Perhaps the wobbly rockets are more realistic than we thought.

[SuperBigD60]

I saw this video and immediately was reminded of basically everything I've every built.

[astropapi1]

Man, that was some scary piloting! Almost looks like my first landings in X-plane.

[harald705]

I wonder what happened because i don't think landings should look like that.

[astropapi1]

I wonder what happened because i don't think landings should look like that.

Looks like a crosswind landing. Lots and lots of crosswind.

[TimePeriod]

Goes to show what kind of forces we are playing around with.

@ the video, notice how the wings flap around so much? Is that because it is out of fuel or because they are full of fuel?

[Daze]

I think it's called "crabbing"

[djnattyd]

Wait, you mean that's not how planes are supposed to land? I should probably practice my FSX some more...

[MaverickSawyer]

That particular flight, the pilot had some sever crosswind (that airport is notorious for sever crosswinds) combined wilt low-altitude turbulence, causing that unusually scary landing.

TimePeriod: the wings move around like that because they're DESIGNED to do that. Doesn't matter if they're full of fuel, or bone dry. Boeing, the makers of the 767 pictured here, are masters of the flexing wing. The wings of a 747 or a B-52 will flex up to a meter in rough air at cruise altitude. A METER.

EDIT:

Daze, the B-52 is unusual for that ability. All of its landing gear bogies can rotate to allow that trick, making it easier to land in crosswinds, as it has a... unique takeoff and landing profile.

Edited February 18, 2014 by MaverickSawyer

[brooklyn666]

Goes to show what kind of forces we are playing around with.

@ the video, notice how the wings flap around so much? Is that because it is out of fuel or because they are full of fuel?

Wings tend to droop more, and flex less, when fully fueled. They're supposed to flex like that to handle the structural stresses from turbulent airflow. Otherwise they'd snap right off.

Those type of winglets actually increase flexing because of the way they alter the wingtip vortices.

[brooklyn666]

That particular flight, the pilot had some sever crosswind (that airport is notorious for sever crosswinds) combined wilt low-altitude turbulence, causing that unusually scary landing.

TimePeriod: the wings move around like that because they're DESIGNED to do that. Doesn't matter if they're full of fuel, or bone dry. Boeing, the makers of the 767 pictured here, are masters of the flexing wing. The wings of a 747 or a B-52 will flex up to a meter in rough air at cruise altitude. A METER.

Boeing really does make some magnificent wings. The 747 and 777 were tested with up to 9 meters of flex before structural failure. 9 meters!

[Kerbart]

"Thank you for flying with Kerbal Airways. On behalf of the crew I, Jebediah Kerman, thank you for your business"

Seriously, it was a great landing.

Good = A landing you walk away from

Great = A landing with the plane in one piece.

[FlightSimXManiac]

Just going to pipe in and say that is how a plane is supposed to land in a crosswind. Getting the upwind gear on the ground first, then worrying about the others. This minimizes the chances of getting flipped by a gust of wind. Granted, this was a hard landing. It just goes to show the skill of the pilots .

[SuperBigD60]

All I know is that I'm glad there's no weather in KSP yet, otherwise I'd never be able to land my planes.

[merendel]

That video does not realy speak to wobbly rockets however. Wings are designed to do that. You notice the main fuselage remains quite strait and stable throughout, at least in relation to itself, winds makeing the whole plane heave like a drunken sailor not withstanding. Thats how a proper fuselage, assembled with welds, rivits, or bolts should behave. Sadly kerbals seem to attach parts together with rubber bands, springs, and space tape.

[xrayfishx]

This is fine and all, but Bob, Johnbro, Seanbro and Obvey died because the wheels somehow flexed too much. I believe this thread was made because of the s*itstorm in another recent thread and I already made my point there. Not going to rewrite all that.

[TimePeriod]

It was more in relation to the fact that mass is mass. If the wing is full of fuel it would maybe wobble further then a wing half or 1/4 full of fuel?

[SuperBigD60]

That video does not realy speak to wobbly rockets however. Wings are designed to do that. You notice the main fuselage remains quite strait and stable throughout, at least in relation to itself, winds makeing the whole plane heave like a drunken sailor not withstanding. Thats how a proper fuselage, assembled with welds, rivits, or bolts should behave. Sadly kerbals seem to attach parts together with rubber bands, springs, and space tape.

you're right, but this flapping is still reminiscent of Kerbal construction, whether its designed to do that or not.

[James_Eh]

Boeing really does make some magnificent wings. The 747 and 777 were tested with up to 9 meters of flex before structural failure. 9 meters!

This kind of foolishness is why I try not to sit in seats that have a good view of the wing when I fly. Never mind the perfectly rational urge to scream, "This thing is WAY to heavy to fly!!!" on takeoff, I've got that one beaten down; but watching the wings flop up and down in even gentle turbulence generally causes me to mug the serving staff for extra liquor.

[rdfox]

Good = A landing you walk away from

Great = A landing with the plane in one piece.

The version I've always heard was that a great one is one where you can use the airplane again...

[razark]

This kind of foolishness is why I try not to sit in seats that have a good view of the wing when I fly.

What's great is those seats at the back of the wing, where at some points, you can see the ground through the wing.

[MaverickSawyer]

What's great is those seats at the back of the wing, where at some points, you can see the ground through the wing.

Ah, slotted flaps, how we love you.

[Sovek]

Yeah, wings are designed to flex to handle the weight of the airplane plus any nasty winds that are thrown in its direction. The times I've flown and seen the wing doing this number kind of unnerved me, but I knew they were designed like that. Now the fuselage OTOH.... thats not supposed to do that, and one even did in the case of of an Aloha Airlines Flight 243, where a significant section the of the roof was ripped off in flight,

Both the pilots and the passengers both reported that the cockpit was dropping by several degrees and there was some concern that it would snap off.

[RyderXF]

I saw the first video today too, but it doesnt wobble like the ksp rockets, if it would it would be wobbeling at the points where cockpit and passenger section are welded together xD, peace.

[thescientist]

TimePeriod: the wings move around like that because they're DESIGNED to do that. Doesn't matter if they're full of fuel, or bone dry. Boeing, the makers of the 767 pictured here, are masters of the flexing wing. The wings of a 747 or a B-52 will flex up to a meter in rough air at cruise altitude. A METER.

Some meters are realistic, but KSP wings are absolutely too much flexible.

[mellojoe]

High crosswind landings are the worst spawn of satan. Hard on equipment, harder on pilots, and just flat out scary as hell.

I never had the touch and never mastered it. My father could do so, but even he would sweat buckets on approach. You sort of get into a zen state during, but those moments leading up to it are insane. Small craft get tossed around more than heavy craft, but heavy craft are less forgiving as things go from bad to worse.