|
Oh, they wouldn't......would they?
Footage of Vulcan performing barrel roll investigated - BBC News
The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed it is investigating whether the last flying Avro Vulcan broke aviation rules by carrying out a barrel roll during one of its final flights. The footage purportedly shows the Vulcan performing a roll while flying over Grantham, Lincolnshire, on 4 October. |
What will they do? Ground it? I bet Roly Falk has a grin on his face.
|
What do they think it is, an airliner?:rolleyes:
|
What will they do? Ground it? |
This old video about the 707 may be relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KNbKFMBsQE |
Not real........it never happened
I think this is a very skilful and well put together video joke and just like the photos of Ray Hanna flying the Spitfire between the grandstands at Goodwood, it is undoubtedly a masterpiece of Photoshop techniques.
No doubt the CAA will have enough to nouse to take this wise attitude to this video faulsification. |
Falsified and very badly. Don't agree it's skillful or well put together. Well over half the frames have been omitted because the compiler couldn't be bothered to stitch two different shots together. Who uses an HD camera at 3 frames per second?
WP |
Who uses an HD camera at 3 frames per second? So we can't discount its authenticity solely on the basis of fps or the fact that it looks a little strange. Someone will have the original full resolution frames for the CAA to investigate. |
Originally Posted by peekay4
(Post 9168142)
The video is looks to be from a series of still frames taken in "burst" mode -- or possibly from a time lapse -- which depending on the camera might only be 4 to 5 fps max.
So we can't discount its authenticity solely on the basis of fps or the fact that it looks a little strange.... Yes, this could be faked, but the reflections and highlights are very difficult to manage. Reducing the number of frames makes faking easier. Mickjoebill |
just like the photos of Ray Hanna flying the Spitfire between the grandstands at Goodwood, it is undoubtedly a masterpiece of Photoshop techniques. |
Of course they would!
They have nothing better to do, they are bureaucrats and have to justify their jobs! |
If this is proven to be a photoshop effort and a poor one at that, will the Beeb publish a retraction, will the "aviation enthusiast" who reportedly took it be taken to book or is this expecting too much.
|
Why is it prohibited? Surely they encountered a momentary upset, due to convergence and local weather phenomenon often encountered over the moors when easterly sea breezes meet an atlantic airflow with orographic updrafts, which resulted in an unusual attitude recovery manoeuvre. An excellent demonstration of piloting skills, rarely seen these days, that saved the grand old lady from an untimely burial on same said moors. Case proven M'lud.
|
As my CFI said: CAA = Campaign Against Aviation
Cheers! Clive |
As my CFI said: CAA = Campaign Against Aviation |
Max angle
You really are not very bright !
If the flight by Ray Hanna at Goodwood was real then the CAA would have to take action for fear that no end of public protection elf & safety left wing tree hungging publicity seeking lawyers would have them in court for something or other. Far better to deem the evidence to be an act of Photoshop than the alternative,it is a wise tradition that goes back to the days of Nelson once raised his telescope to blind eye and declared " I see no ships". |
I f'orght elf en saf'ty in Ray Hanna's case ='d SKILL + PRACHUTE (just in case)
|
A&C: Speaking as one who is clearly not very bright, how do you explain that I, among several hundred others, directly witnessed that event with our own eyes?
And the many others who have written about the same thing ever since it happened back in 1998? The many videos and photographs of the event? All fictitious? Arse! |
Originally Posted by nacluv
(Post 9168470)
A&C: Speaking as one who is clearly not very bright, how do you explain that I, among several hundred others, directly witnessed that event with our own eyes?
And the many others who have written about the same thing ever since it happened back in 1998? The many videos and photographs of the event? All fictitious? Arse! |
Wherever that aircraft has flown in the last month, it has been photographed and videoed, by cameras and telephones, often by people who otherwise have no interest in aviation.
If this is real, other pictures and observations would surely be available? Alternatively, could it be a series of photographs of a well-made model? |
DaveReidUK: I think you need to re-read A&C's post, or possibly brush up on the Battle of Copenhagen. Err, possibly both! :{ Although I'll swear the Nelson comment wasn't there at the time I posted... Anyway, I duly retract my previous statement. In other news, I am puzzled as to why the Vulcan video footage is of such questionable quality. Hardly a compelling case, is it? |
Just sorry I missed it.........
|
me too.....
|
It rather looks to me as though the aircraft is changing size erratically between some of the frames. That wouldn't happen in a continuous set taken from a frame burst .
But it could happen if someone had stitched together a set of shots from frame bursts of separate manoeuvres from the same display, carefully chosen to portray the attitudes displayed in a barrel roll. That could account for the convincing and consistent lighting and specular reflections. Just a thought. |
Back in the day it used to be that the intent was to complete the barrel roll without the rear crew noticing --- or was that the Victor :p
|
Impressive use of Photoshop. :ok: |
Vulcan manoevers
A barrel roll involves positive g on the occupants throughout, a slow roll does not. But even during a barrel roll, someone at that rear facing desk would surely notice someting, even if only the change in light level while inverted,
|
After all the fuss I was expecting the Spit' to have been inverted. Regarding the rear seated crew of a Vulcan and +ve g; did they spill their coffee? Watching Bob Hoover barrel roll his own Commander while pouring a glass of water on the coaming is something to behold.
|
I had it in my mind that the CAA would not let them carry rear crew members on display flights?
|
I think the Vulcan was above cloud and a small, aerobatic photo chase aircraft rolled around the Vulcan, I think the CAA is chasing the wrong crew.
|
Who cares, it wasn't on a Display. Hopefully CAA nerds have something better to do........perhaps not!!
|
Depends where the Vulcan was going next. Most of the Navaids are on that rear bench display.
I worked on a Vulcan simulator so got familiar with cockpit layout |
The video looks as if it's been faked by stringing together separate pictures and/or bits of video footage. What purports to be the second roll looks very much as if it's shots of at least two different sequences strung together in a (poor) attempt to make it look like a continuous manoeuvre.
|
Far better to deem the evidence to be an act of Photoshop than the alternative, it is a wise tradition that goes back to the days of Nelson once raised his telescope to blind eye and declared " I see no ships". It may be less than 20 years ago but 1998 seems like a different age as far as that sort of thing was concerned, Hanna and others got away with all sorts of stuff that would probably have landed them in court today, there was no need to pretend it didn't happen. I guess if he had removed Alain de Cadenet's head they may have been a little less obliging. |
I jolly well hope they DID roll her!
And I hope they get away with it, too. |
Me too, would have been an appropriate send off for the old girl, followed by a high speed deck level beat up of course. Unfortunately I suspect the film is not quite what it seems.
|
First of all, videos don't have to be created using a video camera!
It looks to me like someone used a STILL camera to burst shoot a series of photos, and then made THAT into a video, only it appears they manually fired the shutter rather than using a program burst mode, which is why the maneuver doesn't appear consistent (or smooth) between frames. As for the lighting - it looks correct throughout the maneuver, so IMHO it is genuine. :ok: |
JW411 wrote: I had it in my mind that the CAA would not let them carry rear crew members on display flights? |
You have been (allegedly) very naughty boy's, and you have been accused of doing something EVERYONE want's to do, so because we are bright red with envy, we are going to punish you... LOL
|
Pedant mode .... Signal, surely, not ships....
I could not resist and he continued thus: 'The incident occurred during the battle of Copenhagen when I was in a strong position and knew I had to continue the attack. My signals officer, Lt Foley, drew my attention to a signal from my Commander in Chief, Sir Hyde Parker, which read, 'discontinue the action.' Well, Lock, would you stop when all the advantages were with you? No, of course not. So I said to my Signal Lieutenant: 'You know, Foley, I have only one eye. I have a right to be blind sometimes'. So I put the telescope to my right eye and said, to him, 'I really do not see the signal'. And knowing the CAA, yes they would. Regardless of whether it was the types last flight or the pilot retiring the CAA are in a difficult position as they cannot now turn a 'blind eye' for fear of others following in footsteps in the future. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.