Tornado picture - wingtip a foot off the runway

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I have seen this fir the first time today and am curious about it. Does anyone have any gen?

http://i.imgur.com/OhqyvyI.jpg


WWW

[downsizer]

Italian I think. Looks like it anyway.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nah, metric, at least a metre.

[Courtney Mil]

I have this gen...

...the photo you have posted is WAY TOO BIG four our pages. Therefore we cannot see your picture and our text is all buggered up and so small that we cannot read it.

Please reduce the picture size MASSIVELY, then we can carry one.
:=

[DirtyProp]

Italian I think. Looks like it anyway.Italians do it better.
:p

[langleybaston]

Can't be Italian: no hairs under wing roots.

[gamecock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5NNEi9geQ

[PFMG]

The thing with low flying is that the best you can ever hope for is to equal the record.

An old and somewhat sensible QFI told me that one when I was in my youth and up for anything.

[Kitbag]

Shark mouth markings suggest it is a Tornado ECR of 50 Stormo, 155 Gruppo, Aeronautica Militare.

The Italians are the only operator to have the inverted ice cream cone on the spine :p

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I have this gen...

...the photo you have posted is WAY TOO BIG four our pages. Therefore we cannot see your picture and our text is all buggered up and so small that we cannot read it.

Please reduce the picture size MASSIVELY, then we can carry one.


Fixed that for you. Do you not use an Apple 4K monitor then you cheapskate? ;-)


So it's genuine then. Looks bloody dangerous to me.

WWW

[jindabyne]

Photoshopped

[ValMORNA]

I just wish the original suggestion was that the wingtip was disturbing the dirt - far more dramatic.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Come on, a Tonka isn't very big - that's not much more than a foot or maybe two.

WWW

[Bob Viking]

I don't care if it's a foot or a metre (my guess is about 4-5 feet personally) but whoever it is is a total pillock in my opinion.

I was taught how to fly at 100' in the Jaguar and I've never felt the urge to fly any lower (unless planning to land before anyone gets smart!).

I realise that makes me sound like a pompous old prat but life's too short to bugger around like that, especially in a two seat jet.

Finally, why does someone always say 'photoshop' on threads like this. Sadly I see nothing to suggest it is a fake.

BV

[Vendee]

No, that's 6-8 feet off the runway.

[jindabyne]

Photoshop - trust me Bob

[Lima Juliet]

Jinda - you lie like cheap Changi watch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5NNEi9geQ

You no lie anymore...

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

That wing has got to be about 15ft long. I would say there is less than 20% of the wing length distance between the runway and the tip. I know it's very difficult to judge these things when telephoto lenses are used etc. But still.


WWW

[Lima Juliet]

When I first saw it, I thought it was this (watch around the 3 minute mark):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2puklDh-0D8

In this one the pilot doesn't roll as much bank on as the Italian jet, but still quite an impressive fly past!

[etimegev]

Never mind the distance - think of it in time, inertia and speed. That f*ckwit was a mere millisecond away from being an ex-f*ckwit.

[Rhino power]

Despite jindabyne's protestations, and as per Leon's youtube clip, it is indeed a genuine photo. It's a jet belonging to the RSV (Reparto Sperimentale Volo), Italy's version of the RAF's 41(R) TES...

-RP

[TowerDog]

Better be lucky than good...:cool:

[Old-Duffer]

I rather think that a fast low level turn was the root cause of the loss of an RAF Tornado in the Middle East.

O-D

[teeteringhead]

One recalls many years ago at an open day display practice at (IIRC) Chiv, one of the Ginos from the Frecce dug a wingtip into the (fortunately soft and muddy) grass.

By the evening celebrations, the Chiv groundcrew had recovered the nav light from the divot :eek::eek:, had it mounted on a polished wooden plaque, and presented it to the Italians .......

....... who were allowed to display the next day.

And of course that was years before Ramstein...... :(

But that was then ................

[Gaz ED]

That Bondu cat from the Falklanda didn't look too arsed at the low-flying antics....

[ShotOne]

jindabyne, perhaps you'd justify your post; the thermal distortion in the jet efflux and the wingtip vortices match perfectly. If it's photoshopped, someone's gone to immense effort.

[P6 Driver]

I'd echo that - if someone is going to post "Photoshop", at least present some of the reasoning or evidence that this is the case please, otherwise it just comes over as a cheap shot.

[Stanwell]

Thank you, ShotOne & P6.
You got in before me.

[Union Jack]

......otherwise it just comes over as a cheap shot.

Pun presumably intended.:ok:

[Fareastdriver]

I've seen Meteors overshooting on one engine go lower and tighter than that.

[aerolearner]

The youtube video was filmed in Cameri, where the Italian Air Force maintains its Tornadoes (and where the F-35 FACO has been built).

Il portale dell'Aeronautica Militare - 1° Reparto Manutenzione Velivoli (http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Organizzazione/AltiComandi/COMLOG/Pagine/1RMV.aspx)

I have no clue about this specific case, but, given the setting, there is a possibility that the aircraft was being flown by a test pilot from the manufacturer Alenia.

[LowObservable]

It looks like one hell of a way to kill a rabbit...

[Tankertrashnav]

Never mind the distance - think of it in time, inertia and speed. That f*ckwit was a mere millisecond away from being an ex-f*ckwit.

Totally agree. We've all watched Bud Holland, and others like him, and agreed that he was a total prat, not to mention a killer. I'm pleased to see there's no adulation on this thread about this guy (so far) but there are still some around who think this sort of thing is clever :*

[Pontius Navigator]

I was taught how to fly at 100' in the Jaguar and I've never felt the urge to fly any lower (unless planning to land before anyone gets smart!).

BV

One sortie in a Nimrod we were down at 100ft with t hg e rad alt dipping to 80 and we weren't straight and level.

(More in IM)

[Haraka]

For me , the salutary warning was that photographic sequence of the Argosy in the Middle East doing a "beat up " and hitting that water tower around 1969. It never left my mind. Later the Herc decapitating a soldier reinforced the point.

[Danny42C]

And he still didn't manage to pick up the handkerchief ! :(

(But what a wonderful pic (fake ?) for Capcom)

D.

[MPN11]

Memories of the dramatic [and fatal] Lightning vertical departure from Tengah, for a home movie, which didn't work out. Happily, I wasn't in Local that day.

ISTR, from conversations after the event, that one should pull 2.4g instead of 4g.

Movie camera and FJ pilots make a bad mix, IMO

(Edit = I am advised by PM that there was more to the event than I was aware of, and that the pilot was not entirely to blame)

[Haraka]

And he still didn't manage to pick up the handkerchief !

Unlike Geoff Tyson with the Tiger Moth eh Danny! But of course he was in practice having done it over 800 times 1934-36

(Actually allegedly he did cheat by using a wire hook -but it looked like he was picking it up with the wingtip- as if a few inches made much difference.)

[just another jocky]

.....as if a few inches made much difference.

We all know they do! :E

More idiocy than skill in that video clip.

He was lucky. One day, he wont be.

[MSOCS]

This picture's been posted and deliberated before on PPRuNe. Someone had gone to great detail and analysed the spectra of the shot and concluded that it was "photoshopped" per Jindabyne's assertion.

I'm not a photo guru but the evidence presented then seemed compelling enough to say it was a false image.

This is all recollection so not entirely backed up.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I think there is some lens compression making it look more dramatic but I'm fairly sure it's not been photoshopped.

WWW

[LOMCEVAK]

Whilst I do not condone what appears to be shown in the Tornado photograph posted and in the video link, and what appears to be an ill-conceived manoeuvre, it is worth stating that there are tasks that require, and approvals that allow, low flying at less than the 100 ft discussed previously. UK military registered fast jet aircraft with a rad alt sometimes perform simulated missile attacks against ships at 50 ft ASL (albeit nominally straight and level). Also, some pilots have a minimum of 30 ft on their UK CAA Display Authorisation, even for fast jet aircraft (G- registered, not current miitary aircraft). Note that if in a turn, the 30 ft separation from the ground applies to the wing tip. Obviously, this minima can only be exercised at an approved display site and not all display sites are approved for the use of this minima.

[jindabyne]

Thanks MSOCS. This is the thread I had in mind when I posted:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/366721-low-flying-tornado.html?highlight=low+flying+tornado

Leon, Union Jack et al?

[Tourist]

That thread doesn't seem to come to the conclusion that it is photoshopped......

The video seems to suggest not

[melmothtw]

Absolutely agree Tourist,

In the previous thread which was linked, all of the self-styled 'experts' appeared to have shut up about Photoshop as soon as the video was posted, as well they might.

[twothree]

Many many years ago, at a YVL air-day, I watched the Italian display team in their G91s bank, line abreast, in front of the control tower viewing area. The low aircraft put a 20 yard groove in the muddy grass. There was a bit of a wobble throughout the formation, but they carried on with the show!!

[P6 Driver]

In the late 80's I attended an evening lecture given by the late Roland Beamont in Swindon on the subject of Canberra flight testing.

He showed one photo of himself displaying a Canberra at a Farnborough SBAC show with the aircraft in a turn, close to the ground. He told us that RAE technicians had analysed the photo and concluded that the lower wingtip was four feet off the surface.

[jindabyne]

Well I guess we might agree to disagree and, as we'd say if in the bar, let's change the subject? :ok:

[Mil-26Man]

No no no no no jindabyne, you don't get off that easy ;)

How do you still call Photoshop when there's video of the incident?

[jindabyne]

Doh! Not denying the video - I was, and still am, referring to the photo itself. Cheers - I'm off!

[Danny42C]

twothree,

Was in Leeming Tower one Saturday afternoon some 40+ years ago. A pair of Belgian F-104s, which had positioned and refuelled with us prior to doing their display at an airshow, did a low run for us on their way home.

They went into reheat as they shot past well below me. We went out after they'd gone and had a look.

There were scorch marks for 100 yds along the (short) grass ! :=

D.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

In the FI footage, DUMBARTON CASTLE looked to be going quite fast. Now that must have been "Photoshopped". :ok:

[ORAC]

Naah, that's not low, this is low.... :p:p

VGHQ1pYXsHo

[ShotOne]

In truth, jindabyne, no one's that fussed whether or not it was photoshopped; the only thing that's mildly irritated anyone is you demanding folk accept your dogmatic assertion without explanation or debate. This is a discussion forum you know.

In your defence, at least you didn't compound it by being right which would have been much more annoying.

[Victor K2]

How about the unscheduled take off at Bruntinthorpe? of the Victor, it's wingtip was extremely close to the ground before it righted itself.

[bill2b]

I realise that makes me sound like a pompous old prat but life's too short to bugger around like that, especially in a two seat jet.

Yes it does :ugh:

I loved it in the olden days when the low beat ups were common, character building. When pilots were real pilots. Now we have a cotton wool life full of sterilised pc people who dare not do anything even remotely daring :=:=

[theonewhoknows]

You obviously have had great experience doing such things. Or you might just be a **** who talks a good fight. Let me know.

[Bob Viking]

Bill2b.
My comment came from a background of just short of 3000 fast jet hours (and counting), a vast amount of which have been spent at low level. Sometimes as low as 100'. Might I enquired as to your own level of experience?
I won't resort to name calling just yet since you might be a low level legend in disguise but something tells me that potentially isn't the case.
BV

[MSOCS]

How do you still call Photoshop when there's video of the incident?

I suspect that video is not the same incident in the photo - just look at the clouds. In the video it's pretty cloudy above and behind the treeline; in the photo it's nice and blue above and behind the treeline.

[Wander00]

P6Driver et al - suppose there is no photo of that Canberra around....hmm, thought not. Pity though!

[Mogwi]

Standard low fly min over the oggin for the SHAR was 50'. Stanley raid on 1 May 82 produced several HUD films showing between 5 and 15' RA over the sand dunes. It felt safer there somehow!

Still caught a 20mm though.

[Bob Viking]

Mogwi.

I dare say that if I was being shot at I could and would fly lower. That would be an excellent reason to test ones low(er) flying skills.

BV

[Dominator2]

And there was me thinking the only reason to fly as HIGH as 100/130/150/200ft (dependant on weapon carried) was to achieve weapon fusing.
Bill2b, I agree with much of your sentiment. The present day super safe, self-righteous sterilised pc people do eventually get to you. The way the present generation degrade what those who went before achieved sometimes is too much.
Yes we may have been dangerous, and sometimes downright stupid, but at least we could fly jets properly and have great fun doing it.
BV, don’t start quoting hours flown to gain credibility. There are some of us who achieved over double that fast jet and treble your total altogether. More incredibly we are still alive to tell the tale.
In the past 50 years every fast jet pilot (and nav) “worth their salt” has done at least one whacky takeoff.

[Bob Viking]

Dominator.

Do you really want to side with an anonymous poster (bill2b) and sully your own good name?
If you reread my posts you will see that I have made no attempt to denigrate the efforts of previous fighter pilots. I took issue with a post by an armchair expert.

In my puny 2800 hours of fast jet flying I have been guilty of over exuberance myself (not to the extent of the Tornado Tosser). I'm not proud of it and wouldn't ever condone it from anyone else. I don't think that fly by's like the one in the photo (real or not) prove that you are a better pilot. If that makes me over safe and boring then c'est la vie.

The Falklands and GW1 were examples of recent(ish) conflicts that necessitated some aggressive low flying. The guys that did it did an excellent job. If called upon I feel sure that modern pilots would be just as capable if required to do so.

If we now live in a culture where stupid stunts are less common then that's fine by me. It must be the QFI in me. As I replied to Bill2b life is too short and all I really care about is not making it any shorter by buggering around.

Anyway I feel like I am going round in circles and the guy that started this all has gone very quiet. I guess he cast his bait and caught a whopper. Well played. Tosser.

BV

[Dominator2]

BV,

Well answered. Much of what I said was slightly tongue in cheek. I would suggest that you have been a QFI for too long and you need to get out more.

You quoted "life is too short and all I really care about is not making it any shorter by buggering around". That is the difference between that fighter pilot of today and one 40 years ago. As young 20 year olds we lived fo "today". Many did not grow up until well into their 30s, some never grew up at all.

What happened to "Train as you mean to fight". Is it right to expect people to do things that they have not trained for and just say that "If called upon I feel sure that modern pilots would be just as capable if required to do so".

[Bob Viking]

Oh I know I have been a QFI for too long. It was a trap from which I could never escape. It's a long and boring story though.

In all honesty though I gave up trying to escape it when our third child arrived. I have now accepted my fate.

BV :(

[sarn1e]

Many did not grow up until well into their 30s, some never grew up at all.

Yeah, well. I was still getting bollocked as a Sqn Cdr by the display director at the Farnborough Airshow at age 42...helped (or not) by the fact that he was my creamie QFI at Linton many years earlier.

BV, don't worry about young Dominator - his bark is far worse than his bite. I can still recall sitting next to him in an OEU debrief while receiving an amusingly tongue-in-cheek AP3456 lecture on the proper take-off technique from our (very) eminent and world-weary Sqn Cdr; 1.3VStall came into it somewhere as I remember.

Dominator certainly seemed less than impressed at being tarred with my "youthfully exuberant" brush at the time...but he was old even then!

PS I'd guess that the bloke in the picture/movie forgot about the 15-degree flap switch that changed the Tornado's flight control gains. If the flaps/slats were selected early after take-off to 'manoeuvre' (in the forlorn hope of accelerating more quickly for 'display' purposes) you suddenly got a lot more than you bargained for with full roll control applied...all of which could be very exciting - especially accelerating, as one was, at one knot per fortnight that close to the ground in the Admiral's Barge.

[Dominator2]

Sarn1e,

Long time no see. Yes, I too remember the lecture that we ALL had to listen to on how to clear the departure end fence. Do you wish to tell us of things NOT to do on your last trip?
Remember that Freddy the Fighter Pilot was caught out by the change in roll gain when trying to "spice up" his display takeoff. Very close inspection of the grass soon after rotate.

[Tigger_Too]

Interesting debate. But there are some hard facts that are worth noting. In January 1991, of the six Tornados lost, the cause of two of them is unknown. However, one possible cause was that they hit the ground while egressing from the target. A number of pilots chose to disconnect the autopilot to get lower than the 200 feet (or higher) that the TFR was giving them - at night, and without goggles.

One further Tornado was lost in a training accident in Saudi Arabia just before the hostilities started. It hit the ground.

There is also a fairly famous video of a Tornado from Tabuk on a training mission in the hills in northern Saudi. At one point, the aircraft and its shadow come VERY close to coinciding.

So of the seven Tornados lost, three may have been due to CFIT. That is not a great statistic if one argues that getting down in the weeds enhances your chances of survival.

I was as spirited as the next man in my yoof (and a bit beyond), but the fact is, the ground has a PK of 1. If you hit the ground, you will probably die; if you get hit by a SAM or AAA, you probably won't.

[Cows getting bigger]

Tigger Two, don't forget Keith Collister who hit the ground in his Jaguar during the build-up to invasion.

[Tigger_Too]

@CGB

True. Thank you for that.

[sarn1e]

If you hit the ground, you will probably die; if you get hit by a SAM or AAA, you probably won't.

Absolutely. Which is why the Marine Hornets, led by a very experienced Vietnam Vet, were expressly forbidden from operating (and grounded when caught) at low-level for the opening stages of GW1.

Very sensible leadership from the school of hard knocks...which ISTR was followed by the Jags once shooting began.

Messing about below 50ft in fast jets is largely peacetime entertainment for the terminally bored and under-aroused, though one shouldn't totally exclude its fleeting use for presence purposes in a suitably permissive environment. It worked well in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion.

[Tourist]

Tigger two


"the cause of two of them is unknown"

You don't get to say that and then "three may have been lost to CFIT" as if that is somehow an implied fact.

You could just as easy say "only one was known to be lost to CFIT, but many may have been lost due to an unwillingness to fly low enough to avoid SAMs"

Even if they did hit the ground, one could just as validly say that insufficient extreme low flying training was carried out in peacetime to make them capable of carrying it out safely in wartime.

How many of the Argentinians hit the ground in the Falklands war? I'm willing to be corrected, but I thought that their tactic of ultra low flying is considered to have been a good move on their part, nullifying a lot of our defences.

[Cows getting bigger]

When I were a lad all of us (except the AD bunch) tried to go as low and as fast as possibly because that's what we thought would give us an extra few minutes against those pesky Soviets. Inevitably, even during peacetime where the FJs were limited to 250ft or 100ft in those special places, there would be the occasional aircraft/granite interaction. In fact, looking back I think that the majority of mates' funerals I attended were due to such events. But the bottom line was that we trained to fly low, always.

GW1 came along and we started to wise-up. For sure, there was a low level role and the Americans quite happily watched us race about the desert at 2ft 6 with a bit of a climb for the 233 canisters to be popped-off. However, we also learnt that muds could do a good a job with laser designation etc from medium altitude as long as the necessary OCA and SEAD was in place.

It's been quite a few years since I scared myself in an LFA but I suspect the playing field has changed and there is even less need to tool around trying to ascertain the gender of individual Welsh sheep. So, when pilots do have to go that low, I'm guessing that they are less at ease in the environment.

[Tourist]

Just because the last game had the particular circumstances where we had air dominance does not for a moment mean that we will next time.

Low still has it's place.

We can't just not play if we don't get superiority/dominance.

This does not just refer to fixed wing. The last two conflicts made it sensible for rotary to bimble around above small arms fire range. It is only a very narrow range of circumstances which makes that the case and it would be very rash to neglect NOE training.

[JointShiteFighter]

Bob, at least you're still flying jets. They might not be capable of 9G and vertical climbs at full burner, but you're still living the dream that many want to but couldn't for whatever reason!

[theonewhoknows]

Quote:
'If you hit the ground, you will probably die; if you get hit by a SAM or AAA, you probably won't.'

Really! What percentage chance of not dying is 'probably'? What is the Pk of an ZSU-23, SA-10/20 or HQ-9?

[bill2b]

Theonewhothinksheknows ...... sticks and stones :*:*:*

Blob Viking
I do not wish to brag about my flying hours and if you wish to know my name and address please PM me and I will give it to you.
I was a Rigger and was in from 77 to 2001, perhaps you are the type who does not want low life groundcrew in your forum?
My comment was purely from a groundcrew viewpoint, we often used to get beat ups in the early eighties one time at Lossiemouth we watched the reds take off and some folk on the hanger roofs on 226 had to duck because they were so low. The Jaguar weather ship used to beat up the CMD camp on the corner of the base nice and early each morning. It was fun to watch.
Low flying is and always will be a part of life but its a shame some don't like pilots who like to display their skills.
Please don't join the Jaguar site on facebook because there is lots of pictures of low flying in Oman. :=:=

[Bob Viking]

Bill.
I'm not sure I can possibly add anything to rival your erudite musings.
I think it's fair to say we've misunderstood each other and I shall leave it at that.
BV

[Tourist]

Tigger

Out of interest, what is the Pk of being burnt to death or having your head sawn off after you survive the post SAM ejection?

[bill2b]

Anyway I feel like I am going round in circles and the guy that started this
all has gone very quiet. I guess he cast his bait and caught a whopper. Well
played. Tosser.
BV


Bill.
I'm not sure I can possibly add anything to rival your erudite
musings.
I think it's fair to say we've misunderstood each other and I
shall leave it at that.
BV

Perhaps an apology for calling me a tosser might be nice. Then I promise not to call you Blob ;)

[Bob Viking]

You're in luck. I'm a lover not a fighter. I will retract my tosser comment. The Blob comment did upset me though. I sense years of therapy in my future.

BV:sad:;)

[Onceapilot]

Well, I am standing up for Bob. :D

OAP

[Bob Viking]

It's support like yours which will, God willing, see me through these tough times.

BV:ok:

[jonw66]

Chin up Bob you'll get through it:)

[Rhino power]

Here's a link to a hi-res version of the original picture...
Panavia Tornado Computer Wallpapers, Desktop Backgrounds | 2240x1493 | ID:108603 (http://wall.alphacoders.com/big.php?i=108603)

-RP

[BBadanov]

hmmm, looks like photoshop...

[Stanwell]

BB,
Can you let us know what brings you to that conclusion?

[BBadanov]

Can you let us know what brings you to that conclusion?


A wind up Stan,
As my Jordy mate eaw used to say: "only jokin' mon"

[Stanwell]

Ah dear, fell into that one, didn't I ? :(