PDA

View Full Version : F15 Landing on ONE wing ?!



Blutarski2004
07-19-2008, 01:05 PM
Go to YouTube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1aKxAN7bAs

Unreal.

b2spirita
07-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Yeah, happened awhile go.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle#Notable_accidents_and_incidents

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 01:27 PM
Utter BS.

Ah, wait, it was a mythical F-15, that only Chuck Norris can defeat! Must be true then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

b2spirita
07-19-2008, 01:51 PM
http://www.uss-bennington.org/pics/phz-nowing-f15.jpg

http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15ksurvive.htm

stalkervision
07-19-2008, 01:58 PM
The f-15 mid section is basically a "lifting body" that's why. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 02:11 PM
It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.

I can't believe people older than 16 fall for story, yet alone adults who are into aeronautics. It's "I want to believe" sorta thing I guess. I wonder how people would react if another laughable story emerged about Su-27 performing something like this. "FAKE, Su can never do it! It's russian, russkies r dumb, doncha now?"

Mr_Zooly
07-19-2008, 02:16 PM
iirc there was an A10 that had a fair amount of wing missing when it landed, I do remember reading something about the F15 a while ago. Also I remember reading that an A5m did manage to land on a carrier with a wing heavily damaged.

b2spirita
07-19-2008, 02:20 PM
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2007/05/landing-f15-with-only-one-wing.html


Tinytim, why are there no references to the incident being false, exept from you?

Blutarski2004
07-19-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.


..... Check the engine tail-cone settings on the post-landing aft view of the a/c. The exhaust cone on the right [damaged] side is completely open, while that on the left [undamaged] side is shut tight.

That how the asymmetrical drag was handled.

As for flaps, I'm sure that ground control had been notified that they had a damaged a/c coming in. I cannot imagine the ground controller getting the incoming a/c on visual would not have remarked to the pilot on the absence of a wing. It doesn't happen that often, you know .....

BSS_CUDA
07-19-2008, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2007/05/landing-f15-with-only-one-wing.html


Tinytim, why are there no references to the incident being false, exept from you? he provided references?!?!?!?

news to me

Bremspropeller
07-19-2008, 03:12 PM
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-06l.jpg

Snodrvr
07-19-2008, 03:21 PM
Isn't that last picture an F-14 instead of an F-15?

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.


..... Check the engine tail-cone settings on the post-landing aft view of the a/c. The exhaust cone on the right [damaged] side is completely open, while that on the left [undamaged] side is shut tight.

That how the asymmetrical drag was handled.

As for flaps, I'm sure that ground control had been notified that they had a damaged a/c coming in. I cannot imagine the ground controller getting the incoming a/c on visual would not have remarked to the pilot on the absence of a wing. It doesn't happen that often, you know ..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. But the pilot claims he never knew that the plane he is landing is missing an entire wing. Come on... That's too much even for Mulder and Scully I guess. And that plane could very well being damaged in the ground taxiing accident.


Originally posted by b2spirita:
Tinytim, why are there no references to the incident being false, exept from you?

There aren't any? Google "F-15 one wing landing fake" and you'll get many. Just as trustworthy as the pro ones. It's only a matter of whom do you trust. Probably those who are claiming what you want to believe. We humans are generally tending to believe what we would like to be true.

If you base what you believe on the percentage of how much of other people believe it, ok then. I do not. God didn't give us brain for a handy additional weight, and not much more than two or tree cells are needed to figure out that this landing is an utterly laughable ferrytale.

"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since great mass of people will easier fall for the big lie than a small one." ~Adolf Hitler

Even in WW2 it was on a verge of impossible to land a plane with missing one third of a wing. And those were much slower ac, with faaaar better weight to wing area ratio and low speed handling. Also A-10 falls in this category in my book. But F-15? With pilot not knowing he is missing a wing, during landing? Yeah, right...

Bremspropeller
07-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Yeah, it's an F-14.
But there's a couple of roll-authority left if you look at the spoilers.
And that F-14 lacks two thirds of it's right wing.

The F-14 also has a lifting-body.

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yeah, it's an F-14.
But there's a couple of roll-authority left if you look at the spoilers.
And that F-14 lacks two thirds of it's right wing.

The F-14 also has a lifting-body.

Is there any more data about that F-14? Did it manage to land? Still, it's missing a lot lower fraction of its lift area compared to entire huge F-15 wing...

b2spirita
07-19-2008, 04:14 PM
Just did google, all i found that referred to it as fake were comments on message boards. The pilot could not see the wing damage because of the fuel leak.

Bremspropeller
07-19-2008, 04:28 PM
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-06.htm

That's the only info I know of.

Note that the F-14 still has it's tanks on.


http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/0663916/L/

Read the caption. Appearantly the F-14 seen above made it to Singapore.

I_KG100_Prien
07-19-2008, 04:49 PM
I believe the saying goes..

Proving/disproving is the burden of the person making the claim

So, please do provide us with the plethora of facts that prove that event never happened.

Until then...

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
The pilot could not see the wing damage because of the fuel leak.

I do not argue at all the fact that he was unable to see that he is missing a wing.

What I refuse is to believe that he was able to land a plane without the knowledge about missing an entire wing.

I_KG100_Prien
07-19-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
The pilot could not see the wing damage because of the fuel leak.

I do not argue at all the fact that he was unable to see that he is missing a wing.

What I refuse is to believe that he was able to land a plane without the knowledge about missing an entire wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refuse to believe your refusal to believe that he did what you say he didn't do, until there is sufficient proof to support your claim of disbelief. Charts, links, interviews with Area 51 paranoia experts, and whatever else you can dig up.

Since we are theory crafting, maybe he was more focused on the barrage of alarms and "oh craps" going on around him.. Concentrating on getting that sucker on the ground.

Maybe the reason he didn't eject is because he didn't know he was flying.. quite literally.. on a "wing and a prayer".


--edit---

Going on this new way of debating...

I now declare all photo's of battle damaged WW2 warbirds to be completely false. No way something can be damaged so badly and still fly.

A new trend has been started folks, lets jump on this bandwagon and take it somewhere....

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
I believe the saying goes..

Proving/disproving is the burden of the person making the claim

So, please do provide us with the plethora of facts that prove that event never happened.

Until then...

Exactly! Why don't you ask authors of this story to back it up then? Because you want to believe them.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
I refuse to believe your refusal to believe that he did what you say he didn't do, until there is sufficient proof to support your claim of disbelief. Charts, links, interviews with Area 51 paranoia experts, and whatever else you can dig up.

LOL. This is like asking someone to prove that the story you just told him isn't true, a story like neither of you two have ever heard or seen in your lifes. Like asking someone to prove that Santa doesn't exist. Well, I've never seen a Santa in my life. I can't prove it does not exist. In order for me to change my belief I'd love to see proof Santa does exist. Now change santa with the uper story.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:Since we are theory crafting, maybe he was more focused on the barrage of alarms and "oh craps" going on around him.. Concentrating on getting that sucker on the ground.

Maybe the reason he didn't eject is because he didn't know he was flying.. quite literally.. on a "wing and a prayer".

Maybe so... very likely IMO. Yet again, do you believe he would be able to land that jet without the knowledge he is missing an entire wing? What would happen when he'd slow down and deploy flaps?



Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:--edit---

Going on this new way of debating...

I now declare all photo's of battle damaged WW2 warbirds to be completely false. No way something can be damaged so badly and still fly.

A new trend has been started folks, lets jump on this bandwagon and take it somewhere....

Childish exaggerating. I have yet to see a photo of a WW2 plane that landed succsessfuly with remotely comparable damage (in a sense of altering it's aerodynamics, drag/lift surfaces).

stalkervision
07-19-2008, 06:25 PM
Lifting bodies..
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html

and everyone know that you can fly a brick with enough power.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I bet the f-15 system of "fly by wire" had a lot to do with the success of that landing too.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I_KG100_Prien
07-19-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Utter BS.

Ah, wait, it was a mythical F-15, that only Chuck Norris can defeat! Must be true then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by TinyTim:

It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. Too Happy In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.

I can't believe people older than 16 fall for story, yet alone adults who are into aeronautics. It's "I want to believe" sorta thing I guess. I wonder how people would react if another laughable story emerged about Su-27 performing something like this. "FAKE, Su can never do it! It's russian, russkies r dumb, doncha now?"

Once again- to point out that you are the one frothing the most at the mouth to say that this is "impossible". Without giving us your references, while others have posted reference to indicate that it is possible. Your only suggestion was to "google it". My point about the burden of proof was pointed at you- Not anybody else. Don't come here screaming shenanigans without backup.

But you're right- there are probably pretty believable claims stating it's not possible. But you know what? There are people who believe and will claim until the day they die- That the Moon Landings never happened, and that space exploration is a big government hoax. Can find plenty of that stuff on "Google" as well"


Orignally posted by TinyTim:

Exactly. But the pilot claims he never knew that the plane he is landing is missing an entire wing. Come on... That's too much even for Mulder and Scully I guess. And that plane could very well being damaged in the ground taxiing accident.

Ground Taxi incident? GROUND TAXI incident? That would have to have been a pretty good ground taxi collision.


Originally posted by TinyTim:

LOL. This is like asking someone to prove that the story you just told him isn't true, a story like neither of you two have ever heard or seen in your lifes. Like asking someone that Santa doesn't exist. Well, I've never seen a Santa in my life. I can't prove it does not exist. In order for me to change my belief I'd love to see proof Santa does exist. Now change santa with the uper story.

Read somewhere else in my response to once again point out that you are the one that initially tried to debunk Santa without supporting arguments. Besides, bringing a children's fairy tale into something that COULD actually happen is well...

Oh, and would you care to point out where I have said that I am totally sold on this happening? I think it is possible, and there is reference to the event. That being said- since that is the only evidence posted here and I have not googled the anti-claims (I'm being as lazy in the burden of disproof as you) to give me sufficient evidence to support that it is "impossible".


Originally posted by TinyTim:

Childish exaggerating. I have yet to see a photo of a WW2 plane that landed succsessfuly with remotely comparable damage (in a sense of altering it's aerodynamics, drag/lift surfaces).

So, tell me if any of these photos don't resemble something that it didn't alter aerodynamics/drag/lift surfaces

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/waist1.gif

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/tail1.gif


This next one- not so much a problem with aerodynamics, but structural integrity. This could have fallen off at any time and ended in disaster. This plane still landed "safely" (fuselage bent on touchdown)- Oh wait a second, it's missing part of it's horizontal stab... aren't those part of aerodynamics and lift?

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/torn-in2.gif


Battle Damaged P(F)-80

http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/Pics/F80battledamage.jpg

Some of this damage is comparable, in so much as it indeed alter the overall flight characteristics of the craft in question. There were planes that suffered "less" damage and went down. But, as you said- Stuff like that's impossible.

Brain32
07-19-2008, 07:09 PM
Pffft the pilot said he never knew he lost a wing and that is one of the reasons it's a fake? I didn't watch a video from the first post but I saw it before...
Andyway in the one I watched, the pilot said he knew his wing is very badly damaged and even seriously thought about ejecting however as he regained control after the spin he decided to put it down, however he couldn't judge the amount of damage due to heavy fuel leak.
That's why he may had said in this video he never knew he was mising an entire wing.

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Pffft the pilot said he never knew he lost a wing and that is one of the reasons it's a fake?

Yes, because he really didn't have one! It's somewhat different than landing without a pitot tube and not knowing you have lost one.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Once again- to point out that you are the one frothing the most at the mouth to say that this is "impossible". Without giving us your references, while others have posted reference to indicate that it is possible.
No. What they posted were attempts to explain the happening the best possible way, assuming that the event really happened.

If you detonate an H-bomb and convince the public it was a mere train-fuel cistern that blew up, public will try to explain it in best possible way and I am quite sure that some pretty believable scenarios would emerge. But, surely, the ones doubting that what really happened is not what they were told, would be crucified.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Your only suggestion was to "google it". My point about the burden of proof was pointed at you- Not anybody else. Don't come here screaming shenanigans without backup.
Remind me please: who started this topic on the "self understood ground" that it did happen?


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
But you're right- there are probably pretty believable claims stating it's not possible. But you know what? There are people who believe and will claim until the day they die- That the Moon Landings never happened, and that space exploration is a big government hoax. Can find plenty of that stuff on "Google" as well"

Let me see if I get this right: You don't believe a space exploration is a government hoax. Prove it.

In other words: It's THEM who is claiming in the first place that this extremely unusual event really happened. Let me see their proofs first, and I might change my mind.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Orignally posted by TinyTim:
Exactly. But the pilot claims he never knew that the plane he is landing is missing an entire wing. Come on... That's too much even for Mulder and Scully I guess. And that plane could very well being damaged in the ground taxiing accident.

Ground Taxi incident? GROUND TAXI incident? That would have to have been a pretty good ground taxi collision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, some kind of accident on the ground.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by TinyTim:
LOL. This is like asking someone to prove that the story you just told him isn't true, a story like neither of you two have ever heard or seen in your lifes. Like asking someone that Santa doesn't exist. Well, I've never seen a Santa in my life. I can't prove it does not exist. In order for me to change my belief I'd love to see proof Santa does exist. Now change santa with the uper story.

Read somewhere else in my response to once again point out that you are the one that initially tried to debunk Santa without supporting arguments. Besides, bringing a children's fairy tale into something that COULD actually happen is well...

Oh, and would you care to point out where I have said that I am totally sold on this happening? I think it is possible, and there is reference to the event. That being said- since that is the only evidence posted here and I have not googled the anti-claims (I'm being as lazy in the burden of disproof as you) to give me sufficient evidence to support that it is "impossible".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You still don't get it, do you? It's impossible to prove something extremely unusual didn't happen. It's possible to prove something extremely unusual did happen. Basic concept of science.

I don't believe something extremely unusual happened. And now you expect me to prove it? Lol once again.


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Childish exaggerating. I have yet to see a photo of a WW2 plane that landed succsessfuly with remotely comparable damage (in a sense of altering it's aerodynamics, drag/lift surfaces).

So, tell me if any of these photos don't resemble something that it didn't alter aerodynamics/drag/lift surfaces

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/waist1.gif

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/tail1.gif


This next one- not so much a problem with aerodynamics, but structural integrity. This could have fallen off at any time and ended in disaster. This plane still landed "safely" (fuselage bent on touchdown)- Oh wait a second, it's missing part of it's horizontal stab... aren't those part of aerodynamics and lift?

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/torn-in2.gif


Battle Damaged P(F)-80

http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/8thFW/Pics/F80battledamage.jpg

Some of this damage is comparable, in so much as it indeed alter the overall flight characteristics of the craft in question. There were planes that suffered "less" damage and went down. But, as you said- Stuff like that's impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, thank you for sharing them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif But you are exaggerating again. You probably didn't take a good look at the F-15 plane that is in question. It lost entire starboard wing. Assuming that's about 2/5 of all lift generating surfaces (with the fuselage being the remaining 1/5th), no plane on pictures above lost 2/5 of their lift surfaces. All very damaged indeed, but nowhere near our F-15 when it comes to asymetric lift, drag and especially weight to lift area ratio. Not even remotely near.

Why do I get the feeling that you (not you personally Prien) would be much more sceptical if something like that happened to, say, a MiG-29 in Syria? I think I am starting to understand that national pride and emotions in this regard are simply a very limiting or dare I say blinding factor when it comes to objective natural-science analysis. Thank God I was raised in a relatively neutral country, and that I had to learn to overcome seeing and favoring what I wished instead of what was rational.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. Was fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Rjel
07-19-2008, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Why do I get the feeling that you (not you personally Prien) would be much more sceptical if something like that happened to, say, a MiG-29 in Syria? I think I am starting to understand that national pride and emotions in this regard are simply a very limiting or dare I say blinding factor when it comes to objective natural-science analysis. Thank God I was raised in a relatively neutral country, and that I had to learn to overcome seeing and favoring what I wished instead of what was rational.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. Was fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Your sentiments in this thread have been very transparent. Your "neutral country" upbringing certainly left you with an obvious bias.

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Why do I get the feeling that you (not you personally Prien) would be much more sceptical if something like that happened to, say, a MiG-29 in Syria? I think I am starting to understand that national pride and emotions in this regard are simply a very limiting or dare I say blinding factor when it comes to objective natural-science analysis. Thank God I was raised in a relatively neutral country, and that I had to learn to overcome seeing and favoring what I wished instead of what was rational.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. Was fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Your sentiments in this thread have been very transparent. Your "neutral country" upbringing certainly left you with an obvious bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not discussing an F-15 "event" anymore, but I just can't get past this.

Would you care to explain?

Just because I don't believe a certain event happened, which has absolutely nothing to do with the country of origing - I would debunk it no matter where it happened - you conclude I am obviously biased??

Example:
A: U know, here in Russia it happened that a tank was floating on water! But it was T-93MXG the best tank in the world!
TT: I don't believe it. You're just saying/believing it coz tank is russian as you are.
A: Ur biased!! Ur bringing nationalities up proves it!

Erm... who's biased again?

EDIT: just to make myself clear, because I might expressed myself not accurately enough, for which I appologise - my statement about national pride goes for every country, mine as well! Maybe not in the same area, but we make it up with silly nationalism on other areas, be sure. Ask DKoor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I_KG100_Prien
07-19-2008, 10:07 PM
BTW- As far as national bias.

My computer desktop is a very nice piece of art..

Depicting SU-33's.

TinyTim
07-19-2008, 11:09 PM
And mine is a lovely F4U, posted by Phas3e in screenie thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, I'm taking back my sentences about national bias and my "neutral country", not because I don't mean it, but because I mean it in a different way than what is understood from my words. I bumped into a wall of my own limitations here and consequently sounded biased. But, sure as hell I'd say it to anyone, from any country, including my own.

Insstead, let me just say that during my education and also now I have been forced to let go the "I believe what I want to believe", or "I believe it because I like it" or "I believe it coz it's cool" way of thinking, favoring one scenario above the other for whatever sentimental reason, simply because it does not comply with my profession. In fact, I probably wouldn't even be able to educate myself without letting all the bias go. I had to learn not to favor one scenario above the other despite all others around me favoring or believing it (sheep mentality), unless they provided some kind of credible material. No matter how much I'd like, say, worm-holes to exist and to enable us with time/space travel, I shall not favor it until a credible proof is found.

I saw a lovely analogy with my work in this debate, I hope you don't mind if I share it. Detecting neutrinos is extremely hard. They interact only thru weak interaction, which makes them pass through everything with ease. There is plenty of them around, as about 50 billion of them pass through a square centimeter of everything, including our bodies, every second! They interact with matter extremely rarely though.

Setting an experiment up correctly (meaning minimising the chance of detecting something which is not neutrino to 0), due to the extreme rarity of such events you can't prove that no neutrinos interacted inside the detector (because there is still a chance a neutrino did interact, but detector didn't detect it). However you can prove that you did detect one, when it happens, because you made sure that the only things you are detecting are neutrinos.
Bottom line: we didn't "believe" neutrios exist, until we detected one.

Gotta love analogies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. From a wingless F-15 to neutrinos. What a thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cajun76
07-20-2008, 01:56 AM
TT, obviously you did not watch the video.

Clearly the pilot did not make a standard landing approach, the usual low speed flair would be impossible.

Here's a Jug after a collision tore off half it's wing, and landed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/c01.jpg

Referring to the F-14: During testing and trials, they flew one with one of its wings fully extended and the other one fully swept during landing and takeoff.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/f14068.jpg

Additionally, critical wings like the Eagle's behave differently than you may imagine. A low AoA would not have a huge difference in lift like you are thinking. A high speed landing would facilitate this.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2008, 03:22 AM
I bet the f-15 system of "fly by wire" had a lot to do with the success of that landing too..

There's no FBW in the F-15.


Here's a Jug after a collision tore off half it's wing, and landed.


LoL, the wingtip's been torn off, hardly "half the wing".
"Half the wing" would be close to the flap/ aileron gap.
There's no way for straight-winged aircraft of coming home with that amount of damage.

The reason for that is a different lift-distribution and CL/AoA curve on swept-wings and a much better T/W ratio on jets.

skarden
07-20-2008, 03:31 AM
mmm dunno if this is fake I'v seen quiet a few "specials" both online and on TV(think worlds craziest....) about this incedent.That certainly doesnt make it real i know but it makes it hard to belive that they could have had it televised so many times and have had no-one pull them up on it or scream foul.

edit: ok this is just from typing F-15 1 wing landing.

googled (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=F-15+1+wing+landing&meta=)

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bet the f-15 system of "fly by wire" had a lot to do with the success of that landing too..

There's no FBW in the F-15.


Here's a Jug after a collision tore off half it's wing, and landed.


LoL, the wingtip's been torn off, hardly "half the wing".
"Half the wing" would be close to the flap/ aileron gap.
There's no way for straight-winged aircraft of coming home with that amount of damage.

The reason for that is a different lift-distribution and CL/AoA curve on swept-wings and a much better T/W ratio on jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhhh theres an analouge fly by wire system

There is an automatic control augmentation system (CAS) which is fly-by-wire. It uses electrical signals and servo motors to operate the hydraulic actuators. The CAS system includes pitch and yaw rate, angle of attack, dynamic pressure sensors, and accelerometers which continuously monitor vertical and lateral accelerations. The system computes the correct settings for the control surfaces at any combination of speed and g forces. The CAS also senses the stick forces applied by the pilot and converts them into electrical signals to apply the correct amount of deflection to the control surface activators. The CAS is a dual system in which the signals generated by each channel are compared with each other. If a difference greater than a preset amount is detected, this is interpreted as a malfunction and the CAS automatically disengages, the conventional mechanical hydraulic system taking over.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2008, 06:31 AM
But this type of early FBW doesn't

1) feature flight envelope protection.
2) keep the aircraft level all the time and will only allow the airframe to move at the pilot's input. There's no automation to keep the jet at 1g and wingslevel.
Therefore the FBW couldn't have influenced the outcome, one wing missing or not.

It's not to be compared with today's FBW which will only move the jet on a pilot's command.

Feathered_IV
07-20-2008, 08:21 AM
Petty Officer Kanichi Kashimura flew this A5M1 home after a collision with a Chinese fighter on 9th December 1937. He got it back to base and made a landing he was able to walk away from.


http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W2/A5M-27.jpg

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 08:31 AM
F-18 Mid air collision, only about 1/3rd of the wing remains intact as well as extensive damage to the vertical stabilizer

http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/images/F-18_mid-air01.jpg

http://www.chrisgood.com/aircraft/images/F-18_mid-air02.jpg

Aaron_GT
07-20-2008, 08:45 AM
Pictures of planes from WW2 landing with 1/3 of a wing missing are relatively common which implies FBW isn't in general needed for this. Pictures from WW2 with 1/2 of a wing missing and the plane landing are rare which suggests that around 1/3 of a wing missing is probably about the limit of control (it will, of course, vary with the plane tyoe).

stalkervision
07-20-2008, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
But this type of early FBW doesn't

1) feature flight envelope protection.
2) keep the aircraft level all the time and will only allow the airframe to move at the pilot's input. There's no automation to keep the jet at 1g and wingslevel.
Therefore the FBW couldn't have influenced the outcome, one wing missing or not.

It's not to be compared with today's FBW which will only move the jet on a pilot's command.


ahhh... but you said there wasn't whatsoever.

Sv/ I bet the f-15 system of "fly by wire" had a lot to do with the success of that landing too..

Bremsproeller
There's no FBW in the F-15.


"There is an automatic control augmentation system (CAS) which is fly-by-wire."



<span class="ev_code_RED">There is an automatic control augmentation system (CAS) which is fly-by-wire. It uses electrical signals and servo motors to operate the hydraulic actuators. The CAS system includes pitch and yaw rate, angle of attack, dynamic pressure sensors, and accelerometers which continuously monitor vertical and lateral accelerations. The system computes the correct settings for the control surfaces at any combination of speed and g forces. The CAS also senses the stick forces applied by the pilot and converts them into electrical signals to apply the correct amount of deflection to the control surface activators. The CAS is a dual system in which the signals generated by each channel are compared with each other. If a difference greater than a preset amount is detected, this is interpreted as a malfunction and the CAS automatically disengages, the conventional mechanical hydraulic system taking over.</span>

and it's a control augmantation system too! Maybe not on this very early f-15 but it does certainly exist..

You where WRONG! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks Aimail101... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Pictures of planes from WW2 landing with 1/3 of a wing missing are relatively common which implies FBW isn't in general needed for this. Pictures from WW2 with 1/2 of a wing missing and the plane landing are rare which suggests that around 1/3 of a wing missing is probably about the limit of control (it will, of course, vary with the plane tyoe).

well that f-18 lost 2/3rds of its wing and a good portion of its vertical stabilizer on the same side which would only add to stability issues considerably

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 09:24 AM
****ing Pwned I am the greatest....I forgot about this article....bow down to the master *****es, open this in Adobe Reader then search "Israeli"

www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88798main_srfcs.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88798main_srfcs.pdf)

http://www.ertom.com.pl/futurama/tapety/BenderPimp800.gif

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 09:37 AM
Cue Dr Cox video

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

M_Gunz
07-20-2008, 09:38 AM
Oh gee, 1000 links to the same video must prove it happened.
Why, just to make the video they MUST have repeated the incident otherwise how did they make
the video -- you GOTTA believe!

Hmmmm, what else? Oh yeah, they said so!

Touchdown at 250-260 knots, it's not like the plane would have to be going in a straight line
or anything or even set both rear wheels down very close to same time.

I don't say it didn't happen, just that the story *from 1983* -is- a bit much to buy.

Here's another from the same place. About 10 years before then Israeli generals were credited
with superior strategic and tactical sense far beyond all others because of how they always met
enemy movements. They were blessed battlefield geniuses. Not just good but always right.

Later on it finally gets let out that maybe constant SR-71 overflights and satellite intel
*might* have had something to do with always knowing just what was going on.

But for over 10 years it was the first way.

I don't believe or disbelieve, I just hold the whole thing suspect even if someone did repeat
the whole thing for the incredibly careful to be true on all counts History Channel.

TinyTim, you can believe in Santa, one of my friend's little granddaughters will tell you,
he is me. Or at least would have told you that last year. She turned 5 and not so sure now.
Me telling her no 200 times also helped but if little kids believe then you can too.

Those neutrinos back in... was it 1989 with the supernova showing 2 days later that confirmed
the evidence of the detectors? How is it possible such event did not disrupt all causality?
I remember that somehow superlight information is not supposed to be possible because it would
destroy causality but I never completely agreed or disagreed with the reasoning attached.

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Argument over I just proved it was true

Cajun76
07-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Oh gee, 1000 links to the same video must prove it happened.
Why, just to make the video they MUST have repeated the incident otherwise how did they make
the video -- you GOTTA believe!

Hmmmm, what else? Oh yeah, they said so!

Touchdown at 250-260 knots, it's not like the plane would have to be going in a straight line
or anything or even set both rear wheels down very close to same time.

I don't say it didn't happen, just that the story *from 1983* -is- a bit much to buy.

Here's another from the same place. About 10 years before then Israeli generals were credited
with superior strategic and tactical sense far beyond all others because of how they always met
enemy movements. They were blessed battlefield geniuses. Not just good but always right.

Later on it finally gets let out that maybe constant SR-71 overflights and satellite intel
*might* have had something to do with always knowing just what was going on.

But for over 10 years it was the first way.

I don't believe or disbelieve, I just hold the whole thing suspect even if someone did repeat
the whole thing for the incredibly careful to be true on all counts History Channel.

TinyTim, you can believe in Santa, one of my friend's little granddaughters will tell you,
he is me. Or at least would have told you that last year. She turned 5 and not so sure now.
Me telling her no 200 times also helped but if little kids believe then you can too.

Those neutrinos back in... was it 1989 with the supernova showing 2 days later that confirmed
the evidence of the detectors? How is it possible such event did not disrupt all causality?
I remember that somehow superlight information is not supposed to be possible because it would
destroy causality but I never completely agreed or disagreed with the reasoning attached.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cajun76
07-20-2008, 09:42 AM
Nice find btw, Aimail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

stalkervision
07-20-2008, 09:46 AM
Aimail101


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


TinyTim... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif disbelievers...

Feathered_IV
07-20-2008, 09:58 AM
Pwnd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

M_Gunz
07-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Since the experts said there's a flight envelope that proves the landing is possible too.

Well, that kind of thinking works for our policy makers and look at how well the world is turning out!

Mix120
07-20-2008, 10:41 AM
Hello all.

I strong disagree with TinyTim. What he continues to blatant ignore although him being pointed out to several times is the incredible high thrust to weight ratio of a machine like F-15 relative to ww2 fighters. So I believe such a landing is quite possible, and I salute the skilled pilot and admire the machine he was flying.

But I must say this: for Christ sake lets at least try to maintain traces of objectivity and unbias in the posts.


Originally posted by Cajun76:
Here's a Jug after a collision tore off half it's wing, and landed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/c01.jpg


Half? HALF? Please, see the 3D drawing of the P-47 and judge again how much wing is torn off.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/views/p-47.gif

Feathered_IV,

if you cherry pick a sentence out of context "He got it back to base and made a landing he was able to walk away from." then it would only be fair to add that he made several landing attempts and that aircraft somersaulted during landing, coming to a halt on it's back! All this without approx 1/4 or maximum 1/3 of one wing. Our F-15 landed in the first try without any somersault, and he was missing whole wing.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2051/a5m271fz3.jpg

Aimail, you write F-18 lost 2/3rds of its wing?

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5056/f18midair011li0.jpg

Looking at the picture again, it obvious how long the nondamaged wing should be if your estimate is right. Judging from the picture aircraft lost approximately half of the wing, measure it by the span. Now take into account that wing is much wider at the fuselage, add LERX, and I think it safe to say the lost wing area is maximum 1/3rd of undamaged single wing, not 2 times more as you overblow it.

Here is another interesting picture that I find:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3735/tbfwingdamageuf7.jpg

But the plane didn't lose such a large piece of wing as it seem at first sight! Look again:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7171/tbfwingdamage1cq0.jpg

It's good to support what we say with data, but we lose credibility if we are biased, although we may be right.

But like I said in the beginning, TinyTim you should know that modern jets have
- much higher t/w ratio
- F-15 has two engines so he can help with differential thrust
- he has large flat fuselage for additional lift.

All this WW2 single engined fighters don't have. We can't compare this things. Do it and you only spit in own bowl because it harder to fly damaged WW2 fighter than modern jet. But whatever we do we must stay as unbiased as possible.

Cheers!

Mix120

Airmail109
07-20-2008, 10:46 AM
Dude I just proved it beyond doubt. Your beating a dead horse! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh yeah and your wrong on the F-18, it lost a portion behind the half sticking out. Making it in terms of overall surface area roughly 1/2 to 2/3rds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
07-20-2008, 10:55 AM
proved something at least........

TinyTim
07-20-2008, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88798main_srfcs.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88798main_srfcs.pdf)


Well well well, look what we have here!

FINALLY someone who bothered to search for any kind of scientific or factual proof instead of empty babbling which only tried to explain the event under the assumption it "surely happened", the very assumption I refused to accept as a sacred truth! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Well, this is quite strong argument, I personally consider NASA as a very reliable source and I guess there is little space for doubt left.

Well done Aimail, that's a proof enough for me. It's all I was asking for! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Your smiley comments stalkervision and Feathered_IV only proove you didn't read my posts carefully, where I stated:

Originally posted by TinyTim:
In other words: It's THEM who is claiming in the first place that this extremely unusual event really happened. Let me see their proofs first, and I might change my mind.
... and that's exactly what happened now - I saw something that I do accept as a proof, and changed my mind.

(although, I could just reject it saying:"That document gives us nothing but yet another copy paste description of what is believed happened. And, didn't the government also assure us there were WMDs in Eyerack?" but fortunately I consider NASA as a much much more reliable source of information than any goverment around)

A big hat tip to all!

Hell, guys, you might even make me believe in Santa http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Cajun76
07-20-2008, 11:41 AM
Actually, I would apologize for my jug 'analysis'.

It was late, and I missed the gun barrels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

stalkervision
07-20-2008, 11:55 AM
TT
"It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.

I can't believe people older than 16 fall for story, yet alone adults who are into aeronautics. It's "I want to believe" sorta thing I guess. I wonder how people would react if another laughable story emerged about Su-27 performing something like this. "FAKE, Su can never do it! It's russian, russkies r dumb, doncha now?"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

TinyTim
07-20-2008, 12:56 PM
Should I have stickied a self understood note: "Whenever I claim something is impossible it should be taken into accout that I consider it as such until proven otherwise." under each of my posts especially for you, stalker? Ah well, go ahead and have your fun. I admit tho the language I used was a bit... harsh.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Those neutrinos back in... was it 1989 with the supernova showing 2 days later that confirmed
the evidence of the detectors? How is it possible such event did not disrupt all causality?
I remember that somehow superlight information is not supposed to be possible because it would
destroy causality but I never completely agreed or disagreed with the reasoning attached.

It happened in 1987, the nova bearing a name 1987A. Only several seconds long burst of neutrinos was detected by several independent and geographically separated neutrino observatories on Earth - they counted 24 of them overall. As much as 3 hours later first visible light from that supernova reached the Earth.
This naturally caused some lifted eyebrows because it seemed that neutrinos traveled to Earth faster than light, which could indeed lead to causality problems if not collapse. However, modern supernova theories state that neutrinos are emmited simultaneously with core collapse where electrons were squeezed into protons in the nuclei, forming neutrons and emitting neutrinos via beta-decay. But, because neutrinos almost do not interact with matter, they freely escaped from the core through the matter of the collapsing star. A burst of light however, which does interact with matter (star is not simply "transparent" for light, as it is for neutrinos), was emited only when collapse shockwave reached the surface of the star.

Independent calculations showed that collapse of such a star should indeed last 3 hours, which agreed perfectly with the experimental data. Neutrinos were not faster than light, they were only emited 3 hours earlier.

(This is only a rough description, my area is particle physics, not astro, although it looks like in the near future with GUT knocking on our door in order to replace standard model, both of these areas of theoretical physics will merge dramatically)

JtD
07-20-2008, 01:02 PM
How fast is gravity?

TinyTim
07-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
How fast is gravity?

Speed of light.
Speed of light in vacuum, to be precise.

JtD
07-20-2008, 01:05 PM
What is taking it so long?

stalkervision
07-20-2008, 01:09 PM
Don't worry TT. We all screw up on ocassion. We're only human after all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw, I could see where you were coming from but I have seen many stranger things then this in life..

TinyTim
07-20-2008, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
What is taking it so long?

Assuming you are not fishing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif let me try to explain.

It could not be faster. Speed of light is the absolute speed limit that a particle / field can reach. Why? Because it turns out that everything in our known space moves through a space-time with speed of light. You can't change this speed. It's a fundamental characteristic of every particle, be it fermion (mass) or boson (field propagators or force carriers) that form everything in known space.

If you remain stationary, you are using all your speed (red vector) to move through time with the "speed of light" which is exactly 1 second per second on a time scale:

http://shrani.si/f/2Q/5u/1cginYEk/1/phys-1.jpg

However, as soon as you start to move (relatively to Earth or to some other object), a part of your speed is now "used" up for moving through space (blue vector), that's why your moving through time slows down (yellow vector) in regard to a chosen object:

http://shrani.si/f/e/nf/3kD1GVfS/phys-2.jpg

Photons and hypothetical gravitons move with the speed of light through space only! Which means they use up all of their speed for traveling through space, and nothing is left for traveling through time.

http://shrani.si/f/2s/SL/Fvh57w7/phys-3.jpg

In other words: a photon needs 8 minutes to reach the Earth. For us, in our system that is. But in its own system, it reaches Earth in an instant. As soon as it is created, it already dies on earth or somewhere else billions of lightyears away. The red vector on upper picture could not be turned more to the right, as well as it can not be elongated.

So, asking why light or gravity isn't faster is somehow asking why south pole isn't souther.

Special relativity in a nutshell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
07-20-2008, 03:19 PM
If everything is so simple, what is the absolute speed of the solar system? You'll only need two watches yet no one every told me how fast and where we go.

I don't think that the speed of light is the absolute maximum speed. One photon going left, the other right, and they go away from each other at 2*c. It's all relative. Who defines zero, anyway?

TinyTim
07-20-2008, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If everything is so simple,
Who said it's simple? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by JtD:
what is the absolute speed of the solar system? You'll only need two watches yet no one every told me how fast and where we go.
You can only speak about moving when you are moving relatively to something. There is no such thing as an "absolute velocity" simply because there is no such thing as the centre of the universe, or any other distinguished place which could thus be accepted as the universal stationary reference body. You can measure velocity of Earth around the Sun. Or speed of the Sun around the centre of our galaxy. But you can't measure "absolute speed" relative to some kind of invisible stationary ether, or centre of the universe, simply because such place doesnt exist. In a hypothetical completely empty universe with only two astronauts floating around, you can't tell which one is moving and which one is not. You can only tell how each one moves relatively to the other.

On a large scale universe everywhere looks the same. It probably has finite volume (expanding though), but it doesn't have an edge. To try to visualise this, imagine a 2D surface of an Earth - it's area is finite, but there is no edge and there is also no distinguished point which could be considered as "the centre of Earth sufrace". It's the same with our universe, only that our "surface" that we live in (and not "on") is 3D, and the 4th dimension (like the one sticking perpendicularly up out of Earths surface) is time.


Originally posted by JtD:
I don't think that the speed of light is the absolute maximum speed. One photon going left, the other right, and they go away from each other at 2*c. It's all relative. Who defines zero, anyway?

Wrong. One car going left with 100kph, the other going right with 100kph, and they indeed go away from eachother with 200kph, but that's only because they are so slow compared to c that their "red" vector stayed very close to vertical position, so the "yellow" component of both cars stays almost equal to c (red vector).

You can't apply experience with these utterly slow speeds to fast objects, because the time they experience, will distort, that's why two photons, one going left and other going right will still be going away from eachother only with 1c.

Let's take two cars, one going left with c/2, the second going right with c/2. They do not go away from eachother with 1c. Let's see why not. According to picture I posted, their speed through time will slow down to sqrt(3)/2. Now let's observe this system from one of this cars: it looks like the Earth is moving away with c/2 (because system is symetrical), but the other car is moving away from the Earth with lower velocity because the time does not run with the same rate there as in our car! That's why you can't simply sum the velocities. The formula goes:

v1[+]v2 = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2) (sign [+] indicates it's a relativistic, not ordinary summation).

As you can see, the expression on the right can never reach c. In our case of departing cars this formula gives (4/5)c. But remember, they both are moving away from earth with c/2 each. For two photons departing in diametral directions it's obviously and expectedly 1c. Also, after emiting both photons, if you'd jump on an Enterprise and follow one of the photons with 0,99c, both would still be moving away from you with exactly 1c each. Only their frequencies (colour) would change.

Relativity is a very hard concept to understand. But once you do, you realise that it's actually very simple, but we, people tend to make it complicated due to our inability not to apply our experience from a very speed-wise limited world to grand scheme of things.

M_Gunz
07-20-2008, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Should I have stickied a self understood note: "Whenever I claim something is impossible it should be taken into accout that I consider it as such until proven otherwise." under each of my posts especially for you, stalker? Ah well, go ahead and have your fun. I admit tho the language I used was a bit... harsh.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Those neutrinos back in... was it 1989 with the supernova showing 2 days later that confirmed
the evidence of the detectors? How is it possible such event did not disrupt all causality?
I remember that somehow superlight information is not supposed to be possible because it would
destroy causality but I never completely agreed or disagreed with the reasoning attached.

It happened in 1987, the nova bearing a name 1987A. Only several seconds long burst of neutrinos was detected by several independent and geographically separated neutrino observatories on Earth - they counted 24 of them overall. As much as 3 hours later first visible light from that supernova reached the Earth.
This naturally caused some lifted eyebrows because it seemed that neutrinos traveled to Earth faster than light, which could indeed lead to causality problems if not collapse. However, modern supernova theories state that neutrinos are emmited simultaneously with core collapse where electrons were squeezed into protons in the nuclei, forming neutrons and emitting neutrinos via beta-decay. But, because neutrinos almost do not interact with matter, they freely escaped from the core through the matter of the collapsing star. A burst of light however, which does interact with matter (star is not simply "transparent" for light, as it is for neutrinos), was emited only when collapse shockwave reached the surface of the star.

Independent calculations showed that collapse of such a star should indeed last 3 hours, which agreed perfectly with the experimental data. Neutrinos were not faster than light, they were only emited 3 hours earlier.

(This is only a rough description, my area is particle physics, not astro, although it looks like in the near future with GUT knocking on our door in order to replace standard model, both of these areas of theoretical physics will merge dramatically) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not tachyons..... d@mn! Just another brick in the lightspeed wall.

M_Gunz
07-20-2008, 06:55 PM
NO tachyons?

I can understand how Minkowski's S-T diagram relates to the Michelson-Morley experiment but
that's light, and mass. I know there was supposed to be possibility for tachyons back years
ago but are they dead now?

ImMoreBetter
07-20-2008, 07:03 PM
This is fun to read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
07-20-2008, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:

You can only speak about moving when you are moving relatively to something.

I don't buy it. If there's an absolute limit than there has to be an absolute 0. In other words, the time-space circle is quite nice but if you don't know where to put the centre, it won't work.

KrashanTopolova
07-20-2008, 10:30 PM
the people who talked about lifting body and thrust cones are on the right track. In flight surface terms that is an almost intact aircraft.
Noting that the new jets are artificially flown with computer support (and assuming the F-whatever also relies on computers for flight stability) if there was no computer control for the flight surfaces the thing would have dropped out of the sky.

...the trim required on the rudders and ailerons must have been computer-managed. The pilot only needed to manage thrust vectoring.

M_Gunz
07-21-2008, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

You can only speak about moving when you are moving relatively to something.

I don't buy it. If there's an absolute limit than there has to be an absolute 0. In other words, the time-space circle is quite nice but if you don't know where to put the centre, it won't work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The limits are only one thing relative to another. You can have something at zero relative to another.

When things start moving wrt each other, time between them changes. Back when I could follow the
math I kept coming to the conclusion that nothing can be observed to go faster than light but get
this... if you could just jump right to .999999.... lightspeed and stop then a trip of immense
distance would seem to take almost no time at all. You could come back just as quickly except
that back home immense time would have passed.

The real start of all this, IMO, was that experiment where they tried to find the absolute speed
that the earth is moving. And yeah, they were going to find "The Center". LOL!

Just remember that Relativity is still in the "Theory Of" category which considering all that
has come of it (incredibly more than most people have any idea) including showing the limits
of Newton's Laws.

This is what started it all, IMO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment)

JtD
07-21-2008, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

if you could just jump right to .999999.... lightspeed and stop then a trip of immense
distance would seem to take almost no time at all.

Which means you went faster than the speed of light...same way a photon reaches infinite speed - if no time passes for it at all.

Unless you have an absolute time which also means you'd have an absolute zero speed.

Cajun76
07-21-2008, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
the people who talked about lifting body and thrust cones are on the right track. In flight surface terms that is an almost intact aircraft.
Noting that the new jets are artificially flown with computer support (and assuming the F-whatever also relies on computers for flight stability) if there was no computer control for the flight surfaces the thing would have dropped out of the sky.

...the trim required on the rudders and ailerons must have been computer-managed. The pilot only needed to manage thrust vectoring.

http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm

and previously posted by Aimail:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88798main_srfcs.pdf

The F-15 does not have the fly-by-wire system like you may be thinking. It's a hydro-mechanical system with some electronic damping/control, as far as I can tell. The C-130 engines I used to work on had similar concepts built into the fuel control and propeller pitch systems.

tom19073
07-21-2008, 05:19 AM
I am not sure if it was mentioned in this post yet but the F-15 depicted was repaired and put back in to service.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

You can only speak about moving when you are moving relatively to something.

I don't buy it. If there's an absolute limit than there has to be an absolute 0. In other words, the time-space circle is quite nice but if you don't know where to put the centre, it won't work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Because it doesn't really matter where you put the 0. No matter how fast you move, photon will still move away from you with c. Understanding that "there is no 0" is the basic and the biggest milestone in studying relativity. It simply seems so unnatural, but that's just because we can't refuse to apply our experience from our world to the world of light speed. We are so used to some kind of "stationary frame" which usually comes in the form of our planet, that we can't let this idea go.

Look at this example:

Lets say a photon is emited from Earth. You immediately jump into a big spaceship A and instantly accelerate to 99% of lightspeed in the direction of Photon, trying to "catch" it. Photon will still be moving away from the ship with c. Then you jump into a smaller ship B, docked on your spaceship A, and accelerate further away from the spaceship A in the direction of photon, again with 99% of lightspeed relative to A. Photon still moves away from you with c. And then once again, you jump into a small rocket C mounted on your ship B, and accelerate away from ship B, again with 99% of lightspeed. But, as you have undoubtedly guessed, photon will still move away from you, from A, from B and from Earth with the same velocity - c. That's why it doesn't really matter which one of this systems, A, B, C, or Earth we proclaim as the 0. They are all equal, relative to the photon. There is absolutely no reason to believe or to state that Earth is any more "stationary" than rocket C.

Look at the lightspeed as the infinite speed (which it actually really is in the inertial system of the photon).

No matter how fast you move, something moving infinitely fast will allways be faster than you. And not only this, it will always be infinitely faster than you.

Like I said above - in its own inertial system, photon travels infinitely fast, because in the moment it is emited from somewhere, it already dies somewhere else. It does not live at all. His speed is infinite. It's only us on the Earth that are seeing it move with c.

Basically there are only two kinds of speeds: infinite one (c), and finite ones (all the rest). All the finite ones are infinitely slower than infinite one.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
When things start moving wrt each other, time between them changes. Back when I could follow the
math I kept coming to the conclusion that nothing can be observed to go faster than light but get
this... if you could just jump right to .999999.... lightspeed and stop then a trip of immense
distance would seem to take almost no time at all. You could come back just as quickly except
that back home immense time would have passed.


Exactly. The time ran slower in your system. Now for a photon, it stops. That's why in its system photon is infinitely fast - it covers billion of lightyears in an instant.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The real start of all this, IMO, was that experiment where they tried to find the absolute speed
that the earth is moving. And yeah, they were going to find "The Center". LOL!
This is what started it all, IMO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment)

Yeah, Michelson Morley started it all. Simply put, they wanted to measure the difference in speeds of how fast the light will travel in the direction where the Earth is moving around the sun, and in the backward direction - and then estimate the velocity of the Earth "through space". Surprisingly (for them) it traveled equally fast in all the directions, no matter where Earth was going (they repeated this experiment many times at different seasons of year). And I can confirm it as I did it myself as well many years ago at the faculty. Light really travels in all directions with the same speed, regardles of the speed and direction your laboratory moves.


Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

if you could just jump right to .999999.... lightspeed and stop then a trip of immense
distance would seem to take almost no time at all.

Which means you went faster than the speed of light...same way a photon reaches infinite speed - if no time passes for it at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. If he went faster than light, than he would have come to the earth younger than when he left.

But he came back to Earth older, just not as much older as he would be if he stayed on the Earth whole time. If he would somehow reach the speed of light, then he would return to Earth in exactly the same age as when he left (because no time at all would pass for him - a trip would last a single time-point). But on Earth many years could pass during that. That's in effect time travel into the future.


Unless you have an absolute time which also means you'd have an absolute zero speed.

There is no absolute time... Two events that seem to take place in the same moment for one observer, can be years apart for another one. Each object has his own time, and they are in no way all harmonized. Just as there is no "center of the Universe" or any other kind of reference body that would be "stationary", there is no "universal time".

noobisoft
07-21-2008, 08:36 AM
In line with the original topic, readers may be interested in this article on software assisted flight control of heavily damaged aircraft. It looks kind of like ABS or traction control for jets and has relevance to both manned and unmanned aircraft. Try this link (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s_aviation_testing_tolerance_damage) , or google, "U.S. Aviation: Testing a Tolerance for Damage"

JtD
07-21-2008, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:

Exactly. The time ran slower in your system. Now for a photon, it stops. That's why in its system photon is infinitely fast - it covers billion of lightyears in an instant.

So it is faster than light speed. If you were to put speed of light at 300000 km/s - which is the speed limit if we apply Earths distances and time. Still not faster than light, though.

Telling me that infinite speed is the actual speed limit is about telling me what I was trying to tell you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


There is no absolute time... Two events that seem to take place in the same moment for one observer, can be years apart for another one. Each object has his own time, and they are in no way all harmonized. Just as there is no "center of the Universe" or any other kind of reference body that would be "stationary", there is no "universal time".

They will accelerate particles to near light speed in Switzerland pretty soon. They will go opposite direction, same distance.

Now if the speed was 99% the speed of light and Earth was going 99% the speed of light, you'd get some pretty interesting side effects. I wonder if they observe the particles close enough to estimate a local time on each.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

Exactly. The time ran slower in your system. Now for a photon, it stops. That's why in its system photon is infinitely fast - it covers billion of lightyears in an instant.

So it is faster than light speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isn't. It's just as fast as the speed of light. It's doing 300.000kmps measured from any observation point regardless of its speed.

Photon's speed is infinite only in it's own system, which is irrelevant anyway because that system experiences no time, it's born and dies in the very same instant.


Telling me that infinite speed is the actual speed limit is about telling me what I was trying to tell you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, comparing speed of light (c) to infinite speed served the purpose of trying to show you that what you are trying to tell me is wrong. You tried to tell me there is absolute 0 - speed wise, and with accepting an infinite speed as an upper speed limit it's obvious there is no reason whatsoever that there should also be an absolute 0.


They will accelerate particles to near light speed in Switzerland pretty soon. They will go opposite direction, same distance.

I've been in CERN a couple of times, some quick visits, but I wasn't involved in any serious experimenting there yet. I hope they start the LHC up soon. It's like waiting for BoB:SoW for theoretical physicists. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Now if the speed was 99% the speed of light and Earth was going 99% the speed of light, you'd get some pretty interesting side effects.

No, everything would be completely ordinary. Actually, right now there somewhere deep in space might be a planet that is moving relative to the Earth with 99% of lightspeed, where they are performing same kind of tests.

Now why would their tests have interesting side results, compared to our tests? Both planets are equal, we move relative to them and they move relative to us.


I wonder if they observe the particles close enough to estimate a local time on each.

What we do in the accelerators and what will be done in LHC is colliding high energy particles and observing what happens afterwards. If you know what an average decay time of some new born particle is, you can estimate it's velocity from the distance he covered from the point where he was born (that's the place where collision took place), and the point where he decayed.

However, due to very high speed of particles relative to the laboratory (basically lightspeed) it's of enormous importance to take into consideration the very different local time of the partice.

Example:
You measure that some stationary particle decays in 1/300.000.000 of a second. When you observe this particle when it is born in a high energy collision, it exits and flies away from the point of collision almost with light-speed, let's say with 300.000.000 m/s. So, it should die 1m away from the point of collision, right? No! It dies much farther away, because of time dilatation - particle's time-flow is much much slower than ours, that's why it can cover distances up to 10, 100 or even 1000 times more that what we expect classically. That's just another proof of the theory of relativity.

Anyway, Einstein's own book "My theory" (I don't know the english or german title, I have it only in croatian) is a very good starters read if you are interested in special relativity. Simple to read, basically no phyisics and just some high school math. Dealing mainly with nice stories about fast cars driving on fast on trains, watches on these, and such (by fast it's of course ment speeds nearing light-speed). Much recommended.

JtD
07-21-2008, 11:02 AM
Funny side effects? Sure, you'll see if the particles near light speed will go left twice as far as they go right, because they are in fact, going faster.

Well, TT, eventually I'm saying that a speed were time runs slowest is zero velocity. If anything we accelerate in any direction has time going faster, then there is something wrong with the theory, because then every time is going faster than every time. If not, then there is an absolute zero.

If there is an absolute zero, you'll have funny side effects.

I liked what one of the physicists involved in the project answered when asked:
"What result do you expect?"
"I don't know, that's why we are making the experiment." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
07-21-2008, 11:33 AM
JTD, you've got to drop the whole idea of having an objective place to measure the speeds of
things before you can ever catch on to what was discovered in the 1880's.

The photon that leaves the sun and strikes the earth may get here in zero time from it's POV,
but from our POV it took about 8 minutes to get here. That is not infinite speed to us.

The whole understanding starts with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It ends with dropping the absolute-objective POV which turns out to be... not right.

But without the math it's damn near impossible to really see.
There are no word games of misunderstanding with the math, no ways to hold the wrong view let
alone argue from it.

You'll have to get TT to feed that to ya as I've been struck down from that ability years ago.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Funny side effects? Sure, you'll see if the particles near light speed will go left twice as far as they go right, because they are in fact, going faster.

What makes you think they are going faster? If they are, then yes, this "side effect" would be observed. Let's say we have two particles that travel 1m each (in our lab) in the opposite directions before decaying. Now let's observe this event from a spaceship that buzzes by Earth at 99% light speed. Surely one of the particles will cover longer distance, but then again, on the Earth we will detect that both particles died at the same time (because they are of the same kind, and they travelled equally fast, only in different direction). On the spaceship we will not detect their decay at the same time! Events that coincide in one system might not even remotely coincide in the other. Issue of universal time again.


Originally posted by JtD:
Well, TT, eventually I'm saying that a speed were time runs slowest is zero velocity. If anything we accelerate in any direction has time going faster, then there is something wrong with the theory, because then every time is going faster than every time. If not, then there is an absolute zero.

See Twin Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox).

In a nutshell, it's not the speed that makes time travel slower in system A compared to system B, it's the acceleration from speed that system A has to the speed of a system B. However, integrating this effect through entire acceleration turns out that it's dependent only on speed difference. It's like climbing a mountain: no matter which path you choose, at the end the height difference will be the same.


If there is an absolute zero, you'll have funny side effects.
In this case, surely. But then again, how do you explain the fact that the light travels in all directions with the exactly same speed (as measured and confirmed by many, including myself)? Maybe because the Earth is in the centre of the Universe and everything including the Sun and galaxies is rotating around it? I don't think so.



I liked what one of the physicists involved in the project answered when asked:
"What result do you expect?"
"I don't know, that's why we are making the experiment." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good one, never heard it before!

When I was attending nuclear physic lessons, on the first day professor wrote on the board:"UNCLEAR PHYSICS". Of course the spelling mistake was there purposely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
07-21-2008, 12:03 PM
Well, the idea of the spaceship watching the small big bang is an interesting one, maybe you can elaborate on that.

WRT the twin paradox, I've followed it as far as it was in fact a paradox. When they said it wasn't, it became a bit too complicated for my state of mind. I think I'll get back to it tomorrow.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The whole understanding starts with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It ends with dropping the absolute-objective POV which turns out to be... not right.

Exactly!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:But without the math it's damn near impossible to really see.
There are no word games of misunderstanding with the math, no ways to hold the wrong view let
alone argue from it.

You'll have to get TT to feed that to ya as I've been struck down from that ability years ago.
+1! It's damn hard to say "if I travel with 0.5c away from you and you travel 0.5c from Joe, than I go only 0.8c and not 1c from Joe" and expect people to believe it without mathematical backup.


Originally posted by JtD:
Well, the idea of the spaceship watching the small big bang is an interesting one, maybe you can elaborate on that.
Well, to be honest, I don't believe you can create a big bang in an existing universe. IMO you can only create a black hole (that's what some people are afraid will happen in LHC).


Originally posted by JtD:WRT the twin paradox, I've followed it as far as it was in fact a paradox. When they said it wasn't, it became a bit too complicated for my state of mind. I think I'll get back to it tomorrow.

LOL that sooo reminds me of my 2nd year of study. I guess I went some 4 or 5 times to the professor's cabinet, always presenting him with a new "proof" (some kind of hypothetical scenario) that relativity is wrong. Took me a month, month and a half of serious study before I finally began to see it.

M_Gunz
07-21-2008, 03:25 PM
IIRC which it's been a good bit of time now....

There's also the parts like the faster you go (relative to something) the shorter distances get
along the line of travel (relative to things you are fast relative to) so you really don't see
yourself travelling faster than light either.

That would mean to a photon the universe is still one point, perhaps.

One physicist had written that for a photon there is only space and no time.
Funny thing but for an unaccelerated mass object there is perhaps only time and no space?

Acceleration even due to gravity affects time and space, attraction of gravity is due to that.
Clocks on earth surface run slower than ones raised, has been shown to be true.

We live in a far stranger universe than is readily apparent to our senses.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 03:54 PM
Yeah, length contraction is analogus to time dilatation. The faster the object (relative to us), the "shorter" it seems (to us!). Likewise we look "shorter" to... erm.. it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That would mean to a photon the universe is still one point, perhaps.

Exactly. But when expressed mathematically that's nothing else than another way of saying that its velocity is infinite and that it lasts 0 time (in its own system of course).

Where do this stuff with time dilatation and length contraciton become really interesting is when you study spinning objects. A question for you to play with in your mind: What happens when an edge of a round, uniform, spinning plate is nearing the speed of light?

As a hint, consider rotating round ring, made from infinitely thin wire.

Interestingly, there are also issues when tips of props are nearing speed of sound.
Similarity at first sight, yet no analogy whatsoever.

JtD
07-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:

Where do this stuff with time dilatation and length contraciton become really interesting is when you study spinning objects. A question for you to play with in your mind: What happens when an edge of a round, uniform, spinning plate is nearing the speed of light?

Several particles are spinning. That should be interesting enough to watch.

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Several particles are spinning. That should be interesting enough to watch.

Well, they do have a certain property called spin, but it has nothing to do with spinning. Spin is just another fundamental property of particles besides mass and charge, which has no analogy outside quantum world. Some however do compare it to intrinsic angular momentum (rather than to orbital one) of macroscopic bodies in order to make it easier for students to accept the concept initially, but this analogy is extremely dangerous because it leads people to draw conclusions from it that are completely wrong (they are again applying experience with large spinning objects - like Earth - into quantum world which is governed by utterly different laws).

Actually, the discovery that elementary particles can possess non zero spin was shocking. It only proved that spin is not spinning in a classic sense (i.e. smaller "parts" of a particle rotating around the centre of gravity), but rather an intrinsic property of even pointlike particles where "rotation" has no sense at all.

(btw, each post in this thread makes me more thankful for my ability to type absurdly fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

TinyTim
07-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Well, TT, eventually I'm saying that a speed were time runs slowest is zero velocity.

Aaaah, I see I didn't read this sentence carefully enough. You probably ment "where" and "fastest". Answer:

Expression "time of an inertial system" has no meaning if you don't tell which inertial system are you measureing this time from! It's exactly like expression "speed of an inertial system" means nothing if you don't tell relative to what.

If you measure speed of your own system from your own system, then this speed will obviously always equal 0, as the system can not move relatively to itself. (blue vector on the circle posted couple of pages back)

But, if you measure time of your system from your system, this time will allways be 1 s/s. This time is also known as proper time. (yellow vector)


Now, this will hold in all systems, regardless if they move towards eachother, as long as they do not accelerate.

If you and me start travelling from Earth in opposite directions with half of lightspeed, then I will see my clock running normally 1s/s, but when looking backward at you, observing a clock mounted on your rocket through a super duper telescopic sight, I will see it running much slower, t=t0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0,6 s/s meaning 0,6 "your seconds" per one of "my seconds". Likewise, you will see my clocks to run equally slower relative to yours. And that is due to light taking some time to travel between us. BUT If I'd then brake abruptly and accelerate in the opposite way and eventually catch up with you, the overall time in my rocket from our simultaneous start to our simultaneous meeting would be less than the time passed in yours. That's due to me accelerating more, because during accelerations these "time-shifts" were created.

Fact that clocks run slower when subjected to acceleration (be it motional or gravitational) was experimentally confirmed by having two extremely accurate and accurately synchronised clocks one on Earth and one in space orbiting Earth where is no acceleration (gravity and centrifugal acceleration cancel eachother out).

Bottom line: time in all accelerating systems indeed runs slower. The more you accelerate, the slower the time. Consequently, the time runs fastest when you don't accelerate.

So, from the wrong sentence:Time runs fastest in the system that doesn't move, we arrived at the correct one:Time runs fastest in (any) system that doesn't accelerate. Why?
Because you can say whether a system accelerates or not - acceleration is a property of a system. But you can't say whether system moves or not, without stating relative to what. "Moving" is not a property of system itself, it's a property of two systems.

That's why some system's own time (or, proper time), which is its property, can only be a uniform function of some other property of this same system - and as we saw, acceleration is one. Speed isn't.

If you swallow this, you are on a good way to start understanding relativity.

Bremspropeller
07-23-2008, 11:33 AM
ahhh... but you said there wasn't whatsoever.

Yeah, b/c it's not what we today think of FBW.
It has some electric transmission, but there is no fnacy "black box" that does all the weird stuff for the pilot.
The FBW-related stuff in the F-15 is control-transmission and force-sensors only.
Technically, that IS FBW, but it's not on par with today's FBW systems that COULD help the pilot.



Sv/ I bet the f-15 system of "fly by wire" had a lot to do with the success of that landing too..


No, for the reasons given above.
For example, Concorde technically also had FBW, but it took only a twin engine-failure to crash it.
Why? Because there was no FCS that could keep the aircraft inside it's flight-envelope.

The computerized force-sensor on the F-15's stick (that's the little box AFAIK) prevents the pilot from over-G'ing the airframe all the time when he flies faster than Va.
The F-4 also had that thingie. (stick-deflection translated into surface-movement @ given speed)




And it's a control augmantation system too! Maybe not on this very early f-15 but it does certainly exist..

It's a D - not exactly a "very early" model.

IAF_Phantom
07-24-2008, 01:33 AM
below is a link to the official IAF site (apologies - the text is in Hebrew).
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.asp...D=5267&docType=EVENT (http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=40&folderID=48&subfolderID=323&docfolderID=377&docID=5267&docType=EVENT)


but look at the picture (it opens as a popup).


I happen to be a Israeli Air Force technician and I served in the Base where this actually happened.

It is real.

The interview by the history channel (the youtube link) talks with the pilot that flew the plane describes what happened. The History channel did a rather clumsy reproduction in video but shows some of the original pictures taken of the plane when it landed.

It is a very well know story in the aeronautics field.


P.S. - I don't understand how you guys got from a F-15 flying with half a wing to relativity...

IAF_Phantom
07-24-2008, 01:35 AM
found the English version also in the web site.
doesn't have the photo...

http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.asp...D=5425&docType=EVENT (http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=40&folderID=48&subfolderID=323&docfolderID=377&docID=5425&docType=EVENT)

b2spirita
07-24-2008, 03:42 AM
Great, a confirmation from a direct source. Any other interesing stories from your time there. BTW, without this turning into a contest, how good are the israeli pilots?

IAF_Phantom
07-24-2008, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
Great, a confirmation from a direct source. Any other interesing stories from your time there. BTW, without this turning into a contest, how good are the israeli pilots?

Well, here is a first hand story I can tell you about. I was one base the day when this happened and saw the plane after in the hanger.

An F-15 had an electric problem and lost all indicators in the cockpit. The pilot was a new young and took the plane back to land.
The procedure is to drop the hook in such cases, which he did. Because of the electrical problem he didn't have an indication that the wheels where locked.
So, now he comes into landing, all is fine, and is about to touch down very carefully. As he touching down feels one wing drop, maybe one of the wheels is not locked ? So he pulls back on the throttle and ignites after burners to go around.
But the hook is down and gets caught by one of the mid runway wires...
So now you have a F-15 with 100% power and after burners hanging by its arresting hook on a wire. Guess who won?

The wire.

SMACK.

The plane thrown back to the runway on it belly. The planes gear when through the body and came out the other side. Amazingly - the pilot came out without a scratch.

Shaken - but with no physical damage.

I think half of the bases pilots filled a transfer to F-15s that day.

I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again.

Krt_Bong
07-24-2008, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.

I can't believe people older than 16 fall for story, yet alone adults who are into aeronautics. It's "I want to believe" sorta thing I guess. I wonder how people would react if another laughable story emerged about Su-27 performing something like this. "FAKE, Su can never do it! It's russian, russkies r dumb, doncha now?"
You know the more you say it's a fake the more you sound like a teenager-know-it-all. It's not fake, it happened, I've seen multiple pictures of this aircraft in Squadron Publications 'F-15 Walk Around' and You Sir, are a Dumba$$.
Some people only join a Forum Thread to argue with someone over something they have no knowledge of and it's truly pathetic.

Krt_Bong
07-24-2008, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by IAF_Phantom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
Great, a confirmation from a direct source. Any other interesing stories from your time there. BTW, without this turning into a contest, how good are the israeli pilots?

Well, here is a first hand story I can tell you about. I was one base the day when this happened and saw the plane after in the hanger.

An F-15 had an electric problem and lost all indicators in the cockpit. The pilot was a new young and took the plane back to land.
The procedure is to drop the hook in such cases, which he did. Because of the electrical problem he didn't have an indication that the wheels where locked.
So, now he comes into landing, all is fine, and is about to touch down very carefully. As he touching down feels one wing drop, maybe one of the wheels is not locked ? So he pulls back on the throttle and ignites after burners to go around.
But the hook is down and gets caught by one of the mid runway wires...
So now you have a F-15 with 100% power and after burners hanging by its arresting hook on a wire. Guess who won?

The wire.

SMACK.

The plane thrown back to the runway on it belly. The planes gear when through the body and came out the other side. Amazingly - the pilot came out without a scratch.

Shaken - but with no physical damage.

I think half of the bases pilots filled a transfer to F-15s that day.

I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said I've seen the pictures, the Gear did not collapse and the pilot stated this on TV on one of the dogfight programs, the pic even shows the plane standing on it's gear, sheesh you people.

rnzoli
07-24-2008, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IAF_Phantom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
Great, a confirmation from a direct source. Any other interesing stories from your time there. BTW, without this turning into a contest, how good are the israeli pilots?

Well, here is a first hand story I can tell you about. I was one base the day when this happened and saw the plane after in the hanger.

An F-15 had an electric problem and lost all indicators in the cockpit. The pilot was a new young and took the plane back to land.
The procedure is to drop the hook in such cases, which he did. Because of the electrical problem he didn't have an indication that the wheels where locked.
So, now he comes into landing, all is fine, and is about to touch down very carefully. As he touching down feels one wing drop, maybe one of the wheels is not locked ? So he pulls back on the throttle and ignites after burners to go around.
But the hook is down and gets caught by one of the mid runway wires...
So now you have a F-15 with 100% power and after burners hanging by its arresting hook on a wire. Guess who won?

The wire.

SMACK.

The plane thrown back to the runway on it belly. The planes gear when through the body and came out the other side. Amazingly - the pilot came out without a scratch.

Shaken - but with no physical damage.

I think half of the bases pilots filled a transfer to F-15s that day.

I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said I've seen the pictures, the Gear did not collapse and the pilot stated this on TV on one of the dogfight programs, the pic even shows the plane standing on it's gear, sheesh you people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you care reading carefully enough, Phantom is now talking about a different incident, so who is the dumba$$ now, who wants to argue with everything? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
07-24-2008, 09:36 AM
I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again.

What strikes me is that Israel puts huge effort to rebuild planes that would have been scrapped among other air forces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

IAF_Phantom
07-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again.

What strikes me is that Israel puts huge effort to rebuild planes that would have been scrapped among other air forces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree. I think that this can be explained by two factors.
One - the quality of the Israeli aircraft industry that can fix such planes in much less that what they originally cost.
Two - The high cost and value the Israeli Air Force puts in such planes as F-15 & F-16.

Another issue may be, that the Israeli air force being a small air force, needs every plane they can get. At the time Israel only bought 50 planes. So even one plane less is a relatively large loss.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2008, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Krt_Bong:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
It's impossible, lifting body or not. Wing on one side would create enormous asymetric drag and lift, plane would basically need to be landing without any attack angle whatsoever, or it would roll violently.

Another clue it's a made up story is pilot claiming he didn't even know he has no wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif In this case he'd use flaps, and that would lead into even more asymetric drag/lift.

I can't believe people older than 16 fall for story, yet alone adults who are into aeronautics. It's "I want to believe" sorta thing I guess. I wonder how people would react if another laughable story emerged about Su-27 performing something like this. "FAKE, Su can never do it! It's russian, russkies r dumb, doncha now?"
You know the more you say it's a fake the more you sound like a teenager-know-it-all. It's not fake, it happened, I've seen multiple pictures of this aircraft in Squadron Publications 'F-15 Walk Around' and You Sir, are a Dumba$$.
Some people only join a Forum Thread to argue with someone over something they have no knowledge of and it's truly pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steady on mate, TT already admitted he was wrong. Read the whole thread FIRST next time.

Krt_Bong
07-24-2008, 01:53 PM
admittedly I should have read all 5 pages of this crap before i posted but seeing as it can't seem to stay on the subject of F-15 minus 1 wing and has roamed all around with several claiming first: yes it did and no it didn't, to space time and wormholes I'll have to say it's still a dumba$$ argument - NEXT!

b2spirita
07-24-2008, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by IAF_Phantom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I - personally - saw the plane on three-four jacks in the hanger for at least 6 months. But the plane flew again.

What strikes me is that Israel puts huge effort to rebuild planes that would have been scrapped among other air forces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree. I think that this can be explained by two factors.
One - the quality of the Israeli aircraft industry that can fix such planes in much less that what they originally cost.
Two - The high cost and value the Israeli Air Force puts in such planes as F-15 & F-16.

Another issue may be, that the Israeli air force being a small air force, needs every plane they can get. At the time Israel only bought 50 planes. So even one plane less is a relatively large loss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you appen to know what modifications the israelis make to their aircraft as these seem quite extensive. Ive seen f-16s with large dorsal extensions. Also are the tailhooks standard equipment?