|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2010 17:13:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Oct 23, 2010 7:27:30 GMT -5
That is quite a maneuver - the ultimate thrill ride, any more thrilling and he'd be dead.
The dynamics certainly appear to be real. He is one lucky SOB.
(Now that I have broadband I can follow these links.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2010 18:17:31 GMT -5
Now people are saying it's fake.
Glad you got broadband. Youtube still buffers for me so I don't use it that much. My broadband is puny by today's standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Oct 27, 2010 9:05:32 GMT -5
People like to say everything is fake from the moon landing to everything else. On the other hand the other day I argued with a bank lady when I renewed a card pointing out that if "points" are free then it proves there is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny. It takes some study to figure out which things are fake or untrue today.
I say this is real because 1) the motion looks plausible to me and 2) I know people who work in the area of guidance and control (G&C) who would never let a jet like that out the door without giving it an auto rcovery capability. That thing has enough thrusters on it to push it any direction the computer decides. With instrumentation from just 10 years ago it would not have been possible. Now AHRS is a proven concept. When the jet is started up the AHRS starts developing a sense of UP so that when it gets off the ground it can respond instantly if something goes wrong and recover to level flight. I am sure this was an accident. They were lucky it did not hit the superstructure on its way out to sea.
Go Navy!
Incidentally, today the big deal in small-plane safety is the "RECOVER" button on autopilots which is intended to replace recovery parachutes. On aircraft for which the new autopilot is approved, those sneaky G&C guys found they have enough control authority to let a computer fly the plane out of just about any situation and back to level flight - if the ground does not get in the way. If you could test both systems over 1000 incidents, as a former parachute engineer who has dabbled in G&C, I'd bet the "RECOVER" button would win. The parachute probably has a greater failure probability both in deployment and in ground contact.
|
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Oct 28, 2010 15:52:55 GMT -5
I'm going with fake. NOTHING is moving not even the rotors on the helicopter. With all that thrust blowing every where? Also watch the pivot point of the aircraft. These things are heavy. No people on deck? Way too many obvious clues here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Oct 28, 2010 18:03:30 GMT -5
You won't see a "pivot point" because the motion consists of both rotation and translation driven by a nozzle on the main engine that vectors and thrusts according to computer control. A pivot point is only visible in motion driven only by an initial action and then only by inertia. You will see on other videos on this site an attempt to do this maneuver using a sim of some sort. The maneuver did not work out because it was manually driven. This requires computer control that takes over when the flight goes "outside the envelope." "These things are heavy." So what? It has a lot of thrust. "No control surfaces move." You only need the main engine vectored thrust for this. The helicopter looks like it is parked with the rotor locked. No more people would be on deck than needed for the operation. If something like this seemed likely, no one would be on deck.
Check the shadow.
|
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Oct 29, 2010 19:48:02 GMT -5
No this is definitely fake.
Besides the upside down condition where the thrust would have to keep the nose up, nothing moving on deck, no people, weirdly parked vehicles, the shadow is incorrect (pause the video when the aircraft is directly between the camera and the sun; the shadow goes off to the right), there are health and ammo meter bars on the lower right and left sides of the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Oct 30, 2010 7:33:27 GMT -5
Have you seen, from the other F-35 videos on the page, the way the main engine's thrust can be vectored? If the nose goes down due to an inappropriate drop in forward thrust during the transition, there is no quick way to raise the nose. The engine thrust only vectors down, not up. The only remedial action would be to push the stick full forward and kick the thrust to push the nose down and around as in this video. Again, I think this motion was under automatic control to effect recovery.
I don't know what is in the viewfinder of the cellphone/video camera but those bars do not prove anything.
The shadow motion is a bit peculiar but the lighting is very complex.
The way the aircraft fits in the picture beyond the tail of the aircraft parked on the left makes it look very unlike any cut-and- paste operation I can envision. I have replayed the motion many times. It seems real to me.
|
|
