How do you keep one functioning aileron on a cable and pulley-rigged aircraft, when one wing has violently ripped off? Fly-by-wire, maybe, but not in a conventionally rigged airplane, unless this was a unique animal.

Redundant cable and pulley system activating a bell crank and push pull rod.

And how are the two linked together? Serious question because I'm having trouble picturing how this failure mode would have left the other aileron unaffected.

I also don't see any hardware, tubing, cables or wiring hanging out of that very clean stub where a wing used to be.

They don't have to be linked together to still operate, in the video the left wing was upright, if the cables were still attached, you could still pull the stick to the right and it would lift the left aileron forcing the wing down.

I assume you meant push the stick left, lifting the left aileron up, and pushing the left wing down, since it was a left roll.

IF they were still connected is what we're speculating about here, and that's what I'm having trouble with. There is a linkage, otherwise you don't move the stick left or right and have one go up and the other go down.

The more I think about this, the less it makes sense. The video shows virtually no forward airspeed. Ailerons, rudders and elevators are only functional reasonably above stall speed. I don't see any way to do a snap left roll like that without a lot of airspeed even IF he had aileron control on the remaining wing.

OK THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!

I deleted the statement

" I will make this thread political. With the belief in this clip it is no wonder why Obama has attained such position of power"

And now look who;s is defending the real or fake ideal..... Obama supporters LMAO...

quoting bugs bunny..... what a maroooooon!

THIS WAS A STUNT TO HAVE A UTUBE VIDEO GO VIRAL FOR CLOTHING SALES.

ps. Obama is more than likely an illegal alien.

All good points, if this were not a stunt plane having more power then would ever be necessary for normal flight, the reason for the lack of airspeed, is that its apparent he was using extreme power levels to in affect haul the wreck strait up, from a low altitude and then controlling the throttle to descend, much like a hammer head maneuver, in that maneuver you still have rudder control, even with no airspeed, and if you noticed in the last seconds of the flight as he was dragging the tail for stability, the angle of attack was such that the prop wash and throttle speed was enough to have prop generated airspeed off the aileron thus giving it the push required to right itself.
Still all theoretical I admit,

As for the lack of cables hanging from the sheared wing, I have to admit it is a bit odd, unless the video image was just poor enough that the cables were not visible in that resolution, they are a really small diameter stainless steel cable and hard to see from a distance, and the video ended quickly after touch down.

The plane appeared to be a hombuilt knock off of an Extra 300, if it had been one the wing would never have failed, that said, I will try to find a similar homebuilt control schematic and try to better demonstrate the reason I believe the aileron could still work despite the opposite side missing.

Obama supporters really BUG. FACED with TRUTH they STILL DENY IT!

look at the video, does it make sense that after he landed, the plane in the background is three times the size of the plane in the FOREGROUND? yeah things get bigger the farther they are away. :JEKYLHYDE

This whole event could be accomplished with an RC, even a nicely timed departure of a wing.

The elevators work opposite of each other and tend to have separate cables/tubes hooked up to the "stick". One lifts, the other drags, loose one, doesn't mean the other "went" with it. That being said, it is easier to drag a wing than lift it, thus as an aileron goes down (lift) the other side tends to not go as much up (drag).


DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND A A STOUT SPAR STUNT AIRPLANES MUST HAVE?

take this clip... this is what happens when spars break....

http://www.videovat.com/videos/1953/...h-landing.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGSwWVh5TAI

This is what happens when you can design with incredible horsepower to weight ratios, outside the human element stall characteristics, and control surfaces which outside the realm of passenger safety.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/259011...loting_skills/


NOW STBU. People shouldn't ever be made to believe this is true or even possible.

Why?
Because I'm a pilot myself, though without combat experience.
I will defer to your vastly superior knowledge and judgment - not!
:LOL:

FAKE!
As a pilot, you should be able to spot it in a flash.
Then I went back to read through your post again - oh yeah, you're the Obama guy....

**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)**)

:rolleyes:

Well if you guys are going to interject politics into every conversation, and that's all it is, I will stay in the lounge. I had the chance on several occasions to use military flight simulators and I experimented with flying inverted to assist in flight ware there was no flight controls due to lack of air over the flight surfaces and remarkably it worked. Now it very well is a fake, and a good one, some of what would need to be done to regain some semblance of control was performed wether intentional or not.

Whats up with the recent crop of 'newbies' who are really rude outspoken a-holes who just insist on politicizing any and every thread they touch. Especially the latest crop of 'negative newbies', (Neo comes to mind). Bunch of radical idiots in full bloom around here!

The incredible lack of tact, lack of netiquette and the insensitive nature of their posts is not a result of the current election, I fear. I think many of these guys really are genuine screw ups and their disgusting behaviour will stick around long AFTER the election is over. The recent discourse in various threads has brought Club Cobra to a new low. No fault of the moderators, not even a complaint, but an observation of the current REALITY...

Actually, I should make this statement a THREAD unto itself rather than leave it buried in some obscure "Is it real" airplane thread.

Excalibur, thank you for your input.
If I've offended you, I'm almost certain you're a Liberal.
I'll stop there with calling YOU names.
Shows a decided lack of tact, lack of netiquette and an insensitive nature ....
:-)



Cobra Bill,
I've flown plenty of simulators, a few with full motion.
I'll be the first to admit they can induce some white-knuckle moments, but it ain't the same as being strapped in and hanging on for your life.

I still cannot fathom what advantage you believe being inverted would give.
The wing - even on aerobatic machines - is most efficient when upright.

The asymmetrical drag on one side and complete absence of lift on the other would render even a high-horsepower machine like that a lawn dart.
Time for a silk ride....

The wing snapping off would also take the landing gear attach-point with it.
A wing spar failure isn't gonna leave a perfectly good wheel out there to function even in a good landing.

I've seen a few wing spar failures in sport planes, 10 years ago an early Van's RV-8 crashed just down the road from me.
I was looking at building one when it happened, and did my own root-cause analysis by talking to everybody I could find.

So you play Devil's Advocate for kicks and try to perpetuate this - why?

I do it for the entertainment, I must say though I had not thought of the possibility that the landing gear could possibly remain attached with a wing spar failure of that magnitude! You are right the landing gear would be attached to the spar and would then have suffered the same catastrophic failure.
I still do enjoy the banter, if only to see how people are thinking.

Ah, modus operandi revealed.....
Okay, same here.
Guilty as charged.

:3DSMILE:

Be cool cobra bill (with a space in the middle)

Yep I'm busted!

Yeah, I guess I am too, but I think Toad Man needs more valium.:D

Is that what his problem is! :LOL:

I don't know squat about planes, but my son is in college doing a four year commercial aviation program. Does that count? :)

Anyway, heres a picture of a 300S Stunt plane, I don't see what the wings have to do with the landing gear? It appears their totally separate on this model.

http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/d...Stuntplane.jpg

Sport/aerobatic aircraft of the Extra/Edge/Sukhoi pedigree are state of the art.
If you could remove the skin to see the structural members inside, you would probably crap your pants when you saw how little metal is actually used.
Seriously, those planes are mostly air inside!

There's an insanely thin beam that gives the wings strength - passes thru the fuselage.
Commonly called the wing spar, it's made of aluminum on most aircraft, sometimes titanium and such.
This is the ONLY thing in there that can withstand the bending loads of the landing gear.

The engine mounts consist of a lattice-work of tubes extending back to this junction, giving a 3-D box of sorts when it's all done.

Anyhow, it is an art to put just enough metal in the framework and then use the skin for the final strengthening, with no more material (weight) than absolutely necessary.

There is no spare support or bracework, lose anything and it all comes apart like a house of cards.
From the cockpit back, it's simply a sheetmetal tube with stringers under the skin for stiffness.

Like I said - state of the art....

I'll be better after the 4th. I don't mind stupidity, it's the choice of ignorance which I find most frustrating.