what a pilot!

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!
 
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.
 
modelr said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

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".
 
kilo delta said:
note how the shadows are completely off after the aircraft "lands".
Click to expand...

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)
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)
 
Tweek said:
It's not. The depth perception may be a bit misleading, but I can see no reason why that would be a fake.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pepere said:
He hits the ground kind-a-hard?

David
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bjoern said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
Ojisan_alpha said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:
 
Big_Stick said:
Many insist it's a fake, whilst several real/world pilots argue its authenticity.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
 
CodyValkyrie said:
Believe what you want.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top