Congratulations! Your video, We Are Going To Crash Land! - Jetblue 2005, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 561 Badge!

Your video, We Are Going To Crash Land! - Jetblue 2005, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 531 Badge!

I think---and it's just a guess---that this is supposed to be simpler and easier to maintain and use? In part because the engines are outboard and there aren't all the shafts going to and fro that the V-22 has.

However, I had thought that the criss crossing shafts were part of the military redundancy plan (like, shoot out an engine and limp home on a one---or at least, limp to a better sort of crash landing)---so I don't really know.

Anything that simplifies maintenance will make the fleet cheaper to operate.

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

Also this week, Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo crash-landed killing one of the pilots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/science/virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-crashes-during-test-flight.html?_r=0

Privately or publicly funded, this is inherently risky work.

Garfunkel and Oates? What's next, a movie by George Spielberg and Stephen Lucas about a boy, Indiana Skywalker, who loses his adoptive parents but finds them on an ancient spaceship which crash landed in Bolivia, manned only by the ghost Force of Adolf Palpatine?

I sure hope so.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'russia, tupolev, tu 154' to 'tupolev, tu 154, crash landing, landing, like a boss' - edited by kulpims

Tags for this video have been changed from 'F5, Northrop, Freedom Fighter' to 'F5, Northrop, Freedom Fighter, crash landing, nose wheel' - edited by kulpims

why is everyone sad / annoyed after crash landing. Are you kidding me?
I'd be so pumped up, I'd jump around and say all sorts of things and cheer.

"dude did you see that shit!?!? we could of died!! WE JUST survived a plane crash!"

sorry about your plane?! who cares you are alive

According to that report:

"The pilot reported that while climbing through about 5,800 feet mean sea level (msl), the engine lost power. Despite multiple attempts, he was unable to restart the engine. The pilot initiated a forced landing to an open snow covered field."

Congrats to them for keeping calm, on the first watch I thought it was all going normal until they crash landed.

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

No one died in this video (though there were fatalities during this accident). This video has been played during several news broadcasts and linked to several online print news articles like http://www.theage.com.au/world/bad-brakes-cited-in-moscow-crash-landing-20121230-2c140.html, and think qualifies as educational over entertainment.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by bareboards2.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Video-shows-crash-landing-of-Russian-airliner

So where did the door crash land to?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Apache, helicopter crash, crash landing, cfit' to 'Apache, helicopter crash, crash landing' - edited by calvados