Pilot Risks Everything for This Stunt 

Sir, could you explain how you compensate for the speed brake pitch up?

​@@sortoftubular I'd argue that you'd compensate with a smooth pitch down. Basically, when the spoilers come up, push the nose down to balance it out. Though, some could even argue that letting it pitch up would help you Aerobrake for a second.

@@sortoftubular by pushing forward on the yoke.

@@Fightre_FlighteYou definitely don’t want the nose to come up further on touchdown. The 763 has a tail skid for a reason. Very little tail clearance with the mains on the ground. Over 6k hrs on it. The seat cushions often have weak Velcro as a result of puckering of arse rings.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183I’ve tried hard to think of a joke that you would get but everyone else would think I was being a jerk, but I failed. My first thought was “I bet you don’t even fly 767s” but can’t remember if that’s right or not 😂

That was a turboprop converted one. I flew in the back of a DC3 without a seat once. They were used tor aerial top dressing in NZ back in the day.

Yeah, that's not a DC3 anymore. That's a Bastler. Every skin every rivet every single thing is replaced or zero hour'd. But mostly replaced with new. It rolls out of the hanger registered with a fresh logbook as a zero hour brand new airplane. It's still nice to see that beautiful shape, but that is not a DC3.

@@InvertedFlight Interesting.

I was about to doubt whether the Bastler had the range for this to be an Antarctic airfield, but then discovered here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67 that the Australian Antarctic Division uses them!

Hey what’s the word on the helicopter contract jobs down at the pole. Every once in a blue moon I seen like a 212 slot or a 350 slot but it’s hard to figure out who is the contract. Any advice?

That’s a turboprop conversion.

By Bastler

That is correct. The original had huge radials. Did you want to be referenced in the original comment? Or did you two just want a cookie?

@@Randomly_Browsing I didn't know it was by Bastler. Though I learned about the turboprop conversion just today. Excellent teamwork happening here, gotta love it.

@@MeppyMan Gold standard here, huh? I heard they did those conversions hoping for better fuel economy.

Yeah but he might get fewer clicks if he were honest.

Some argue that the 767 has a natural tendency to pitch up (of it's own accord) when the spoilers are deployed. Which does make sense, to a degree. Also, I'm pretty sure unrestricted climb is different from Max performance takeoff, but they're usually done as a pair.

That was a vertical climb. A max performance take off, doesn’t require a vertical climb. And neither does an unrestricted climb. An unrestricted climb simply means no ATC altitude restriction and has nothing to do with how steep the climb is.

@@Fightre_Flighteyes, you are correct.

Well, Marcus "D aviation xpert" just told u.......

@@pongokamerat8601 Someone needs to draw a diagram for Marcus that shows that "Vertical" means.

@@mish130 Someone needs 2 tell Marcus to stop making u-tube content....

id say it was a wind

@@BlazPerus maybe

@@BlazPerusLike breaking wind? Doubtful.

Ah so they have a name. Always just calls the DC3 with turboprop conversion. Cheers.

@@MeppyMan No worries! :)

Must have had a serious destiny altitude problem (I think some parts of Antarctica are over 5,000ft?), or he was seriously overloaded.

@@pylon500 sat in ground effect for a while. Probably fully loaded. I think that runway is only about 2,500ft. And given the cold dense air, I doubt it’s a density altitude issue.

But it’s not

possible unsecured cargo shifting CG aft of aircraft but if you check closely again you'll see that the elevator was indeed in a nose up attitude just so slightly, it could honestly be combo of the two imo

No

Nope. Not the case. Likely due to spoiler deployment.

That’s probably a good thing

Luckily no one was injured

O Kurrrrwa 😂😂

Oh no! Listen 2 Marcus..............

Wasn’t a DC-3, it was a Basler BT-67

Not a DC-3, it was a Basler BT-67

I know, but it is the same shape and landing gear. There is a video of a DC-3 crash from Blancolirio channel explaining why it happened. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pNwGwoqvENY.html

Tarmac💀

Who rustled your jimmies the wrong way this morning?

@@thedemolitionmuniciplethat’s hilarious 😂, who knows

His video titles are always the first video..

Luckily no one was injured

Come on, we all know Lucas knows nothing about aviation and talks absolute bollocks over every video.

Surprisingly they do land there I just looked it up it said the first time they did was 65 years ago I’m still not sure how they got there

turbine DC-3 are commonly used for flights to antarctica as they are lightweight, have decent range (about 1,500-2,000 miles,) and can be fitted with skis on the gear, i believe they take off from australia, new zealand, falklands, south georgia and sandwich islands

@@0xygenMoron well, 1500 miles is ok to South America, but 2000 miles won't cut it to/from Australia or New Zealand or maybe just without reserves, only from the very tips of land

More specifically Bastler 67

More specifically Bastler BT-67

pilot here and I too thought this, I've seen often many people try to finesse the landing by holding the nose up which sometimes hilariously causes a tail strike but another thing that could of happened is unsecured cargo shifting the CG aft of the aircraft which can cause the aircraft to shift its nose up higher than need be

@@phazedscrubs that’s a good point, I didn’t think of shifting cargo. That proves again that you’re never done learning, I love learning and especially about aviation because for as long as I remember I dream of being a pilot. Thanks for replying 👍

@@phazedscrubssome airplanes have a tendency to pitch up after the ground spoilers deploy. I’m not familiar with the 76, but others mention the 76 does that too. I’m guessing that’s what happened here and the pilot didn’t correct for it.

You are right, it’s not dangerous. But the UK doesn’t have the “strictest” rules either. 🙄 most countries have the same kinda rules.

yeah because, the a320 started from still and the 757 was already had a decent landing speed

@@PhamousBoi It's almost like you need a higher airspeed to be flying than rolling down a runway or something :P

Speed

Flight test engineer here. Airplanes don't all stall at the same angle of attack; it's highly varied depending on wing design, the use of slats and flaps, whether certain stall treatments are installed (vortex generators, stall strips, etc.), vortex lift, and several other factors. It also varies with airspeed and Mach - how much energy the airflow has. The MiG-29 stall angle of attack is actually quite a big higher than 15 deg - I see numbers as high as 29 deg in some publications. And stall AOA is not the only relevant factor for aircraft controllability. It may be above the effective maximum lift coefficient, but the MiG-29 is easily controllable at extreme AOA values well above stall. The MiG-29 is actually famous for the "Cobra maneuver" which has the airplane reaching as high as 120 deg AOA while remaining in perfect control. Basically, it was explicitly designed to be controllable at extreme angles of attack, allowing it to perform some rather aggressive tactical maneuvers in a dogfight, where a pilot wants to be able to rapidly point his nose at the enemy aircraft to get a missile or gun shot off before the enemy can do the same. He doesn't need to actually be moving in that direction, but he does need to point his weapons that way first. (These days, with "high-off-boresight" launch capability, AIM-9X, AA-11, PL-8, PL-10, and similar modern missiles can do rapid sharp turns to track an enemy at extreme angles, so this dramatic nose pointing is less important.) So the issue is not "did the MiG stall," it's "does a stall matter in a MiG?" And the answer is, no. A MiG-29 is perfectly controllable in that situation, even if it exceeds stall AOA.

@@Brandon_SoMD Thank you Sir.

Yes it does, that's why the water is splashing up in front of the engines...

The ones you talk about is a different kind of reversers, not on this aircraft.

Flare, AFTER landing....? Me not think so

Suckered you in.

first reply on first comment

@@thewubmachine840 first

Luckily no one was injured

@@thewubmachine840 first

@@thewubmachine840First stop saying first comment. You are first in our book.