For All Former Buff Drivers Out There...

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
I was noticing that. I didn't know they used rubber props back then? :)
 
ok, dumb question - unless the video is faked or what we see is
an artifact of the camera, why would they even attempt to
start the second or third or fourth engine?
 
Frame rate of the camera, and rpm are synched up to produce the stationary image. Although to me it looked like the #2 engine (right inboard) wasn't quite at the same rpm as the others towards the end of the video.
 
The stroboscopic effect is cool. Boy would I love to fly one. Just once.
 
vontresc said:
Frame rate of the camera, and rpm are synched up to produce the stationary image. Although to me it looked like the #2 engine (right inboard) wasn't quite at the same rpm as the others towards the end of the video.
Click to expand...

I 'm guessing from the angel that #2 may have the strobe blocked by the fuselage near the end
 
flyersfan31 said:
The stroboscopic effect is cool. Boy would I love to fly one. Just once.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to just ride in one!

I was flying one time and was in and out of IMC, puffy cumulus clouds with lots of blue around them, got a call for traffic below me and started looking. It was a B17!!! So neat to see below me, made me feel a little like a P51 providing cover to them during a bombing run in the 1940's
 
Bob Noel said:
ok, dumb question - unless the video is faked or what we see is
an artifact of the camera, why would they even attempt to
start the second or third or fourth engine?
Click to expand...
It is the frame rate of the camera and the RPM of the props giving you the picture that the blades are not moving. IOW the camera is not matching what your eyes would see.
 
I lost s chance to fly in the Collings Foundation "909" B-17. A very good friend of a friend was able to big deal me a free trip on the maybe 15 minute repositioning flight from KHPN to KISP. When I showed up at the airport, there she was - one engine removed. They were waiting for a replacement to be flown in, so the flight was scrubbed. I couldn't make the flight when 909 was ready, I had a wedding to go to.... mine.

Since that marriage ended in divorce, I think I made the wrong decision!!!! :mad2:

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
I lost s chance to fly in the Collings Foundation "909" B-17. A very good friend of a friend was able to big deal me a free trip on the maybe 15 minute repositioning flight from KHPN to KISP. When I showed up at the airport, there she was - one engine removed. They were waiting for a replacement to be flown in, so the flight was scrubbed. I couldn't make the flight when 909 was ready, I had a wedding to go to.... mine.

Since that marriage ended in divorce, I think I made the wrong decision!!!! :mad2:

-Skip
Click to expand...

I concur. :nonod:
 
Skip Miller said:
I lost s chance to fly in the Collings Foundation "909" B-17. A very good friend of a friend was able to big deal me a free trip on the maybe 15 minute repositioning flight from KHPN to KISP. When I showed up at the airport, there she was - one engine removed. They were waiting for a replacement to be flown in, so the flight was scrubbed. I couldn't make the flight when 909 was ready, I had a wedding to go to.... mine.

Since that marriage ended in divorce, I think I made the wrong decision!!!! :mad2:

-Skip
Click to expand...
Sounds like you may have had your priorities messed up. hope you learned the lesson and now put the airplanes and chances to fly higher on the list ;)
 
smigaldi said:
Sounds like you may have had your priorities messed up. hope you learned the lesson and now put the airplanes and chances to fly higher on the list ;)
Click to expand...
Well, I rationalized it this way: If I scrubbed my participation in the flight, the 909 would still be flying and if I got really lucky, I'd get another shot at the flight. On the other hand, if I missed the wedding, the chances for another shot with the same woman were flat zero. And I was young, in love:blowingkisses:, and foolish!

-Skip
 
smigaldi said:
I'd be happy to just ride in one!

I was flying one time and was in and out of IMC, puffy cumulus clouds with lots of blue around them, got a call for traffic below me and started looking. It was a B17!!! So neat to see below me, made me feel a little like a P51 providing cover to them during a bombing run in the 1940's
Click to expand...

I know the feeling. Was looking down at a Corsair that was taking off on my first solo. Way cool.
 
Henning said:
Holy cow! You see all the play in those prop hubs? Yikes!
Click to expand...

There's no play in the hubs, even if there were, I doubt you think that prop blades would be that rubbery at low RPM.

The effect is from the fact that video sensors on consumer grade stuff is now the "electronic rolling shutter" type.

Film and CCDs are "full field integration" sensors. Meaning, the entire frame is exposed at once, and a fast moving object will blur.

With electronic rolling shutter, the camera exposes only one line of the image at a time, and a fast moving object will "smear" or distort as the exposed line moves up the field. Each line will catch the object in a slightly different position. Usually, the exposed line starts at the bottom, and moves up the image. Note in the youtube vid, the up moving blade smears differently than the down moving blade.

Sorta like this:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/takeoff.mpg

Some have even seen this effect with film and mechanical shutters.

http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/flash/hss.html

--Carlos V.
 
I didn't realize someone actually thought the props were bending. If you take a pencil and hold it about one-third from the end and shake it vertically, the pencil will appear to be flexing like a stick of rubber. It's all an optical illusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top