what a pilot!

[Big_Stick]

Here is another reasonably thoughtful post on the topic from another who agrees it may be real. This again addresses the suggestion that the plane rolled the wrong way. I previously explained this in a similar fashion. None of my comments are intended to convince anyone of anything, only to show that not all who watch the clip are immediately convinced of fakery. The discussion below of the aerodynamic principles involved is exactly correct.

----------------

On these fully aerobatic aircraft the wings are perfectly symmetrical in cross section and will provide lift as long as the chord is at an angle to the apparent airflow across the wing, and the lift will always be provided away from the chord's angle with the apparent wind. Even a flat-bottomed wing will gain altitude when inverted when the angle of attack is high enough. Also, such aircraft have fuselages designed as symmetrical lifting bodies to sustain altitude in knife edge flight. I've seen 1/4 and 1/3 scale aerobatic models landed with one wing gone on several occasions, but it takes a very skilled pilot to do so. I've even seen a plane landed with both wings gone simply by hovering it down like a helicopter, though it was spinning at a pretty good clip from torque reaction. I have no doubt a full scale version would be equally capable of knife edge to the runway, then a quick roll to upright attitude just befor contact. I think the video is real.

This is from http://www.twtex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33754

 

[N2056]

This has been an interesting thread, but now it's starting to go south...and I'm out of popcorn

Maybe time to call it done before it gets bad?

 

[Big_Stick]

This has been an interesting thread, but now it's starting to go south...and I'm out of popcorn

Maybe time to call it done before it gets bad?

You want to suggest we close the thread? Why? I'm not complaining and I'm the only one who's been insulted. We have like 20 people insisting it's a fake and essentially insinuating I am mentally addled not to fall in line with the groupthink. Doesn't bother me so why suggest we close it? Is it because I'm a maverick? If this film is a fake, I really do want to know how it was done, step by step, because it is amazing. If the plane was an RC aircraft, the pilot was astonishingly good. If it was done in an RC simulator, it's still very, very impressive. Seems to me that the discord stems from the fact I won't capitulate to the opinion of the masses and nothing else. Why the headbeating icon? Someone here must be capable of a good analysis of how it was actually done.

I have a very specific question for anyone who has the time to explain something here. I could easily buy the idea that the initial footage (if I may used that anachronistic term) is of an RC plane. I could accept this RC plane being the subject of the film (again, an anachronism) up to the point where the plane has landed and rolls out.

What I want to know is how the fakery was accomplished so convincingly with respect to the foreground and background scenery flashing in front of and behind the aircraft. The second thing I would like to know is how the final shots of the aircraft during the rollout were done, with the actual human beings in the cockpit and running across the tarmac.

Lastly, I would like to know if anyone feels that this G300 does exist and was seen as the "real" aircraft in the final shots. This, to me, is the greatest bugaboo. If the plane really does exist and is seen in the final moments, spliced to the earlier shots of a brilliantly flown RC aircraft, that would negate arguments that Andersson is no pilot and his plane doesn't exist.

 

[Tweek]

Lastly, I would like to know if anyone feels that this G300 does exist and was seen as the "real" aircraft in the final shots. This, to me, is the greatest bugaboo. If the plane really does exist and is seen in the final moments, spliced to the earlier shots of a brilliantly flown RC aircraft, that would negate arguments that Andersson is no pilot and his plane doesn't exist.

The fact that there's no registration number would lead me to believe that it doesn't.

And I also believe that it's a CGI aircraft throughout. Just look at the smoke at the beginning of the video. It's clearly in full flow, but looks far too thin to be representative of real smoke (i.e. diesel oil injected into a hot exhaust). Just compare it to any other video of an aerobatic aircraft. I suppose it's possible that they added it to footage of an R/C aircraft, but it'd be far more convincing to simply add a smoke canister to the model.

 

[Big_Stick]

Here is another juicy tidbit to chew upon.

Someone is claiming the Akrotech Giles G300 was only produced as a single prototype but is available as a large-scale RC aircraft...

http://www.fun-key.com.hk/giles120.htm

Here is an article on the actual, flying G300 which is good reading in and of itself:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/2001/Jan31/frontfull1.html

Here's a good image of the actual G300:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=119519

The RC plane shown above has a six-foot wingspan. Is it possible someone used one of these as the flying aircraft, after spending a long time painting it to look exactly like the real aircraft in the final shots? Or is the aircraft in the final shot also the RC, with the people somehow edited into the shot?

One thing that raises eyebrows is the three-bladed prop on the "real" aircraft as compared with the normal, two-blader on the RC unit. The blades on the "real" plane are perfectly to scale and the prop stops exactly as it would on a real plane.

If this is a large-scale RC plane, the flying is incredible. But how to explain the final shot of the real aircraft? Also, the detail on even the largest-scale RC model does not match that of the aircraft shown in the clip.

Call me curious but I would like to know how this was done if it's indeed fake. I could buy part RC, part real plane.

 

[N2056]

You want to suggest we close the thread? Why? I'm not complaining and I'm the only one who's been insulted. We have like 20 people insisting it's a fake and essentially insinuating I am mentally addled not to fall in line with the groupthink. Doesn't bother me so why suggest we close it? Is it because I'm a maverick? If this film is a fake, I really do want to know how it was done, step by step, because it is amazing. If the plane was an RC aircraft, the pilot was astonishingly good. If it was done in an RC simulator, it's still very, very impressive. Seems to me that the discord stems from the fact I won't capitulate to the opinion of the masses and nothing else. Why the headbeating icon?

First off, the headbeating icon was because I was out of popcorn.

I only bring up closing a thread when I start seeing phrases like 'personal attack' start showing up in posts. You made a statement to that effect in reply #80, which is why I said something, but after my post you edited it out.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[PRB]

Big_Stick,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
If I may… There have been two fundamental reasons given why people believe this video is a fake. 1) No pilot (or plane) can do that, and 2) the technical aspect, photo editing, CGI techniques, etc.
<o></o>
The first argument you’ve addressed thoroughly, and I believe that such a plane, with a skilled pilot at the controls, could possible pull off such a remarkable feat of flying skill.
<o></o>
But the majority of the posts supporting the fakery side of this are based on the second argument, not the first. You seem to be hanging onto the posts based on the first argument, and continue to focus on the fact that a real plane and pilot could actually do this. You’ve pointed out a couple of times that us skeptics out here are all non-pilots, implying that this makes us less qualified to comment of this than real pilots. This assumes we’re basing our case on the first argument. But I, at least, am not.
<o></o>
The circumstantial evidence of fakery presented here, based on argument 2, while circumstantial, is sort of huge, but you have conceded it and dismissed it at the same time by saying, “yes it may be fake, but you have to prove it.” Then you return to argument 1.
<o></o>
But as James Randi has said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and as logic dictates, one cannot prove that something didn’t happen. The burden of proof here lies with those who claim the event happened as depicted in the video. I don’t mean to suggest it’s up to you to prove it happened. You’re not the one claiming it did, just pointing out that it could, which I accept. The people who need to provide more evidence are the original claimants. How about just one single photo of the plane, on the ground, after the landing, without a wing, with a real person standing next to it? Wonder why there are none?

 

[Big_Stick]

Apparently the only G300 ever built was destroyed when the pilot, Marta Bohn-Meyer (who was also an SR-71 flight crew member) was apparently knocked unconscious when the canopy came loose.

http://differentriver.com/archives/2005/09/19/sad-news-from-nasa/

The wreckage of the plane was turned over the insurance company and its disposition is unknown. However, this doesn't mean much; Andersson's website says the plane he's flying is "based" on the old G300 design. Plans for this plane are apparently readily available.

I am intrigued by the image #11 on the Andersson website, which shows the underside of the modified G300. It looks quite real, especially the smoke. Image #3 appears to be the same plane but in a different livery.

 

[Big_Stick]

Big_Stick,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
If I may… There have been two fundamental reasons given why people believe this video is a fake. 1) No pilot (or plane) can do that, and 2) the technical aspect, photo editing, CGI techniques, etc.
<o></o>
The first argument you’ve addressed thoroughly, and I believe that such a plane, with a skilled pilot at the controls, could possible pull off such a remarkable feat of flying skill.
<o></o>
But the majority of the posts supporting the fakery side of this are based on the second argument, not the first. You seem to be hanging onto the posts based on the first argument, and continue to focus on the fact that a real plane and pilot could actually do this. You’ve pointed out a couple of times that us skeptics out here are all non-pilots, implying that this makes us less qualified to comment of this than real pilots. This assumes we’re basing our case on the first argument. But I, at least, am not.
<o></o>
The circumstantial evidence of fakery presented here, based on argument 2, while circumstantial, is sort of huge, but you have conceded it and dismissed it at the same time by saying, “yes it may be fake, but you have to prove it.” Then you return to argument 1.
<o></o>
But as James Randi has said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and as logic dictates, one cannot prove that something didn’t happen. The burden of proof here lies with those who claim the event happened as depicted in the video. I don’t mean to suggest it’s up to you to prove it happened. You’re not the one claiming it did, just pointing out that it could, which I accept. The people who need to provide more evidence are the original claimants. How about just one single photo of the plane, on the ground, after the landing, without a wing, with a real person standing next to it? Wonder why there are none?

Well put. Indeed, the search for information may well result in the debunking of this as nothing more than a very good hoax. I would respond to your description of the second argument as completely accurate, but self-defeating. The fact that something can be done through CGI that appears to be real -- let's say almost anything, to be fair -- doesn't mean that anything that seems unbelievable is just CGI. I would take the opposite argument to that presented by someone earlier in this thread. It was stated that younger viewers would be far more likely to peg the clip as a CGI fake because they are used to it. Yet, incredible saves and amazing coincidences happen often enough that reasonable people should at least take into consideration that while it may be unlikely, it could be true. Dismissing every astonishing feat or event just because it could have been created with CGI, as younger viewers seem to be wont to do, is no better a position than accepting most or all amazing feats as fact.

I'd like to see more info on this. I'd like to see someone familiar with this kind of video editing answer the three questions I asked earlier. I can see the first portion being RC, but the plane on the ground, with the open canopy, does not appear to be an RC model (I've been comparing images of the real G300, Andersson's supposed plane, and the RC versions).

 

[Pepere]

When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?

 

[icarus]

in a second movie he lost also other wing, the wheels and his credit card.

When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?

the man at special effect forget to add them.

 

[modelr]

When the plane hits the ground there is no dirt/grass kicked up?

Why should there be? It doesn't touch down in a slide. The wheels are pointed straight ahead. I live near a grass field, I've landed on them. I only thru grass when there was a large crosswind involved and I didn't get it straightened out properly.

Big Stick, I'm on your side. I've also closely studied the video, looking at each argument. I'm a large R/C pilot, who goes to a lot of large meets, sees the experts, does home video with an inexpensive Sony, has some real time hours, owned an ultralite for years, goes to airshows where these types of aircraft are flown, etc. I have no experience in CG, but I can usually (not always) spot the fakery. So, I also argue from the "it's possible" point.

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.

Someone mentioned it looked like the wrong wing was shown when he was inverted. I almost answered "hey, you're right." However, after a close, as close to frame by frame exam as Windows Media Player (which I use) would allow, the shot is not of him inverted, he's in a knife edge, after stopping the spin. His movements/corrections are exactly the ones I would use in an attempt to save an R/C. Yes, I've lost a wing before. No, I didn't save it, but I was close. The plane I flew was not as manueverable as this one.

Questions about fuel weight in the remaining wing would cause different gyrations. True, but these aircraft don't have wet wings. They have a 5-10 gallon tank in the fuse, right under the cowling, over the pilots legs. No CG shift, and very little sloshing. ONLY enough fuel for 15 min at full throttle, maybe. And, the wing separation point is correct. These aircraft have a large tube running thru the fuse, and both wings have tubes to fit inside. They are held on with locking pins.


As said before, if this is CGI, it's darn good. But from who watches these kind of planes, it's totally believable.

 

[AlphaWhiskeyFoxtrot]

in a second movie he lost also other wing, the wheels and his credit card.

So now he has a tricycle that he can neither pay for or drive? :d

 

[icarus]

So now he has a tricycle that he can neither pay for or drive?

lol:d

 

[CodyValkyrie]

What I want to know is how the fakery was accomplished so convincingly with respect to the foreground and background scenery flashing in front of and behind the aircraft. The second thing I would like to know is how the final shots of the aircraft during the rollout were done, with the actual human beings in the cockpit and running across the tarmac.

Blue/green screen technology, model animating and key framing. If that doesn't mean anything to you, I'm not going to bother explaining it any more.

I'd like to see more info on this. I'd like to see someone familiar with this kind of video editing answer the three questions I asked earlier. I can see the first portion being RC, but the plane on the ground, with the open canopy, does not appear to be an RC model (I've been comparing images of the real G300, Andersson's supposed plane, and the RC versions).

Isn't this what I have been trying to tell you? I'm telling you pretty much exactly how it was done. There are even SEVERAL ways you can do it! Going into full scale technical description of pan/crop editing, post fx and filter application etc is WAY beyond the scope of this conversation. There are even third party filters that convincingly animate like an amateur camera with no editing required by the maker.....

I'm not going to wait on bated breath for you to believe me however.

 

[AckAck]

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.

Cutting the engine would be the last thing you'd want to do. The knife-edge maneuver requires power, and as a glider, the one-winged plane would have been as controllable and aerodynamic as a brick. The engine is what saved the plane, RC or real.

OK - I'm being misunderstood here - I'm saying the engine should have been cut as soon as he was on the ground, not after he had taxiied to a stop. I understand that the engine would be what kept him aloft and made any of the maneuvers possible.

Not that this is pertinent to this discussion, just wanting to clarify what I meant.

Brian

 

[jimdbird]

I thought that video style looked familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o


Cheers,
Jim

 

[Wozza]

One of my fav fake vids this guy knocks out some funny stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivSgzxFcdg
Wozza

 

[tigisfat]

it seems to may that the biggest thing wring with most animations is the motion. I have only an idea of what it takes to produce something that detailed and rael looking in a video, but you get no credit from me if you're trying to pass something off as real and it moves like a horrible animation. There are many fake airplane videos on the web, and the horrible animation immediately sets them apart.

 

[Big_Stick]

First off, the headbeating icon was because I was out of popcorn.

I only bring up closing a thread when I start seeing phrases like 'personal attack' start showing up in posts. You made a statement to that effect in reply #80, which is why I said something, but after my post you edited it out.

I'll leave it at that.

I edited the post because I myself did not want anything that could be perceived as fanning the flames any more than just having an opinion contrary to the majority. That's bad enough. I think maybe you are right. I've gotten a couple of supporters, but there is probably nothing more to be gained here. The line has been drawn in the sand and no one is budging. I do have one for you, though...is this also a fake? You decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCePw1xikDA