Good news, the props were not turning. The bad new, the props need replacing for sure. The engine would still need to be pulled for inspection. At least $100k and up from there.
That f-15 turn wasn’t too low. I used to work at the Jacksonville airport in the 90s when the Florida Air National Guard used F-16s for air interdiction. It was their jobs to meet Russian Bear bombers and such that were transiting down the coast to Cuba. So they’d get an alert and come screaming out of their secure area and down the shared runway. They’d be going in full afterburner down the runway, and just as they got good speed, roll to port about 100 feet up and fly right over the cargo ramp where I worked. Nothing like the feel and sound of their P&W F100 engine in afterburner. You first heard it, then felt it, then heard it again. It made you thankful that it was policy to wear hearing protection whenever you were on the ramp, even if you weren’t working an aircraft. But boy weren’t they awesome birds. You could see the pilot and even had one nod at me as he went flying by. **edited to make it meet, not meat. Doh!
@@lenynaise it was a lot closer to 15 feet than 40. At 0:16, wingtip is less than half a wingspan away from the ground. the F-15 has a wingspan of about 43'. y'all could spend a little time on how to estimate distance relative to objects of known distance instead of just guessing and _INcorrecting_ people based on your guess.
Previous episodes' titles: Pilot banks too steeply. Pilot banks too steep. Today's episode: Pilot banks too hard. A future episode: Pilot banks too hardly. None of which was true, by the way :)
@@RUBBER_BULLET Yes, it is possible, but no pilot would willingly do so. It also depends on the airplane and what safety features it has. Most modern civilian airplanes won't let you bank further than a set degree. So unless you shut that safety off, at least in civial aircraft, you can't. But military jets as well as aerobatic aircraft don't have that feature so technically, you could bank them too hard.
@@RUBBER_BULLETyup.. Telltale signs of banking too hard are... Not pointing the direction you wanted to. Wings falling off. Cocktails slopping out of the glass.
*How they can get a horse into the cockpit* of that RCMP PC-12, let alone train horses to fly, is quite incredible. I suppose maybe it was a pony. Anyway, I'm so relieved to hear it wasn't injured - poor thing must have been terrified. Regarding the Iberia A330 that rejected its take-off: what do they do in that situation? It reminds me of when a gymnast stops in their run-up to a vault. I guess the pilots reassure the plane in the same way the coach reassures a gymnast - they stress that it's what they've trained for...they've done it hundreds of times...offer them a glass of water, then send them out to try again?
I was dumbfounded about your horse comment until the “RCMP” sunk into my sleep addled brain, then I pretty much choked on my coffee with laughter. Thank you for some great wake-up laughter! Ditto the Iberia Airbus … although that one is a little more subtle. I was thinking along the lines of “perhaps someone should explain to the pilots concepts like throttles, thrust, minimum takeoff speed, V-2, rotation, etc.,” but given Airbus products’ propensity to do what THEY want to do - regardless of pilot input - yours is the better comment. Thanks again for the humor!
@@cedarwaxwing3509 heehee - thanks for your reply and I'm glad you enjoyed the laughs! When the notification popped up I just saw the first few words "dumbfounded about horse comment" and my first thought was, "oh here - this should be good".... I kind of expected it was going to be a rational explanation of why a horse couldn't possibly fit in a cockpit or be licensed to fly a plane. My absurd humour often gets met with rational contradiction! Anyway, thanks again!
@@fluchterschoen Horses can’t be licensed to fly planes? That sounds discriminatory to me. And if that’s the case, where does JetBlue get its pilots? Thanks again for livening my day. Your humor is much appreciated!
Quite artistic shots of the Piper. Very nice. And kudos to the RCMP pilot for setting it down in what appeared to be a textbook landing with a stuck nose gear.
1:36 a prop strike is not minor damage. Anytime a propeller touches the ground, the engine has to be overhauled or replaced. Doesn't matter if the engine stops first.
No, it didn't. It's just the camera angle and perspective that makes it look steeper than it is. Plus, there are only 2 airplanes that do vertical take-offs. The F-35B and the AV-8B Harrier. Vertical take-off is what helicopters do. What you might think about is vertical climb. Fighter jets can do that, when the nose points upwards in 90°. But commercial airplanes are limited in their climb rate and angle or they would stall. Not to mention, the passengers would get quite sick.
@@101wildgoose Vertical means they are moving at a 90° angle to the horizon. Most take-offs are actually pretty horizontal at about 15°. That's ⅙ of 90°. So no, most take-offs are not vertical. Yes, they have a vertical component to it, so does every landing, but that doesn't mean a 747 makes a vertical landing. Because if it did, every time you drive up a mountain in your car, you would be able to say you drive vertically. And you don't.
Wow! That sweet slow landing of that PC-12 without the nose gear.. Nice! Also - That was some really beautiful video shots of the wingtip vortices at the end - Sweet!!
Hello , I would appreciate if everyone check out the full video of the first clip. The link is in the description. I didn’t think it was too hard at all it was so awesome to see. Thank you
They were smart and turned the ignition off before the prop hit. So many gear up landings the prop is still spinning, not only destroying the prop (completely unnecessarily in a 2-bladed prop), but also potentially sending bits of prop flying hundreds of meters in all directions. Why leave the motor on? You gonna taxi sliding on your butt or what? You're going to crash-land whatever you do, so there's not much point to "being ready to do a go-around" either.
The prop isn't really the issue... It's the sudden stoppage on the engine that gets expensive... But that's still cheaper than losing the airframe because you were dicking around instead of concentrating on the landing...
@@paulcantrell01451you are correct. Except, this is a turbine engine and the prop is not directly driven by the engine and is freewheeling. So there won’t be a sudden stoppage of the engine.
@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Agree that the compressor+turbine combo would not stop abruptly, but what about the other turbine that drives the prop? Since there's a gearbox somewhere in between that turbine and the prop, that gearbox would experience the prop axle stopping while the turbine is still putting angular momentum on its axle going into the gearbox?
@@ninjalectualx No it wasn't. It was feathered and all but stationary, as evidenced by the fact that both lower blades are pushed outward and the upper blades are completely unblemished. Observe closely and put your head in gear before you run your mouth, mate. Saves you embarrassment.
I was in an airliner, going for takeoff down the runway, when all of the sudden, we were all lurched forward in our seats! Turns out the pilot received an alarm and made a split-decision to abort the takeoff. We then had to sit for several hours to allow the engines (brakes?) to cool and check on the alarm before we took off. We ended up taking off on the same plane, and I guess the alarm was something minor (pilot never really specified) but needless to say we were all pretty tense during that second takeoff, lol.
The nose gear up landing on the Canadian aircraft is NOT minor damage. Anytime you get a prop strike on a gear up landing, you have to pull the engine and go thru it.
that PC-12 landing was absolutely flawless, and evidently conducted by a skilled, steady minded (and handed) pilot. Saved themself, any passengers, the aircraft, and the runway. Marvelous
That JAL 777 GA was not caused by the bounce. You can basically hear the "Wind Shear, Wind Shear" Master Caution going off in the cockpit from here. The GA was already in progress when the bounce happened. Those GEs take a few seconds to spool up.
This was not a windshear at all. So no, no windshear caution going off. This was a classic case of pilot induced oscillation. It’s pretty obvious if you watch the elevators.
The no-nosegear landing was excellent. It looks like the pilot kept it teetering on the main gear long enough so that only the 4-bladed propeller got squished. (4 blades definitely a bonus, here; a 2-blader would have offered no support at rest.) Even the bottom of the engine cowling looks undamaged. Very nice - particulary as it's a manoeuvre that's almost impossible to practise. (The aircraft's loading/balance changes with every flight, so each landing is unique.)
The last one was amazing. I used to live on a farm that had a private landing strip. Took 2 hours to mow it. I always loved watching planes land and take off
Nice.if anyone noticed that jal 777 climb rate,thats boeing thrust to weight for you!that piper cub also pitched up nicely.And that F15.....he was crazy!and that iberia....its always so unfair,if it was a boeing that did that,it would be all on the news and boeing would get the blame for maintenance.thank you for not being biased and shooting airbus gone wrong vids as well(even though that was probably a maintenance issue)!and finally,that horse carrying pilatus pilots did a good job.saved themselves,the plane,the police and of course,the horse!
Trust to weight? The airplane burned up all its fuel. It’s light. Any jet could do the same at that point. And it’s amazing how you figured out that this is a maintenance issue.
I honestly think I had that same Japan Airlines pilot around the middle of October.. We bounced HARD on our landing and everyone was looking at each other. On another leg of the same trip, ( I flew from Denver to Bangkok all on Japan airlines flights, 3 in all) We came down and ALMOST touched down only to have the Japan Airlines pilot power up and pull out, and come around and pull out again.. then on the third try he got it done ..with a good hard jolt and bounce in the landing.. What are they feeding those Japan Airlines pilots?
@@frankmcgee3213 nah it isn't look at the original video, he said he shot it with a 600m lens and you see way too much detail in the grass and trees for it to be flight sim
Weird, I was sort of thinking this, but not quite in the same way ... I thought that the takeoff field looked exactly like a Bush Trip airfield that I landed/took off in - guess we're still both saying how good the FS scenery can be these days 🤓. I found the last clip very relaxing....🧘♂
I've flown a J3 piper cub over the Cascades mountains! It was the best roller coaster ride of my life. Kept expecting to put my foot through the floor though...
1:25 Just Wow. All in a severe gale by the looks of it. I have never seen such a strange coincidence of bad circumstances create such a perfect outcome, didn't even bend the prop.
I personally disagree with shutting down in this case. I get it, I do. But Shutting down the engine to save it from the horrors of a teardown inspection your insurance company will pay for is simply not worth the added distraction to what is already a very stressful and difficult landing.
I'm tempted to report this channel for its' titles. When it comes to "too" anything in flight, it ends in disaster. If a plane flies too low or turns too sharp or ascends too fast, very very poor outcome. "Too" is not interchangeable with "high performance."
1st clip Fighter Pilot: Was close but absolutely *Beautiful* ! He pulled that sh*t off like a Boss. Could this get him in the Guinness Book Of World Records?
Your title says “Fighter banked too hard”. Really? Looked perfectly and average for an F-15. Docile actually. And the 777 didn’t look like a bounce. Could’ve went around for many reasons but I didn’t see a bounce. More likely touching down too long in the landing zone for that runway.
That RCMP landing without nosegear looked perfect.
Came to the comments to see if anyone else was thinking that! Almost like it didn't matter at all. Them Mounties =P
“The Mounties always get their land.”
It was clever to stop the engine to minimize damage to and from the prop.
@@ariochiv Ya I've seen it from a cockpit POV before, landing without the nosegear and it was the exact same sequence.
The "only minor damage" went well into six figures.
Too hard for what? Wings stayed on didn't they?
I can only assume they fell off soon after.
@@fluchterschoen Should have saved the title for that part of the video then!
Cocktail spilt.
Too true
@@fluchterschoennope, my guess, wings stayed on, built for that. I think the landing gear snapped off and the airplane is still in the air right now.
That Piper Cub footage was impressive
Yes indeed but to me it looked like FlightSimulator 2024 . But that's my brain playing tricks on me I guess ;-)
This is what happens when you combine a photo geek with a flying geek. Gorgeous.
Looks like top gun
It definitely was not a sim…. It was Joe Costanza flying his J3.
It’s @Bananasssssssss doing what he does.
F-15 pilots are born to bank hard. Really, really hard.
Nose didn't drop, so it must not have been excessive bank.
@@deanmccormick8070 Yeah. I think OP likes to give F-15 pilots a rough ride.
Wasn't even in burner (at least at the point we could tell) :)
That's what she said!
@edsalinas9996 hey look! We have that dude that uses that phrase when it doesn't really work! Lol😂
Ah, aviation. A world where "only minor damage" will set you back up to $100K.
and several weeks in the hanger.
You mean at least $100k, not "up to"
@@ninjalectualx Depending upon the aircraft in question, yes.
Good news, the props were not turning. The bad new, the props need replacing for sure. The engine would still need to be pulled for inspection. At least $100k and up from there.
you get that privilege with a Ferrari also = £126/hour workshop rates
The last one with the mist Brilliant!
So cool.
Nearly poetic (sp ?), the vortexes looked likes fairies bowing to their Lord.
I bet that pilot framed a shot of that to hang on his wall at home.
@@MM22966 i can imagine the conversation "hey, look there's mist... wanna shoot something cool?" 🤣
its so calming
The wing vortices by the Piper Cub are absolute perfection! That is crazy beautiful!
That f-15 turn wasn’t too low. I used to work at the Jacksonville airport in the 90s when the Florida Air National Guard used F-16s for air interdiction. It was their jobs to meet Russian Bear bombers and such that were transiting down the coast to Cuba. So they’d get an alert and come screaming out of their secure area and down the shared runway. They’d be going in full afterburner down the runway, and just as they got good speed, roll to port about 100 feet up and fly right over the cargo ramp where I worked. Nothing like the feel and sound of their P&W F100 engine in afterburner. You first heard it, then felt it, then heard it again. It made you thankful that it was policy to wear hearing protection whenever you were on the ramp, even if you weren’t working an aircraft.
But boy weren’t they awesome birds. You could see the pilot and even had one nod at me as he went flying by.
**edited to make it meet, not meat. Doh!
1. There are no Tuploev bombers this low
2. This wasn't 100 feet, this was like 15
@@ninjalectualxmore like at least 40
@@ninjalectualxthat was much higher than 15 feet. 😂
@@lenynaise it was a lot closer to 15 feet than 40. At 0:16, wingtip is less than half a wingspan away from the ground. the F-15 has a wingspan of about 43'.
y'all could spend a little time on how to estimate distance relative to objects of known distance instead of just guessing and _INcorrecting_ people based on your guess.
Wingtip got down to 15.
The F15 shot was from the London, Ontario air show recently. The Red Arrows were also there.
Keep the red arrows they are a pain in the arse
@@billb7876 Why?
@@billb7876most invalid opinion here
Because he is a Blue Angel and can’t achieve their skill level…… let the across the pond debate commence 😂
Thanks for that. I’m up north of Standish Michigan small airport on a farm love aviation.3L7
Previous episodes' titles: Pilot banks too steeply. Pilot banks too steep. Today's episode: Pilot banks too hard. A future episode: Pilot banks too hardly. None of which was true, by the way :)
I'm no aviator, but is it even possible to 'bank too hard?'
@@RUBBER_BULLET Yes, as long as it serves its purpose of making people click on the film :)
@@RUBBER_BULLET Yes, it is possible, but no pilot would willingly do so. It also depends on the airplane and what safety features it has. Most modern civilian airplanes won't let you bank further than a set degree. So unless you shut that safety off, at least in civial aircraft, you can't. But military jets as well as aerobatic aircraft don't have that feature so technically, you could bank them too hard.
@@CerberusTenshionly true for Airbus, but not Boeing
@@RUBBER_BULLETyup..
Telltale signs of banking too hard are...
Not pointing the direction you wanted to.
Wings falling off.
Cocktails slopping out of the glass.
*How they can get a horse into the cockpit* of that RCMP PC-12, let alone train horses to fly, is quite incredible. I suppose maybe it was a pony. Anyway, I'm so relieved to hear it wasn't injured - poor thing must have been terrified.
Regarding the Iberia A330 that rejected its take-off: what do they do in that situation? It reminds me of when a gymnast stops in their run-up to a vault. I guess the pilots reassure the plane in the same way the coach reassures a gymnast - they stress that it's what they've trained for...they've done it hundreds of times...offer them a glass of water, then send them out to try again?
Horse-fly.
@@joeyjamison5772 Very nice job.
I was dumbfounded about your horse comment until the “RCMP” sunk into my sleep addled brain, then I pretty much choked on my coffee with laughter. Thank you for some great wake-up laughter!
Ditto the Iberia Airbus … although that one is a little more subtle. I was thinking along the lines of “perhaps someone should explain to the pilots concepts like throttles, thrust, minimum takeoff speed, V-2, rotation, etc.,” but given Airbus products’ propensity to do what THEY want to do - regardless of pilot input - yours is the better comment.
Thanks again for the humor!
@@cedarwaxwing3509 heehee - thanks for your reply and I'm glad you enjoyed the laughs! When the notification popped up I just saw the first few words "dumbfounded about horse comment" and my first thought was, "oh here - this should be good".... I kind of expected it was going to be a rational explanation of why a horse couldn't possibly fit in a cockpit or be licensed to fly a plane. My absurd humour often gets met with rational contradiction!
Anyway, thanks again!
@@fluchterschoen Horses can’t be licensed to fly planes? That sounds discriminatory to me. And if that’s the case, where does JetBlue get its pilots?
Thanks again for livening my day. Your humor is much appreciated!
Quite artistic shots of the Piper. Very nice. And kudos to the RCMP pilot for setting it down in what appeared to be a textbook landing with a stuck nose gear.
Great job, RCMP pilot!
And that piper departure was amazing with the vortices
1:36 a prop strike is not minor damage. Anytime a propeller touches the ground, the engine has to be overhauled or replaced. Doesn't matter if the engine stops first.
I have a ppl and I concur.
RCMP landing was textbook. REALLY nice landing.
"Too" Hard?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The titles are always spot on......
0:53 did that plane just do a vertical take off?
No, it didn't. It's just the camera angle and perspective that makes it look steeper than it is. Plus, there are only 2 airplanes that do vertical take-offs. The F-35B and the AV-8B Harrier. Vertical take-off is what helicopters do. What you might think about is vertical climb. Fighter jets can do that, when the nose points upwards in 90°. But commercial airplanes are limited in their climb rate and angle or they would stall. Not to mention, the passengers would get quite sick.
@@CerberusTenshi787 can get pretty dang close without a payload
All take-offs are vertical
@@101wildgooseThey’re not vertical until Maverick says they’re vertical.
@@101wildgoose Vertical means they are moving at a 90° angle to the horizon. Most take-offs are actually pretty horizontal at about 15°. That's ⅙ of 90°. So no, most take-offs are not vertical. Yes, they have a vertical component to it, so does every landing, but that doesn't mean a 747 makes a vertical landing. Because if it did, every time you drive up a mountain in your car, you would be able to say you drive vertically. And you don't.
Wow! That sweet slow landing of that PC-12 without the nose gear.. Nice!
Also - That was some really beautiful video shots of the wingtip vortices at the end - Sweet!!
There is no such thing as banking too hard when your thrust-to-weight ratio is greater than 1.
It is when the tunnel-vision comes creeping in....
Hello , I would appreciate if everyone check out the full video of the first clip. The link is in the description. I didn’t think it was too hard at all it was so awesome to see. Thank you
They were smart and turned the ignition off before the prop hit. So many gear up landings the prop is still spinning, not only destroying the prop (completely unnecessarily in a 2-bladed prop), but also potentially sending bits of prop flying hundreds of meters in all directions. Why leave the motor on? You gonna taxi sliding on your butt or what? You're going to crash-land whatever you do, so there's not much point to "being ready to do a go-around" either.
The prop isn't really the issue... It's the sudden stoppage on the engine that gets expensive... But that's still cheaper than losing the airframe because you were dicking around instead of concentrating on the landing...
The prop was actually still spinning. It looked off-ish due to the wagon wheel effect but you can see the sudden stop when it hits the pavement
@@paulcantrell01451you are correct. Except, this is a turbine engine and the prop is not directly driven by the engine and is freewheeling. So there won’t be a sudden stoppage of the engine.
@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Agree that the compressor+turbine combo would not stop abruptly, but what about the other turbine that drives the prop? Since there's a gearbox somewhere in between that turbine and the prop, that gearbox would experience the prop axle stopping while the turbine is still putting angular momentum on its axle going into the gearbox?
@@ninjalectualx No it wasn't. It was feathered and all but stationary, as evidenced by the fact that both lower blades are pushed outward and the upper blades are completely unblemished. Observe closely and put your head in gear before you run your mouth, mate. Saves you embarrassment.
Nice job on the PC-12!
So, the F-15 exceeded its bank angle limit? Because that's what "too" means.
That would be a neat trick considering it can fly inverted. I'm sure that banking climb was multiple Gs, though.
@@chrisschack9716 Yep. Probably drained all the blood out of the pilot's head. Makes it hard to fly until it comes back.
I may be wrong but I don't think an F-15 has a bank angle limit!
The Piper vortex image was super cool...The Iberian run looked like the pilot was pushing to do 50 mph. Smart change of plans.
I was in an airliner, going for takeoff down the runway, when all of the sudden, we were all lurched forward in our seats! Turns out the pilot received an alarm and made a split-decision to abort the takeoff. We then had to sit for several hours to allow the engines (brakes?) to cool and check on the alarm before we took off. We ended up taking off on the same plane, and I guess the alarm was something minor (pilot never really specified) but needless to say we were all pretty tense during that second takeoff, lol.
The nose gear up landing on the Canadian aircraft is NOT minor damage. Anytime you get a prop strike on a gear up landing, you have to pull the engine and go thru it.
Spot on!
Those swirlies were rad!
Thanks for the J-3
that PC-12 landing was absolutely flawless, and evidently conducted by a skilled, steady minded (and handed) pilot. Saved themself, any passengers, the aircraft, and the runway. Marvelous
Love the Cub footage. So simple and beautiful!!
My favorite 3 minutes every time!
Joe Costanza’s J-3 cub making those vortices in the mist is very impressive. I love watching him fly
Piper Cub clips for the win👍👍
I banked too hard when I was a teenager. Almost went blind.
I take it that was auto correct and you meant to start with a "w"?
@@polecat7355 Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Wasn't obvious to me 🤷♂️ I guess I'm not teenage enough
"Son, stop that or you'll go blind."
"Dad - I'm over here"
Can I do it until I just need glasses???
London Skydrive never disappoints 🔥🔥🔥
That vid was great! Especially the crop duster!
I’ll fly with that Canadian pilot any day. Nice job capt.
I gave it a thumbs up bc of the Piper and the quality of those shots
The Piper sequence was lovely!
A word to describe the piloting by the PC-12 is flawless; and J-3 Cub is smooth.
That JAL 777 GA was not caused by the bounce. You can basically hear the "Wind Shear, Wind Shear" Master Caution going off in the cockpit from here. The GA was already in progress when the bounce happened. Those GEs take a few seconds to spool up.
agree! That poor plane was getting BEAT UP. Even his climb out was harry.
Wind shear causes a rapid descent on approach. When the aircraft touches down wind shear is no longer an issue.
@@rharbarenkonope.
This was not a windshear at all. So no, no windshear caution going off.
This was a classic case of pilot induced oscillation. It’s pretty obvious if you watch the elevators.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I agree totally. I was responding to the original comment by Cloudhopper who says he could "hear" the windshear alert!!
It wasn't too hard, but nobody would've clicked on the video titled "Fighter Pilot Banks A Reasonable Amount"
True story. Lying to get views.
Over 50 years old, still undefeated and still one of the best fighters in the sky.
I never miss an episode of 3 Minutes of Aviation. Great stuff, even if the F-15 pilot didn't bank too hard. :)
01:32 GEEZ! Even though the fuselage was unharmed! 😮👍
The no-nosegear landing was excellent. It looks like the pilot kept it teetering on the main gear long enough so that only the 4-bladed propeller got squished. (4 blades definitely a bonus, here; a 2-blader would have offered no support at rest.)
Even the bottom of the engine cowling looks undamaged. Very nice - particulary as it's a manoeuvre that's almost impossible to practise. (The aircraft's loading/balance changes with every flight, so each landing is unique.)
You owe us 18 seconds more of aviation because the F-15 video was already in last week's 3 mins video.
You can never have too many of F-15 video's ;-)
Yep, and the title had a less sensationalist spin on it last time.
@@b1lleman You can if they're the exact same video.
I knew I'd seen it before. I actually thought I'd been cheating on 3MOA with another avgeek channel, and I was feeling pretty disgusted with myself.
@@davidf6326 yeah maybe, it saw it twice now and I'm not bored yet. To each his own, all the best to you.
The last one was amazing. I used to live on a farm that had a private landing strip. Took 2 hours to mow it. I always loved watching planes land and take off
Pc12 cutting the engine before touching down....on point! Epic job
More Piper Cub please. It was mesmerizing.
Great video!😸
Flies like what fighter pilots are trained to fly?
Nice.if anyone noticed that jal 777 climb rate,thats boeing thrust to weight for you!that piper cub also pitched up nicely.And that F15.....he was crazy!and that iberia....its always so unfair,if it was a boeing that did that,it would be all on the news and boeing would get the blame for maintenance.thank you for not being biased and shooting airbus gone wrong vids as well(even though that was probably a maintenance issue)!and finally,that horse carrying pilatus pilots did a good job.saved themselves,the plane,the police and of course,the horse!
Trust to weight? The airplane burned up all its fuel. It’s light. Any jet could do the same at that point.
And it’s amazing how you figured out that this is a maintenance issue.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183the only reason airbus have protections is that they will break up at more than 1.5g and they have such low thrust to weights.
The Piper cub was the best the dynamics of airflow amazing
Those mist shots were georgeous.
0:17 When fighter pilot bank too hard and should have credit union 💀
Lmao. That's such a dad joke it deserves way more likes
those vortices, beautiful
Those wingtip vortices were quite beautiful
01:55 - looks like somebody forgot to set the flaps for take-off !!
Well spotted. Checklist complete.
Looks like somebody commenting doesn't know what takeoff flaps, which are correctly set, look like. Keep flying that armchair!
On that Iberian’s reject, I didn’t see spoilers or thrust reversers. I understand the no spoilers if they were below about 72 kts but why no reverse?
Those Piper shots look straight out of movie!
landing without nose gear was hardcore piloting..
I honestly think I had that same Japan Airlines pilot around the middle of October.. We bounced HARD on our landing and everyone was looking at each other. On another leg of the same trip, ( I flew from Denver to Bangkok all on Japan airlines flights, 3 in all) We came down and ALMOST touched down only to have the Japan Airlines pilot power up and pull out, and come around and pull out again.. then on the third try he got it done ..with a good hard jolt and bounce in the landing.. What are they feeding those Japan Airlines pilots?
AWESOME vortices from the Cub!
CAUTION WAKE TURBULENCE!
I can't be the only one who thinks the last clip looks INSANELY similar to MSFS 2024, or am i?
It actually does though
You’re not. It’s FS
@@frankmcgee3213 nah it isn't look at the original video, he said he shot it with a 600m lens and you see way too much detail in the grass and trees for it to be flight sim
Weird, I was sort of thinking this, but not quite in the same way ... I thought that the takeoff field looked exactly like a Bush Trip airfield that I landed/took off in - guess we're still both saying how good the FS scenery can be these days 🤓. I found the last clip very relaxing....🧘♂
@@frankmcgee3213no it’s real life
Wow. I didn't know a Piper was that aerobatic. Impressive lift, there.
Passenger in the fighter jet @0:18 : “Ahhhhhhh….ok….I’m good here…please let me out !!!!!
Pilot : “we’re still taking off moron” !
I've flown a J3 piper cub over the Cascades mountains! It was the best roller coaster ride of my life. Kept expecting to put my foot through the floor though...
I've never seen a plane use a propeller instead of the nose gear on a landing. Great idea!
The J-3 video was art.
1:25 Just Wow. All in a severe gale by the looks of it. I have never seen such a strange coincidence of bad circumstances create such a perfect outcome, didn't even bend the prop.
In which video did a fighter pilot bank too hard?
Being a fighter pilot has to be the greatest job on earth.
Massive kudos to the PC-12 pilot! GOAT!
"Noise abatement procedure" said the F-15 pilot winking profusely
The piper in the mist is beautiful
The landing without the nose wheel, well done, but "minor damage"? No not really, a prop strike has serious repercussions.
Nice take off, I love it, .
IMHO that shot of the F-15 making a hard bank demonstrates why no enemy has ever shot down an F-15.
Cub was pulling some serious gs on T/O.
The wing trip vortices were definitely cool
I personally disagree with shutting down in this case. I get it, I do. But Shutting down the engine to save it from the horrors of a teardown inspection your insurance company will pay for is simply not worth the added distraction to what is already a very stressful and difficult landing.
How do these pilots get those wingtip vortices? My first time seeing that. Cool!!!
I'm tempted to report this channel for its' titles. When it comes to "too" anything in flight, it ends in disaster. If a plane flies too low or turns too sharp or ascends too fast, very very poor outcome. "Too" is not interchangeable with "high performance."
1:20 I can’t lie that was the smoothest landing I’ve ever seen
That first clip is from your video *_"Lufthansa A320 Engine Explodes On Takeoff"_* five days ago at the 48 second mark.
It's amazing how some of the most experienced pilots still forget about physics and control surfaces in a hard bank.
Here the RCMP pilot did incredibly well
1st clip Fighter Pilot: Was close but absolutely *Beautiful* ! He pulled that sh*t off like a Boss. Could this get him in the Guinness Book Of World Records?
That Pipe Cub was _sublime_
The last clip (piper mist vortex) teaches more about aerodynamics than 100 hours of grad school aerospace engineering classes.
He went around before he got himself into an oscillation...did what he was supposed to do.
Was trying to figure out if the JAL pilot had cross winds or was dealing with vortices. 😮
I just had a landing gear failure on my luscombe yesterday. No fun at all
Your title says “Fighter banked too hard”. Really? Looked perfectly and average for an F-15. Docile actually. And the 777 didn’t look like a bounce. Could’ve went around for many reasons but I didn’t see a bounce. More likely touching down too long in the landing zone for that runway.
Any landing you walk away from is a good landing!
0:48 This is why smart passengers fly All Nippon 😂
Banks too hard = Pilot flying within parameters and flight plan.
Low cost nose landing only cost a 250,000 dollar propeller and engine overhaul due to sudden stoppage.
The engine won’t have a sudden stoppage.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 if the prop has a strike it will.
@@davidhtims this is not a recip engine. It’s a turbine. The engine would not have a sudden stop, just the prop.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 you are correct. The gear train inna turbo prop is linked.
The prop goes thru a gear reduction box then thru the core to the power wheel