|
Sagebrush posted:iirc that thing happened because the army said they were going to chain the helicopter down to do some kind of test, Boeing said "don't do that, it will cause serious ground resonance problems", the army did it anyway, and welp That video is posted regularly. The helicopter had some sort of flight incident and exceeded flight envelope, so even if it looks fine (at the beginning of the video), structurally, it was shot and deemed a write-off. They were just going to shoot it or something, the copter decided to commit suicide first.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
That airframe suffered an in-flight control malfunction causing it to snap-roll inverted and the pilots barely got it under control before crashing. Shoddy maintenance had allowed water and debris contamination of the hydraulics. The airframe exceeded its G limit and so they decided to use it as a live-fire target for testing, but they removed the oleo-dampers and chained it to the ground directly, causing the ground-resonance and structural failure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Here have a sick trick from a Chinook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmoc3YgvXWE Swedish egalitarianism demanded equal opportunity air show displays, which led to things like the above as well as pretty cool C-130 acrobatic display which I think they still run sometimes. They also used to have a hilarious Bo 105 display where the pilot was on speaker during the entire time, continuously narrating exactly what he was doing with the controls. Too bad that thing is retired. e: this, but it's been cut (I skipped the start where it's mostly talking in Swedish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbDVB5Ard0&t=117s Speaking of which, anyone going to Flygvapnet's 90 year anniversary air show in Linköping on the 27th or 28th? TheFluff fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
"To complete the display, the rear ramp opens and 25 marines get out and puke on the ground."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Here have a sick trick from a Chinook The gif stops a bit too early, at the end of the 270 pirouette, he flops it right into a solid hover. It's really cool. I couldn't find it on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's a garbage blog entry, sorry. Yeah, there's a ton of "I suspect", "I assume", "it's possible" and the like; it doesn't sound like he's very familiar with the aviation side of things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Worth clicking a dailymail link. There are images of what appears to be the same pass where the aircraft is about ten feet higher, photoshop job?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:There are images of what appears to be the same pass where the aircraft is about ten feet higher, photoshop job? Image Error Analysis:  Not saying it's fake, but interesting analysis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Image Error Analysis: How do I read this? Blue is likely changed? What does it actually base colours and dots on?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
simplefish posted:How do I read this? Blue is likely changed? What does it actually base colours and dots on? From what I understand - if there is a huge change in colours on the analysed version - some fuckery is involved. Something to do with different JPG compression etc. It's not a 100% but seeing such a distinct change right along the part of the photo that I would manilupate...it's telling. On the other hand - the rest of the photos in the article might support that flight line. there was one photo in there of the same plane a LOT higher at same spot from another pass so maybe that's what you were thinking of? Fence-sitter here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
simplefish posted:How do I read this? Blue is likely changed? What does it actually base colours and dots on? The image is JPEG‐compressed and then overlayed with the original in what Photoshop calls “difference” blending mode, then contrast enhanced. Basically how it works is that the more groups of pixels have already been compressed, the less they will be modified by one more round of compression. There are a few different types of edits that ELA can reveal. If the image is a composite of two separate photographs, they’ll likely have been compressed differently along the way—different cameras, different quality settings by the original photographers, different numbers of times re‐hosted on Imgur. If you have two visually similar areas, but the ELA looks different in their areas of the image, that’s a sign that perhaps they came from separate photographs. Another thing it can reveal is the blending between copy & pasted areas and the main underlying photo. The blended area will be “fresh”, so the JPEG‐compressor will go to town on it and compress it more heavily, and this will be evident in the ELA. It’s a quick analysis technique that readily reveals some common forgeries, but it’s easy to read too much into it. It doesn’t tell us much here. The plane looks different in the ELA because it’s the only bright, solid‐colour object in the image, not necessarily because it’s been pasted in. Here’s the higher‐level pass. See how the ELA for it is similar, despite this one being ostensibly unedited:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
On the "holy poo poo" image, the aircraft's shadow seem inconsistent with the lighting. I suppose we would see the shadow of the plane's front on the other side of the low stone wall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
So there's a video and it's not at all a photoshop  I'll post it on my next break.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStKOJSE1mo
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH-djASVKQs
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
I was sure it was fake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Those guys are all a little insane. Seen a SOPFEU CL-415 come in to a lake I was about to canoe on about five feet from the tree tops, once. Decided not to canoe that day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
 e:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Bottom of the plane is already painted red, I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
fknlo posted:So there's a video and it's not at all a photoshop That was indeed fknlo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
You missed the guy falling halfway off his bike to avoid being headless. https://i.imgur.com/dlEd5Cd.gifv Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I like the guy in the white T-shirt just casually trying to light his cigarette while dodging a plane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:You missed the guy falling halfway off his bike to avoid being headless. Never mind, dumb question. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I like the guy in the white T-shirt just casually trying to light his cigarette while dodging a plane. That's la culture francaise for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Two very lucky dudes there. That could have been very very bad if the plane was a few feet in either direction from where it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Two very lucky dudes there. That could have been very very bad if the plane was a few feet in either direction from where it was. On the plus side, the underside of the boat is red and it was about to land in the water ~anyway~, so clean up wouldn't have been a huge chore. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I guarantee you those pilots have their iPads or phones connected to wifi and are looking at all sources of weather. In addition to their weather radar. In addition to asking center what they are seeing.  if you think we have the latest/greatest WX data available, chances are the dudes sitting in first class have better access to weather.com, than us squinting at the 1997-era Collins weather radar and figuring if we're seeing the same thing center is 80 miles out.  Meanwhile I spent the day in Amsterdam last week, and the Dutch being the Dutch, mounted this thing to the roof of Schiphol airport: 
Butt Reactor fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
That's a big Fokker
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
I want to know what sort of talking to that 415 pilot got when the powers that be got ahold of that video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Dammit people, stop using digital zoom on your camera phones! At least it's not portrait video I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I want to know what sort of talking to that 415 pilot got when the powers that be got ahold of that video. What exactly do you imagine would have happened in that conversation? You can't stop civilians from being under an approach path. Remember that car that ran into the Cessna in short final? Would he have gotten a talking to? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zWm2TAMwb3U Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:You can't stop civilians from being under an approach path. Remember that car that ran into the Cessna in short final? Would he have gotten a talking to? Is that area even marked as being an "approach path"? I mean, it's a freaking lake. I wouldn't necessarily expect planes to be landing on it out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
And? I don't have my seaplane rating (yet!!!!! I found a lake buccaneer!!!!!) but what does it matter? Am I wrong in thinking that the airplane does multiple landings there? It sure seems on purpose to me and not hotdogging. Edit: FYI I'm wrong. It's two separate airplane landing into the wind. Seems windy that day. Maybe they're out fighting fires. Boy howdy the talking to they're going to get for landing directly into the wind. Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Boy howdy the talking to they're going to get for landing directly into the wind. God, you're insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:That's a big Fokker I prefer to call them "Deutsche sie Neins."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:
I wonder how many people wandered into that thing and then complained how long their flight was deleted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:God, you're insufferable. That's Our Apollo! (TM)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:And? Because the Cessna car presumably had to drive past signs saying "STOP HERE AND WATCH OUT FOR AIRPLANES" when it drove past the approach end, whereas people standing by the lake don't get that same warning. Thus it might be a bit more incumbent on the seaplane to try to not hit people. e: not to mention, even if there weren't any people, that second plane was about two feet away from putting a hole in the wall and possibly their hull. Wingnut Ninja fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Because the Cessna car presumably had to drive past signs saying "STOP HERE AND WATCH OUT FOR AIRPLANES" when it drove past the approach end, whereas people standing by the lake don't get that same warning. Thus it might be a bit more incumbent on the seaplane to try to not hit people. On top of all that there is probably no reason the pilot needs to put it down on basically the shore. If you watch he also bounces it. I would air on the side of pilot mistake and not maliciousness. If he was any lower he would have smashed the tail on the sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:58
|
|
