If we are talking gear, what about the 777 at Heathrow. Do you think the gear being down helped in that instance? It is well established that maximizing energy absorption in a crash helps the outcome, hence crumple zones in cars. Had the gear been up, the fuselage would have taken more of a beating than the gear/wings, and consequently, the passengers would have experienced a greater vertical impact load.

It is well established that maximizing energy absorption over time in a crash helps the outcome. It's not the fact that you fell from 39,000 feet that kills you, it's the fact that you stopped in less than a second. It's all in the force, and force is mass times delta P over delta t, where t is time. With the 777 accident in Heathrow, a number of things come into play, but if the gear had been up and the plane still had forward momentum, the vertical force would be comparable to that of the gear being down. The difference would be the strut compression, which doesn't slow you down all that much. Since they landed short, and the gear obviously dragged through the dirt, one might actually make the case that the stop would have been less sudden had the plane landed on the underside and engines. You could also argue that the engines would've dug in just the same and caused a sudden horizontal deceleration, but in either case, the gear had less to do with the vertical deceleration than the horizontal.

Are you familiar with the L-1011 that landed back on the runway after takeoff due to a stall warning in 1992? From what you're saying, you'd already have selected gear up.

I can't say I am, but I'm always interested in air accident/incident stories, so please educate me (and I'm not saying that sarcastically - I mean it).

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

No sarcasm taken! :Dhttp://www.fss.aero/...92-07-30-US.pdfQuite interesting actually, if you are into critical safety systems design. It also questioned the decision of the crew (F/O I think?) to put the jet back down after it had already lifted off.Dilemma: the aircraft appears to be flying, but it has slats and is screaming STALL. Do you try and fly or land immediately?I still think AoA indicators should be as omnipresent as the air speed indicator. It tells you so much information at a glance. I can't believe the AoA presentation is a bloody option on the Airbus!!! It's an outrage!!!!!!That reminds me of another incident but it escapes me at the moment what it was (some oddity with major disagreement between Capt and F/O ASI, one increasing, one decreasing).One thing must be apparent by now: they are all far beyond a mere engine failure at V1, and none of the situations are practiced. :) The first time you see it you're doing it for real.Best regards,Robin.

No sarcasm taken! :Dhttp://www.fss.aero/...92-07-30-US.pdf

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

You're welcome!Best regards,Robin.

I think we all are nuts. I paid $4000 for a new computer for FSX, $30 more for better clouds, hundreds more for a better LGA, JFK Tampa etc, $1,000 for throttles, $150 for rudder pedal, $600 on a yoke. $69 for a better 737. All to fly nowhere.

Looks like CGI to me! (100th post!)

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by sammyflyboy

This is definitely a CGI- And it is in fact taking off on a taxiway. Otherwise, that taxiway sign to the right of the picture would have RED on it...

Sheesh, fellas. I can tell you categorically, this is not CGI! Why on earth, after shooting a sequence at an airport, filled with aircraft, would a TV company go to the considerable expense of having a CGI artist render the scene, rather than move the woman to the window and wait for the next aircraft to take of... come on guys :( EDIT: Nick....taking off on a taxiway???????

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by Rockliffe

Sheesh, fellas. I can tell you categorically, this is not CGI! Why on earth, after shooting a sequence at an airport, filled with aircraft, would a TV company go to the considerable expense of having a CGI artist render the scene, rather than move the woman to the window and wait for the next aircraft to take of... come on guys :( EDIT: Nick....taking off on a taxiway???????

If it's KONT, which would make sense given the evidence provided, you'd be seeing a lot more aircraft around than that one. There's no way the skies of CA would be that desolate....and yes, that's a taxiway that "aircraft" is departing from.

Like I said ????? :(

I think we all are nuts. I paid $4000 for a new computer for FSX, $30 more for better clouds, hundreds more for a better LGA, JFK Tampa etc, $1,000 for throttles, $150 for rudder pedal, $600 on a yoke. $69 for a better 737. All to fly nowhere.

Great post! :( :( :lol:Best regards,Robin.

It's CGI. If you look at the screen capture Factor15 posted, notice the angle Pam is looking out the window towards the aircraft. We know this is T2 because in the OP's video, the sign above the jetbridge says "211." Okay, so even if that is a real airplane performing a real takeoff, it could only be 26R at KONT. It couldn't be 26L because the aircraft is just too close to the terminal for it to be 26L. Although I do agree it looks like it is taking off from a taxiway based on the distance. Even without noticing that it suspiciously looks like it is taking off from taxiway N, the real proof to me comes from the takeoff distance. Based on the angle from the viewing position to the point of liftoff/rotation, and the runway configuration, the plane lifts off at about 3000 ft down the runway. I really don't see that being possible. Even with a lightly loaded aircraft, I can't see anyone doing that when there's 12000+ ft. of runway available.Just my .02. I'd love to hear a better argument.EDIT...okay yes, it's possible for a 737-700(BBJ) to takeoff in 3000', but why do that when there is more than 12000' of runway? It just has to be CGI. When I first saw it I thought it looked "off" and I look at a lot of CGI that looks pretty darn real. But there is always that strange sense that something isn't right when I look at CGI that is made to look very realistic.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by adamant365

From personal experience as ATC I watch B736/7/8 take off several times a day and I've never seen aircraft's other than small Cessnas "balloon" their way up in the air.Given the standard 15 degree pitch after take off (IIRC) my bet is CGI.

Sheesh, fellas. I can tell you categorically, this is not CGI! Why on earth, after shooting a sequence at an airport, filled with aircraft, would a TV company go to the considerable expense of having a CGI artist render the scene, rather than move the woman to the window and wait for the next aircraft to take of... come on guys :( EDIT: Nick....taking off on a taxiway???????

I'm sorry, but it is on a taxiway. The aircraft can't be more than 10 feet in the air on the most recent picture in this thread, and you can see the shadow under it. It's obvious that it is not on a runway because there is not a red runway entrance sign there (which would be the one to on the right of the frame) I also agree with the comment that a 737 wouldn't baloon into the air.Without logical proof that this is real, I'm sticking to it being a CGI. I see nothing normal about that takeoff, or the position the aircraft has been placed into the screen.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by FDX016 - Nick

Not to keep this going but I'm not sure this is taking off from the taxiway .I agree it appears like its the taxiway- yes the signs are yellow. So I took another look at the HD video and in the beginning the wheels are down beyond the 'brown' area. If you look a sat image of KONT that brown area separates the taxiway from 26R.Also, if you look at the shadow on the window frame its likely the shadow of the plane would be cast onto the taxiway as it lifted off.As far as the ballooning...yes that's the first thing that jumped out at me that it wasnt a normal takeoff. Are you saying a "real" plane can't physically take off like this?