Going Down

[beachnut]

I had to review some low flying.

Kind of low, what was ground effect again? Short on time, bored by flight, but you want to see some 5 foot high speed, just see number one.

Kind of low.

Some low and fast stuff.

I wonder if all these guys are still alive?

It is hard to remember a few gs, but I remember those 7.3 g days. (or my 1.5 g days in the KC)

I have to remember, you can't fly a jet low, it is impossible.

 

[gumboot]

Is it possible for a plane to have crashed in the pentagon? Obviously.

Still, a guy who had a few hours of flying took a big boeing very precisely in the building, avoiding obstacles, countering the turbulences due to ground proximity.

That pilot surely was the best I've ever seen...

B

Except for having more than a few hours flying, there being nothing precise about the approach and impact, hitting obstacles, and irrelevance of turbulance, you're spot on.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Another good example of low flying can be found on an extended clip of the famous B-52 crash at an airshow. The pilot in question was under review for being a yahoo, and the extended clip shows some footage of him flying at high speed, dangerous close to the ground in a B-52. By close to the ground, I think the clearance was in the vicinity of 30 feet.

The same footage has good examples of large aircraft performing extreme maneuvering.



And it's worth point out that a B-52 is substantially larger than a Boeing 757.

-Gumboot

 

[Norseman]

Since the B-52 and low level flying was brought up, this article by a former Boeing B-52 test pilot should be of interest. The Boeing B-52 was designed to penetrate Soviet airspace at high altitude. But improvements in Soviet air defence made it necessary to do it at low level. A test program was initiated to find out if the B-52 could handle low level flying at high speed since this was something it was not designed to do. The test program was not without accident, but they found that the B-52 could do it after some fixes.

From the article:

The course was about a thousand miles long. The altitude to be flown was 300ft. above the ground and the speeds were to start at 300kts. And to be gradually increased to 400kts.

The last trip was made at 400kts. We smashed a lot of bugs, scared a lot of cattle, beat up several tail gunners, but we made it.

But as said in this article the price would be:

It was estimated that this low-level flying would accelerate structural fatigue by at least a factor of eight, which would require costly repairs to extend service life.

I would expect that Boeing's more modern products shouldn't do any worse than an airframe from the 1950'ies, or?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Manhattan Project

Distant Early Warning

Marathon

Subdivisions

It's hard to actually pin down a single "best" song from those guys.

OMG, we actually have something in common.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

but can you make another video with the plane a few feet off the deck traveling at 530 mph? Now that would be some work!

will this do?

 

[Big Les]

This Phantom gets even lower...

Note the total lack of effect from the ground, even the built-up berm that he flies over before pulling up. Smaller than an airliner? Yup. But also a low-wing wide-fuselage design which ought to be subject to the kind of magical GE the truthiness dudes go on about.

All they'd have to do is ask a pilot or an aeronautical engineer. An email to Cranfield would have saved them a lot of embarassment.

 

[Boone 870]

This one seems to be immune to high-speed ground effect.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015

 

[portlandatheist]

Is there such thing as "cliff effect"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1192213802&p=1
Busherie,
What type of ground turbulence would you expect? It was an early September morning, probably not much of a lapse rate to cause significant ground turbulence.

 

[grmcdorman]

Is there such thing as "cliff effect"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1192213802&p=1

Video's gone: This media item has been removed due to copyright/terms of service violation.

 

[Big Les]

How about this?



And in case any lurking CTists think it might have been going slowly, how about this other Omani jet?



That would be a railing embedded in the leading edge.

And finally, use the Force, Luke!

 

[Mancman]

Impressive low pass: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015

 

[beachnut]

Impressive low pass: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1192396015

That is neat. I prefered flying between clouds as if they were rocks, these guys are practicing hiding from a radar and not peeing their pants.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Who says Kiwi's can't fly.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=989_1174264216

 

[jaydeehess]

Does anyone know of a graphic that illustrates what is occuring in ground effect. Something that illustrates the airflow and how it affects drag and lift.

 

[Gravy]

Does anyone know of a graphic that illustrates what is occuring in ground effect. Something that illustrates the airflow and how it affects drag and lift.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

 

[leftysergeant]

How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.

 

[TjW]

How I wish they had had digital photography during WWII. Talked to an old guy over the weekend who showed me a picture of his B-24 with one engine that failed because it picked up a load of straw about ten miles before he reached Ploesti. Now THAT is low and fast with a big aircraft.

I call a straw man argument.

 

[jaydeehess]

Thanks Gravy, that's the best explanation I have seen Kudos to Jeff Scott

 

[Slayhamlet]

I call a straw man argument.

What's a straw man argument?