10 Moments Filmed Seconds Before Disaster 

You need an ignition source.

It was empty.

Probably empty

....or it was empty...

Most likely it was empty. But regardless, it was insane.

Well, drunk russian "мужик" is a disaster in itself... :-)

This is a wonderful channel that deserves all the likes, subs, and comments ♥️ I also love the way these videos are put together!

amazing..good job

You can say that again!

We really appreciate the kind words, thank you!

@@Underworld5s You're welcome, and thank you for your hard work.

This is exactly how I feel. I love watching these videos, but not when people die.

I know

amazing..good job

Early gas engines circa ww1, rotary engines, had all the pistons spinning around along with the prop. That is a huge amount of weight spinning really really fast. Its effect on flight could be described as turning a game controller 90 degrees with what it did to handling, an effect that varied based on engine speed (I'm generalizing, but you get the point, imagine doing that with a controller without changing the keymapping, so that up was now left or right). A Flettner rotor (on an aircraft) doesn't need to be as tough as the cylinder of a gas engine, so I would imagine that the forces generated by it spinning pale in comparison to what those early rotary engines did. People have been trying to do this with airplanes for over a hundred years. afaik none worked all that well. Maybe there is something there, maybe its a fools errand. Given all the crazy things we humans make, 100 years without much improvement, if any, does not happen for no reason whatsoever. (maybe there hasn't been enough interest, simple as that... but I haven't the foggiest) caveat: I honestly have no clue how the forces would be applied to the plane with a flettner rotor. But those rotary engines do make for some interesting evidence as to what conventional planes will do with similar forces applied to them.

Uh huh, that's what we all thought

There is a guy somewhere on RU-vid that built a model aircraft, not dissimilar to the one in the above video and it actually flew using the Magnus effect. It wasn't great however, but it showed proof of concept :)

@@GeordieAmanda NASA released the results of simulations and the math behind it all showing that it can work as well. "It wasn't great" seems to be the best results anyone has really attained with aircraft of this configuration in over a century of trying however. (flettner rotors have been tried on aircraft since the 1910s)

Mind blowing how he just stood there for so long.

You can tell he’s not that bright because, he took his time to obstacle over that little piece of plastic ribbon instead of just running through it like a world class sprinter.. lol..

This guy forgot 911

He was definitely inside the collapse zone just rubber-necking. He had clear warning when the wall began to spall about 10 seconds before the collapse. He also was so dumb, he took his helmet off in the beginning. And this all happened after it had been burning for 24 hours!

You must be blind...

@@DynamicSeq Nope, I worked with propane tanks before, all sizes. You would be stunned at how rugged they are. When you see a fire around a propane tank and the fire increases in size, it’s usually because the tank was heated up and the safety valve was going off and the propane was venting and burning .

@@DynamicSeq Please comment on your observations of this mess. What facts do you know?

@@yt650 I can see that's a bigger tank. and with 3 axle I would guess 12,000 to 15,000 gallons... I have a 1000 gallon tank in my backyard and it don't have a man size hole in it.. + knowing these shithole places it's properly loaded to the nuts...

@@DynamicSeq My observations were incorrect, yours were more correct. Thanks.

Your coats on the hook on the way out...

when i only saw the one person pop up from either boat, i got concerned because i knew those boats were 2-person setups

@@ghomerhust Yeah, seeing 1 person pop up from each of the boats, well it makes you hold your breath (that would be a great pun, but I really don't mean it as one). Or at least it does for me. Its like I use my own ability to hold my breath as a benchmark for becoming concerned. Not consciously, but I catch myself doing it whenever I see someone not come up right quick when they go under. Doesn't really matter what they were doing, boating, skiing, swimming, whatever, it just needs to involve deepish water. As much as I love the water, not much other than being burned alive scares me more as a means of dying than drowning.

It wasn't a natural disaster, it was incompetent engineering and this is prevalent all across Malaysia.

It's called the Magnus effect (see Wikipedia).

As a trained truck driver I always slow down and look both ways before crossing a RR track. I even do that if I’m first to go on a green light intersection. Just bc it turned green for me doesn’t mean that folks won’t be running the red light in opposing traffic. I have a motorcycle endorsement as well. So, I’m a vigilant driver/rider.

Perhaps his chassis wasn’t wide enough?

@@granitemountain8416 It's a case of off-balanced lift. Frankly, it's not the only shortcoming, BUT without knowing precisely what kind of test they were after, it's hard to really get into the brass tacks... If you look, they had two SEPARATE lift-rotors. That makes things more complicated, when one is tempted to put a separate motor to each one, because then they both have to be absolutely balanced AND absolutely synchronized to get useful lift... Even then, once in the air (even briefly) they're just as susceptible to wind currents, turbulence, and other aerodynamic issues as any other plane that size... If I had to guess, I'd suggest this was a 100% tethered test, meaning they didn't actually intend to release the plane... They were working on "proof of concept" before moving forward for a self-propelled version... AND somewhere the balance was off, because well before it did more than lift the nose-gear, it was already bucking the right side higher and harder than the left, which SHOULD have been enough to stop and go back to try to balance it out. You can look up the Magnus Effect, along with Kwanda's Effect, and get to the root of why is "should" work, even if (so far as I'm aware) nobody's actually gotten one TO work... Then whatever you do with that knowledge, I'll only say GOOD LUCK!!! ;o)

RC planes have also used the Magnus Effect: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-K6geOms33Dk.html

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 ... either way. that guy was lucky to have his malfunction at 3 feet instead of at 300 feet above the ground.

But I would not call this a disaster...

Thanks, I was scrolling looking for this info. 👍

There wasn't an annoying Dumb Woman screaming at it the whole way down,so it didn't know it Was in danger...

Because there was no Hollywood director telling it to explode.

It was full of water

I don't think he did it on purpose

And who put the first satellite in orbit, and the first man in space…?

@@timweather3847 And the first people killed in space. And didn't care about killing animals in space.

Above we have a collection of words, unfortunately the order in which they have been arranged results in utter fucking gibberish.

Sounds to me like a Captain Obvious situation that collided with a lot of dumbasseric bravado 😆 Glad to hear that it’s a real thing though, and one more reason I’m glad to keep my foot firmly on the ground, thank you very much 😆 Some people say that less people die in plane crashes than auto accidents, but having survived the latter just missing a few parts, I can confidently say that I’ll still go with those odds than the likelihood of surviving the former in such a way…..🤔 Then there’s ratios to consider; how many people travel by plane every year vs by vehicle on the ground. I suppose that if you take the number of people who die in plane crashes vs the number who die in vehicle crashes, one would conclude that it’s the latter, but that doesn’t take into consideration the entirety of the numbers, so there’s that 😏 I think comedian Russ Nagel (America’s Funniest Biker) said it best: “People say that more people die in auto accidents than plane crashes, and that may be true, but I’ve never fallen 30,000 feet out of my Buick!” 😆😆😆 …..Ok, autistic squirrel moment veering off of the original topic rant over 😆

Sketchy analysis for sure? Talk about LUCKY?

Propane won’t ignite when combined with air unless the source of ignition reaches at least 940 degrees Fahrenheit. Gasoline will ignite at 430-500 degrees Fahrenheit. If liquid propane leaks it doesn’t form a puddle. It dissipates into the air.

@@hoosierbaddy3052 I’m aware it won’t ignite but since there was an ignition source I felt like it would have.

I always thought it would be hard to get those to work with aircraft given the speed they would need to rotate and the light weight needed. In theory I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, but I have figured that it wouldn't really be worth it. Also the drag from one of these must be high. I always imagined them in place of a prop. Not in place of the prop and wing. I think that might be the real flaw here, but that is just some supposition.

@@whyjnot420 ... they said stuff like that on early attempts of making a helicopter. Gee, if only we can make it stable, right?

@@rupe53 I honestly don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. If not... I didn't say impossible. Thinking of helicopters, the big problem was the hub at the center of the rotor blades. Making it rigid always made things break when a lot of power was used. It was making that point where the rotor meets the hub into a pivoting joint held out by centrifugal forces that made helicopters viable as more than a gimmick. For countering the rotation of a single rotor, that was "we have a few ways we can do this" while the rotor hub was "how in the hell do we not break this". As for a flettner rotor as an aerofoil, I'm not entirely sure that actually works well enough to stabilize. At least not as the entire wing. Maybe a pair of them either side of the fuselage and then conventional wings out from there? Maybe a central rotor and conventional wings out from that? Various people have attempted to make these work for the last 110 years. afaik none have been all that good with many (most?) utterly failing outright. A century of failure doesn't happen for no reason. Maybe that reason is design, materials, whatever, there has to be a reason... the question I have is "Is that reason insurmountable at this moment in time?" The math and physics are there, these things can produce lift just like a more conventional aerofoil (NASA even says so and has the math to back it up). It is really just a question of do we have what it takes to make them work right now. They can fly, this has been shown, but can and can do in a practical way, are two very different things. Proof of concept and production models if you will. Maybe in the end all anyone ends up with are some neat toys. edit: btw, I can wait for a practical use to be figured out once people figure out how to make them work in a practical manner first. Seems to me they wouldn't be suited for a high speed environment, but might be good for longer duration slow speed stuff.

@@whyjnot420 .... I was kinda kidding, but if you think about it, no matter what man invents, it always needs to be better (or more stable) to become useful. Heck, we're still perfecting things on planes, over 100 years later. This often makes me wonder if the Wright Brothers ever chuckled over some early improvements done by others. (yeah, that'll never work)

@@rupe53 Yeah it sounded like you were half serious, half joking. Hence why I wasn't sure. But still, sometimes a serious response to a silly statement or question is warranted. So I said "why not" and went for it. Nah, the Wright Brothers would go "DOES IT VIOLATE OUR PATENTS? IT DOES IT DOES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Whenever they looked at something another person did. Also to note is that better fighter planes are more unstable... which means that F-22 should be institutionalized as soon as we don't need it anymore. (and sometimes serious responses hidden inside silliness is the perfect solution) edit: btw, I'm all for these crazy bastards doing stuff like sticking a Flettner rotor on an aircraft, simply because they can. It is fun to see and you never know how something that sounds batshit insane today will be connected to something we cannot even imagine in 200 years or whatnot. Like whoever invented the atomizer used for perfume & cologne had no idea it would be integral to the carburetor of gas engine design.

It's called a rotor plane it's the magnus effect

handmade contraption is why it's a monstrosity if it had good engineering behind it than all planes would be like that.

@@chromewarnock9681 So the Kitty Hawk Flyer must have been a monstrosity too? And the Wright brothers had several failures like this, too - so they must have been really bad engineers ...

@@gunnerschwieterman6383 similar effect to how wind blowing around round cables and smoke stacks can cause vibrations, which is why they often have a helix attached to them. it disrupts the magnus effect

@@gunnerschwieterman6383 Might want to brush up on Kwanda's Effect along with that... It's not the primary intention, but Nature rarely gives a sh*t about intentions, and it WILL contribute... In any case, all that's really "wrong" at this stage is an off-balanced lift. They'll need to sort out balancing the two sides AND getting them to synchronize better (or with simpler controls) to avoid one side outlifting the other. It'll still need it's own propulsion, of course, BUT with a bit of luck, it seemed to almost show promise. ;o)

HANG Gliding is the event YOU are describing.

RU-vid age restricted it, demonetized it and it had two false copyright claims 😅 Need to go back with the team to try and fix the issue! We hope you watch it again when we repost it in a could days prob!