(Why is the "pilot" on the wrong side of the security barrier?)
Well, the guys at KillaThrill are actually trying to keep the subterfuge going with a new website that shows their "pilot" in an interview right after his so-called flight. James Andersson is supposedly a pilot in the Red Bull Air Race, but if you notice the photos, you never actually see the Red Bull logo. Of course, a quick check with Red Bull themselves will show you he doesn't exist. Here's their roster in case you're curious:
Source(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Series_season)
Here's the video that's been circulating widely on the internet as fact, when in fact it is a complete fiction. At first blush, the aircraft looks real and the wing separation seems authentic. If you listen closely, you'll hear that the engine sounds are not properly synchronized, the radio chatter seems out of place and the people are definitely over-acting. But for its intended purpose, KillaThrill got a great viral advertising campaign. Congratulations! Here's another video done in a very similar fashion:
And this video seals the deal:
For authentic flying, check out these videos, or go to PilotMag:
Posts
66 comments:
Near the middle of the video the aircraft is inverted, though it's been altered to make it appear like it's flying right side up. The landing gear is wrong position for it to be flying right side up. Since it's flying inverted, the wrong wing is missing. Also, the vertical stabilizer switches sides quickly as the airplane slides out of view to help continue the illusion it was right-side-up the next time the airplane comes into view.
Ha! Funny thing is there is a video of a 1/4 scale r/c Extra that had the same thing happen. The r/c pilot landed the model in a similar manor, with minimal damage, ie. bent landing gear, etc.
That's funny, cause when I say this video the first time (w/o sound) I thought it was homevideo of an RC plane. right up until the cockpit opened
Too many inconsistencies when you view it a number of times.
Looks real to me - It is possible to land this way
The spin of an aircraft is always in the direction of the remaining wing which has all the lift. The master geniouses who did this scam video got the spin direction wrong. Also note as the plane approaches the ground the rudder should deflect the nose up for fuselage lift however the rudder is all wrong in the video. It was
a nice try but no cigar to learned aviators.
So as a "learned avaitor" I'd say it is a good fake,
First the rudder IS correct, it is deflected to what looks like full left for pushing the nose to the left which would be correct for the Knife attitude it was in,
Second, the spin IS correct since that left wing would provide more resistance and the plane is spinning left but not in a flat spin,
Third, the bounce is not abnormal at all on a plane that small.
I never observed stabilizers changing direction nor did I see the wrong missing wing (although I can see where viewers would loose orientation in the video).
As fakes go I'd say it was a good one, btw I attributed the sound mismatch to the computer media player being slow/out of sync which happens all the time.
As a leared RC pilot, the control surfaces were correct, the knife edge would be possible w/o a wing, simply because of using the fuselage as the airfoil. the landing i could see happening, once in someone lifetime or being really lucky twice, with LOTS of skill. I can say that i stalled a take off once in my Cloud Dancer when i was about 17 and i instinctively pulled full stab back and soon learned that it stalled and swept towards the ground and landed abrubtly and bounced in a similar fashion. I was a newbie back then! So luck was in my court! I could see this happening with a RC plane. Especially with the bounce at the end. looks all too familiar... It is quite strange how the camera continuously goes in and out of focus on the plane the whole time.
The shadows after landing is what blew it for me. And how fast he stopped.
I have heard of a pilot in Brittan landing after one wing folded (hinged) upward. He inverted and that put the wing back - as long as he was inverted. He got close to the runway and snapped it back to upright fast enough to land. But I do not think you can get a 'great' landing like the on in the video with only one wing. You will scratch paint at least.
As a pilot who has experienced an inadvertant stall to spin, when a wing stalls it drops. The other wing still producing lift starts the spin to the side that has no lift. If this plane had lost its wing it would start a very violent spin immediately and you would never see the remaining wing level out as you do in this video.
I am tempted to try to explain it using gyroscopic precession effects of the engine and prop. Single engine planes exhibit this pretty dramatically, especially powerful engines with a lot of mass in rotation.
It doesn't matter which way the prop is spinning, but I think it is usual to spin clockwise as viewed by the pilot. If it is in fact counter clockwise, then reverse everything I propose below.
With a spinning disk, engine, and clockwise rotation, if you apply pressure on the stick forward, or down elevator (trying to dive), because of the gyroscopic precession, it will act as though you were applying left stick movement.
That is, the precessional force moves you left if you apply down (dive) elevator.
This is standard gyro theory, that the actual movement when a force is applied to a spinning gyro is 90 degrees displaced and the 90 degrees is in the direction of the spin of the mass. If you google it there is a lot online to read, some good some not so good. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope)
So lets do that again, forward stick or yoke, down elevator, is trying to pitch the plane down but because of the spinning prop disk, and engine (still assuming clockwise) acting as a gyro, the force instead of being one of down pitch is actually that of a left turn, not a banked turn but pure azimuth skew. I suppose the remaining aileron could also help which would make it somewhat of a banked turn but he didn't look like he was controlling much, in the usual sense. I believe rudder deflection would also somewhat affect pitch (again a 90 degree displacement), left rudder deflection resulting in a climb, rather than a pure left skew in azimuth, or yaw.
To appreciate all this you almost have to play with a gyro set up on a good set of gimbals to allow movement in any direction. It is spooky to touch a gimbaled spinning gyro and have it move in a direction 90 degrees displaced from how you intended to move it. With a good gyro it will be pure classical precessional movement. With a plane, though exhibiting these same precessional tendencies, nothing is pure and I am sure elevator movement would also affect pitch somewhat. Same with the elevator movement, would cause azimuth turns but also affect pitch. But these interactions most aerobatic pilots know about and they could learn to use what is normally a negative side effect as a positive control feature, if a wing did fall off. So assuming the guy has a specially made plane, and he practiced a lot after jettisoning the wing (carefully practiced that is) I can see how he might develop a new set of skills that allows flying using the highly spun up engine and prop as described above. They may have added mass (fly wheel) to the engine or prop to enhance the tendency to act as a gyro would.
A bit far off but my attempt at explaining what I saw. Others mentioned the inverted plane had the wrong wing missing, more likely the case, a fake.
I watched this several times and if you look carefully, you will notice the aileron on the extra is full length of the wing. Were it not full length of the wing this guy would have been just a stitistic on dead pilots. Watch carefully and note of the rudder and elvator. The control surfaces were being operated and when it gets close to the landing the rudder is full right and right at the last second the left aileron goes full up slamming the left wing down. Remember too that many of these A/C's types are over powered and can tail stand. If this is a hoax, it's good and like who's going to knock the right wing off his baby so he can be seen lifting the canopy on the runway in a silly video? Tell me of a pilot that would do such a thing? And finally no R/C engine sounds like this one. A hoax? perhaps but let's hear from the pilot if it's not.
Some folks propbably think it's a hoax when they look in the mioor and wouldn't believe such a thing is possible no matter what, and in the end, so what? In the big picture this is just as exciting and the sun's gonna come up tomorrow anyway and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It is a very cool piece of flying R/C or full scale though.
Terry
Cool.. I want to every IAC member try this one at home, especially if he flys a RV6.
There's nothing inconsistent with the motion of the aircraft or the control surfaces. The "wrong" wing is never missing and the landing gear is always in the "right" position.
The video goes in and out of focus b/c that's what auto-focus cameras do when you are zoomed in too much which is a common mistake with amateur videographers. The excessive zoom is also why the videographer can't keep the aircraft in the frame.
With enough engine torque the aircraft could be flown as shown, knife edged at a high power setting with full left rudder and full left aileron. When the pilot pulls off the power the reduction in torque could easily allow the aileron to roll it far enough to the left so that when the tail drags it falls on the wheels, which is exactly what happens.
None of the above proves it's real but it's not a poorly done fake.
If this were real and torque made it level the wing, why did the wing not contact the ground, or have the gear raise on the lighter side? How can the plane bounce both up and down and remain wing level?
Additionally, why does the aileron not droop when the engine is switched off and you can see both of the pilots hands?
On top of aerodynamics when flying, aerodynamics when landing also prove it is a fake.
They really should have picked a plane that was not a custom prototype, built for use in unlimited class competition by its owners who were also former members of the US Aerobatics team.
The reason being that it was lost with its pilot over three years ago. The NTSB report can be found at http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20050930X01555.asp
One can read about the planes deveopment here http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/2001/Jan31/frontfull1.html
One can read a bit about the lost pilot here http://differentriver.com/archives/2005/09/19/sad-news-from-nasa/ (She was one of only 2 women in the world to pilot the SR-71)
One can readily buy an RC model of it here http://www.fun-key.com.hk/giles60.htm
This is either the real thing or an excellent fake. As an IT Guy the audio is delayed due to two factors, the first being the audio receved delayed from the camera, second the codec used to produce it.
I have in fact just pulled this same maneuver off with an RC simulator...AeroFly Pro Deluxe using a Futana S-90 Aerobatic plane. I did have about 30 shots at it but I eventually got it right. So either this Pilot is Extremely good, has about 500 rabbits feet, nine lives, and murphy in bed with him, or this is fake.
the (bounce and) rollout look fake. The 'camera' perspective never seems to change.
RUUUUUUUNNNN!!!!!
We're to believe the video was shot by some random onlooker standing there with a camcorder, right?
Notice that as the plane lands, the camera suddenly tracks at full speed along the landing path with the plane centered in the frame! Wow, how did the cameraman do that? Was there a truck (or a motorized camera dolly and track!?) sitting right there that just happened to run at the same speed as the landing?
The camera work at the end is the most improbable aspect of the whole video, and the one that betrays its computer-generated origin.
-Dave O
The aircraft appeared to have sufficient power to prop-hang, giving him sufficient "hovering" ability to knife-attitude it in with rudder/vertical stabilizer acting as elevator/horizontal stabilizer to control what is now "pitch" in that flight attitude. Some planes have that much power--can hang on the prop if thrust is greater than weight. then direct the thrust to gain "forward" flight just like a helicopter does.
Look at this video at 0:51 secs. You can clearly see evidence of computer editing; this is more evident around the tail.
Also, (geek alert) the math of the bounce defies any explanation. There is too much motion and not enough time for THE bounce.
Notice on the second contact the deranged "animation" gently touches and grass. That's a neat trick considering the pilot has no resources to accomplish this.
Lastly, the INSTINCT of any accomplished taildragger pilot is to pin the tail to the ground with aft stick once the tail is down; there is no such action here, not even a hint.
Fantastic Fake!
Computer graphics, bad voice acting, and a completely fictitious pilot -- all to hype some line of clothes.
It was a great fake video. Can it ever happen to a full scale? Lets all hope we don't have to find out.
Can it happen on a small scale? Sure it can. Many RC pilots fluent in 3D with years of flying experience have shed a panel and landed with little damage. Heck, I lost one a while back and just flew knife edge for ten minutes because I just felt like it. Landed fine, just a matter of timing
This is easily possible with a large RC airplane. If you have ever seen a master RC pilot fly a modern aerobatics model, you would understand. I have seen guys do stuff with large RC aerobatics models that make this landing look easy.
Those that say this can not be real have never seen modern RC... Applying what they know of full scale aviation does not apply here. Everything changes when the model is very light, with two times more thrust than weight !!!
i thot it was way real. i guess u plane guyz are too involved to see all the twisty turny things that prove its real. right on. bigfoot is my momma!
I only noticed this in slow motion.
The plane increases in size by about 15% when it comes back into frame and stops. Between 54 and 56 secs.
It is indeed spinning the wrong way, the remaining wing should rise, not fall. See the old B&W film of the FW190 losing a wing, it immediately rolls towards the missing wing. It also surprised me that on the ground, it was square on its wheels. Surely the weight of the wing would unbalance it and the wingtip would rest on the ground. Really well done tho.
not a bad sport pilot video except for the horrible landing----floated for miles---watch out for ground effect next time
One wing w/ one aileron wouldn't overcome the torque of the prop.
It would do a "Torque Roll".
A model is less dense and enjoys different aerodynamics (reynold's number, full length ailerons, more aileron chord).
A real pilot would not even try to save that plane at that altitude, he would bail immediately.
There isn't time at low altitude for aerodynamic experiments - you get you cute out ASAP!
An R/C model, on the other hand, could actually pull that off...
Low res version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNIhBlyepc
Hi-Res version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaXMrFh3n7M
One wing w/ one aileron wouldn't overcome the torque of the prop.
It would do a "Torque Roll".
A model is less dense and enjoys different aerodynamics (reynold's number, full length ailerons, more aileron chord).
A real pilot would not even try to save that plane at that altitude, he would bail immediately.
There isn't time at low altitude for aerodynamic experiments - you get your chute out ASAP!
An R/C model, on the other hand, could actually pull that off...
Low res version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNIhBlyepc
Hi-Res version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaXMrFh3n7M
Hmmm, this was sent to me by some friends. As a pilot, I think it is a fake, the wing break off is too neat (and during a vertical climb when stress on the wing would be less) and if you freeze at around 46 seconds the aircraft is in nose high remaining wing almost vertical to the ground attitude, yet the rudder is in a neutral position. I would contend that even though the aircraft probably has great thrust capabilty to maintain such an attitude you would need a full rudder deflection particularly as the plane maintains that attitude for several seconds....but it is well done, but a fake.
Brilliant use of viral marketing. I immediately knew it was fake (as someone has already said, the camerawork at landing gave it away) so I knew it was a viral - but it made me go to killathrill's website to find out more about the video. Really nice way of including the logo subtly.
If this was real, why was it not reported by any news organization anywhere? Video like thos would make the 5 o-clock news. News Directors live and die for compelling video like this. And it certainly would make the papers somewhere. The answer is simple: Becuase the main stream media (MSM) is all part of the conspiracy to suppress the truth. Either that, or its a viral video.
just made me think about that quicksilver ad...
Not sure if it is real or not, but knowing a handful about airplane and having quite a bit of left seat flight time under belt I can say this. For starters lots of people are saying the "lift" from the wing would make it barrel roll out of control. Considering that stunt plane wings have next no lift (they rely more on the elevator) that really wouldn't be the case and if you watch he's just shy of a stall when it does snap, all the better. Next yes it is possible to sustain flight on the side like that by using the power, ruder, and fuselage for lift "knifes edge". Lastly stunt pilots a trained to get out of any kind of stall spin fall you name it, if not they wouldn't be stunt pilots for long.
So real or not I would like to think it is. But if it is a fake I honestly think that if an experienced stunt pilot got him/herself into the same situation something similar could be pulled off. Weather it would be that graceful who knows...
For the RC folks out there, you're missing two key points:
MASS - Balsa wood and plastic do not share the same density as aluminum and composite materials. A comparison between a model aircraft and the RL counterpart would be inaccurate.
SITUATION - The third-person perspective of an RC pilot on the ground would provide a more leisurely assessment of the situation and more time to react. The pilot of the real aircraft would be more concerned with ditching the aircraft away from the crowd (if possible) and saving himself.
Simply stated, you just don’t recover the aircraft when an entire wing is gone. This is why:
An aircraft’s lift is generated by the low-pressure area caused by the flow of air over the surface of the airfoil. If a wing is lost, as shown in the video, you’ve just lost at a minimum 50% of that lift. (I say “at a minimum” because the imbalance caused by the loss of mass will throw the aircraft into a stall orientation, further reducing the flow of air over the remaining airfoil.) You’re basically strapped into a Very Expensive Brick at that point, with no glide-ratio and no hope of recovery. You have a few seconds to make your decisions, and if you’re lucky, there’s enough air between you and the ground for your chute to open before you and the Earth are subjected to a violent reintroduction.
Surely there would be some evidence of damage to the missing wing root (control linkage, wiring, piping, skin, etc.). Looking at the wing separation in the video and again when its just landed, there is nothing to suggest a catastrophic material failure.
Doesn't an aircraft like this have a spar? Where are the broken bits sticking out of the wing root area?
So basically, between all of the armchair experts in this forum, we have established that: (a)it may or may not be a model, (b)it may or may not be possible to achieve this aerodynamically, (c) it may or may not be a fake. (d)there are a lot of people who need to get out more, and (e)there is a lot of hot air, which is most likely what kept the plane aloft long enough to recover from the wing failure. Either way, you all saw the video.... no strings, and I assume that was a puppet that opened the canopy. Next you'll be telling me theres a black guy working at the whitehouse who isn't the janitor.!
Well I can quite categorically say that this is not a fake video as I was indeed the pilot. Nothing is impossible, even if it looks so. If you want proof, I have high resolution camera footage from two ground spectators and in flight cameras as well ,which I am willing to send to the non-believers for a small fee of US$1000. Please send cash via paypal to Thisisnotanotherafricanscam@you'reassilly.asyoulook.com and I promise I'll send you a high quality DVD...
Elvis.
Look at the way the prop stops; its near-instantaneous just like an RC model. Real aircraft engines have angular momentum that cause a few blades to pass followed by the characteristic kick-back when it hits the very last compression stroke.
-John from Georgia
this virul marketing ploy backfires as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard of KillaThrill before this, and now my image of them is that they are lame, sorry posers.
Doesn't anyone think that if this had really happened there would be a bit more evidence? Such things as an FAA/NTSB accident investigation, newspaper articles, numerous eyewitness reports, televised interviews with the pilot, etc? The fact that this incident only exists in "webworld" should tell you something.
From the persepective of a commercial pilot, all of the shadows, stripe, wheel pants and prop inconsistencies aside, the aileron controls in light aircraft are connected. Control inputs cause deflections by the action od a bridle cable connecting both ailerons, so that they operate together. Structural failures in light aircraft will generally not result in the separation of the wing because of the various points of attachment, including cables, fuel and hydraulic lines (brakes). In such cases, the wing will "fold up" and play aerodynamic havoc. In either case the aileron control would be rendered unusable. On the ground, note that no cables, hoses or other debris protrudes from the aircraft. This wing has been mechanically removed, and no traumatically separated. On the other hand, it is non uncommon for a wing separation to occur cleanly in RC aircraft. And since I have a friend who is very involved in RC flying, I have personally witness the demise of numerous RC aircraft. Still, the skill of the RC pilot is laudable and the video very cool, desite the fiction.
If you're interested in learning to fly RC airplanes, I highly recommend Hooked-on-RC-Airplanes.com
It explains everything very well and it's easy to understand.
Well, I found this site after googling for "killathrill" cause I wanted to know more about this video.
If you belive or not, when I first saw it I sent it immidantly to Hannes Arch (the former Red Bull Airrace Champion 2008) cause he is nearby living to me. I just wanted to know if it`s possible to make such a great escape.
Now I feel sorry for that cause this video is a fake and nothing else than adversement. But it`s well done and a great pleasure to watch.
Thank you guys for the fine job you do here, if I will get responce from Hannes Arch I will send him this link also.
Greets from Austria!
As a former Air Force Pilot, this is a well orchestrated fake ... entertaining, yes, but for me that is all it was. It is possible to fly with one wing if you have enough air speed and altitude. Even then the amount of difficulty to control the remaining part of the aircraft is astronomical. This one clearly did not have any of the aforementioned. To see what I'm talking about here is a video of an F-15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs
Raven
There is NO registration on the plane.
The History channel has used some "discretion" in the footage of this vid of a F15 landing on one wing.
In another forum the F15 fraud has been exposed and used by History channel for dramatic presentation/reenactment purposes which they failed to acknowledge.
The story itseld is possibly true unlike this Extra300 landing which I am sure is a RC fake mixed with some actual real footage.
These aircraft are built to 10G +/-Does anyone know what airport the 'setup' was made.
John P
Brisbane
Look closely at .30 thru .34 seconds in the plane is supposed to be upside down but if you pause at .33 seconds the plane is silver with a black left wing, then move forward to .35 seconds and the airplane is all black again.
The camera following the pane on landing looks particularly fake.
The plane fading form shot at critical moments leaves lots of opportunities for vid editors to go to work.
The actual plane where the pilot opening the canopy conveniently fails to show the missing wing.
That dorky kid is the 'official' running out to check the scene at a major aerobatics meet. Hardly feasible.
No other competition aircraft in sight which is also suspicious.
The pilot's web site is registered by one of the directors of the clothing web site, KillaThrill. No one in the aerobatics industry has heard of this very cleaver stunt pilot James Andersson
I've been on the PC for three hours trying to find out about this video after being sent it in an email in Media Player format. I was taken in by it at first. Apart from realising that switches between real aircraft and model can be made when the camera loses the plane, I found it pretty convincing at first. I see no problems with the way that the control surfaces move, or the sound of the aircraft. I'm a bit dubious about the commentry..."Where's his wing?" Yeah, I'm sure I'd say that if I'd just seen a plane lose it's wing in flight! What looks totally wrong to me when the plane lands - and I've no idea why as to my eyes the rest is pretty convincing - are the wheel pods. They look totally CGI, drawn even, like in a cartoon. Even as the pilot is opening the canopy, the wheel pods look like something out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
If you take your mouse and manouver the video between the 52 second point and the 56 second point, you will see the transition point between the r/c plane and the real plane. Good job overall on this fabrication though.
Radio control or computer graphics?
I'm starting to suspect a computer flight sim here.
To set up a prank on a real airport which is large enough to support a Traffic Control tower does not seem likely.
Also the way the camera pans along with the aircraft after landing, the camera would have to be following perpendicular to the aircraft at the same speed as the aircraft .
Real camera footage some distance from the runway would show various aspects of the runway if following a moving aircraft...but we only see one small strip of the runway which tends to indicate a PC animation at work here.
Advertising folk are more into PC animation because it is far cheaper than setting up models et al ..which can also be expensive and very time consuming ..esp if the model crashes a few times !
My email to the company was NOT answered which suggests they are enjoying the ruse.
The 'real' plane when the canopy opens might even be supoerimposed onto a PC model ..anything is possible with editing suite these days.
FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!!! Two different planes, just look at the paint schemes. No more need be said!
Doesn't anyone wonder where the pilots helmet is?
I don't think aerobatic pilots wear a helment because of the violet g forces. They possibly wear a light material cap of sorts .
On the second bounce the plane decellerates from about 80 kmph to about 30 kmph in an instant. Shouldnt the wheels snap off with that much impact,yep. That is the point where i believe the real plane is introduced. Great vid though.
Yes.. the consensus is that the vid has been doctored ..little doubt.
The differences now seem to be at what point does the splicing take place . Also was a r/c plane used or a pc aviation simulation?
I tend to suspect a PC simulator ..cheaper & far more flexible with respect to graphical manipulation.
This looks like a CGI fake based upon Jim Bourke's successful one-wing landing of a real R/C Yak-54.
If you watch the two videos side-by-side, you'll see that the fake is a mirror image of the R/C model's flight.
In both, the airplanes lose the wings while in a vertical manuever. They both recover into a knife-edge with the belly facing the camera and they both land right in front of the camera.
The only difference is the fake is a mirror image of the R/C flight.
See: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=486
The clincher for me was the fact that the aircraft on the ground in the last few seconds was reflecting ambient light for which there was no source in shot, and slightly out of focus from everything else.
The clincher for me was that there are TWO different planes!
Plus:
The pilot, 'James Andersson's' biography states that he is the son of a Swedish woman, and English man. WHY then, in his interview video, does he have a STRONG German accent?
He was brought up in Hungary, Spain & England, so no reason to have a German accent!
Could it be because he's a German actor, working for a German clothing company, who made a German viral marketing commercial?
Go to YouTube & see
/watch?v=qvBep7-gi5s
An actor ..certainly ..Aerobatic pilot? ..doubtful.
Eventually the company will be forced to fess up. There credibility with company claims is forever damaged .
It is one thing to advertise in creative ways. However to maintain an elaborate ruse is not good for business in the long term. Trust becomes the issue.
All facts and insights about the BEST AIR RACE PILOT EVER fake you can explore right here: http://tinyurl.com/9qxyhb. A very detailed summary about the whole campaign...
"Didn't anyone see the kid running out to the plane? As the "pilot" opened the canopy, the kid in the cap gave him a "thumbs up"! What's up with that?
Hi everybody!
If you’d like to get more information on the Air Racer James Andersson and the dissolution of the case please visit the following blog:
http://www.viralmarketing.de/2008/12/23/the-best-air-race-pilot-ever-facts-about-a-viral-fake/
You'll find all informations about that viral Clip! ;)
Post a Comment