what a pilot!

[An-225]

Looks fake to me...

I have no doubt such maneuvers are possible...I have seen R/C planes doing high alpha stunts like this...

The lighting is WAY off. I feel like I'm looking at a render in 3DMax or Blender. Even the person running towards the plane looks fake, and the person opening the canopy...has that FS animation feel (notice how slowly his arms push the canopy open).

 

[azflyboy]

Throwing my hat in the "it's a fake" ring.

In addition to the aircraft rolling the wrong way when a wing falls off, there is a very clear CG look to the airplane after it lands, as well as a couple of occasions where the camera loses focus that are pretty obvious splice points, since there's no real reason for the camera to suddenly lose focus there.

From what I can tell, the airborne shots with two wings are likely a real airplane, with a transition to a CG airplane or model when the wing falls off (where the camera loses the airplane momentarily). The rest of the flight is likely a model, with a transition being made to a CG airplane right before touchdown (where the camera loses focus), and another switch to either a real airplane or composite CG shot made when the airplane turns away from the camera right at the end.

Other people have mentioned the lack of any registration and the bizarre interview with the pilot, which are also pretty clear indicators of a fake.

Also, professional aerobatic pilots never perform maneuvers aimed at the crowd line, so I can't see why the pilot would have landed instead of just bailing out, especially since a one-winged airplane isn't going to glide any real distance horizontally and will likely spin straight down.

 

[AckAck]

What I don't understand is why everyone feels that any of the shots have to be ALL real or ALL fake. I doubt the authenticity of the video- if we are going percentages, I'll say 99%. I also believe that it is possible to do everything shown (while not paying attention to which way the aircraft rotated when the wing came off), I just doubt that is was done here.

I also think that it is a heck of a lot easier to take existing footage and edit a wing out of it, rather than creating an entire video in CGI, which is what most people seem to be advocating. If you watch the History Channel's segment on the IAF F-15 that lost the wing, that is what they have done - taken stock footage of F-15s (most of the time, although there are F-4s in there too, along with an F-100 playing the part of the A-4!?) and edited out the wing that is supposed to be missing - either be covering it in "fuel spray" or "smoke" for the interior shots, and just replacing it with a section of blue sky for the exterior shots. I think that is what has been done here, except for also replacing a portion of the wing root with a piece of the "fuselage", as necessary.

The only part I am willing to say is complete BS and CGI is the landing. I think the righting and leveling is actual (except for editing the wing, of course), while from the bounce to the weird pitch down and second bounce (while everything is out of focus and moving way faster than it actually would) is either CGI or edited, and the ground roll and loop is actual again, but with the wing edited out and the shadow replaced or edited to remove the wing shadow. The shadow looks bogus (way too smooth and not reflective of the varied heights of grass blades) until it goes out of frame as the plane spins around (conveniently eliminating any editing needs for the last 10 seconds of the video.)

Plus, I think I'd have had my engine off a long time before he did. Like as soon as I hit the ground, instead of taxiing onto the grass first.

Interestingly, you can hear the wing break as soon as it breaks, so the engine sounds being out of sync because of the distance would also cause the wing break to be out of sync as well...but it isn't.

Brian

 

[Pepere]

The pilot does not seem very shook up/upset in his interview? :mixedsmi:

David

 

[CodyValkyrie]

What I am sensing here is that most guys just don't like the idea that someone was able to pull off such an amazing stunt. It just chaps the hide. You are saying you believe the video is faked, but are not sure what parts are fake and what parts aren't.

The landing shot is absolutely faked. From the knife edge to the pilot opening the cockpit.

It is all parts prior to that of which I am struggling with. I'm curious if they did an RC mix on this, possibly building a 3d model of the RC plane. I'm certainly not ruling out that it was entirely done with CGI, but I am open to the possibility that it was. The quality of the former shots before the landing are certainly much better than the rest of the footage in my opinion from a lighting perspective.

Anyways, I digress. I threw my hat in the ring a long time ago. I think everyone is clear on my particular stance

 

[heywooood]

regardless - its a great video...if in fact it is two vids or three spliced and edited together its still a great piece of work.

I've seen and heard those planes from very close up at the local RedBull Challenge this past spring and they are mighty powerful and extremely torque-y - he 'appears' to use the torque to perfection in both timing and control, countering the obvious loss of lift on the right side of the plane whilst utilizing that types' fairly significant elevator and rudder authority.

I'm not saying I don't believe it was done, afterall propagating a hoax on the internet is not something new - nor an indictment on the character of anyone but the perpetrator...but it is a great piece of video.

Either way - it was an outstanding effort either by the pilot - or the film student

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Did a little further investigating....

Why is he not wearing a helmet? Most pictures I see of the pilots in the Red Bull Air Race are wearing helmets... Not always however, so this is not substantial proof.

The video clearly shows an Extra type plane with no spades underneath the ailerons, and the ailerons themselves are the full length of the wing.

http://www.birch.ch/images/StRambMS406+Extra30.jpg

The above picture is of an Extra 300L.

On the pilot's webpage it says the following:

The aircraft is based on an old G-300 with a modified Boxer engine which, thanks to an improved gas flow system, ignition and additional oil cooler developed by James himself, possesses an increased power of approximately 475 hp. Alas, the process of certification is still ongoing so that during competitions you will see a regular aircraft with 350 hp and a Hartzel propeller.

Extra never made a G model of the Extra, and furthermore that nomenclature "g-300" does not fit with the extra line. The only Extra flown on the Red Bull 2008 circuit was an Extra 300SR flown by Ivanoff of France according to the official Red Bull page. Furthermore.

The Extra 300SR is a modified extra designed for use at the Red Bull Air Races.

Furthermore, the Extra 300SR only produces 340HP, the only 350HP plane is the MXS (at least according to Red Bull), which doesn't add up in the quote from the website above. Most standard Extras only come in a 300HP variant anyways.

Further optimisations (enlarged control flaps and reduction in weight to a basic weight of 650kg) improve the airplane’s flying capabilities in order to perform even better stunts and choreo-graphies.

Besides the bad spelling....

Control flaps? Ok ok.. they are talking about Ailerons. So, this somewhat rebuts what I discussed... however, the plane isn't certified by their account. So why would all the photos show said plane with enlarged ailerons in a race as well as the video itself if it isn't certified to fly?

How much proof do we need that the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash?

To Heywoood, I don't disagree. Pretty cool video.

 

[SkippyBing]

There's also the rather dubious line in his biography about being in the RAF for a year and a half before leaving due to low sortie rates. Considering at least the first 6 months are taken up with initial officer training at Cranwell with leave etc. he wouldn't have actually finished the first flying training course, besides which the UK Armed Forces tend not to let you just leave.

 

[Tweek]

Also, if this was a public event, why are there not more videos of it? Usually when there's crash videos, or similar incidents, there's several views of it from different people, especially nowadays with camera phones and the like.

Again, it doesn't disprove the fact that it's real, but it's yet another suspicious coincidence that would point towards it being a fake.

 

[Woodstock]

has anybody searched in the FAA accident archives???? should be quite simple...no entry, no accident... just my 2 (euro)cent...

Woodstock

 

[Big_Stick]

has anybody searched in the FAA accident archives???? should be quite simple...no entry, no accident... just my 2 (euro)cent...

Woodstock

The video wasn't shot during an air race or air show; it's a practice session. Notice the complete absence of spectators. Also, it's most likely in GB, not the USA, or somewhere in Europe, so the FAA would not be involved. Also, a demonstration plane like this, flown only in controlled airspace, would not require any tail number. The planes are disassembled and shipped from show to show, not flown cross-country.

The G300 is an actual aircraft, very advanced, and it is not made by Extra, it's made by Akrotech. See here:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/s020a.pdf

As it stated on his site, he put this one together himself and it's highly modified. That's not at all unusual.

How is the landing absolutely faked? Is is 100 percent CGI or an RC plane? How was it possible to have the two people in the last shot? Is that the real plane, edited in?

 

[expat]

That's an R/C model.

 

[Big_Stick]

Did a little further investigating....

Why is he not wearing a helmet? Most pictures I see of the pilots in the Red Bull Air Race are wearing helmets... Not always however, so this is not substantial proof.

The video clearly shows an Extra type plane with no spades underneath the ailerons, and the ailerons themselves are the full length of the wing.

http://www.birch.ch/images/StRambMS406+Extra30.jpg

The above picture is of an Extra 300L.

On the pilot's webpage it says the following:
Extra never made a G model of the Extra, and furthermore that nomenclature "g-300" does not fit with the extra line. The only Extra flown on the Red Bull 2008 circuit was an Extra 300SR flown by Ivanoff of France according to the official Red Bull page. Furthermore.

The Extra 300SR is a modified extra designed for use at the Red Bull Air Races.

Furthermore, the Extra 300SR only produces 340HP, the only 350HP plane is the MXS (at least according to Red Bull), which doesn't add up in the quote from the website above. Most standard Extras only come in a 300HP variant anyways.

Besides the bad spelling....

Control flaps? Ok ok.. they are talking about Ailerons. So, this somewhat rebuts what I discussed... however, the plane isn't certified by their account. So why would all the photos show said plane with enlarged ailerons in a race as well as the video itself if it isn't certified to fly?

How much proof do we need that the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash?

As mentioned in my other post:

The G300 is an actual aircraft, very advanced, and it is not made by Extra, it's made by Akrotech. See here:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/s020a.pdf

"Control flaps" is a term sometimes used in the UK, it's deprecated here in the US but still understood to mean control surfaces. "Gills" is the British substitute for "cowl flaps" as another example.

Many planes are not certified, including home-built and warbirds. Certification is not required to test a plane, it's required to manufacture and sell or use the plane under certain commercial circumstances. The best certification this type of plane could receive would be "Experimental" in the USA, but GB likely has some other requirement.

The lack of a helmet is not unusual; we see plenty of pilots show up in serious aerobatic planes, out for a weekend flight, without helmets at one of our local airports which has an aerobatic area nearby. A helmet is a darn good idea, especially for the passenger (who cannot compensate for unexpected moves) but they are often not worn during casual or practice sessions.

Some of us need more info than others. I'll be watching this thread for more developments.

 

[jbDC9]

Big Stick, no offense intended, but it's kinda funny how you keep defending this video... it's just fake in so many ways as others have listed above. And the landing? It's just silly, looks like a cartoon. It just looks all wrong... even my wife, a non-pilot, watched it and said "oh yeah, that's fake."

Just an opinion from a 17,000+ hour B-737 captain with a Van's RV-8 in a hangar at the local 'drome.

 

[chinookmark]

Has anyone here used an R/C simulator? All this talk about RC and CGI got me thinking. It was mentioned a few times about the airplane just not looking right, and the shine being strange. The shine looks to me exactly like the shine in Realflight G4. I've got RFG4 at home (I'm in Iraq right now), so I can't make a video. But if someone has Realflight G3, G3.5, or G4, check it out.

Realflight G4 demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfOP066lX5s&feature=related

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Stick, with so much going against it, what do you have going for it other than "plausible" aerobatics? Even if everything you said is true, that is one hell of a stretch, don't you think?Again, if his plane is not certified for use and he stated that he was using his underpowered 350HP plane, why is there no record of such a plane in the circuit and why are all the pictures showing his modified version, even in races?The guy doesn't exist. The pictures are all staged. Nobody heard of him. The plane is not real. The video is fake.Believe what you want, but me, like most everyone here agrees. I do find it strange that you are willing to dismiss someone like myself who does this for a living

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Has anyone here used an R/C simulator? All this talk about RC and CGI got me thinking. It was mentioned a few times about the airplane just not looking right, and the shine being strange. The shine looks to me exactly like the shine in Realflight G4. I've got RFG4 at home (I'm in Iraq right now), so I can't make a video. But if someone has Realflight G3, G3.5, or G4, check it out.

Funny you say that. Just before I saw this video I was at an RC shop playing with this simulator. It was fun! I want it. They had to kick me off of it.

 

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

Look at His web page, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its a Hoax...

James Andersson, son of a Swedish model and a British pilot, was born in Uppsala, Sweden, on a stormy October night.

Sounds alot like Snoopy... "It was a dark and stormy night" lol

also

Jimmy’s aircraft shows an irregular throttle response during training, hence his initial decision against further participation in flight events and competitions.

can anybody say "Convenient" and later he goes on to say...

little later it turns out that this was the right decision: The fuel pump had been assembled incorrectly causing an irregular supply to the combustion chambers which could have led to engine failure in the upper G-force area during flight maneuvers.

Why didn't his engine cut out in the video, that probably would have put alot of stress on the fuel system...

Just my 2 cents

-Conrad

 

[Big_Stick]

Stick, with so much going against it, what do you have going for it other than "plausible" aerobatics? Even if everything you said is true, that is one hell of a stretch, don't you think?Again, if his plane is not certified for use and he stated that he was using his underpowered 350HP plane, why is there no record of such a plane in the circuit and why are all the pictures showing his modified version, even in races?The guy doesn't exist. The pictures are all staged. Nobody heard of him. The plane is not real. The video is fake.Believe what you want, but me, like most everyone here agrees. I do find it strange that you are willing to dismiss someone like myself who does this for a living

A lot of people saying it's a fake, but producing no proof or even substantive evidence, does not constitute anything going against it but the preponderance of skeptical rhetoric. I posted my own factual observations as well as those of several other real-world pilots regarding the perfect synchronization of the control surface movements and many other factual details which suggest it is not a fake. It's proven that a plane can in fact fly and land with only one wing attached, as your own link to the video of the RC plane showed (unless that was also a fake). On the other hand, despite the large number of video and CGI experts weighing in here, not a shred of forensic evidence to suggest the video is a fake has been presented. Show us some frame comparisons, pointing out inconsistencies and explaining just how the hoax was perpetrated.

Simply because "most everyone here agrees" doesn't establish fact, only mob rule. I'm sure you are very good at your profession but that doesn't prove this video is faked in any way.

Regarding your comments on the G300, 350 HP is not "underpowered", that is in fact a huge amount of power for a plane weighing around 1500 pounds wet, and is the standard output for the installed engine. The 475 HP figure was for the modified version. The plane does exist as the link to Akrotech establishes. Some seemed to be misled as to what "certification" means and I explained that it was only necessary for manufacture and sale of the aircraft, not for conducting private tests. It's clear this incident happened at a fairly deserted airport, as I mentioned earlier, during a test. The absence of any kind of crowd is very clear from the movie. Regarding the Andersson website's juvenile descriptions of the pilot, plane, and his exploits, they are indeed fluff pieces but hardly prove anything other than that the person who wrote them intended them as such.

The movie may indeed be partially or fully faked and I readily admit it, but to my eye, and based on a technical analysis of what the plane actually did, it appears more real than a hoax. The only reason I am still watching this thread is in the hope someone might post something substantive about its authenticity or falsity.

 

[Big_Stick]

Look at His web page, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say its a Hoax...



Sounds alot like Snoopy... "It was a dark and stormy night" lol

also


can anybody say "Convenient" and later he goes on to say...

Why didn't his engine cut out in the video, that probably would have put alot of stress on the fuel system...

Just my 2 cents

-Conrad

The information provided is indeed vague and fluffy, but that would be consistent with a website geared toward attracting fans, not techies. However, the explanation of the problem is correct. Low pressure in the fuel system would cause the engine to stutter or lose power during high-G maneuvers. That's factually accurate.

As posted earlier in this thread, the engine would not necessarily quit after the loss of a wing, even a wing tank. This plane, in all likelihood, had a fuselage tank and the loss of a wing would not have had any effect on the power. The fuel systems in these kinds of planes are designed not only to operate inverted, but under both high positive and negative-G conditions. If the central or left wing tank was selected, no adverse effect to power would be experienced.

One thing that seems clear is that James Andersson is not the most reliable pilot, and in fact the killathrill site makes that clear. He's apparently quite the "maverick" and has been repeatedly disqualified from various events and is known for pulling stunts outside the norm.

Again, he is NOT one of the Red Bull pilots, he's a privateer and the absence of his name from the roster of the 12 top finishers does not mean he did not enter or attempt to qualify at any particular event. Certainly the websites would want to hype up the idea that he's somehow involved with the Red Bull races, but they don't state or even imply that he is on the Red Bull team or that he's ever so much as placed in the top 12.

I'm sure the facts will eventually surface. What I'm going on is that what is seen in the video is physically and technically possible (not just plausible) so to my eye, there is no clear reason to dismiss it.