Bounced Landing

[Phil]

Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg

[Dan[_1_]]

The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
would... It's clearly fake.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dan > wrote in news:1191128994.829376.102350
@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
> would... It's clearly fake.
>
>

I'm not so sure. I would say it was faked also, but I've seen a computer
replay of a 757 that porpoised on landing after a very similar touchdown
(and I know this was for real because the copilot on the airplane showed it
to me) and it looked just like that. The airplane was very seriously
damaged, BTW


Bertie

[buttman]

On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg

I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
doctored at least somewhat.

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:1191128994.829376.102350
> @n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
>> would... It's clearly fake.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not so sure. I would say it was faked also, but I've seen a computer
> replay of a 757 that porpoised on landing after a very similar touchdown
> (and I know this was for real because the copilot on the airplane showed it
> to me) and it looked just like that. The airplane was very seriously
> damaged, BTW

I'm unsure also. I've seen some fakes and they typically are choppy and
jerky. This one looks almost like it could be real.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:1191128994.829376.102350
>> @n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
>>> would... It's clearly fake.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure. I would say it was faked also, but I've seen a
>> computer replay of a 757 that porpoised on landing after a very
>> similar touchdown (and I know this was for real because the copilot
>> on the airplane showed it to me) and it looked just like that. The
>> airplane was very seriously damaged, BTW
>
> I'm unsure also. I've seen some fakes and they typically are choppy
> and jerky. This one looks almost like it could be real.


There's detail in it that looks pretty convincing as well. Smoke from the
tires, for instance. Also when it's bouncing the perspective of the
airplane looks quite convincing, as opposed to some you might see where the
spoofer simply animates a still of the airplane.
It's getting so you can't tel what's real anymore!

I know someone who is convinced that the Cessna 620 is an internet hoax. Me
telling him I can remember it has only convinced him I'm delusional.

Bertie
>

[muff528]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:1191128994.829376.102350
>>> @n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
>>>> would... It's clearly fake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure. I would say it was faked also, but I've seen a
>>> computer replay of a 757 that porpoised on landing after a very
>>> similar touchdown (and I know this was for real because the copilot
>>> on the airplane showed it to me) and it looked just like that. The
>>> airplane was very seriously damaged, BTW
>>
>> I'm unsure also. I've seen some fakes and they typically are choppy
>> and jerky. This one looks almost like it could be real.
>
>
> There's detail in it that looks pretty convincing as well. Smoke from the
> tires, for instance. Also when it's bouncing the perspective of the
> airplane looks quite convincing, as opposed to some you might see where
> the
> spoofer simply animates a still of the airplane.
> It's getting so you can't tel what's real anymore!
>
> I know someone who is convinced that the Cessna 620 is an internet hoax.
> Me
> telling him I can remember it has only convinced him I'm delusional.
>
> Bertie
>>
>

The screech from the 1st contact of the main gear seems to arrive at the
camera
too soon for the distance from the observer.......although could be because
of a
"mis-alignment" of the audio and video "tracks". Also, don't the violent
movements
appear to be occurring "faster" than would be expected for an object of this
size.
And the oscillations don't appear natural, but I suppose the crew would be
trying
to slow the plane down by any means possible while being subjected to up and
down motions up to 10 - 15 ft.

.....just observations from someone who really doesn't know what could (or
should)
be going on inside the cockpit at that time. It'd be interesting to hear a
translation
of "commentary" from the flight crew during this.:-) Back during my boat
racing days
there was a short standard phrase we used when the boat blew over (flipped).
It
was only 2 words but it was really all we had time for anyway. The Chinese
version
may be more colorful.

BS, TP

[Scott[_5_]]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
> wrote:

>On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>
>I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
>announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
>doctored at least somewhat.

I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.

-Scott

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"muff528" > wrote in
news:QFOLi.28725$jC5.2367@trnddc04:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:1191128994.829376.102350
>>>> @n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The aircraft bounces faster than something of that size and weight
>>>>> would... It's clearly fake.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure. I would say it was faked also, but I've seen a
>>>> computer replay of a 757 that porpoised on landing after a very
>>>> similar touchdown (and I know this was for real because the copilot
>>>> on the airplane showed it to me) and it looked just like that. The
>>>> airplane was very seriously damaged, BTW
>>>
>>> I'm unsure also. I've seen some fakes and they typically are choppy
>>> and jerky. This one looks almost like it could be real.
>>
>>
>> There's detail in it that looks pretty convincing as well. Smoke from
>> the tires, for instance. Also when it's bouncing the perspective of
>> the airplane looks quite convincing, as opposed to some you might see
>> where the
>> spoofer simply animates a still of the airplane.
>> It's getting so you can't tel what's real anymore!
>>
>> I know someone who is convinced that the Cessna 620 is an internet
>> hoax. Me
>> telling him I can remember it has only convinced him I'm delusional.
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> The screech from the 1st contact of the main gear seems to arrive at
> the camera
> too soon for the distance from the observer.......although could be
> because of a
> "mis-alignment" of the audio and video "tracks". Also, don't the
> violent movements
> appear to be occurring "faster" than would be expected for an object
> of this size.
> And the oscillations don't appear natural, but I suppose the crew
> would be trying
> to slow the plane down by any means possible while being subjected to
> up and down motions up to 10 - 15 ft.

Yeah, I thought the same thing exactly ( Though the sound thing got by
me) but as I said, I've seen a computer reconstruction of pretty mush
the smae sort of accident in a slightly larger airplane (757) and the
picture was pretty much the same.
The FO in that airplane showed me the computer reconstruction which had
been made from the FDR. It was an extremely violent incident, he said.
The airplane was quite badly damaged.


Bertie

[Phil]

On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
>
> > wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
> >> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>
> >I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
> >announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
> >doctored at least somewhat.
>
> I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
> that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>
> -Scott

That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
much smoke from an RC size plane.

[Matt Whiting]

Phil wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>>> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>>> I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
>>> announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
>>> doctored at least somewhat.
>> I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
>> that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>>
>> -Scott
>
> That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
> the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
> the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
> to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
> much smoke from an RC size plane.
>

Yes, a large model would be believable.


Matt

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:36:47 -0700, Phil > wrote in
om>:

>On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> >> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>>
>> >I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
>> >announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
>> >doctored at least somewhat.
>>
>> I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
>> that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>>
>> -Scott
>
>That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
>the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
>the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
>to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
>much smoke from an RC size plane.

Agreed.

It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).

I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:36:47 -0700, Phil > wrote in
> om>:
>
>>On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>> >> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>>>
>>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>>>
>>> >I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
>>> >announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
>>> >doctored at least somewhat.
>>>
>>> I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane.
>>> IMO
>>> that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>
>>That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
>>the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
>>the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
>>to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
>>much smoke from an RC size plane.
>
> Agreed.
>
> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>
> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
> like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.
>
> Marty
> --

If the pilot was on the brakes hard and the airspeed was low enough so the
horizontal tail didn't dampen some of the motion, I think it would be
possible to generate one of these pogo like cycles.

Then the nose gear would fail...

KB

[wolfgang k.]

i guess it's that one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQF72UtxhOA

regards
wolfgang, vie, loww

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

>
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:36:47 -0700, Phil >
>> wrote in om>:
>>
>>>On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting,
>>>> buttman
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>>> >> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>>>>
>>>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>>>>
>>>> >I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
>>>> >announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's
>>>> >been doctored at least somewhat.
>>>>
>>>> I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model
>>>> airplane. IMO
>>>> that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>>>>
>>>> -Scott
>>>
>>>That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
>>>the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
>>>the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
>>>to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
>>>much smoke from an RC size plane.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>>
>> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
>> like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.
>>
>> Marty
>> --
>
> If the pilot was on the brakes hard and the airspeed was low enough so
> the horizontal tail didn't dampen some of the motion, I think it would
> be possible to generate one of these pogo like cycles.
>
> Then the nose gear would fail...
>

Wel,it would almost certainly have sustained some damage. but it's
pretty hard to get it to fail.

Though this guy did..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfW5ub_yos&mode=related&search=



Bertie

>
>

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:53:47 GMT, (Scott) wrote:

>
>I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
>that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>

That's my vote.

I've flown lots of r/c's and it looks familiar.

The wheels look a tad big, too.

[Kingfish]

On Sep 30, 12:00 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
wrote:
>
> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>
> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
> like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.
>

We've seen this one before in this forum. I think the consensus was an
R/C jet that had some CGI enhancements for the commercial. A real jet
wouldn't oscillate that fast and make those booms every time the nose
gear touched down. Plus, there are no brakes on the nose gear, so
where does the tire smoke come from after the intial touchdown?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in news:1191202200.446411.200800
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 30, 12:00 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
> wrote:
>>
>> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>>
>> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
>> like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.
>>
>
> We've seen this one before in this forum. I think the consensus was an
> R/C jet that had some CGI enhancements for the commercial. A real jet
> wouldn't oscillate that fast and make those booms every time the nose
> gear touched down.

Actually, it probably would.

Plus, there are no brakes on the nose gear, so
> where does the tire smoke come from after the intial touchdown?
>
>
It's plausible that they'd smoke like that with that kind of impact. Large
tires like that take a moment or two to spin up and they get scuffed just
from normal touchdowns.

Some jets do have nosewheel, brakes, BTW, though. don't think the 320 does,
though.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg

This was from a beer commercial. Norway I believe.

[Kingfish]

On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Kingfish > wrote in news:1191202200.446411.200800
> @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 30, 12:00 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>
> >> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the mains
> >> like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose wheel.
>
> > We've seen this one before in this forum. I think the consensus was an
> > R/C jet that had some CGI enhancements for the commercial. A real jet
> > wouldn't oscillate that fast and make those booms every time the nose
> > gear touched down.
>
> Actually, it probably would.
>
> Plus, there are no brakes on the nose gear, so> where does the tire smoke come from after the intial touchdown?
>
> It's plausible that they'd smoke like that with that kind of impact. Large
> tires like that take a moment or two to spin up and they get scuffed just
> from normal touchdowns.
>
> Some jets do have nosewheel, brakes, BTW, though. don't think the 320 does,
> though.
>
> Bertie

If you look at the full clip at the :16 mark the nosewheel locks up
and smokes. Impossible, seeing as the A320 doesn't have nose wheel
brakes like you'd agreed. I'm curious to know what large jets do have
nose wheel brakes? The speed of the plane's bouncing just doesn't look
right.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Kingfish > wrote in
>> news:1191202200.446411.200800 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sep 30, 12:00 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> It looks totally photoshopped to me (or CGI).
>>
>> >> I doubt that an RC plane--or any full scale!--could plant the
>> >> mains like that and get that much of a bounce out of the nose
>> >> wheel.
>>
>> > We've seen this one before in this forum. I think the consensus was
>> > an R/C jet that had some CGI enhancements for the commercial. A
>> > real jet wouldn't oscillate that fast and make those booms every
>> > time the nose gear touched down.
>>
>> Actually, it probably would.
>>
>> Plus, there are no brakes on the nose gear, so> where does the tire
>> smoke come from after the intial touchdown?
>>
>> It's plausible that they'd smoke like that with that kind of impact.
>> Large tires like that take a moment or two to spin up and they get
>> scuffed just from normal touchdowns.
>>
>> Some jets do have nosewheel, brakes, BTW, though. don't think the 320
>> does, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If you look at the full clip at the :16 mark the nosewheel locks up
> and smokes. Impossible, seeing as the A320 doesn't have nose wheel
> brakes like you'd agreed. I'm curious to know what large jets do have
> nose wheel brakes? The speed of the plane's bouncing just doesn't look
> right.
>
>
The 727 had nosewheel brakes, for one. But I don't see it locking up,
just coming down quick. I really can't make my mind up about this, it's
driving me nuts!
I have some feelers out. Most of the guys I work with think it;'s a
fake, but most of them thought thre were WMDs in Iraq.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote

>The speed of the plane's bouncing just doesn't look right.

I would love to see someone who is good with math do some calculations as to
how many G's the front passengers and the passengers in the aft most seats
would be subjected to.

My eyeball estimate says that they would be getting a plus 15 G alternating
with a negative 15 G on the first couple bounces.

Anyone want to take that estimate on with some estimated math?

Computer animated scenes are way too easy and realistic for it to be
anything else, I think.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 30, 6:19 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I'm unsure also. I've seen some fakes and they typically are choppy and
> jerky. This one looks almost like it could be real.
>
> Matt

It looks real because it was done by a professional production company
for a national television spot.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 30, 9:36 am, Phil > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:53 am, (Scott) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting, buttman
>
> > > wrote:
> > >On Sep 29, 10:04 pm, Phil > wrote:
> > >> Is this for real, or has this video been manipulated??
>
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkUt9CzRpg
>
> > >I've seen that before. Its from a commercial. You can hear the
> > >announcer at the end start to say something. I'm pretty sure it's been
> > >doctored at least somewhat.
>
> > I remember seeing somewhere that it was a (large) RC model airplane. IMO
> > that would seem to account for the apparent physics of the bounces.
>
> > -Scott
>
> That seems like the best explanation. I noticed it says T & W Air on
> the fuselage. I can't find any trace of that as a Chinese airline on
> the web. But if it's an RC plane, the video must have been doctored
> to add the smoke from the tires. I don't think you would get that
> much smoke from an RC size plane.- Hide quoted text -

I was at an airshow last weekend and the RC planes have very affective
smoke producers. They add an oil to the exhaust stream to get the
smoke.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:54:19 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
om>:

>I was at an airshow last weekend and the RC planes have very affective
>smoke producers. They add an oil to the exhaust stream to get the
>smoke.

True.

But, as a general rule, RC smoke systems inject oil into the
muffler and the smoke comes out of the exhaust system, not
from the wheels making contact with the runway.

I'm not saying that they couldn't have run smoke from the
engine down to the front wheel of the aircraft in the video,
just that it seems highly unlikely.

From 11 years of flying RC aircraft, I am willing to bet
that there is no input that could be given to a scale
model capable of making that flight and landing that
would result in the nose bouncing up and down like that
on landing. To get the nose up, you'd have to use
elevator control. If you have that much energy in the
system, the mains will leave the ground along with the
nose.

I know LOTS about pilot induced oscillations, porpoising,
bounce-and-goes, bounce-stall-cartwheels, etc.

They may have used a model to film the airplane's scripted
movements, but the nose dance was most certainly produced
by photo-manipulation or CGI.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 1, 4:05 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:54:19 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >I was at an airshow last weekend and the RC planes have very affective
> >smoke producers. They add an oil to the exhaust stream to get the
> >smoke.
>
> True.
>
> But, as a general rule, RC smoke systems inject oil into the
> muffler and the smoke comes out of the exhaust system, not
> from the wheels making contact with the runway.
>
> I'm not saying that they couldn't have run smoke from the
> engine down to the front wheel of the aircraft in the video,
> just that it seems highly unlikely.
>
> From 11 years of flying RC aircraft, I am willing to bet
> that there is no input that could be given to a scale
> model capable of making that flight and landing that
> would result in the nose bouncing up and down like that
> on landing. To get the nose up, you'd have to use
> elevator control. If you have that much energy in the
> system, the mains will leave the ground along with the
> nose.
>
> I know LOTS about pilot induced oscillations, porpoising,
> bounce-and-goes, bounce-stall-cartwheels, etc.
>
> They may have used a model to film the airplane's scripted
> movements, but the nose dance was most certainly produced
> by photo-manipulation or CGI.

This was a well financed commercial for a major beer company for
television ads. I'm sure the production company had access to good
animations.

-Robert

[muff528]

>
> This was a well financed commercial for a major beer company for
> television ads......

Well.....I don't think it's a very good marketing move to get a pilot
plastered enough on your product to get him to try to see how high
he can bounce an airliner. Must be from E. LA :-)
Better to do it remotely........like this ------

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/hoopti_bouncing.htm

[Morgans[_2_]]

"muff528" > wrote in message
news:%QfMi.20186$Im1.19723@trnddc01...
> >
>> This was a well financed commercial for a major beer company for
>> television ads......
>
> Well.....I don't think it's a very good marketing move to get a pilot
> plastered enough on your product to get him to try to see how high
> he can bounce an airliner. Must be from E. LA :-)
> Better to do it remotely........like this ------
>
> http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/hoopti_bouncing.htm

Damn! It shook that car APART ! ! !

That was Detroit iron, and built a hell of a lot stronger than the front of
an airliner.

Computer animated graphics, no doubt.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 1, 4:58 pm, "muff528" > wrote:
> > This was a well financed commercial for a major beer company for
> > television ads......
>
> Well.....I don't think it's a very good marketing move to get a pilot
> plastered enough on your product to get him to try to see how high
> he can bounce an airliner. Must be from E. LA :-)
> Better to do it remotely........like this ------
>
> http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/hoopti_bouncing.htm

I'd have been impressed if he had been in it.

[muff528]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "muff528" > wrote in message
> news:%QfMi.20186$Im1.19723@trnddc01...
>> >
>>> This was a well financed commercial for a major beer company for
>>> television ads......
>>
>> Well.....I don't think it's a very good marketing move to get a pilot
>> plastered enough on your product to get him to try to see how high
>> he can bounce an airliner. Must be from E. LA :-)
>> Better to do it remotely........like this ------
>>
>> http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/hoopti_bouncing.htm
>
> Damn! It shook that car APART ! ! !
>
> That was Detroit iron, and built a hell of a lot stronger than the front
> of an airliner.
>
> Computer animated graphics, no doubt.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

If you look a little more closely it appears there's not much more than
the stripped body "shell" and a rolling chassis with hydraulics. No engine
or interior or other unnecessary parts..

Tony P

[Morgans[_2_]]

"muff528" > wrote

> If you look a little more closely it appears there's not much more than
> the stripped body "shell" and a rolling chassis with hydraulics. No engine
> or interior or other unnecessary parts..

Right, but it still shook the whole chassis and body darn near apart. Not
having the engine or other interior parts would put even less stress on the
body and suspension.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> I'd have been impressed if he had been in it.

Yeah, no more fillings or kidneys! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[muff528]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "muff528" > wrote
>
>> If you look a little more closely it appears there's not much more than
>> the stripped body "shell" and a rolling chassis with hydraulics. No
>> engine
>> or interior or other unnecessary parts..
>
> Right, but it still shook the whole chassis and body darn near apart. Not
> having the engine or other interior parts would put even less stress on
> the body and suspension.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Hmmm...... Input energy would be the same either way using the same
hydraulic
system. Less parts would make the car bounce higher making the fall
further.
Only now it's held together with drywall screws and bailing wire (kinda like
a RAF Mosquito :-)) and not intended to stay together long. There's not even
a
floor pan, just a sheet metal shell.
BTW- Just kidding about the Mosi........(no, I'm not...yes, I am....no, I'm
not)

TP