• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Going Down

I've found these ground effect threads very entertaining. I'm an experienced paraglider pilot but have also flown sail planes and hang gliders and can say that ground effect is very noticeable with hang gliders, more than anything else I've flown and doubt that any other aircraft, other than the flying boat, would have a more noticeable ground effect.
This whole thread reminds me of creationist who just latch onto the smallest glimmer of hope on the smallest of details and in the end, just makes them look desperate.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Great video! You just proved that fly-by's at air shows are near take off and landing speeds not at 530 mphs.
Certainly low in altitude, but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!
Click to expand...


Take off and landing speed?

:dl:

None of those were at take off or landing speed. The RNZAF 757 was doing 350KT and a number of those aircraft were traveling faster than that.

-Gumboot
 
OldTigerCub said:
Great fly-by shots,Gravy!:D
I particularly liked the TAP Airbus 310 comming right past the flightline.
The two at the end, though... A P51 Mustang and an AV8-B Harrier? They went by so fast it was hard to tell.
Click to expand...

Vickers - Supermarine Spitfire not a P51 mustang ;), and a Harrier GR 9 (the British version of the AV8-B Harrier).
 
LashL said:
Nice work, Gravy.

Somewhere, I have original video of a fly-by done by an Air Uruguay crew that I flew with for a few months back in the mid 80s.

[SNIP]

Ahhh, memories.

Thanks, Gravy, you just brought back some great ones.
Click to expand...


Inside contacts are fantastic! :D

Being an Air Force brat had its advantages. For all it's pomp and splendour, airshows only give you the tame version of flying. When I was a kid my Dad took me down to the base one day for a special treat. Sitting on the grass beside the flightline, I waited in anticipation, until I heard a familiar hollow sound - like placing a shell against your ear.

Suddenly a dart-shaped enormous black shape appeared over me and the sky erupted with deafening roaring noise, so powerful you could feel it. I watched, 10 years old and stunned as a fighter jet streaked over the airfield in a steep bank, wingtip a matter of feet from the ground. What followed was something they never give you at an airshow - a simulated low level attack on the base, carried out by the RNZAF's A4K Skyhawks.

A few weeks back my upbringing treated me again - getting to clamber all over one of the NZ Army's LAV III's - the most advanced light armoured vehicle in the world. Later that same day I jumped on an RNZAF helicopter and got thrown around the sky.

Makes packing up my life and starting again every few years worth it. :D

-Gumboot
 
I don't know if anyone else saw this film, but our local Public Broadcasting System network showed Most Honorable Son fairly recently. The only reason I brought it up in this thread, is they had a section on the B-24 squads training for the raid on the Ploesti oil fields, and there was some neat footage of the low-level passes they were doing as preparation. Pretty hair-raising.
 
chillzero said:
*polite cough*

I thought we didn't want to derail this thread?

Any more posts probably merit a split to entertainment. ;)
Click to expand...
Chill, claims of Rush greatness need to be countered wherever they appear. I will never give up that fight. Never!
 
Attention Conspiracists.​

The rebuttal to that pestering question is here.
What, specifically, does Gravy get wrong?


Here it is!
Gravy said:
Before a game I finally had enough, popped the tape out, snapped it in half, handed it to him, and said, "If this happens again I never block the linebacker on the 107-M. Is that clear?"
Click to expand...

Why, oh why, Gravy?!

Incidentally, i saw Rush in the Glasgow SECC earlier this month and i can say it was possibly the best gig ever. Subdivisions, Red Barchetta... oh yes.
And they are Canadian, too. Bonus.
 
gumboot said:
Take off and landing speed?

:dl:

None of those were at take off or landing speed. The RNZAF 757 was doing 350KT and a number of those aircraft were traveling faster than that.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

[Back to the OP]

I had a reply, similar to yours, typed up for SD - but I honestly couldn't properly respond to one of the dumbest statements in forum history. I hope it was simply a case of him not watching the video before commenting.
 
Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
 
busherie said:
Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
Click to expand...

So, you witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon? So, we have another witness here for the no-planers.
 
busherie said:
Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
Click to expand...

How precisely is precisely? We do not know what part of the Pentagon Hani wanted to hit. He could have been aiming for the center court for all we know. And he obvious didn't avoid every obstacle, with knocking over the lightpoles and the generator. Also re. the turbulences, you did not look at the videos posted in this thread at all, did you?
 
busherie said:
Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
Click to expand...

A few houws of flying? The guy has more flying time than many expert pilots. And how many pilots have you seen?
 
busherie said:
Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.
Click to expand...

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? He had over 200 hours of simulator time, he just about managed to hit the biggest office building in the world, saying that his aim was precise is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, he didn't exactly avoid the light poles or the generator he hit on the way in, and the "turbulences due to ground proximity" sit beside pyroclastic dust flows, thermite building demolitions and real-time video compositing on a live feed as baseless inventions of the 9-11 truth movement.

Apart from that, there weren't any errors in that sentence.

Dave
 
not even close to real knowledge on flying,

busherie said:
Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B
Click to expand...
As you can see, the expert pilots fly very straight. The flight of 77 was crap. He varied the bank and pitch in a non pilot way. But a non pilot idiot could fly and hit buildings as done on 9/11 with ZERO training. You should research this, many people have put in new pilots in the exact simulators, which are harder to fly than the real plane, and hit buildings the first time.

Turbulence? What time was the impact? You know, on 9/11 was not a big day for turbulence. And the terrorist on 77 came in at high speed and a high angle. Normal landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degrees; 77 came in at 4 to 6 degrees, not level, never at the same precise pitch for more than a second, and his bank angle was floating around like a new pilot who was not interested in flying. It seemed he was only trying to hit the biggest office building around. Bet he could not find the White house, it is too small. You have failed to bring facts, are you unable to find facts on 9/11?

The flying you saw on 9/11 was not the best, it was inexperience pilot at best. You do not understand a bad flight, bad flying looks okay from the ground, but sucks if you are in the plane. These pilots lacked the experience to do even simple turns like you are use to.

In my 34 years of flying I know anyone could fly the way the terrorist did, and without prior flight training. I have trained new pilots in 300,000 pound aircraft. You are not correct, there was no precision at all you have failed to do research; you have failed to get the minimum knowledge on flying. Total failure.
 
Here's a very recent example of a much smaller aircraft at very low level over water. Gravy's compilation is therefore far more relevant, but it's interesting nonetheless. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Blue Angels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom