I would not have thought this was possible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related

And indeed, it's fake. Bummer.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related

And indeed, it's fake. Bummer.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

rg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4

Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet
engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake..

In article ,
Franklin wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related

And indeed, it's fake. Bummer.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

rg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4

Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet
engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake..

Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
video was real. It's certainly plausible.

Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show
that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franklin wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiP4...eature=related

And indeed, it's fake. Bummer.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

rg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_gpPbpONK4

Some people WANT to believe this even though they need only look at a jet
engine for 2 seconds to know it's fake..



Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
video was real. It's certainly plausible.

That one actually happened :-)



Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show
that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to show
that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.

It's easy to be taken in by it, I agree, but I think that once you come
to the proper realizations it's not too hard to see that it must be
fake. To me, the most damning mistake in the video is the fact that the
plane sits perfectly level after the landing. Wings are *heavy*. Having
only one would make that plane tip right over onto its wingtip. Once I
realized what I was looking at, this to me was ironclad proof that they
were filming a plane with two intact wings, with the angle cleverly
chosen to hide one, and the rest done by some special effects trickery.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

Even the one-wing landing video requires fairly close inspection to
show that it's a fake. It's quite well done IMHO.

It's easy to be taken in by it, I agree, but I think that once you
come to the proper realizations it's not too hard to see that it must
be fake. To me, the most damning mistake in the video is the fact that
the plane sits perfectly level after the landing. Wings are *heavy*.
Having only one would make that plane tip right over onto its wingtip.
Once I realized what I was looking at, this to me was ironclad proof
that they were filming a plane with two intact wings, with the angle
cleverly chosen to hide one, and the rest done by some special effects
trickery.


People believe almost anything once they suspend common sense. Just look
at a jet intake for 2 seconds. No calculations necessary.

Here's another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTzSxxH2s3U

And another cat fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs

On Jul 11, 4:01 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
It's easy to be taken in by it, I agree, but I think that once you come
to the proper realizations it's not too hard to see that it must be
fake. To me, the most damning mistake in the video is the fact that the
plane sits perfectly level after the landing. Wings are *heavy*. Having
only one would make that plane tip right over onto its wingtip. Once I
realized what I was looking at, this to me was ironclad proof that they
were filming a plane with two intact wings, with the angle cleverly
chosen to hide one, and the rest done by some special effects trickery.

We regularly take wings off airplanes for repairs of one sort or
another. The airplane does NOT tip onto its other wingtip. The density
of wing structures is very light; like most of the rest of the
airframe, it's nearly all airspace. A 172's wing weighs maybe 70 or 80
pounds, max.

See this video about the wing-losing video, which was clearly faked.
See especially the last few seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I89EMDZ0dsc

Dan

"Ron Garret" wrote

Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
video was real. It's certainly plausible.

Real. The flash you see, as he goes in, is his helmet FOD'ing the engine.
His shoulders were wider than the intake duct, which stopped him from going
through the turbine.

Sore and bruised, but lucky.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Ron Garret" wrote
Actually, I was under the impression that the sucked-into-jet-engine
video was real. It's certainly plausible.

Real. The flash you see, as he goes in, is his helmet FOD'ing the
engine. His shoulders were wider than the intake duct, which stopped
him from going through the turbine.

Sore and bruised, but lucky.

Wow - the whole issue is a mess of fact and fiction. Consider:

1) There appear to a bunch of obviously faked videos on Youtube of
people getting "sucked" into jet engines. This makes it tedious to sort
out the legit from the bogus.

2) Some videos, like this one showing a helmet (cranial) getting sucked
off a guys head, seem perfectly legit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OswpNAH9nrk

3) I believe the velocity of the suctioned air should fall off roughly
with the inverse square of the distance from the intake - and so the
suction force for a fixed area should be roughly proportional with
inverse cube of the distance from the intake. Meaning you have to get
dang close to suck in something as dense and heavy as a person! (I know
I have problems vacuuming up heavy "grit"! Experiments with a vacuum
cleaner are easy and I'm sure everyone is aware how quickly the suction
force drops off.)

4) Although circumstances would make it rare, it appears it may have an
been issue as long as a few decades ago because there appears to be an
article titled "Survival after suction into jet engine intake" by Ayres,
ML in the May 1973 journal "Injury":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4710924

This seems to indicate the article is case reports:
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medli...engine_intake_