handicaps i count two wings for the red-coloured part of the image, which i interpreted as the plane in question. where is the one-winged one? (is it kind of these funny vex-pics?) nobody doubts that, imo... quite more important is the difference in duration of flight between planes (after losing a wing) and planes (after finishing aerobatics). in case the time can't be taken properly enough (due to shock or lack of accurate chronometers) the deformation of flesh caused by ground-clash is very common for scaling the so-called 'icarus-effect' of one-winged flights... sure! that's a nice example. hmm... maybe with exception of the lames. but else, sure! ps: just thought of wing-loading - perhaps it's better to exclude pregnant females also... so, if a blind can climb the everest, someone with eye-sight, but not lame or pregnant, obviously must be capable to do same! i would go even further and claim, that one-eyed climbers can do! pps: just thought of red-haired people, who have problems with the uv-light in those heights? ...but, on the other hand, those are compensated by the deafs and dumbs! deafs and dumbs can climb the everest, if a blind one can!
This conversation is just damn stupid.Go back waste work?,huh.Keep slowingdown red planes all you want.Lousy excuses ,pitiful stuff.Explainexplainexplain..blablabla ,all seem to ignore my posts ,no really answers anytime.would be good to find at least gold player who would be honest and think of both sides,but no.I lke to say few things but I won't.
I fly both sides: when I'm gold I curse red planes, when I'm red I curse gold planes - It's normal. I just enjoy the game and take it as it is and adapt to the situation. as for squirl and his Polish Conspiracy Theory: man, where did you leave your brain today?
and u expect serious conversation with this guy? and where do u see me takin part in this anyway? or making any statement? my only point was that u dont take different opinions as different opinions, but as attacks on ur opinions, if u see the difference i guess that was too hard i wouldnt try to discuss or convince u, cause i know u wouldnt listen anyway and im amazed that ppl actually trying to do so
jac, there are quite a few guys who fly both sides, i guess u cant call them gold players tho ;p and to be honest.. if u dont switch sides on a regular basis, u r biased, more or less
If you're just going to be completely ignorant to what I wrote, then i'll just ignore you. Same to squirl. Provide any statements from pilots to back up what you said. I prefer fact over theory. In this case you have only a theory that it could be possible, whilst I can rely on the fact that no one ever done it. Or even attempted it for that matter, considering how 'relatively easy' it is!
Not any more. This argument will go round and round in circles cos there is simply no way for; a. squirl to prove his argument with cold hard evidence; and b. squirl to accept that someone else could be right (after all, he is so humble )
I feel totally disgusted with myself and I apologise for being so ignorant! Ledada you have lightened my mind with the Truth (how could I have been so ignorant)! Also Squirl ensured me in his theory with posting the pic from WB3 - if it's possible in WB3 then it must be the Truth!
@jac my friend you must do what I have done, finally finished with flying in here, free or not. This flight sim was once a good one, but has been ruduced with idiotic features and bugged and hacked for quite some time. Thats reason enough for me to stay away. and I can't believe the bikering over a one winged plane and how far it can fly. here is some food for thought, in gun camera footage that I have seen where the wing gets blown off a fighter, it emediately tumbled and spiraled out of control violently. There is your answer. The lift from one remaining wing no matter what the pilot does will make it fly so eratic that it is impossible to control and most likely impossible to bail with the extreme forces going on. Now I'll go back and strum my guitar before I go to the beach. <S> old friends
Glas, provide a statement made by one of the pilots of the four planes in 9/11 to prove that it actually happened. There are real photographs... ...of planes flying on their sides; yet without a pilot's statement, Glas is not convinced. Here we have a real photograph of a jetliner crashing into one of the Twin Towers... ...yet, if I am using Glas's "logic," if I do not see a statement made by the hijacker pilot of that plane I will not believe that it ever happened. The example above shows what I have to put up with when I am making a constructive case. I can provide real-life evidence which supports my position, but in Glas's case, seeing is not believing. Face it, European opponents, you are ignoring solid proof.
You show a plane flying on its side and this to you is irrefutable proof that a one-winged plane can land? Yeah, really solid proof Keep scrabbling around, nothing you can say will convince me, cos it simply didnt happen. Real-lif evidence is evidence from pilots that there was a possibility they could land the plane, but didnt want to chance it. I would even accept that as confirming the possibility was there. But you cannot even provide that small piece of information. Scientific calculations and theories are worth absolutely nothing if they can never be achieved in practise. This never was. Therefore your theory can easily be discounted. Simple logic
squirl, I saw a footage of a plane (probably was pitts special) that lost a (one of four) wing - it went DOWN with an aerobatic pilot onboard... I'll try to find it
BUT THAT PLANE HAD 3 WINGS!!! It brings absolutly nothing to this discussion and as squirly boy will probably say: "I have posted irreputable proof that planes can fly with one wing. The fact that a plane can't fly with three wings has absolutly nothing to do with it. It's like saying that because a three eyed man can't climb everest a one eyed man can't do that also. Besides it's all a Polish Conspiracy"
Squirl I'm still waiting for an answer how to survive ditching in a one-winged plane running at 400 km/h. So many posts and no answer? Perhaps because it's impossible?
rodacy nie spierajcie sie przeciez, nie tak dawno pan minister powiedzial za "polski pilot poleci nawet na dzwiach od stodoly" sry cant translate it (its too difficult)
Makcarpik thinks he is on to something; perhaps he thinks he can prove me wrong. Unfortunately for him, it is currently page 11 of this discussion and he still has not read page 2:
OMG, I'd like to have an answer how to survive normal landing in undamaged aircraft at 400km/h!! This whole discussion makes no sense, it's like trying to convince 6 years old that harry potter doesn't exist.
