-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
what a pilot!
- Thread starter Kevboy
- Start date
<!--StartFragment --> Oh well. It's a fake...
http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html
http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html
C
chinookmark
Guest
Awesome pilot. Pretty good 3D artist, too. 
Arkycharlie
Charter Member
kb, you almost had me there. Great video!!!!!
well, you did have me there for a minute.
well, you did have me there for a minute.
B
Big_Stick
Guest
I'm a pilot. I watched this video several times very carefully and I can find no inconsistencies. The maneuver the pilot made is entirely possible. He stopped using the wings to create lift, instead hanging on the prop and using huge amounts of rudder until the last possible instant, when he performed a partial hammerhead and executed a controlled crash landing at a 90-degree angle where the wings were not needed for lift. Look at the angle of the fuselage to the ground, and consider that the prop was providing all the lift (along with the surface of the fuselage) just before the pilot executes a quarter-roll (using the one remaining aileron and rudder).
Some have said that torque roll would be uncontrollable. Not so. Throttle and rudder, along with the remaining aileron, would be sufficient. Planes like this have enormous amounts of control authority, more than enough to compensate for the loss of a wing, and the power/weight ratio is exceptional, and would be even more favorable with one wing gone. Also consider the huge reduction in drag with only the one wing. A good pilot, used to cross-controlled and uncoordinated flight such as is often the case with acrobatics, could pull it off.
And it's entirely possible to land a very light taildragger like this one in a very short distance, I've seen it done many, many times.
The computing power to pull off an animation like this would be extraordinary and far beyond the reach of the average Youtuber. "Flyboys" probably has the most sophisticated animation of this type and when compared to real flight (as in "The Blue Max", for example) "Flyboys" is obviously animated.
Update:
Doing a further web search reveals no factual evidence that this video is a fake. The websites that have addressed this use the pilot's credentials to "debunk" the video but no one has produced any forensic evidence that it is a fake, and the maneuver is certainly possible.
Some have compared the plane's behaviour to an RC model and tried to conclude that because an RC plane probably would not have behaved like that, the video is faked. Flight dynamics for a full-size plane are radically different as is the comparison to a pilot in the plane and one on the ground.
Usually if you see very shaky camera work, and it's constantly in and out of focus, you have reason to suspect it's CGI. I'll admit, I thought it was real until the actual landing. Although there may be no arguements against this video, in terms of physics, aerodynamics, or whatever else, it's the actual images that give it away.
B
Big_Stick
Guest
Many other real pilots aren't dismissing this as fake. Read the AvWeb blogs. Again, the computing power necessary would be the kind only possessed by Pixar or ILM. The focus is not an issue; that's exactly what one would expect from an autofocus videocamera, either digital or analog.
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/...deo_KillaThrill_LostWingLanding_199096-1.html
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
In my professional opinion, it is a fake. Why would it not be if it was made as an advert? The point is, if it was real, we would have heard about it in major news outlets, not through the internet.
Now, about why I professionally think it is fake:
-The audio sounds dubbed
-Acting is a bit over the top
-Sounds don't necessarily sync correctly
-Why can the camera man not keep the plane in view until it is RIGHT upon him?
-The blurs, etc, are all easily editable via Vegas or other editing programs
-The color hue is not natural. Most cameras will not produce that hue, it is edited to look that way.
-I have a hard time believing any pilot would be able to respond THAT quickly... hence all the real crashes at real airshows
-If this was in the U.S. which the speaking suggests, no person would be that close to the runway
-The person that runs out is just some bystander? I find this hard to believe, especially if as suggested they shouldn't be this close
-The plane has that CGI look to it. More shine than it should have in real life, glowing edges, etc.
-The landing gear doesn't appear to compress and sustains no damage. I find this also incredibly hard to explain.
-Most hand held cameras won't offer that kind of quality and still cause so much blurring, etc
-Has anyone heard of this pilot?
-No tail numbers
-Silly bounce when landing
-A very suspicious break of the wing with no discernable debris (other than a wing).
I am 99% sure this is a hoax. It just looks, sounds and appears to be. I would like some substanant proof that it is real. Aerodynamics aside, as this is at least SOMEWHAT possible (even though I still believe it LOOKS fake and like CGI), how could something like this take place and the only known outlet be simply a video?
Now, for the processing power required... Give me a break guys. This can be done with Lightwave and Adobe After Effects or Vegas (if done with a steady hand and some good effects addons). Work like the "big boys" make at Pixar can be harnessed from a home computer. Manbird is a good example. He creates tons of UFO videos that are created using these techniques that people call "real" all the time. He is using a machine less powerful than mine. This isn't a matter of processing power, but more of an issue with rendering time. A video like this would take me 6+ hours to render and probably 50+ hours to create depending on what resources I had available.
Now, about why I professionally think it is fake:
-The audio sounds dubbed
-Acting is a bit over the top
-Sounds don't necessarily sync correctly
-Why can the camera man not keep the plane in view until it is RIGHT upon him?
-The blurs, etc, are all easily editable via Vegas or other editing programs
-The color hue is not natural. Most cameras will not produce that hue, it is edited to look that way.
-I have a hard time believing any pilot would be able to respond THAT quickly... hence all the real crashes at real airshows
-If this was in the U.S. which the speaking suggests, no person would be that close to the runway
-The person that runs out is just some bystander? I find this hard to believe, especially if as suggested they shouldn't be this close
-The plane has that CGI look to it. More shine than it should have in real life, glowing edges, etc.
-The landing gear doesn't appear to compress and sustains no damage. I find this also incredibly hard to explain.
-Most hand held cameras won't offer that kind of quality and still cause so much blurring, etc
-Has anyone heard of this pilot?
-No tail numbers
-Silly bounce when landing
-A very suspicious break of the wing with no discernable debris (other than a wing).
I am 99% sure this is a hoax. It just looks, sounds and appears to be. I would like some substanant proof that it is real. Aerodynamics aside, as this is at least SOMEWHAT possible (even though I still believe it LOOKS fake and like CGI), how could something like this take place and the only known outlet be simply a video?
Now, for the processing power required... Give me a break guys. This can be done with Lightwave and Adobe After Effects or Vegas (if done with a steady hand and some good effects addons). Work like the "big boys" make at Pixar can be harnessed from a home computer. Manbird is a good example. He creates tons of UFO videos that are created using these techniques that people call "real" all the time. He is using a machine less powerful than mine. This isn't a matter of processing power, but more of an issue with rendering time. A video like this would take me 6+ hours to render and probably 50+ hours to create depending on what resources I had available.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
kilo delta
Charter Member 2015
It's a reasonably decent fake video....right up to the point of the landing where it all goes monty python.:costumes: As noted above.....even relatively outdated computers can produce video's of this calibre, providing you've some good (although not necessarily hugely expensive) software. Faster systems will render the effects quicker.
The video originates from this piss-take website... http://www.jamesandersson.com/ .....have a look at the interview with the pilot
EDIT: btw we all know that it's only the Israeli's that can land a one winged plane sucessfully ;p
The video originates from this piss-take website... http://www.jamesandersson.com/ .....have a look at the interview with the pilot
EDIT: btw we all know that it's only the Israeli's that can land a one winged plane sucessfully ;p
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
indeed!
B
Big_Stick
Guest
Just to have a little more discussion on this...
First off, the reactions of intense skepticism are common. Any time someone pulls off a seemingly impossible or amazing maneuver, credit is given grudgingly or not at all. I recall many years ago I had to avoid another rider on a racetrack who had crashed right in front of me. I missed him by barely a foot by kicking out the rear tire (they call it "backing it out") in a series of controlled slides which I confirmed by inspecting the track after the accident. When I blogged about it, the hate mail was voluminous. "You couldn't do that, you're just making it up..."
The main arguments seem to be:
-the plane rotates in the wrong direction after the wing loss
This can't be successfully argued because it's not a glider, it's a powered plane and it would be dependent on the amount of power applied as well as the rotation of the prop and the position of the control surfaces. This argument just does not hold water.
-a sane pilot would have bailed
Not if he wanted to spare lives on the ground. And the plane is too low and and the pilot has his hands full controlling the plane. There would have been no time to bail out.
- the sound is not synched and the voices are dubbed actors
The sound is not going to be synched because there is a time delay from the location of the plane to the camera mike. Also, much of the sound is from the prop, not the engine. Some say it is really an RC plane and some say it is CGI, and others say is is a combination of both. It looks genuine to me and those few pilots who do seem to understand what is happening in the movie agree. What really caused me to believe it was real were the final control surface movements just before the landing, which can be seen in great detail.
Watch it again, very, very carefully and note the way the wing separates. It first begins to break away as the plane is rolling to the left while climbing, causing the plane to start to go out of control. But the most telling evidence to support the genuine nature of the video is in the examination of the control surface movements in the final seconds before the landing...they are EXACTLY correct for the maneuver, in every detail.
As the plane comes in on a knife-edge, the fuselage is angled upward at about 20 degrees, with the prop providing almost all the lift. The rate of descent is fast but not beyond what the landing gear can handle. The pilot correctly positions the remaining wing above the plane, knowing that the missing wing actually provides more ground clearance to allow this maneuver a greater chance of success. The elevator is a few degrees up, and the rudder is kicked out to the left, with plenty of power on. The prop blast on the left rudder is what is causing the nose to angle up and provides enough vertical thrust to allow for a controlled descent. Watch the remaining aileron, which, by the way, spans the full length of the wing. The pilot is using this to control torque from the engine. This single remaining aileron is about three times the surface area of both ailerons on a typical training aircraft. Watch it move, especially after the plane lands.
In the split second before the plane lands, the pilot reverses the rudder, kicking it hard right to level the fuselage, making it parallel with the runway. At the same instant, he cuts the power and rolls in maximum left aileron while applying a little up elevator. All of these movements happen simultaneously and can be very clearly seen in the video. The aircraft responds precisely as it should; the fuselage shifts to become level with the ground, the wing rolls left to level out (watch that massive aileron at full deflection), and because it was at just the right altitude, drops onto its main gear with one good bounce. The reason the plane does not "nose over" is because as soon as the mains hit and bounce, the pilot gives another blast of power with some elevator to get the tail back down and then cuts the power. That's standard procedure. The pilot's final actions are to prevent a ground loop, and we can see that the plane begins to ground loop into the remaining wing, exactly as would be expected due to the extra weight and drag on the left side.
First off, the reactions of intense skepticism are common. Any time someone pulls off a seemingly impossible or amazing maneuver, credit is given grudgingly or not at all. I recall many years ago I had to avoid another rider on a racetrack who had crashed right in front of me. I missed him by barely a foot by kicking out the rear tire (they call it "backing it out") in a series of controlled slides which I confirmed by inspecting the track after the accident. When I blogged about it, the hate mail was voluminous. "You couldn't do that, you're just making it up..."
The main arguments seem to be:
-the plane rotates in the wrong direction after the wing loss
This can't be successfully argued because it's not a glider, it's a powered plane and it would be dependent on the amount of power applied as well as the rotation of the prop and the position of the control surfaces. This argument just does not hold water.
-a sane pilot would have bailed
Not if he wanted to spare lives on the ground. And the plane is too low and and the pilot has his hands full controlling the plane. There would have been no time to bail out.
- the sound is not synched and the voices are dubbed actors
The sound is not going to be synched because there is a time delay from the location of the plane to the camera mike. Also, much of the sound is from the prop, not the engine. Some say it is really an RC plane and some say it is CGI, and others say is is a combination of both. It looks genuine to me and those few pilots who do seem to understand what is happening in the movie agree. What really caused me to believe it was real were the final control surface movements just before the landing, which can be seen in great detail.
Watch it again, very, very carefully and note the way the wing separates. It first begins to break away as the plane is rolling to the left while climbing, causing the plane to start to go out of control. But the most telling evidence to support the genuine nature of the video is in the examination of the control surface movements in the final seconds before the landing...they are EXACTLY correct for the maneuver, in every detail.
As the plane comes in on a knife-edge, the fuselage is angled upward at about 20 degrees, with the prop providing almost all the lift. The rate of descent is fast but not beyond what the landing gear can handle. The pilot correctly positions the remaining wing above the plane, knowing that the missing wing actually provides more ground clearance to allow this maneuver a greater chance of success. The elevator is a few degrees up, and the rudder is kicked out to the left, with plenty of power on. The prop blast on the left rudder is what is causing the nose to angle up and provides enough vertical thrust to allow for a controlled descent. Watch the remaining aileron, which, by the way, spans the full length of the wing. The pilot is using this to control torque from the engine. This single remaining aileron is about three times the surface area of both ailerons on a typical training aircraft. Watch it move, especially after the plane lands.
In the split second before the plane lands, the pilot reverses the rudder, kicking it hard right to level the fuselage, making it parallel with the runway. At the same instant, he cuts the power and rolls in maximum left aileron while applying a little up elevator. All of these movements happen simultaneously and can be very clearly seen in the video. The aircraft responds precisely as it should; the fuselage shifts to become level with the ground, the wing rolls left to level out (watch that massive aileron at full deflection), and because it was at just the right altitude, drops onto its main gear with one good bounce. The reason the plane does not "nose over" is because as soon as the mains hit and bounce, the pilot gives another blast of power with some elevator to get the tail back down and then cuts the power. That's standard procedure. The pilot's final actions are to prevent a ground loop, and we can see that the plane begins to ground loop into the remaining wing, exactly as would be expected due to the extra weight and drag on the left side.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
I'd put $800 that the video is fake.
Here is some more evidence that leads me to believe it is all fake.
1) James Andersson is not listed, nor was ever listed as a Red Bull participant.
2) On James Andersson's website Red Bull is listed in links everywhere
3) The interview shows a very uninformed pilot: http://www.jamesandersson.com/video01.html
4) The site only has videos pertaining to the incident. Photos are however easy to doctor. Coincidental perhaps?
5) His schedule shows several events all of which do not list him as a pilot.
Again, I'll put $800 down that it is fake, and I'll laugh it all the way to the bank when this is finally debunked by the developer.
Here is some more evidence that leads me to believe it is all fake.
1) James Andersson is not listed, nor was ever listed as a Red Bull participant.
2) On James Andersson's website Red Bull is listed in links everywhere
3) The interview shows a very uninformed pilot: http://www.jamesandersson.com/video01.html
4) The site only has videos pertaining to the incident. Photos are however easy to doctor. Coincidental perhaps?
5) His schedule shows several events all of which do not list him as a pilot.
Again, I'll put $800 down that it is fake, and I'll laugh it all the way to the bank when this is finally debunked by the developer.
B
Big_Stick
Guest
It is interesting that the plane shown in the video is exactly the same plane shown in the promo stills on Andersson's website. It is the same in every detail, including the full-span ailerons, which are unusual.
Now, are the skeptics here saying that this was a full-size, RC aircraft that actually did make this impressive landing, but without a pilot? Or are they saying that it was a scale model? Or that the entire thing never happened and was done with CGI? Freeze the plane in the final seconds and it can be seen that this is Andersson's unique plane, down to the last detail, and the control motions are perfectly accurate. This kind of continuity is astounding, far better that seen in the big-budget aviation movies where it is common to see edits between a non-flying Zero and a flying Texan, for example.
I would like to see a link to an example of CGI work that has this apparent level of accuracy and authenticity.
To respond to the comment that Andersson is not listed on the Red Bull website, I would say that it is not common for every person who attempts to qualify for position, regardless of the type of racing event, to be listed on the primary sponsor's website. Normally, only the first-string competitors are listed. There are a lot of images of Andersson's plane, the G-300, on his site and they match the one in the video to a "T". Plenty of pilots attempt to qualify but only a few do. Andersson is what is known as a "privateer" racer and Red Bull is not one of his sponsors, but that does not keep him from entering events sponsored by Red Bull. Anyone familiar with motorsports would know this.
Now, are the skeptics here saying that this was a full-size, RC aircraft that actually did make this impressive landing, but without a pilot? Or are they saying that it was a scale model? Or that the entire thing never happened and was done with CGI? Freeze the plane in the final seconds and it can be seen that this is Andersson's unique plane, down to the last detail, and the control motions are perfectly accurate. This kind of continuity is astounding, far better that seen in the big-budget aviation movies where it is common to see edits between a non-flying Zero and a flying Texan, for example.
I would like to see a link to an example of CGI work that has this apparent level of accuracy and authenticity.
To respond to the comment that Andersson is not listed on the Red Bull website, I would say that it is not common for every person who attempts to qualify for position, regardless of the type of racing event, to be listed on the primary sponsor's website. Normally, only the first-string competitors are listed. There are a lot of images of Andersson's plane, the G-300, on his site and they match the one in the video to a "T". Plenty of pilots attempt to qualify but only a few do. Andersson is what is known as a "privateer" racer and Red Bull is not one of his sponsors, but that does not keep him from entering events sponsored by Red Bull. Anyone familiar with motorsports would know this.
One more thought - do pilots usually do lomchevaks during air races? Can't say I've seen it before!
I stand by the fact that it looks like a CGI, therefore I have reason to believe that it is. The appearance of the aircraft when it gets close just isn't right. And like I say, shaky and blurry camera work is a trait of CGI works, simply because it masks any imperfections in a CGI image. Yes, real videos are sometimes similar, but you see many fake videos such as this one employing those very techniques.
I'd join you in that $800 bet, Cody!
I stand by the fact that it looks like a CGI, therefore I have reason to believe that it is. The appearance of the aircraft when it gets close just isn't right. And like I say, shaky and blurry camera work is a trait of CGI works, simply because it masks any imperfections in a CGI image. Yes, real videos are sometimes similar, but you see many fake videos such as this one employing those very techniques.
Seems a bit of a risky way to land it, by pointing it at the crowd first and then turning tightly to land nearby, if he was truely trying to spare lives! Surely heading for a nearby field, or the opposite side of the airfield would have been a much safer bet? Even if I was currently in full control of a one winged plane, I wouldn't trust it for very long, especially in tight negative-G turns, like his turn onto 'final'.
I'd join you in that $800 bet, Cody!
C
chinookmark
Guest
I'm putting my money on the video being fake. I'm not arguing that it couldn't happen, just not in that youtube video. The beginning looks real, and I'd even believe that a a well trained stunt pilot with quick reactions could bring the plane into knife edge flight. But during the final pass before "landing", the camera is TOO locked onto the plane, just like a padlock view, and the shine is all wrong -- CGI or sim. Then there's the wing break -- no fuel, debris, torn covering, or control rods hanging out. CFS2 had better wing breaks. And finally the landing. A somersault? Really? Either the gear would have broken, bent, or dug into the ground. The flip would have stayed closer to the ground, or taken longer. I'm not buying it.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
It could be either or, a mix, or whatever. Any of the above could be done and mixed with near impeccable editing which would leave the viewer guessing, which is the case.
More than likely the team budgeted for a simple model which was overlayed with programs like After Effects, LightWave and/or 3DS Max. Either way, if they have a single model, they have a single model they can overlay on pictures as well. The model won't change unless they want it to. You can take a simple model in 3DS Max and overlay it on a background if you wish and just snap some pics. There are plenty of other programs that can do this. Adding the smoke is easy as well with the right editing tools.
You just saw it
Actually, there was a movie some time back about a 747 landing on a freeway. If it wasn't for the quirkly video itself, most would have thought it real. Obviously the editer/modeler team knew enough about flight dynamics to make it seem possible, a point that I won't dispute. However, technically speaking, you could do this same thing in FSX, 3DS Max, LightWave and After Effects. You wouldn't have to worry about some of the aerodynamics because the simulation would take care of that for you... of course, FSX aerodynamics... *shrugs*
Here are some examples of what CAN be done with Flight Simulator and some good editing tools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsHvHv2TfZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehHJiJFfGI8&feature=related
B
BananaBob
Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZo1KBPKa7c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLTvwQjOG0
That looks pretty real too, but it's CGI also. They've mixed real life scenes with CGI in the above video. This is one of my early edits, I think I could do a lot better now as this is pretty old now, especially the windows, but the plane is from FS9 and the rest is real, should fix up the cockpit now though, LOL. :d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLTvwQjOG0
That looks pretty real too, but it's CGI also. They've mixed real life scenes with CGI in the above video. This is one of my early edits, I think I could do a lot better now as this is pretty old now, especially the windows, but the plane is from FS9 and the rest is real, should fix up the cockpit now though, LOL. :d
B
Big_Stick
Guest
The plane, when it lands, is exactly the same aircraft in every detail from the closeup knife-edge to roll-out. The canopy opens and a full-size man gets out and another full-size man runs toward the plane. How is this explained? There is not a single inconsistency, including the control surface movements. The plane in the video is the same plane, from beginning to end.
And of course a full-size plane can bounce like that on a hard landing. Ever see a carrier landing?
I would like to see another, confirmed hoax video that would prove the quality and content of the killathrill to be similar and reproducible using the CGI and RC/blend technique. The RC video posted earlier only serves to prove that the maneuver is possible.
And of course a full-size plane can bounce like that on a hard landing. Ever see a carrier landing?
I would like to see another, confirmed hoax video that would prove the quality and content of the killathrill to be similar and reproducible using the CGI and RC/blend technique. The RC video posted earlier only serves to prove that the maneuver is possible.