well done... but maybe getting a chain out and towing the plane off the tracks should have been step one? Wouldn't have been as great a video though.

Congratulations! Your video, Yosemite Drug Plane Crash - Climbers Get Rich!, 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 304 Badge!

Your video, Yosemite Drug Plane Crash - Climbers Get Rich!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In my M1 (motorcycle endorsement) class, we learned this as "breaking the plane". There's a lot more force involved so you kinda have to consciously do it above a certain speed. Knock the front wheel in the "wrong" direction so that the bike falls into the turn in the direction you want.

Using a mountainside might help with structural integrity, but it's not likely to give much air resistance advantage if I'm reading the math correctly. The 5 highest peaks in the US are all in Alaska and and range from just under 5km to just over 6km. Commercial jets using air resistance/density for lift fly at about 10km and even at 38km aerodynamic lift still carries 98% of the weight of the plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line)

Air density is halved at 5km compared to sea level, but air resistance doesn't diminish as quickly (due to it being multiplied by velocity squared and drag coefficient), and only becomes irrelevant (for short-term purposes) around 100km at the Karman Line.

If we had a 5km peak in Florida, the lack of logistical costs might make the benefits worth it, and if we could build on one of Equador's 5km peaks, then there's the further advantage of equatorial location for optimal rotational advantage (part of the reason we launch from South Florida)

Considering the immediate circumstances I think it's instead a *win to have avoided major damages to both planes seeing how close the Red Bull was closing in on the white Cessna) .

a few more

http://landmarkhunter.com/photos/61/33/613361-L.jpg

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/holocaust-memorial-jc-findley.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bHPzhX_BHYE/maxresdefault.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bvUo5P-Pilc/UKalbd7Vb9I/AAAAAAAATHw/q0Mr_57f2a0/s1600/Miami+Holocaust+Memorial03.JPG

http://artofmiami.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IMG_8259.jpg

Am I missing something here? I always thought memorials were supposed to be sad or solemn. To @noims point of humor, I don't see any attempt at humor here. Just a low budget float without an art director.


Speaking of dark humor though, it's not as though the Kawani's are doing their thing with their go carts dressed up as 747 planes pretending to crash into the float.

I ask genuinely, why are the tortured figures in the holocaust memorials not being derided as "celebrating their torture" ?

How is depicting a wounded person different than a wounded building in terms of war memorial creation?
(not the diff btween a building and a person) just the bit about why it's suddenly offensive to show something that was attacked.

Your video, Flying A Plane Through A Tunne, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I had no idea they made a slip and slide for planes.

Unconvinced.
Why would they try to land on an aircraft carrier, breaking the plane every single time by scraping the wingtips off on the deck? In air refueling means it would never be required, and a total lack of stealth makes it just stupid, landing strip width makes it incredibly difficult to land a plane over 3 times the wingspan of an F16, especially one as in precise and hard to fly as a u2….and impossible to store off the deck, making the carrier useless until the U2 was removed.

On land they had chase cars that drove under the wings at landing, installing the wheels and/or keeping the tips off the ground.

Not trusting this internet source…beware unknown sources.
There’s a reason there wasn’t one shot of a successful landing, the best they had was a 3 point landing with the wing as point 3. At best this was a failed test, not a functional program.

Your video, Planes Water Ski In Formation, 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 535 Badge!

20 yrs.

And "Giant Plane Flies Too Close To Buildings" is the correct title.

There's a major problem with this design that was just glossed over in this video: the windows aren't there for you, they're there for the pilots and flight crew to see what's going on outside the plane in the event of an issue. You can have all the cameras in the world on that thing, but no civilian pilot is going to get on a plane without being able to see what's outside it themselves.

Also, watch this video that explains why no one designs new prop engines and why we're still using a basic engine design from the 1950s. Now take these basic issues and them multiply by billions of dollars. This idea is a total all-or-nothing for Boeing/Airbus and there's no chance in hell that management would ever go that far out on a limb.

https://youtu.be/_k1TQGK3mZI

Would you get on a plane that had a 98% chance of not crashing?

Does anyone know how much the plane's weight decreases during the drop, and how that changes its handling?

(I'm trying to work out how much harder this is than, say, coming in for a landing run.)