Flipping amazing, Mig 29 vertical stunts!

YouTube

Not sure if this is just a simulation or not. I did see a human in one pass but if it is a sim, and the 29 can do these things in real life, it is mind boggling.

Must be computer simulation.
The sand and bushes don't move when the jet engines are a few feet away from the ground.

@chesswipe said
Must be computer simulation.
The sand and bushes don't move when the jet engines are a few feet away from the ground.

I see what you're both saying. But I believe these are remote control models. Scale models. They could even have electric fans propelling them.
Cool vid though.

@sonhouse said
[youtube]0_Cgxy7N-V0[/youtube]

Not sure if this is just a simulation or not. I did see a human in one pass but if it is a sim, and the 29 can do these things in real life, it is mind boggling.

ESSENTIAL RC find us on facebook

maybe that is a clue?

Cool though ... what they made of polystyrene?

@mudfinger said
I see what you're both saying. But I believe these are remote control models. Scale models. They could even have electric fans propelling them.
Cool vid though.

The Sound could have been a hint also 😉

Not sure if this is just a simulation or not. I did see a human in one pass but if it is a sim, it is mind boggling.

YouTube

@divegeester said
Not sure if this is just a simulation or not. I did see a human in one pass but if it is a sim, it is mind boggling.

[youtube]BLBLgEc-3lQ[/youtube]

Is that the Red Sea coast in the background?

@chesswipe

It doesn't have to be sim, it could be just RC with no sound on the video.
I doubt the Russians would allow such a demo of real jets because the stunts they did were too dangerous, not that they would fear that much for the pilots but that the planes cost millions and they wouldn't want to lose them in such stunts.
One pass over the landing pad caused one of the jets to almost touch the ground before it took off again, and I don't think even the Russians would allow such dangerous stunts especially with two of them in such close proximity.
One problem with the vertical thrust that we already know about with Harriers is close to the ground there can be flameouts of the engine due to interaction of the intake side of the engine and the thrust part which is spewing out a tremendous force to keep the plane off the ground, that ground effect has caused a number of crashes.
And like you saw, there was no wavering of the bushes on the sides and when the planes landed and came to a stop they went over the grass off the runway, both of them and did not leave a trail in the grass like a multi ton plane would have, so it had to be either a sim or RC control and I go for RC, since I did see one human in the video briefly and an SUV also. Even the way the planes shook when they hit the grass said the plane was very light weight, I don't think a real jet would have shook an inch just going from runway to grass.
Verdict: RC.

Hey Dive, one big giveaway about the RC ships is the way the mild wave action moves the ship, it would not happen like that if it was in fact a ship weighing in at 10,000 tons or so. BTW, do you know who invented the RC control of model ships? That happened in 1899 believe it or not. The demo happened in DC on the ponds between the monuments. That dude was Nicolai Tesla!

@sonhouse said
[youtube]0_Cgxy7N-V0[/youtube]

Not sure if this is just a simulation or not. I did see a human in one pass but if it is a sim, and the 29 can do these things in real life, it is mind boggling.

Now I realise why you believe the TV footage beamed back from the 'moon' almost 50 years ago was real.

@The-Gravedigger
What I THOUGHT originally was the audio was turned off. But watching details convinced me otherwise. Even if there was no audio the video itself had problems and critical thinking nailed it.
On the other hand, there IS no critical thinking about moon landing deniers with BTW was started by an AMERICAN not Soviets or Chinese or North Korean's. All THOSE countries knew full well we actually went to the moon and got back, a dozen men landing on the moon.

Tell me right wingnut denier, how did the retroreflector get placed on the moon? Or would you just discount THAT as fake news? The experiments go on to this day charting the distance to the moon, now known within inches, or do you also deny we know the speed of light too?
I suppose you deny the job I had on Apollo, Tracking and timing, the first about the transponder on the lunar module which I won't go into details but it allowed engineers to know the exact distance to the lunar module on its way to the moon, accurate to within 50 feet and if needed, to within inches but that degree of accuracy was not needed ATT. The second, timing was the atomic clocks on all the big space tracking dishes, like the one in Australia that got the moon TV, the atomic clocks managed the switch from one tracking station to another because of the spinning of the Earth where one big dish loses the signal because it dips below the horizon of visibility of the lunar module so another one takes over, which had to happen within 100 nanoseconds and it did perfectly.
I guess being there myself must mean I too am part of the vast international conspiracy hiding the fact it was all done on a movie set in Nevada.
I wonder if you ever figured out how Apollo 10 got that iconic image of Earthrise over the moon back in 68?
So tell me how advanced computers were ATT, with monitors, mouse control, vast computer power to simulate that Earth image.
BTW, have you ever seen moon landing movies from that era? Seen what THOSE folks simulated as to what they thought Earth or the moon looked like from space?
From my POV, you are just another anti-science traitor, denying the greatest 20th century exploratory achievement hands down and the resulting new technology dependent on those discoveries during that time.

Funny the Soviets never said a word about a denial, since they tracked every movement of ALL the Apollo craft to the moon and when they came back but hey, continue believing in your anti-science religion, which of course is based on the idea no critical thinking is allowed.
Your name is revealing, you keep digging your own grave, shoving foot deep inside your ass every time you type.

@sonhouse said
@The-Gravedigger
What I THOUGHT originally was the audio was turned off. But watching details convinced me otherwise. Even if there was no audio the video itself had problems and critical thinking nailed it.
On the other hand, there IS no critical thinking about moon landing deniers with BTW was started by an AMERICAN not Soviets or Chinese or North Korean's. All THOSE cou ...[text shortened]... s revealing, you keep digging your own grave, shoving foot deep inside your ass every time you type.

You make some fair points there sonhouse and I don't deny for one minute that you are obviously a clever guy.
However how did the astronauts get through the Van Allen belts ?
How did they have the power to transmit the TV pictures ? Battery technology was not advanced in 1969.
How did their suits deal with the extremes of temperature on the moon ?
How did the film in their cameras deal with the extremes of temperature ?

There are many more but if you can answer those questions I will not bring up the subject again.

@The-Gravedigger
Why do you think the Van Allen belts are dangerous? It might be if you spent a day in them but for one thing it is a BELT. Does that suggest anything to you?
It isn't a sphere of bad ions all around the Earth, it is mainly a wide band around the equator. That said, it is still dangerous if you spend too much time in it.
But think how long it takes to get through when they are going 7 miles per second, the speed it takes to escape Earth.
I don't know the exact extent of the belts (there are more than one) but at 25,000 miles per hour, or around 40,000 klicks/hour, in one tenth of an hour you go 2500 miles so even if you plow through the thickest most dangerous part, that is 5 or so minutes and you are through. ISS deliberately orbits below the belts because those astronauts live there for years and that WOULD kill you if you were stupid enough to live in the Van Allen belts that long. As it turns out, NASA engineers are not stupid.

As to batteries, they had Nicads back then, not as powerful as our Lithium Ion ones but good enough, don't forget, they didn't make two hour long movies, just a few minutes here and there.

I don't know how they dealt with temperatures on the moon, maybe just shielding, since it would only be hot if exposed to the sun. Also, again, they didn't spend days there, just a few hours.

Do you know when air conditioning was invented? Like 1790 or so using ammonia as the coolant fluid. 1960 technology was not as primitive as you seem to want to think. They used active cooling in the space suits of the day, remember, they were not designed to be used for weeks on end, but HOURS only.

The main thing they didn't have back then, advanced computers.
The computer onboard the lunar lander was based on verbs and nouns with just a bunch of push buttons to activate some program feature, a verb being an action and a noun being a designator, so Verb button push, (activate thruster) Noun button, for 10 seconds, and that was to start say program 31, subroutines in the computer but there were not many of those, a few dozen, maybe a hundred.
Just the radar returns coming in too fast was enough to overwhelm the computer and forced them to go to manual control the last mile down or so.

That lack of strong computer tech is what really ticks me off about the deniers, like they think somehow some film guru can come up with the incredible detail of the moon and Earth from space. NOBODY could have just drawn that iconic Earthrise photo by Apollo 10 coming around the back side of the moon and seeing Earth for the first time from that perspective.
Also the retroreflectors left on the moon had to be pointed fairly accurately at Earth so powerful lasers could send a beam to the mirrors which bounced the beam exactly back in the direction the laser beam came from. So a million watt (pulsed laser, low average power) sends a huge batch of photons to the moon and if the beam is aimed off by just a mile or so it misses the reflector pac completely and there is zero return of detectable photons.
Only if the beam is right on target do you get just a few identifiable photons that can be used to calculate the exact distance to the moon, within an inch or so and they have shown directly how much the moon recedes from Earth each year, not much BTW, maybe an inch or two. That measurement was 100% FLAT IMPOSSIBLE without the retroreflector placed there by humans. No robot tech of that day could have come even close to doing that under some kind of remote control since there WAS no such tech back then, they had the little rover car but that had no remote capability, just an electric golf cart with an open canopy and some batteries that would drive for a few miles at most.

That alone shows humans had to have been there to plant that retroreflectror aimed just right to enable laser beams to go to the moon and back with phase control intact which is what allows the calculation of the moon's distance.

@sonhouse said
@The-Gravedigger
Why do you think the Van Allen belts are dangerous? It might be if you spent a day in them but for one thing it is a BELT. Does that suggest anything to you?
It isn't a sphere of bad ions all around the Earth, it is mainly a wide band around the equator. That said, it is still dangerous if you spend too much time in it.
But think how long it takes to get ...[text shortened]... moon and back with phase control intact which is what allows the calculation of the moon's distance.

Thanks for taking the time to give a detailed reply.

You have explained some of the things very well and as I said I will not bring up the subject again.

@The-Gravedigger

I don't care if you do. I think there are answers to all the denier bullshyte. I hope you are not also a flat Earther.....
My full reply was lost, I went banannas and typed a BUNCH which didn't make it, luckily for you😉

Here is a bit on the retroreflectors and laser ranging the moon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

The first time they got laser photons back from the moon was in 1962 but by 69 there was the retroreflector aimed back at Earth by Apollo 11 and several more after that so the precision of the measurement went WAY up after the reflectors were installed.

What happens is if a laser hits the bare ground of the moon, the phase of the laser beam is lost and the ability to figure out the exact time the laser beam gets back to Earth is spread out over some time, say a microsecond, or maybe less. If the timing can't be pegged to less than a microsecond, that is the amount of time a light beam travels 6 miles, so you can see if you want accuracy in timing you need accuracy of the return pulse, not some beam that can bounce off a mountain and a plain at the same time which means the return signal is smooched out over the difference between the time of flight of the light to the top of the mountain, going back to Earth and the time of flight of the light hitting the lower altitude of the plains around that mountain, say a mile or so so they can't get a terribly accurate fix on the distance. But with a retroreflector, the light hits a known reflector which doesn't bugger up the phase of the laser beam so the laser beam gets a much more accurate measure of the time it takes for the beam to go to the moon and back. That is how they can calculate the distance to the moon within a couple of inches and then at that resolution, seeing directly how far the moon goes away from Earth in a year, about an inch, inch and a half roughly. So in ten years it moves away from Earth about a foot, so using those figures they can figure out for instance when in the future solar eclipses will no longer be total, but at best a ring of light still around the moon where it TRIES to block out the light from the sun but is too far away to completely shadow Earth. That time is millions of years in the future, maybe a HUNDRED million years hence . What that shows is Earth is not in some special place in the universe where that kind of thing happens on a regular basis but the fact that it is only a slice of time that happens, a LONG slice of time for sure but compare that to the age of the universe or even the age of the Solar system, like 4 or 5 billion years old, not a huge stretch of time compared to THAT.

One of the great scientific paradoxes is measuring the speed of light.
We can only measure it in 2 directions so we don't know if it was the same speed in each direction.Yes, I know we have fancy clocks for that sort of thing but the clocks depend upon the speed of light being known.

I don't have the space here for all the theory but Harvard University claim to have slowed light down to 27mph.