Real or Fake

[Deskpilot]

I received this today from an old RAF friend in the UK. Your comments, please.

 

It's very well done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8evDkiQUb4

 

 

[facthunter]

One -off.

 

I wouldn't bother normally. It is generally considered that aircraft configured like the 737. (and many others) with underwing engines, will not land well in a ditching situation. The energy dissipated from landing speed , (around 150 knots, as holding off and pancaking the aircraft is not a recommended technique,) usually causes the main structure to break up. The pitch down due to the drag from the engines will cause the nose to dive beneath the water and the forces applied to the structure are severe. If a ditching aircraft can "plane " a bit, the retarding process takes longer and the "G" forces are less, and the structure, (and you ) have more chance of survival. Nev..

 

 

[Ben Longden]

It might be real. it might not. I don't know.

 

But a close look shows it to be possibly a digital creation when it meets the wet stuff. then again...

 

Ben

 

 

[lazerin]

Fake.

 

1) He didn't have the camera running and focussed on the aircraft until it was a few hundred metres from him. If there's suppose to be an airport behind those buildings, then the aircraft wouldnt have made a turn around. Thus, if he knew there's no airport behind him and a jet was roaring at you and a bunch of buildings, you'd A) move, or B) have the camera running way before then.

 

2) Time taken to make a 180* turn after flying over the buildings is way too short. They would have had to pull a remarkably steep turn.

 

3) Why is the tail unmarked. (and why isn't this incident more well known)

 

4) Prior to touch down, there is no jet wash/spray visible in the water with the aircraft in a pitch up attitude, yet engine noise is still loud on camera.

 

5) The zoom on this camcorder is remarkably fast...

 

6) ....and there's a convenient total white transition from wide angle to close up of the rear exit door....

 

7) ....and the amount of camera shake for that level of zoom is unrealistic (it would be a lot more jittery if the camera didn't have image stabilisation techonology, and if it did, it would have a more mechanical look to the correction).

 

8) Who opened the rear exit door....as far as I know, someone has to operate the door and they would be standing behind the door when it so miracolously "popped" open.

 

Finally, the aircraft just doesn't look right. Looks too smooth and there's a quality discrepency between it and the footage surroundings/background.