Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous VOW OF POVERTY | You, Kanye Next »
LANDING A PLANE
Step 1: reduce air speed…..check
Step 2: reduce altitude…….check
Step 3: extend landing gear … oh shit-
What is happening in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
Picture by: flyhawk Caption by: tommy.223 via Poster Builder
 | Lllll. on Paint By Poll Numbers |
 | Marilyn Foster on Vandals Cashing In |
 | Steampunkette on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Steampunkette on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | imnotreallyhere on What About the Underdog? |
| imnotreallyhere on Today on Maury |
| imnotreallyhere on Today on Maury |
| imnotreallyhere on Day One By Jimmy Kimmel |
 | 'Nuther Guest on I Don’t See It…… |
 | RS on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Considering that this is a Russian plane, the idea that they actually are trying to land surprises me…. not at all.
Don’t knock the Russian/Soviet Air Force. Do you really think that they’re incompetent or ill equipped? Would the US have built up the most massive military in the world if we really thought the Soviet military was a bunch of untrained dorks with shoddy equipment? They always trailed behind in digital technology, but their equipment was on par with everything we built until their economy collapsed. What do you think is going to happen to our technological might in a few years?
And to address a point below, many of the early Soviet jets were required to be able to land on dirt. It’s not because they build crappy planes. It’s because the Soviets were realists, and understood how important it is to have very flexible aircraft. Most of our “amazing” fighters can’t even fly safely in the rain. Combat sorties are grounded all the time for bad weather. Ask a Navy pilot what “all weather” capability actually means.
Rant done.
In Soviet Russia, plane lands you.
“In Soviet Russia” jokes FTW!
This is one of the only ripoff ISR jokes I’ve heard that actually makes perfect sense. FTW indeed.
In Soviet Russia, troll cares you!
Uh, hmmm…maybe not.
well that makes alot of sense, i had the experience of being seated on a plane next to a guy that helpped design the engines on the AH-64 and CH-47 and he said that the greatest threat to a turbine engine was water, since the engine works on compression and water dosnt compress it pretty much explodes!
plane land you. now thats funny.
Russia has always lagged technologically, but their training has always been top notch. Their combat style is a little unorthodox, but has proven effective many times.
actually the mig-29vft beats all of our planes in manuverability.(think of the abilities of the talons in the movie stealth)
doggonemess,
You point is well made, and I agree, but I also have to defend the Russian pilot:
There is an aerobatic manoeuvre for which they are justly famous: Yanking up their landing gear while the plane is only a few feet off the ground.
From a still pic like this, it’s very difficult to tell if he’s landing or taking off. (I’m not a pilot, so I couldn’t tell you.)
So, this might be part of his intended routine during an air show.
Maybe they’re not landing, just pull off an impressive show for their girlfriends standing close by?
No, I got an even better idea. That plane has never left the ground in the first place, some geek photoshopped the landing gear away, making it seem to be in flight!
You do make a decent point there. The picture is surprisingly not blurry for it being of a fighter in flight.
Plus, if they were trying to land the plane typically wouldn’t level out until the rear tires hit.
I’m thinking either a high-speed photo of an incredibly low airshow fly by, which is crazy but not impossible just look at how the Blue Angels fly, or it’s a shopped plane on the tarmac.
It doesn’t look photoshopped, because the plane is really close to this (viewing perspective) side of the tarmac; Directly over the white line, if i’m not mistaken. a Photoshopped, Taxiing plane would be directly over the center (or nearer to it) of the taxiway.
ya i’m pretty sure that it was some crazy highspeed film. its not that hard to believe when you look at some highspeed video camera clips
p.s. yay one of my pictures finally made it to the front page!!!!!!1111
Airliners.net has about a dozen shots of this demonstration, and their standards are high enough that only a brilliant photoshop would make it through. I’m pretty confident that it’s an actual Russian demo — and a suicidal, ballsy, thoroughly Russian one at that.
I didn’t know Vlad could fly? Or did he hire Chuck Norris to do it for him?
What you do not see are the 2 An-225s, each carrying one of the aforementioned testicles, right behind him.
(For those not in the know an An-225 is capable of carrying roughly 275 tons of cargo, hence why they need 1 for each ball)
He might want to see a doctor about that. I don’t think that’s healthy.
Sounds painful to me….in several ways!
My boss agrees with you; he says that plane canNOT fly so low to the ground as it would lose lift and crash. It’s totally Photoshopped.
Not to rag on your boss, but at this low level, lift is actually greater courtesy of ground effect. I could explain, but that would get long winded.
I had a teacher in high school who used to fly B-52s in the Air Force. He said one strategy they trained for was flying the bomber about 50 feet off the ground at high speed. The ground effect (basically a “cushion” of air due to wing vortices or some such) kept the plane off the ground. Indeed, they had to fight to keep it down.
Two problems with this though:
1) If you go into ground effect while taking off, you can find yourself airborne before the plane is traveling fast enough. If you don’t know what’s going on, you might then pull up, thinking you had successfully taken off. Then your plane leaves the cushion, loses lift, and falls back to the Earth. This is followed up by Maintainance and Civil Engineering guys having to clean up the mess and fix the runway, and if you are very lucky, the Medical guys having to fix you.
2) Ground effect does nothing in particular to keep you from running into power lines, trees, buildings, trucks, or in the case of this picture, wayward lolcats (would they be WTFcats in this case?)
Maybe this plane is made of rubber.
flubber!
The mental image of a plane going “boing!” is amusing…
This isn’t a Boeing, its a MIG.
Sukhoi Su-27 actually (2 seat version). It’s not a MiG by any stretch of the imagination.
And the picture is real. You can find it everywhere. Its an airshow stunt.
ROTFLMAO I see what you did there, Starsky.
I actually HEARD the rim-shot in my head.
I’m an American, I bet you’re an American too. That is a Sukhoi Su-27 “Flanker”, which was developed into the Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, Su-34/32, and (possibly, if it enters service) the Su-37. India received the Su-30 MKI variant. I like American aircraft, but you gotta know Russian planes too.
Sorry I’m overposting, but how can you reduce airspeed?
Are you posting from your iPhone in a plane, by any chance? I think there’s something called “flaps”, but 98% of my aviation knowledge is from the movie Airplane.
Hmm, you can reduce your plane’s speed, but airspeed?
Airspeed is generally considered to be the speed of the airplane in relation to the ground.
The speed of the plane in relation to the surrounding air is relevant, but doesn’t give an accurate indication of the velocity of the vehicle.
For example, a plane may be traveling 95mph in relation to the ground, into a headwind of 30mph. So the plane is traveling 60mph in relation to the surrounding air.
Speed in relation to the air doesn’t give the pilot a means to determine time to reach the destination, where speed in relation to the ground does.
Ah, yes. I remember those lessons about vectors!!
Roger Roger. What’s your vector Victor?
Huh?
Stop calling me Shirley.
I guess I picked the wrong week to stop drinking.
I guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
Oh wait, are we quoting a movie? Which one?
The white zone is for loading and unloading only.
No, the red zone is for loading and unloading. There is no stopping in the white zone.
The white zone has always been for loading and unloading. You’re just pissed off that I asked you to get that abortion!
Do you like gladiator movies, Timmy?
Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don’ want no help, chump don’t GET da’ help
Oh, you speak Jive!
Ground speed is the speed of the aircraft in relation to the ground
Airspeed, a measurement of how fast air is flowing over the wings, determines lift.
If your ground speed is 95 and the headwind is 30, your airspeed is 125.
Ah yes, I had the principles correct but the terminology wrong.
The important part is the thing in which you measure your speed relative to.
how does one land a 747 on an aircraft carrier Answer find one in a hurricane facing into a headwind so you can do 170 Knots airspeed and O ground speed
Airspeed is the speed at which the aircraft is moving in the air. A stout headwind with an increase in thrust to compensate will INCREASE your airspeed but not your groundspeed. Groundspeed is the speed that the aircraft is moving in relation to the ground. Imagine that.
You decrease airspeed by decreasing thrust. You don’t need thrust to fly, you need airspeed. Thrust gets you airspeed. Flaps are used to help maintain the wings ability to generate lift at low airspeed.
When landing the pilot will ‘Flare’ the aircraft, which points the nose slightly up in order to create drag and slow the plane even more. This also puts the main wheels on the ground before the nose wheel.
In this context, and particularly given that the person who created the LOL doesn’t have much of a clue, the difference is kind of immaterial — it really just means “slow down”. (More correctly, you want to reduce your airspeed while minimizing your groundspeed — in other words, land into the wind.)
There are lots of ways to do it; reducing engine power is the easiest. Below a certain airspeed, the flaps come into play; they increase the lift of the wing while increasing drag, so they let you fly slower (and approach more steeply) — they allow an airliner to land at 140 mph instead of the 200 or so that would be required without flaps. If that’s enough, many aircraft have spoilers (which reduce lift and increase drag) or speed breaks (which just increase drag).
hey i created it and i have my private pilots license so yes i do know quite alot about planes thank you very much!
Don’t worry. Dhoti, and the rest of us, are occasionally humor-impaired. Too many debates make us over-serious at times!
This place full of jet pilots or just angry googlers?
Some of both I think; I suspect the Googlers are the oens who’ve incorrectly identified the type as a MiG-29; it’s a Su-27 or variant (and there are about 6 of those with different type numbers).
Which taught me never to order the fish. A handy life lesson.
ok i’m sorry for the confusion i wasnt really thinking when i made this poster but as for the reducing airspeed you generally would throttle back(flaps dont make you slow down much but they do let you fly slower without stalling) as for me the extent of my knowledge is just a C-172 private pilots license.
INVISIBLE LANDING GEAR
Makin a LoL
Step 1 : Picture…..Check
Step 2 : Caption……Check
Step 3 : Funny…….Oh shi-
Oddly enough, failure to fulfill this checklist doesn’t seem to stop people from clicking the Save & Submit button.
Is that all you got to do? Ooops, I’m afraid I submitted one then.
Is it boring and unfunny ? Then expect to see it on the front page soon.
They’ve actually done that a few times on purpose to demonstrate the MIG-29s ability to do an emergency landing on the fuselage (thanks to its reinforced fueltanks) and remain combat worthy. (lift it, extend landing gear, inspect the damage. Prepare for take-off)
So, does the Russian Air Force expect their planes to land on their bellies often? Seems kinda fatalistic, to me.
No, just practical. Sh– happens in combat and in icy winters. Pick them up, fix the gear, send them back into the air. Russian aircraft are designed to be very rugged. I believe this is a Russian SU (Sukhoi) 30 belonging to the “Test Pilots” aerobatic team (they fly one with a t/n of 597, though now in a different colour scheme).
The gear may be photoshopped away, or it may be a low-level demonstration pass. But in the event of a landing gear failure, the procedure is to land on the belly to avoid damage to the more fragile nose or wings that would happen with a partial-gear landing.
I like to joke that American weapons systems are designed to be so maintenance-intensive that nobody would ever be able to use them against us without having our own logistical network backing them up.
The American A-10 Warthog (the tank killer that’s designed to be flyable even with one tail, one engine, AND half a wing blown off) is actually designed with this in mind — the main gear protrude from under the wing slightly, so even if you can’t deploy them, you won’t scrape the belly badly on landing.
Ever hear one actually shoot? It’s actually referred to by many in the AF as a Fart from God.
Yep — I’ve seen one shooting training rounds. The noise was amazing, especially while the cannon was still spinning up…
One of those sounds you FEEL. Arrr arrr arrr arrrr.
Warthog? I thought that was the jeep from Halo.
well you might not have heard of it the real name is the Lightning II, but no one uses that name
BZZZT! Not quite. The A-10 is officially the Thunderbolt II–in honor of the P-47 Thunderbolt of WWII (which was made by Fairchild Republic’s ancestor company, Republic Aircraft).
The LIghtning II is the Lockheed Martin F-35, AKA the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF.
oh my gosh i cant believe i did that i must be really tired……I blame too much college!!!
Its shopped, I can tell by the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
I’m sorry but you can’t tell squat by the pixels at this crappy resolution.
Any pixelation is a result of horrid JPEG compression.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t photoshopped, but you are completely full of it.
Clearly, The Steve, it is photoshopped because I took out my telescope to examine the pixels and they told me so. Also, I see dead people.
Why aren’t you naked and writhing about for all of our enjoyment?
She never said she wasn’t. She’s just looking through her telescope at the same time.
Exactly.
I am.
Shopped? I think not! The pixels are all over the screen, which means that it’s likely been reformatted into .jpg before, or, its original format was .jpg. There is also factual evidence, as pointed out by Air Fan, that this was not shopped. There is, as always, the possibility of it being shopped, but I feel that in this case the odds are not on Photoshop’s side.
*sigh*
Well, Charginmalaysia, *I* thought it was funny, at least!
You’d think anyone who’s spent more than fifteen minutes on one of these sights would be well acquainted with the “quite a few shops in my time” joke by now. Hard to imagine how anyone could have missed it, in fact…
(You know the person who originally said it is kicking themselves for not trademarking the phrase or whatever it’s called – s/he’d be a snillionaire by now if s/he got a nickel for every time someone quoted it!)
Photoshp?
*tosses basementcat an “o”*
Read mine, The Steve’s, and Air Fan’s prior statements, btw.
hmmm, no army babe and no firefighter with kittehs?!!?
This is fail!
/sarcasm
And where’s the discussion about Kanye? And Joe “You lie!” Wilson? This is atrocious.
“Yo Russian fighter pilot, I’m happy for ya and I’ll let ya finish, but the Thunderbirds are the greatest jet acrobatic team of all time!”
it’s a doctored photo
Did it have swine flu? It better stay home for a week.
Being able to land a plane like this must be a WIN
Linked is another one. A RAAF F-111 had the landing gear on one of the wings fall off during take-off so he did a few laps to get gid of the fuel then belly-landed it with help from the arrestor cables.
Speaking of being “full of it” – F-111s don’t have wing landing gear.
I’m pretty sure it’s a low-flight demonstration pass. The picture isn’t really funny because that takes balls and skill to do that.
especially considering the weather, i dunno where he is but here in texas you would never do that with all the “bumpy” air…although the ground effect would help considerably
Why does everyone automatically say something is photoshopped? It took me all of five minutes to find this.
Look up “Sukhoi Su-30 – low pas” on youtube. Or click here if this forum allows links:
On one of the shots, the Su-30 is only about ten feet at most off the ground.
Course if it were a Harrier it wouldn’t be funny…. just a British WIN!
Personally I also think there is a caption fail. Instead of reading “Landing a Plane” it should have read “Landing a Multi-Million Dollar Jet”
Found the original on airliners.net. The pic was taken in China on March 19, 2006. It’s a Sukhoi SU-30LL. You can go to Airliners.net and select “Large” when you find the pic for a really good look at it. Not shopped, just apparently a habitual show-off thing the Russian pilots do with it.
Pretty cool, even if it isn’t the best way to live to see old age.
There’s a line in the Air Force Song that goes “If you’ll live, to be a grey-haired wonder, keep your nose, out of the blue!”
Basically indicating that being a pilot is itself a good way not to see old age.
A Russian flying as low as possible to show us westerners that they could have beaten us if they wanted to. Right. Socialism works. Sure it does.
Actually, the comrades spent less money and made better planes until we got all electronic on their asses. I would LOVE to fly an SU-27 and compare it to an F-15. Bad to the bone.
What?
I read it as: The Russians/Soviets made crap consumer goods but their military technology and know-how kicked ass.
Nope, Bubba has it pretty much right. The Russkies didn’t spend near the money (per plane) that we did, and never reached technological parity, electronic or otherwise. We spent money with the idea that we could make a brick fly if we just put a big enough engine on it.
Their planes weren’t better because of know-how per se, but rather because of a common-sense realization that the planes would be worked on by poorly educated teens with sledgehammers, flown from bad to non-existent runways, and flown by marginally trained pilots if they were ever pressed into combat.
We built Ferrari Enzos, they built VW Beetles. The Enzo does some cool stuff, but when the crap hits the fan and survival is the goal, the Beetle is the better pick.
Close, but, not exactly. Both sides used the best technologies they could find, Russians a bit sucked on high-tech electronics, though. But, they had an advantage in being able to use what they had in the most systematic and witty way. Another thing that is right there, Soviets expected a war to be extremely rough and devastating and were ready for the worst conditions. Just previous experience. Cost effectiveness also was kept in mind.
i’m pretty sure ferrari’s are from italy and vw’s are from germany but i get ur point.
Pretty much right.
ZOMG THIS IS SHOPPED! I CAN TELL, I’M SMARTER THAN ALL OF YOU AND I SEE MAGIC PICTURES IN THE PICTURE!!!11!!13.14159elebentyumpteen!!!
It’s not a schooner, it’s a sailboat!
THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!
There isn’t? I have a sad now….
at least we can still look forward to christmas…
That is not a galley, that is a caravelle!
OK, NOW yer pissin me off he’s OBVIOUSLY flying REALLY LOW while shopping!
Sorry but pope benedict broke the military combo one post ago.
…well actually someone managed to keep the combo up by turning the conversation about the pope into a troll on WWII
LOL, typical Russian
Look at the SU-27 vids on YouTube. This may be a still pic from an airshow demostration of the SU-27′s ability to land gear up. A superior asset in the event of not having a suitable paved runway. land gear up in an emergency rather than trash the plane. Good thinking.
The video I recall shows the plane being hoisted up by a common forklift, the gear lowered in place, then the whole thing rolled away. Jeebus people – do a Google search before screaming fake or shopjob.
that airshow thing wasnt a demonstration it was an accident.
Take a look at this page, download the video and watch:
http://www.aviapedia.com/aerobatic-teams/russian-knights/su-27-belly-landing
Despite the comments it would seem to be an intentional gear up landing. Near the end of the video, the plane is lifted on jacks (they seemed to have everything needed in place already) and the gear is activated, extending normally.
The Ukraine airshow indeed was an accident.
It’s an aerobatic trick, to fly really low. But, actually, late Russian planes were designed to be able to land on belly, as well as some American.
Talking about rough landing, in Afghanistan on Soviet combat airfields, sometimes the problem was that trucks with fuel couldn’t reach landed Su-25s because of mud.
and btw, i have personally witnessed A-10s doing the
same thing. fyi-our boys and girls push that envelope too.
Chief of the Gromov Flight Research Institute Anatoly Kvochur at the controls of a Su-30 display in China. I have seen him perform similar numerous times, a truly skilled aviator.
yeah, that’s a Mig-29, not an SU-30, not the absence of the front stabilizers.
Nope. I’m not sure which one it is, but it’s a Sukhoi, not a MiG-29. Look at the tailcone between the exhausts (well, you can’t because the cone stops you seeing the port exhaust, but then that’s rather the point).
WARNING–TROLLING/YOUTUBE JOKE AHEAD!!!
Do a barrel roll!!!
It’s an SU-27 at an airshow, not a Mig 29.
“Kay
September 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm
how does one land a 747 on an aircraft carrier Answer find one in a hurricane facing into a headwind so you can do 170 Knots airspeed and O ground speed ”
Now there’s an episode pitch for Mythbusters if I ever heard one…
A C-130 Hercules has performed takeoffs and landings aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59) in 1963.
This is not a MiG-29 or and Su-27. This is an Su-30MK.
Check the link in my name for a MiG-29. They are wholly different aircraft.
Look at the exhaust outlets. They’re in the “closed” position, indicating full throttle. It’s not landing. Different angle of same plane:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia—Air/Sukhoi-Su-30LL/1053653/L/
What a load of cobblers! It’s Photoshopped.
If the plane were moving (which would be very fast for a plane like that), the photographer would have to be tracking to keep it in shot.
Therefore the background would be blurred. Compare to pictures of cars on a race track in mid-race.
The background is not blurred.
Therefore the plane is moving very slowly. On the ground. On wheels. And someone has Photoshopped them out.
You bunch of thick Seppostanis!
Have you ever heard of low air speed, long focus lenses and high shutter speeds? I thought not.