can fly with one wing.
It doesn't look very real. Can F-15 fly with one wing?
I've only watched that link once, and I've had a few beers, but I feel inclined to call ******** on it. Right up until the landing, I thought that it was plausible, but that last-second flip into landing attitude just couldn't happen. The only reason that I didn't dismiss it outright is that some aircraft fusilages generate a large amount of lift independent of that provided by the wings. That could possibly allow for a semi-controlled landing with only one wing.
Dunno, it could be, many aircraft can fly http://www.bruce.ogilvy.clara.net/text/training/aero/a12.html [Broken]. 90 degrees of bank, tail low, nose hight and the trust vector combined with fuselage lift combined is enough to keep it level, like Dan said.
The flip to the landing may not be magic either, the thing is unbalanced, the weight of the wing pulling it level, and apparantly the aileron had enough command to avoid generating lift with that wing.
The magic of the F-16 landing is not so much aerodynamics but more system redundancy. With such a damage, one would expect all hydraulic systems to drain completely which would inevitably lead to loss of control. Other than that, with such a fuel leak, what portion of the fuel is leaking into the engine bay? How long till the fatal explosion? I don't think, this it was what a superior pilot would have done, trying to land it.
It looks like an aerobatics plane (Zivko Edge 540?), they are designed to deny physics.
Is there any question of whether or not this is fake? When it lands, you can tell the plane is a CGI model. The cockpit hatch opens awkwardly, and the prop slows and then stops unnaturally. Not to mention, the cameraman is the best in the world and should be on a Hollywood set instead of filming shorts for video sites, because it's pretty amazing how he was able to keep a speeding plane framed perfectly as it circled him several times at high speeds.
Perhaps I am blind, but I can't see it.
The reason this is entirely plausible is because these stunt planes are way over-powered. They don't need the wings to provide lift - just point the thrust skyward and up it goes. The wings serve more as a place to put control surfaces.
If it is not real, RC seems to me much more likely than CGI.
I have seen what can a good RC model (huge model of Extra 330, something like 7 or 8 feet wing span) do when flown by a skilled operator. I wonder what is a power/mass ratio for a model and for a real plane. Model was able to just hang on the propeler lift, to some extent that looked similar to what happens just before the landing.
Pretty much, yeah.
Exactly. If you've never seen one of these things in action in normal circumstances, you should watch one before calling BS on this.
In addition to the power of the engine, the torque is immense. The wings are also partly there to counteract that torque. I don't know which direction the prop rotates, but the pilot may have gotten lucky and had the correct wing fall off. One wing induces a huge torque in the other direction (inducing the spin at the beginning), the torque of the prop counteracts it, enabling control to be restored maintained in the knife-edge flight. The recovery is problematic, though, since it is spiraling down and increasing power would seem to be the last thing you want to do.
Heroic and amazing, to be sure, but i believe it is real.
I don't see any of that either, and:
What are you talking about?! The camera work is terrible!
Do you call this perfectly framed?:
Snopes says fake.
The way it lands is hard for me to swallow anyway.
Telegraph was on it, too.
an F-15 can land on one wing hence the israeli air force pilot who did it before, but its hard to tell the reality of this film.
Um, yeah. Do you really have to ask if this BS is fake?
It's not the ability of the thing to flip that bugs me. What I can't quite believe is that it could so precisely snap to the exact proper roll attitude with no overshoot whatsoever. That takes enough real skill with two wings.
It looked fairly real to me when I first saw it.
But AV weekly says it's a hoax.
I didn't realize RC airplanes had gotten so large. Back when I was a kid, they only had 2 foot wingspans. The ones nowadays have 6 foot wingspans.
There's also a video where someone has dissected various images from the original video and confirmed that it is fake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J72y_qFV2oc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param [Broken] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J72y_qFV2oc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I double checked. It's true.
I believe the pilot and cockpit cover opening at the end were added with CGI.
Very convincing hoax. Had me fooled.
I think it is the fact that it is possible in a real sized stunt plane that makes it so believable.
We should try and talk Andre into trying it.
No, it's just that when you were a kid you never knew that RC airplanes were so large. Model airplanes have been around since the early 1920's, and have had large wing spans.
Do you really have to consult a website to see if that video is fake? It's garabage.
Yes. I'm a boat geek, not a plane geek. The kinematic anomalies in the video flew right past me.
It's not that. It's that the CGI is justttt sooo bad. (I have a pet peve about CGI. I HATE HATE HATE it.)
It must be my young eyes. I've grown-up in the CGI-enabled world, be it Pixar or video games. They haven't created CGI advanced enough that I can't spot from a mile away.
Separate names with a comma.