Who says you need two wings to fly?

[Fly2e]

Me too!

Where is the arresting hook on the shot of the aircraft landing?  ::)


Dave

[elite marksman]

It was an F 15. Air Force bird, why would they use arresting gear, they have a 5000'+ runway to land on.

[C]

It was an F 15. Air Force bird, why would they use arresting gear, they have a 5000'+ runway to land on.

You may be surprised to find that most fast jets, land based or not, have arrestor hooks, in much the same way that most military airfields operating fast jets are equipped with arrestor cables...

[beefhole]

You may be surprised to find that most fast jets, land based or not, have arrestor hooks, in much the same way that most military airfields operating fast jets are equipped with arrestor cables...

Not to mention 5000' is alot shorter than you'd think when you're coming in hot with possible brakes failure.  Hell, sometimes 3700' isn't enough for me in a 172.

[Nexus]

[quote]
Not to mention 5000' is alot shorter than you'd think when you're coming in hot with possible brakes failure.

[town]

I got to say I think it is BO***X. He says he is landing at 250knots but his left flap is down. He should at least be making an assymetric approach... in my opinion it is a Photoshop job!!!

Gordon

[cheesegrater]

Man, this is gonna keep me up at night.

[C]

I got to say I think it is BO***X. He says he is landing at 250knots but his left flap is down. He should at least be making an assymetric approach... in my opinion it is a Photoshop job!!!

Gordon

Good spot. I wasn't paying attention to the left wing...

[bbstackerf]

I have big problems with the story(as it is portayed). Number one, F-15s DO have arrestor hooks - it's for emergency landings and is located under the fuselage just forward of the engines (not the nacelles), but the supposed actuall photos of the landing show no hook extended. Furthermore, The same pictures show an F-15 make a perfect head-on approach. This may be possible, the F-15 does have two vertical stabs and might allow for control. But I'm thinking, Hey, if you have lost that much wing surface, it might fly, but straight? In the after shots there is still a sizeable amount of wing stub left. The pictures of the landing show an aircraft will ALL of the wing sheared down to the side of the engine nacelle. The only explanation for this is that the story is true - he inccident did happen, but was much embellished afterwards. Plus the statement of the pilot in it's details varies somewhat from source to source.

Don't get me wrong. I love aviation, especially military. It was my life for a number of years. And I certainly don't want to take anything away from the pilot's bravery and skill. BUT I just think the story - like many 'sea stories' - is a little bit more exciting than actual events.

Keni

[Staiduk]

I say photoshop job. A pretty good one; but it doesn't bear close scrutiny IMO.

The shots of the aircraft on the ground are genuine - possiblt the result of a taxi accident or some other collision perhaps? At any rate; the stump of the wing is clearly visible - doesn't look like there's much there, but the F15's a bloody big fighter - there's approximately 3 feet of twisted metal there.

The flying shots however show a clean nacelle - there is no stump visible at all in any of the shots and in three of the four - particularly the first damaged flight shot in which the ship is seen from the underside with vapour streaming from the fuselage - it would be clearly visible.

Finally; the telling point: looking at an extreme closeup of that shot; there's a definite change in the background pixellation of the image. The forger used his grapgics program's clone tool to clone in sky around that area - the outline of the removed wing is visible.

The altered pixellation is visible in the other shots as well; though not as clear.

Too bad - it was a good story.

That said; whoever doctored the images did do a pretty good job for what he wanted - making up a good story for the Internet folks. Doesn't hold up under detailed study; but still cool nevertheless.


Edit: another point. The vapour coming off that wing is supposedly fuel. However; it's coming off the very front of the nacelle; at the intake. IOW; it's contrail; not fuel vapour.

[Staiduk]

I've been doing a bit more digging; and I might have to eat my words due to looking for evidence that isn't there.

I've done a number of Google searches and found several pages that relate the incident. That said; I haven't found any *official* pages yet; all the ones I found are personal sites, though some seem well-researched.

There is an entry in Wikipaedia as well.

I'll put five bucks on those prints being doctored; the difference between the landed aircraft and flying aircraft are very clear to me. It's possible the aircraft was landed with the mangled stump in place; and whoever took the pictures doctored them a bit to make them look even mor gnarly; but is doesn't ring right...I'll stick with my original assertion for now.

[elite marksman]

I do remember seeing somthing like this on TV, however I dont remember where. It was either History Channel, Discovery Channel, or TLC, I think it was on discovery though.