If I'm not mistaken, that's the cover for the VTOL fan that resides right there. Note the outflow vents below aimed rear/downwards for takeoff...I think those move forward and backwards to achieve VTOL, hover, and slow flight. I've never seen it open during forward flight, so I'm not certain, but that seems right.

Well every plane has a takeoff weight restriction... but according to Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia the B1-B was strengthened fairly early in development so it could take off with a full fuel load, and they even managed that change without adding much weight.

The SR-71 on the other hand used to take off with just enough fuel in the tanks to get airborne, and then refuel in the air.

@gorillaman @ChaosEngine

Fast & Furious (which is part 4) was the first step in the right direction as the first in the series to start a transition, although only marginally, out of a fun-but-really-stupid category of action flick. Tokyo Drift was definitely the worst of them. (I'm just hoping the tie-in with part 7 and the return of Lucas Black will somehow make up for its existence; introducing us to Han's back story in Fast Five helped.)

Fast Five was the first good flick on its upswing toward world domination because it was much less dumb, but had a much richer story, better characters, incredible practical effects, a huge, diverse cast, and awesome international settings. This was the first time it was much more kick-ass than pure roll-your-eyes-and-sigh maximum-dumb-shitatude accompanying the action.

Fast & Furious 6 continued to prove they were onto a winning formula and continued that trend. (However, there's a fucking-stupid ~9 minute fight on an airplane WHILE it is driving at near-takeoff speeds on a runway. I did some calculations the last time I watched it and remember thinking they had to be on like a 20-mile-long runway. Come on guys, it's called editing; or at least have some phony excuse for that bullshitestry. But I digress.)

One of the most compelling parts of both parts 5 and 6 were some kick-ass (though of course impossible) practical stunt sequences that may have been the first I've seen as a fully-grown man to earn me a visceral ear-to-ear grin and cause me to unintentionally, audibly say "Holy shit!" in the movie theater.

Can't wait for part 7 and I hope they are able to just keep churning them out, despite the unfortunate loss of Paul Walker because these are some seriously ass-kicking action flicks.

Customizable RTL altitudes are pretty standard, but, in this case, the pilot would have needed to know the altitude of the pinnacle (relative to the takeoff point) and program it in before the flight. Not very practical. The "breadcrumb" style of RTL: following manually recorded waypoints back home is great, and would have saved this drone, but most firmwares don't support it.

It's a simple thing to cover the blade with a net so you can't fall into it, or so it can't fall onto others.
Stuff on the ground being blown around is only a minor issue when it's near the ground at takeoff and landing. This isn't a ground effects plane, it flies. That means any place a helicopter can take off and/or land would be more than safe, as would any field, clean street, parking garage, any place that's clean or free of people and glass should be fine. It's only about 400lbs of thrust spread over (estimating) about 12 sq. ft., so less than 40lbs of thrust per sq. ft. , or less than 1/3 lb. of thrust per sq. inch MAX. I doubt that can create a 'bullet' out of anything. It would take just a tiny bit of common sense to make this issue a non-issue, if there's an issue at all.

Shockwave hits building after rocket explodes on takeoff has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Your video, Shockwave hits building after rocket explodes on takeoff, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Stupid mistake causes helicopter to crash on takeoff, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

More info here - http://avherald.com/h?article=46d32419

Initially they had to hold because of a Cessna disabled on the Kilimanjaro runway, but it actually sounds like they just landed at the wrong airport afterwards. They had been cleared for landing at Kilimanjaro, but Arusha's runway was visible from their position and with the same orientation as their intended destination.

The passengers were initially told they had in fact landed at Kilimanjaro, 50 km away, and were then stuck on board the aircraft for 3.5 hours until stairs could be brought from there.

Reader N writes:

At least 100 people (police, fireman, military, airport officials) were on the runway, taking pictures with their phones, and no one gave us any explanation, no words from the pilot, nothing.

Funny now, but it was not quite funny 2 weeks ago.

Planes measure airspeed even when on the ground, so the plane increased throttle above the normal rate for takeoff but the speed still measured the same as it was the same airspeed moving over the plane. Flawed test.

takeoff from standstill would have been interesting

First Footage of F-35B Vertical Takeoff has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Those kids sounded about how I sounded my first takeoff

Wouldn't it make more sense to be realistic about the possibility of the Taliban firing missiles? Does that happen enough that every takeoff has to perform what sounds like a risky maneuver?

Pulling up that fast with a heavy load seems a high risk approach.

I suppose, that indirectly, the Taliban can claim some credit for this.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan' to 'Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, 747, Takeoff, Stall' - edited by calvados