside this thread) and found some clear proof that the film is a hoax. All the naysaying in the world is not worth two cents compared to that image. That is convincing. Does anyone think that would have surfaced here if I hadn't been so insistent? Good work. But are we talking a combination of RC and a real plane on the ground? This is a darn good effort, and based on the huge amount of controversy and discussion, there are a lot of folks who would like to know how it was done.

[maguireted]

My Husband was a pilot, I've never been with him in sky, I fear the plane (in reality). Fortunately there is FSX.
However, I saw him how many times fly ! He was very professional, because he was a military pilot. I saw this video and this is a joke! How with one wing aircraft can still fly? Although , I am not a pilot, I do not believe it at all !

[N2056]

It's a crock. It also has nothing to do with FSX :d

[Big_Stick]

My Husband was a pilot, I've never been with him in sky, I fear the plane (in reality). Fortunately there is FSX.
However, I saw him how many times fly ! He was very professional, because he was a military pilot. I saw this video and this is a joke! How with one wing aircraft can still fly? Although , I am not a pilot, I do not believe it at all !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE&feature=related

[BananaBob]

Well, to me it's not a very good job as I knew it was fake the first time. :d

[maguireted]

To Herr Big Stick ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE&feature=related)

My Husband has never lost a wing .... I do not know if he survived it. I was wrong to write in this topic. I am a widow now. he is always a great pilot !

[Tweek]

Still, at least I'm safe in the knowledge that I'll be able to say "I told you so" when and if it's ever debunked.

OOO, OOO, CAN I SAY IT? PLEASE? :d

And that is not a real aircraft on the ground. You only have to look at it to see that it's a CGI creation. However, if you want evidence, if the airborne aircraft was indeed a model, you only have to take the comparison of the shadow on the elevator to see that it's not a real aircraft. The real aircraft would have cast an identical shadow (bar shape, seeing as it's a different aircraft) to the model, seeing as the light conditions are identical to the first part of the clip. Plus, BananaBob makes some very good points about the lack of pilot reaction and grass movement.

But if the aircraft that's airborne was a model, then I still firmly believe that the smoke has been added afterwards. In no way, shape or form is the smoke convincing. Real smoke is a lot thicker and puffier, and tends to linger in the air for more than a couple of seconds, even on R/C aircraft. That could point towards the aircraft being a CGI in the air aswell, but I can't say that for certain.

Still, with all this new evidence, I hope this 'mystery' (if you can call it that) has been put to bed!

[Pepere]

I was wrong to write in this topic.



No way :wavey: This kind of stuff is fun. We make our observations and arguments one way or the other over the past few days and a simple look at it tells all. :jump: We're good!:ernae:

David

[heywooood]

hmmm - I only referred to RedBull Challenge because I attended both the weekday trials and the Finals here in San Diego and saw this type of airplane in flight at full power and at very close range...at the number 6 gate - these planes were less than 150 feet from where I was standing on the ferry landing pier in Coronado - they entered the gate in knife edge after cuting across the width of the channel just north of the Coronado bridge - the pilots had to execute a perfect snappy half roll to the left and pull through the gate in about a 4 or 5 G turn - all in about a 10th of a second from straight level flight to the knife edge and pull....

these planes don't turn - they flick - from level flight to knife edge in either direction and have so much elevator and rudder authority its rediculous.

the video, if it were real, shows the only possible way a pilot could land what was left of that aircraft. and as for the wing snapping off - if this plane has a composite main spar as many of the racers do and it had been flown rigorously beyond spec in positive and negative G as many of these types are - the wing departure would be possible if not likely to happen just as it did in the vid - after it had been loaded up in the manoever...and then, just at the top of the pull, unloaded suddenly.

*schnap*

So it could happen -and if your life depended on getting that majority of an airplane down from there...and if you had the training and experience of a qualified Edge 540 or 300G type airplane pilot - then what you saw would be the only way to do it. ...hypothetically...

use whatever you had left - a powerful engine, alot of rudder and elevator... and couple of promises to god.

I love this discussion - its free and as I said earlier - buying it or not buying it isn't important - its a great vid and its been passed to me now by more than 8 different people I know "hey check this out!!! is it real?"

Who cares? .:ernae:

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

I love this discussion - its free and as I said earlier - buying it or not buying it isn't important - its a great vid and its been passed to me now by more than 8 different people I know "hey check this out!!! is it real?"

Who cares? .:ernae:
Theoretically, it is free... but being wrong, is not democratic, your either right... or wrong... (no calling anybody out here, I just wanted to state a point)

But more importantly, you are right... It is a good vid, and you know what... the important thing is the response it has evoked... not the outcome of this debate (though I would argue that it is actually an argument lol:icon_lol:.)

Heywood... :ernae:

[noshadez]

If it was (Real) then every news network and show would have this in a 24 hour cycle..not happened..not going to:isadizzy:

[heywooood]

yeah - I'm sure it has been vetted - I think everyone but gramma has seen it by now.

:173go1: aw - have a sandwich



just had a thought - wouldn't it be a good idea for another inane TV program to have a couple of jokers take stuff like this off the internet and go mythbusting or just going out and finding the buttheads from the most talked about/viewed ones and interrogating them - like a semi-ex police you're in a heap o trouble boy Ashton Kutcher kinda way....it might get a sponsor or two....Oscar Myer could plug their balogna and the dude from CHiPS could sell Arizona beachfront property etc...

[SolarEagle]

I am amazed people can be so convinced this video is authentic. I'll admit I thought it was real until until the plane came down low, then I started laughing, and I really laughed at the "landing". I think Cody pegged all the obvious signs at the top of thread. This was actually posted today at a PC hardware forum I visit, and the poster thought it was real, though he soon was laughed at for being so gullible. Among experienced graphics enthusiasts, there is no doubt what so ever this is CG, as well as an effective marketing tactic. Some have said its the worst CG they've ever seen, though that might be a bit dramatic. It reminds me of the way you can show a CG UFO video to the UFO buffs, and they will be convinced it's real, and when the creator of the video comes out, he then becomes to them part of the cover up conspiracy.

[guzler]

Another thing, the grass does not move or show any type of depression as it exits onto the tarmac, plus when the plane touches down, there is forward momentum that would take the plane onto it's nose but magically the back end sticks to the ground like a super magnet drew it there, the CGI head doesn't even so much as bob or sway during this violent landing, the gear legs don't depress or bend and watch the right front wheel skirt when it gets near the tarmac and when it goes onto the tarmac, really fake and again, the grass is way off scale. That's my proof if you can explain all this, I'm all ears.

To add to this, a violent landing with only one wing would have more downward momentum on one side due to the weight, causing the plane to tip to that side. What a gripping thread :costumes:

[BananaBob]

Now I'm going to buy one of their shirts, see what this has done, LOL, healthy debate without resorting to foul language is a good thing. :ernae:

[SkippyBing]

Ever see how tall the grass grows in a climate like GB, Oregon, or Washington? It can get a heck of a lot taller than that. Maybe it just hasn't been mowed for a while. Or do faked videos always feature perfectly manicured runways?

Yes, I live in GB, but all the grass strips I've been to have the strips mown in to the grass and keep the rest shorter than in the video to dissuade birds from grazing/nesting there.
From a CGI point of view the landing is disappointing as it looks cartoonish, the carrier landing analogy is good, the problem being carrier landings involve catching a steel cable to slow the plane down.

[Bjoern]

My Husband was a pilot

Just out of curiosity: Luftwaffe or LSK der NVA?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE&feature=related)

The F-15 has the benefit of a lifting body (fuselage), which generates quite some lift by itself.

[BananaBob]

Just out of curiosity: Luftwaffe or LSK der NVA?






The F-15 has the benefit of a lifting body (fuselage), which generates quite some lift by itself.

Yep, the right intake acted like the wing, without that right intake being intact, I think it would have been a bad ending.

[kilo delta]

Yep, the right intake acted like the wing, without that right intake being intact, I think it would have been a bad ending.


Also, the Israeli pilot had to maintain a relatively high speed in order to achieve control of the aircraft....afaik he landed at twice the normal touchdown speed. :)

[Big_Stick]

To Herr Big Stick ;


My Husband has never lost a wing .... I do not know if he survived it. I was wrong to write in this topic. I am a widow now. he is always a great pilot !


That's very sad to hear about. You are not wrong to write on this topic; in fact you were right on the one thing, the video does appear to be a hoax. It can be a tough room sometimes, though.

[Big_Stick]

OOO, OOO, CAN I SAY IT? PLEASE? :d

And that is not a real aircraft on the ground. You only have to look at it to see that it's a CGI creation. However, if you want evidence, if the airborne aircraft was indeed a model, you only have to take the comparison of the shadow on the elevator to see that it's not a real aircraft. The real aircraft would have cast an identical shadow (bar shape, seeing as it's a different aircraft) to the model, seeing as the light conditions are identical to the first part of the clip. Plus, BananaBob makes some very good points about the lack of pilot reaction and grass movement.

But if the aircraft that's airborne was a model, then I still firmly believe that the smoke has been added afterwards. In no way, shape or form is the smoke convincing. Real smoke is a lot thicker and puffier, and tends to linger in the air for more than a couple of seconds, even on R/C aircraft. That could point towards the aircraft being a CGI in the air aswell, but I can't say that for certain.

Still, with all this new evidence, I hope this 'mystery' (if you can call it that) has been put to bed!

That's a good post. You gave some details to examine that might suggest a hoax.

Someone mentioned "Mythbusters" and that's what I've been pushing for here. Those guys do a pretty scientific, forensic analysis of possible myths and hoaxes and take their time doing it and explaining it. That's what I've been asking for here and finally at long last, some solid forensics have been revealed.

Working with statements like "It's obviously fake" or "you only have to look at it to see it's a fake" aren't going to convince anyone.

I agree about the smoke, although when I compared the smoke to real videos, it's not enough of a difference to be conclusive. Now that we have established that the plane on the ground is a different and probably CGI aircraft, and the plane in the air is most likely an RC plane, the point about the smoke -- revisited -- makes sense.

It's unlikely the entire thing is CGI because there would have been no discrepancy between the models as the same model would have been used throughout. That is one heck of a piece of RC flying. I'd like to know more about how the ground sequence was created.

[Big_Stick]

Also, the Israeli pilot had to maintain a relatively high speed in order to achieve control of the aircraft....afaik he landed at twice the normal touchdown speed. :)

Yes, I think a knife-edge would have been out of the question.

[Big_Stick]

Yes, I live in GB, but all the grass strips I've been to have the strips mown in to the grass and keep the rest shorter than in the video to dissuade birds from grazing/nesting there.
From a CGI point of view the landing is disappointing as it looks cartoonish, the carrier landing analogy is good, the problem being carrier landings involve catching a steel cable to slow the plane down.

Right, but the height of the grass in and of itself is not enough to prove fakery. Right also about the arresting cable, but without the arresting cable, carrier aircraft would bounce severely. If you can find any movies of WWII field carrier practice landings you will likely find some pretty good bounces. There are also a good number of movies of bad carrier landings with some awful bouncing.

Looks like the CGI plane, on the ground was edited in at mid-bounce and I would guess the RC plane actually crashed after the first bounce, just like the actual RC one-wing landing in the movie Cody posted.

[Big_Stick]

I am amazed people can be so convinced this video is authentic. I'll admit I thought it was real until until the plane came down low, then I started laughing, and I really laughed at the "landing". I think Cody pegged all the obvious signs at the top of thread. This was actually posted today at a PC hardware forum I visit, and the poster thought it was real, though he soon was laughed at for being so gullible. Among experienced graphics enthusiasts, there is no doubt what so ever this is CG, as well as an effective marketing tactic. Some have said its the worst CG they've ever seen, though that might be a bit dramatic. It reminds me of the way you can show a CG UFO video to the UFO buffs, and they will be convinced it's real, and when the creator of the video comes out, he then becomes to them part of the cover up conspiracy.

That certainly happens, but not in my case.

What I've done is to take the position of devil's advocate. I've not made the flat statement that the clip is unquestionably real, what I've done is to present a case for it's possible authenticity. Many here have categorically stated that it's "an obvious fake" and "all you have to do is watch it" to know with completely certainty that it's a hoax.

In the end, isn't that relying on the eyes for truth? "Don't believe everything you see" is a good maxim. Some see an obvious hoax, where others see what seem to be a real events. A third possibility is that someone could be just too clever by half, and create a movie of an actual event, doctored with just enough CGI to make it appear to be a very good fake!

The analysis we seem to be reaching here is that the movie is a very good amalgam of real events (an RC aircraft being masterfully flown) and CGI (the plane that is seen to land after the bounce).

It all depends on what you are looking for. CGI aficionados will be looking for the telltale signs of editing, where others will be looking for things like believable flight dynamics and control surface movements. Both signs are there and would lead to differing initial impressions and in the end, a blend of reality and CGI is what we seem to have here.

[Big_Stick]

Theoretically, it is free... but being wrong, is not democratic, your either right... or wrong... (no calling anybody out here, I just wanted to state a point)

But more importantly, you are right... It is a good vid, and you know what... the important thing is the response it has evoked... not the outcome of this debate (though I would argue that it is actually an argument lol:icon_lol:.)

Heywood... :ernae:
It is absolutely an argument rather than a debate, and has gotten pretty interesting with the submission of some very good forensic observations.

[MudMarine]

:costumes:LOL what a load of "stuff"!:costumes:

[chinookmark]

Summary of what we've concluded after nine pages of discussion:

1) The video looks fake.

2) The event depicted in the video is possibly possible.

:173go1:

[chinookmark]

I still say it looks a lot like RealFlight R/C simulator. A lot of hobby shops specializing in r/c will have a demo setup in their store. If you haven't, go to your local shop and try it out. The video looks just like a RealFlight photoscenery, and the planes shine the same.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll get hooked on r/c flying. :D

[Big_Stick]

I still say it looks a lot like RealFlight R/C simulator. A lot of hobby shops specializing in r/c will have a demo setup in their store. If you haven't, go to your local shop and try it out. The video looks just like a RealFlight photoscenery, and the planes shine the same.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll get hooked on r/c flying. :D

Could be, but why the visual discrepancy between the model on the ground and the one in the air? If the whole thing is a simulator, that should not be necessary as the same model would be used throughout. I see how one could edit in a good landing rollout to a bad landing, but it would be the same plane.

[BananaBob]

Right, but the height of the grass in and of itself is not enough to prove fakery. Right also about the arresting cable, but without the arresting cable, carrier aircraft would bounce severely. If you can find any movies of WWII field carrier practice landings you will likely find some pretty good bounces. There are also a good number of movies of bad carrier landings with some awful bouncing.

Looks like the CGI plane, on the ground was edited in at mid-bounce and I would guess the RC plane actually crashed after the first bounce, just like the actual RC one-wing landing in the movie Cody posted.

Scale and height are two different things, it's the SCALE of the grass that is wrong, not the height.

[BananaBob]

There is no argument or debate either, it's fake, one plane has a white stripe down the fuselage and one does not, the two planes have different shapes. It's been fake since the first time I watched it, you guys can continue to argue or debate but to the trained eye, it's easily debunked. :mixedsmi:

[Big_Stick]

Summary of what we've concluded after nine pages of discussion:

1) The video looks fake.

2) The event depicted in the video is possibly possible.

:173go1:

I'd put it like this:

The video appears to be a hoax, which is a very different thing than a fake. A fake is something entirely false, while a hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive someone into believing something is truthful. A hoax can include elements of truth, and in fact a hoax can be perpetrated using only truth, arranged to reach a false conclusion. The real voices, people, and scenery are elements of truth. The other elements are partial or perhaps complete fakery or simulation.

The events in the video are not just possible, they have occurred in real life to real aircraft. This is one of the reasons why the events in the movie seem convincing.

[Big_Stick]

There is no argument or debate either, it's fake, one plane has a white stripe down the fuselage and one does not, the two planes have different shapes. It's been fake since the first time I watched it, you guys can continue to argue or debate but to the trained eye, it's easily debunked. :mixedsmi:

Well, there is the real rub.

This is just an Internet forum. Anyone can claim they have a finely-trained eye which is so superior to the eyes of ordinary lay folk that they can easily, and with no effort, immediately identify the video as a fake. Perhaps that's true and we do have such experts here, but simply telling the world that you are an expert and the video is a fake would not stand up to tougher standards such as those applied in arbitration or a court of law.

Let's just say I am not inclined to accept a flat statement claiming one conclusion or another without a good presentation of forensic evidence. And I, like most people, do take a bit of umbrage at a summary dismissal or virtual scoff. Let's get at the facts.

[BananaBob]

I'm just trying to set the record straight, you claimed that, "I can find no inconsistencies", There are many of these inconsistencies and I've never flown a real aircraft but I have worked with Photoshop for 5 or 6 years now, I've never claimed to be an expert and am not even close to that level of work. Having a trained eye does not mean I'm an expert, although I did shoot high expert every time in Marine Corps, :d.

You also said, "the computing power necessary would be the kind only possessed by Pixar or ILM", again this is totally wrong, this can be done on my PC which is not even close to the strength of Hollywood PC's.

Another statement you made was, "It is interesting that the plane shown in the video is exactly the same plane shown in the promo stills on Andersson's website.", also, "The plane in the video is the same plane, from beginning to end." Again these statements are false, not the same plane, different shapes, one has a control panel, one does not, one has a white stripe down the fuselage with black and orange, the other doesn't. When there are this many inconsistencies, and these are just a few, it makes the whole video a fake, hoax, joke, whatever you want to call it, it is plain insulting to try to fool people.

I don't think anyone has claimed it is not possible, shoot, anything is possible. This is a mix of real life and CGI, no doubt whatsoever. We are clearly reaching the state in CGI where it will be almost impossible to tell the truth from fakery to reality and this is scary indeed, especially when I see people so sure it is real.

[N2056]

Wrong forum for this stuff...:kilroy:

[BananaBob]

Yeah, I started to make it ugly, my emotions got the better of me. :banghead:

[Nonno]

This is just my 2 cents but I don't see any problems with this video being in this forum. It sparked my interest. Real, not real, CGI, or RC ... It made you 'think' instead of just saying ... yep it's fake, thanks to Big_Stick playing devils advocate. And I thought for the most part the discussion was pretty civil.
On first look, I thought it was fake also. I also have alot of experience with PS. I also have some time behind a stick. BUT, proving it was a different story. And yes 9 pages of discussion but only one person was able to PROVE what alot of us had thought.
So personally my hats off to Big_Stick for first making us think a little more then usuall and secondly not taking any responses personal and keeping the conversation fun and civil. :ernae:

[Big_Stick]

I'm just trying to set the record straight, you claimed that, "I can find no inconsistencies", There are many of these inconsistencies and I've never flown a real aircraft but I have worked with Photoshop for 5 or 6 years now, I've never claimed to be an expert and am not even close to that level of work. Having a trained eye does not mean I'm an expert, although I did shoot high expert every time in Marine Corps, :d.

You also said, "the computing power necessary would be the kind only possessed by Pixar or ILM", again this is totally wrong, this can be done on my PC which is not even close to the strength of Hollywood PC's.

Another statement you made was, "It is interesting that the plane shown in the video is exactly the same plane shown in the promo stills on Andersson's website.", also, "The plane in the video is the same plane, from beginning to end." Again these statements are false, not the same plane, different shapes, one has a control panel, one does not, one has a white stripe down the fuselage with black and orange, the other doesn't. When there are this many inconsistencies, and these are just a few, it makes the whole video a fake, hoax, joke, whatever you want to call it, it is plain insulting to try to fool people.

I don't think anyone has claimed it is not possible, shoot, anything is possible. This is a mix of real life and CGI, no doubt whatsoever. We are clearly reaching the state in CGI where it will be almost impossible to tell the truth from fakery to reality and this is scary indeed, especially when I see people so sure it is real.

Yes, one thing I learned is that this kind of thing can be done on a regular PC, but since most of us don't dabble in this kind of thing that would not be common knowledge. So we had an opportunity to bring that out along with many other things. Nine pages and we really had a chance to finally bring out some details about what's possible with today's editing programs.

Those statements about the plane being the same plane were based on visiting the site and examining the images, but not doing any careful A/B comparos. The folks who know what to look for in CGI and image editing would be the logical ones to do these comparisons and at long last, about Page 7, we finally got someone to take the time to find such a comparison. That's forensics. I didn't know where to begin looking for the comparisons because the video transitions and editing points were not as obvious to me as they would be to someone familiar creating this kind of product.

Now, I freely admit that I made those statements to draw out the folks who would feel they could prove me wrong. And that's just what I was hoping for. I wanted to be shown just HOW the clip could have been made, in detail. As someone else just mentioned, this stuff is real interesting and it's been an education for me. Inquiring minds want to know.

The morality of perpetrating a hoax is debatable, of course. This is what I guess is being called "viral marketing" and it works! But the truth is, the video is so compelling that its value goes far beyond just an advertisement. The flying, even if it's an RC plane, is just terrific. Heck, it would be terrific if it were CGI, but at this point I believe the flying is real, but an RC aircraft, spliced to a CGI (or perhaps a real) plane on the ground.

CGI is getting good, but the level of skepticism is so high now -- especially after this video -- that it'll be useless to try to fake evidence or hoax people because the first thing that will happen is everyone will claim it's a fake. If it's an important legal issue, the experts will line up in court and have to explain, frame-by-frame, why it's a fake and how it was done. I would still very much like to hear how this one was done, or at least get someone's best analysis.

The darn thing is so good I still like to watch it. It's a great movie.

One last thing I just thought of regarding CGI; if you look at the chase scene in the last Indiana Jones movie, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and compare it to the one in the first (Raiders of the Lost Ark) it is so obviously fake that it has none of the "edge-of-the-seat" feeling of the first. The first movie has a real chase sequence and it is frightening to watch. It's much, much better because it's real. "Road Warrior" is another example of a great chase scene. Someone brought up the notion that older folks, not used to CGI fakery, could not detect it as readily as younger ones or those familiar with it. It seems to me that a generation raised on CGI would not be able to tell the real thing from CGI either. The physical motions in CGI are not the same is in real life and the eye used to the actual physics can see the difference. That's one reason I think the first part of the KillaThrill video is an RC aircraft; it behaves naturally.

The CGI crew who did "Flyboys" claimed they got it right but didn't. Compare that flick to "The Blue Max" and the difference is as obvious as day and night. Real-world physics are capricious, as are real-world pilots, and the computers will never be able to catch all those little bits of orchestrated chaos. (See Jeff Goldblum's discussion of the Chaos Theory in Jurassic Park, the first film to really exploit CGI).:applause:

[SkippyBing]

Right also about the arresting cable, but without the arresting cable, carrier aircraft would bounce severely.

Yeah, but they wouldn't stop either. In the video the plane slows down like it's been arrested, the bounce doesn't form a natural parabola as you'd expect from even a bad conventional landing, and god knows I've made some. Sure it would loose some forward velocity from hitting the ground, but it appears to loose forward velocity at the top of the bounce which is unnatural.

[Mathias]

It's a fake and not even a very good one.
Beside that, if this accident had been real it had made the news, be sure. :costumes:

[jdhaenens]

Did you guys know you can actually put folks on an ignore list in the forum? This thread reads much better without certain input.

Jim

[SkippyBing]

I didn't know where to begin looking for the comparisons because the video transitions and editing points were not as obvious to me as they would be to someone familiar creating this kind of product.


Mostly the bits where the airplane isn't on screen

[maguireted]

Just out of curiosity: Luftwaffe or LSK der NVA?



I am very sad to write about that . I missed respect about my husband. Please, may he rest in peace. This is not the place for condolences. I made a mistake .
thank you, God bless you all .Best Regards Anna

[Bjoern]

I am very sad to write about that . I missed respect about my husband. Please, may he rest in peace. This is not the place for condolences. I made a mistake .
thank you, God bless you all .Best Regards Anna


Oh, I see.

Just forget I asked.

[modelr]

Ok, I missed most of the discussion because of work. Now that I'm back, and have read everything, I see what my untrained video eye missed. As Big Stick kept asking, show us where the fakery is. Just saying it was no proof. The A-B shots did it for me, I saw it immediately. Because I didn't slow it down, nor had the time to watch it frame by frame, I missed the change. So, I to admit it was at least partially faked.

I still support the point that the flying/landing are totally believable, and it was that point that I was making. I'm not a eloquent a speaker, in making my points, as Big Stick, but I hope my meaning got thru. That's NOT to take anything away from the graphics people, who were argueing against the vid. All your eyes are trained to look at things mine are not.

I started to see some of the things Bob put up when he posted his shots. I even saw a few other things he didn't mention. I totally missed the engine cowlings and the stripe, but I did see something wrong on the vertical stab markings, that started me doubting, soo...

Thanks, guys, I'll go back to my corner and fly my sim. :redf: :kilroy: :costumes: :d :applause: :wavey: