http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&feature=bz303
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&feature=bz303
Are you talking about the CGI? 
Floating around on other sites. One other site I visit had this link for fake verification.
That was amazing.
Just watching that video, I could tell it was fake for two reasons: first, the landing was too clean. There is no way you're going to snap the airplane into a three point configuration and be able to taxi. Secondly, the torn off wing is too clean. There is no buckled aluminum or sheared wing spar.
The most amazing -real- flying video like that was the one where Wayne Handley (sp?) had the Turbo Raven (I think it was sponsored by Oracle), and the prop went to negative pitch.
For those unfamiliar with the Turbo Raven, it had a power/weight ratio great than 1:1 (he did a stunt where he would come to a stop, hover for a few seconds, and then accelerate strait up). The prop controls also let the prop go to negative pitch so that he could taxi it backwards on the ground, as a stunt.
During one of his shows, there was a malfunction with something in an oil system, which controlled to prop pitch. The prop snapped to full negative pitch and wouldn't budge.
Wayne pointed the airplane at the ground, to keep up airspeed against the giant drag on the front of his plane. At the last instant he snapped the nose up, and slammed it into the ground in perfect 3-point configuration.
The airplane buckled and lost both wings, tail, and the engine mounts. But apparently he was able to walk away. I heard a rumor that he was about an inch shorter afterwards because his spine had been compacted by the force
Craziest thing I've ever seen fall off an airplane, was a picture of where the prop used to attach to the crank shaft of an engine (I think a Contintental) from one of those single-engine light-freight planes that FedEx uses. This one did mail commercial mail runs in Alaska.
Apparently the metal was faulty. The airplane was overloaded and the weight was aft of the CG limit (which didn't cause the failure, but is important to the story). On his run, he started getting streaks of oil on his windshield. As he was on long-final to his destination airport, it PUKES oil all over his windshield, there's a "WHEEENG", and the engine suddenly over-revs. The prop had just ripped itself off.
So, he has no power, can barely see, and just lost 80-100lbs from the very front of an airplane that is already loaded too far aft.
Same maneuver, pointing it at the ground, and pulling it up at the last moment. And the guy was fine.
Scary ass picture if you knew what you were looking at.
I can't see the video, but I think I have seen it elsewhere. That is almost certainly from a PC based simulator program. The landing is the key, and is quite absurd from a reality standpoint.
The interesting thing about it though is that if something like that actually happened (clean wing separation and still have control authority) a good air show pilot could survive it by flying a knife edge as shown in the video. Of course the landing would likely be different, he would likely have to come in a slow as possible (modern acrobatic planes can pretty much hover on their props) and slide to a landing on its side. Wouldn't be clean as shown in the video, but almost certainly survivable.
I am pretty sure Wayne Handley broke his back in the crash mentioned above, there should be a video of it somewhere.
I actually saw the Wayne Handley crash last week on "Destroyed in Seconds" (cool show if you haven't seen it yet). According to the history channel, he broke a couple vertebrae and ended up THREE inches shorter. How much of that is exagerated, but I don't think he walked away from that one. Carried away on a stretcher, sure ;)
aircooled wrote: The interesting thing about it though is that if something like that actually happened (clean wing separation and still have control authority) a good air show pilot could survive it by flying a knife edge as shown in the video. Of course the landing would likely be different, he would likely have to come in a slow as possible (modern acrobatic planes can pretty much hover on their props) and slide to a landing on its side. Wouldn't be clean as shown in the video, but almost certainly survivable. I am pretty sure Wayne Handley broke his back in the crash mentioned above, there should be a video of it somewhere.
The remaining wing would also still be making lift. It would be a total bitch to try to get it to roll against all that lift. Again, possibly a survivable scenario, but it wouldn't be pretty.
I'm not sure how injured Wayne Handley was, but he lived. And the landing was an impressive bit of flying.
Salanis wrote: The remaining wing would also still be making lift. It would be a total bitch to try to get it to roll against all that lift. Again, possibly a survivable scenario, but it wouldn't be pretty.
I was not talking about rolling at all, just fly it in knife edge as shown, and land the same way. As you say, it wouldn't be pretty.
aircooled wrote:Salanis wrote: The remaining wing would also still be making lift. It would be a total bitch to try to get it to roll against all that lift. Again, possibly a survivable scenario, but it wouldn't be pretty.I was not talking about rolling at all, just fly it in knife edge as shown, and land the same way. As you say, it wouldn't be pretty.
Yes, but flying knife-edge with only one wing would be different than flying knife-edge with two wings.
The aerodynamic surface of a wing generates lift. It pushes up in relation to the body. When you fly knife edge, the wings sort-of cancel each other out, and just push the airplane to the side. If you remove one wing, the remaining one will turn into a lever that will just cause the airplane to roll.
An airplane rolls because one wing is generating more lift than the other. If a wing has a smooth airflow over it (not-stalled), it is generating lift.
I imagine you could use the aileron to change the direction of lift enough for the wing to have neutral lift; but that would require a lot of aileron deflection. You wouldn't have much left to try to get the wing to roll itself the other way.
Actually, I don't think you could get enough aileron deflection to do that. A wing generates a lot of lift.
It's a very amusing video. High entertainment value.
How come the tail of the plane isn't damaged after it makes contact with the ground?
Then again, why in the world would anyone put THAT much effort into making a fake movie like this?
Here's some good flying:
OK, here's the real thing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs
Hi Salanis,
Except for prop wash, the relative wind in a high pitch knife edge maneuver is flowing mostly lengthwise across the wing…in other words, from wing end to wing end rather than from leading edge to trailing edge. Additionally, positioning the remaining wing down wind would put it into the shadow of the fuselage reducing flow in any direction and provide stability as the center of pressure would be well aft of the center of mass.
Ultimately, I suspect a modern high performance acrobatic aircraft could achieve stable, horizontal flight while missing a wing but along with the high pitch knife edge attitude, the aircraft would be rolled to the point that the prop wash induced asymmetric lift (minus aileron force) was cancelled by the weathervane effect….better have a strong roll bar as this configuration will likely result in a lot of the impact energy being directed into the canopy area.
RX Reven' wrote: Except for prop wash, the relative wind in a high pitch knife edge maneuver is flowing mostly lengthwise across the wing…in other words, from wing end to wing end rather than from leading edge to trailing edge. Ultimately, I suspect a modern high performance acrobatic aircraft could achieve stable, horizontal flight while missing a wing but along with the high pitch knife edge attitude, the aircraft would be rolled to the point that the prop wash induced asymmetric lift (minus aileron force) was cancelled by the weathervane effect….better have a strong roll bar as this configuration will likely result in a lot of the impact energy being directed into the canopy area.
Aha, that makes sense. I will still stand by my earlier statement about the authenticity of the video, that a pilot in that situation would not have sufficient aileron authority to snap the airplane flat.
I totally agree.
Also, what pilot would direct his aircraft into close proximity of an open assembly of people just moments after experiencing a catastrophic structural failure...that would guarantee receipt of the “Biggest Berkley Head Pilot Since the Dawn of Aviation” award.
BTW, I don’t know how long it’s been since you had to take your written but didn’t you just cringe when you had to tell the FAA that “both wings are equally stalled in a spin”….high score…true to physics…high score…true to physics…forgive me Professor Bernoulli.
RX Reven' wrote: BTW, I don’t know how long it’s been since you had to take your written but didn’t you just cringe when you had to tell the FAA that “both wings are equally stalled in a spin”….high score…true to physics…high score…true to physics…forgive me Professor Bernoulli.
It's been ages since my written. But... what?!? A spin is when one wing stalls before/more than the other wing. It's possible I just flubbed that question by answering correctly
I was trained well, by instructors who insisted on teaching me control and recovery from spins. Man are those scary fun.
My favorite maneuver though, is slow-rolls. I embarrassed my dad when the first slow-roll I tried, I did about 2/3 speed of his, and totally smoothly. Cross-controlling is fun. (My little brother, on the other hand, wasn't happy if he wasn't pulling at least 5 G's.)
That comes a lot from learning in a short-wing piper with no flaps. And my local airport has a big hill off the end of the runway. I got really good at slipping that thing in. And it was a tail-dragger, so I couldn't crab down the runway. I learned to do 1-wheel slipped landings instead.
Oh, and the best aerobatic pilot ever (and still) is Bob Hoover. The aviation equivalent a guy who could win a drift competition by clipping perfect apexes with a stock F-250.
Salanis wrote:RX Reven' wrote: BTW, I don’t know how long it’s been since you had to take your written but didn’t you just cringe when you had to tell the FAA that “both wings are equally stalled in a spin”….high score…true to physics…high score…true to physics…forgive me Professor Bernoulli.It's been ages since my written. But... what?!? A spin is when one wing stalls before/more than the other wing.
You know that & I know that but the FAA will ding you if you don’t say “both wings are equally stalled in a spin”.
I imagine their pragmatic desire to reference the fact that both wings are messed up took precedence over their desire to be technically correct.
RX Reven' wrote: I imagine their pragmatic desire to reference the fact that both wings are messed up took precedence over their desire to be technically correct.
If they wanted to be pragmatic about it and promote safety, they could just make spin recovery a required component of the practical exam.
Were you trained in spin recovery or any other sort of unusual attitudes?
Hi Salanis,
Yep, I was fortunate enough to learn in the 80’s before spin recovery was dropped from the curriculum. Additionally, my flight instructor was a mid 20’s wild man so I wound up with two assists as a student pilot in my log book and I did four or five on my own later that I didn’t see the need to document.
I learned in a C-152 which is the only modern trainer that’s rated for intentional spins…the Skipper & Tomahawk guys can only do them accidentally on propose. BTW, if memory serves, the Acrobatic version of the C-152 only weighs about 15 pounds more that the standard version…double leading edge ribs and a tarted up checker board paint scheme seem to be the only difference.
Added later...I didn't think about the Yankee but I bet it's a capable spiner (or more to the point, a capable get out of a spiner)
The Aerobat is a good plane.
I learned in a PA-16 Piper Clipper: I have no idea if it's rated for full acro. But it does pretty well. Short wings, and full-span ailerons roll really well.
^ Not my personal airplane, but should give you an idea.
Going from that to getting in a C-150 was interesting. Way easier to land a trike-gear.
I learned acro in a Nanchang CJ-6A (Chinese military primary trainer):
^ Again not the actual one I flew. But damn is that thing overbuilt. It has redundant wing spars. The secondary ones are rated for +4/-2. I think the primaries are rated for something insane like +8/-4.
My dad has rolled his Piper Comanche. I don't think he has ever tried to roll his current Piper Aztec. Probably not, since it's a truck and has a crappy roll rate.
My dad used to have an RV-4. That thing was sweet. After my first solo, a friend of my dad's took me for a flight in his Christian Eagle. That was a blast.
Hi Salanis,
I imagine your CJ-6 time is in the one owned by the nice Real Estate agent I’ve talked to about Cameron Park properties.
I’ve made up my mind that I want a Citabria.
RX Reven' wrote: I imagine your CJ-6 time is in the one owned by the nice Real Estate agent I’ve talked to about Cameron Park properties.
Actually no. Although he is a family friend. My dad had a CJ-6 that has since been sold. He co-owns another that he is trying to sell. I think the other owner may be the man you're thinking of, but I'm not certain about that.
Edit: Actually... I'm not sure what happened to the CJ I flew. It might actually be owned by the Real Estate agent we're talking about. I'm not sure.
I found pictures of it though on his website:
Here is Dennis, the agent, with the Betty, the CJ I flew. I'm not sure how old this photo is though.
^ Here it is on takeoff.
Double-edit: On Dennis' site, he has a picture of a different CJ at his current house. I'm fairly certain that "Betty" got sold a while back.
wow! Plane pron on my favorite car site!
Salanis, did your dad build the RV4 himself?
growing up my dad was a member of the EAA and was constantly threatening to get a kit (for an RV4)
He never actually went through with it, probably because he was afraid that procrastinitis (something my family is geneticly predisposed to) would strike mid project yeilding a permanat project in the garage...
Capt Slow wrote: wow! Plane pron on my favorite car site! Salanis, did your dad build the RV4 himself?
Yes, he did. Although I believe he got it when it was at least partially assembled. If I remember, the whole airframe was intact and painted. We still did all of the wiring and hooked up the control surfaces.
We also rebuilt the engine ourselves.
The build took forever. The running joke at the mechanics shop where we took our other planes was that my dad would have the airplane done in "3 more months" then "three more weeks". It was "three more weeks" for a while.
I flew the Clipper from here to Oshkosh for the EAA's airshow there.
Nice stuff!
My old Aeronca is like the GrandFather of the Citabria. I flew a Citabria with 180 HP once...nice!
Sometimes in the wind, mine almost seems like it's going backwards,
And the damn geese are always honking as they pass me!
Aeronca 65T
You'll need to log in to post.
