very low flying spitfire video

I have decided to lock this thread a) before this discussion gets even more heated, and b) to avoid any further potential hassle for OFMC.

I have opted to lock it as opposed to delete it, as locking it like this gives me the opportunity to explain why I have locked it, and (hopefully) we will not then end up with a whole string of threads on “what happened to the low flying thread?”

Thanks,
Becka

We’ve all appreciated Steve Connor’s work so perhaps we can honour his wishes and let the matter drop now?

Thanks,
Rob

Rob, this thread would have been over long ago, if not for Mr. Connor’s comment that the Spitfire passed over their heads at more than 50 feet. Why would he make such a statement, when the evidence so clearly shows it to be untrue. This was no illusion created by a long focal length lens, this was a good old fashioned buzz job – plane and simple.

I mean, it isn’t as if Ray Hannah didn’t know he was being filmed? Personally I love the shot, and the flying, but I would not have done it because it leaves NO room for error. One little distraction in the cockpit or gust of wind and this could have ended badly.

My objection is to the obvious falsehood of saying this pass occured at 50′ (or more). It didn’t. Mr. Connor should retract his statement and issue an apology to the forum.

Did you post this for effect!! A simple seach engine might have helped 😡 😡 Anna 😡 😡 😡 😡 :dev2: :dev2: :dev2:

Look at GeeDee’s second post. GeeDee explained why he wanted the info, its hardly fair to blame him for where the thread has ended up.

Perhaps this is the best place to end the this thread before it gets worse?

Best Regards, Steve

Hasn’t this one gone it’s course now?

The subject has been discussed before and I think we’ve all come to our own conclusions about how high the Spitfire was at the time. Any further raking over of this issue will probably cause further hassle for the pilot – does anyone out there want that?

This clip is a stunning piece of action and its entertainment value is derived from that fact that it is so low. I don’t think that discussing it further is very productive though.

We’ve all appreciated Steve Connor’s work so perhaps we can honour his wishes and let the matter drop now?

Thanks,
Rob

If I remember correctly, about a year (maybe 2) a clip of a Spit taking off and flying very low towards the back of the TV presenter was on the web for a few days. It was taken, I understand by one of our forumites and was withdrawn for certain reasons.

Who took the video and can they PM me please.

Did you post this for effect!! A simple seach engine might have helped 😡 😡 Anna 😡 😡 😡 😡 :dev2: :dev2: :dev2:

Since De Cadenet was expecting a low pass and the sound of the a/c would have lagged behind at that speed surely the a/c was above and beyond when he hit the deck? Or was he supposed to react in the way he did no matter what?

There ain’t but MAYBE 10 feet from the tail wheel of that Spit to the ground beneath….no WAY it’s 50 feet…

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “people like me” being the reason you don’t make aviation programs. You made a statement that the Spitfire passed over your heads at 50′. I said I did not believe your statement, based upon the visual evidence, and my experience as a warbird pilot who has made low passes.

But, as you seem to want to make this personal why don’t we just let the members of this forum decide. Below is a still frame from the video, with the prop disc “added” in the computer.

You be the judge…

It wasn’t 50′ I was with OFMC at the time and I remember the shoot well.
As Scooner was doing a lot of filming with OFMC at the time and i even helped him out when he filmed the rebuild of 434.

Diameter of propeller 10′-8″

Dimension from prop disc to shadow on ground approx 10′-0″

Height of Alain Decadenet 5′-10″ estimated.

Height of prop above pre-ducked presenter 4′-2″ estimated.

Hmmm!

Well Sconnor,

I dont think anyone called you a liar out right but rather it was inferred that the visual evidence was indeed in breech of you so called eye witness report.

We All know the Hanna’s past and present are great flyers and indeed I would love to see more of this type of flying as its great for the pilot and spectators but today only a few lucky folk get to see this in what is now “closed events”

Rightly so I guess as public safety is at an all time high.

To say that this was 50 feet I myself would call you a liar perhaps the cameramans distance away using Telephoto from the aircraft would make it 50 feet above you but the presenter is under 25 feet away from a cut and blow dry.

Does anyone remember the part in Dark Blue World where the spit passes really low over the ground. Cant remember the exact bit but it is the lowest I have ever seen any aircraft apart from one landing. Well having never seen the film I bought it on DVD on a friends rating and enjoyed it. Right where the spit passes low I said to my wife that it would be Ray Hanna flying that Aircraft and to my surprise who was it flying??

I rest my case. You can even tell Ray Hanna from the way he flies his aircraft.

And Sconnor if you feel like leaving the forum then fair enough but calling people A*sholes just because they question your judgement I think you should be kicked out not allowed to leave.

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “people like me” being the reason you don’t make aviation programs. You made a statement that the Spitfire passed over your heads at 50′. I said I did not believe your statement, based upon the visual evidence, and my experience as a warbird pilot who has made low passes.

But, as you seem to want to make this personal why don’t we just let the members of this forum decide. Below is a still frame from the video, with the prop disc “added” in the computer.

You be the judge…

I’d guess 15-20ft. Any lower and DeCadenet would have had a severe parting…

Maybe, by the time the crew picked themselves up off the deck, the Spit was at 50ft?

Just for reference here’s what a pass looks like at about 25′.

I’m keen, but that a***hole just called me a liar.

Certainly going to be my last post on this forum!

Quite frankly sconnor, with an attitude like that, that’s probably no bad thing.

The episode of the Spitfire take-off does nobody concerned any credit, regardless of whether it was 20 or 50 feet. It is not surprising that the aircraft’s operators asked for the clip to be pulled. You all should have known better. And don’t go telling me that it was perfectly safe, that I wasn’t there, etc. Thanks to your handiwork we all have the evidence of what happened in glorious techicolour.

I bet the insurance companies just love seeing clips like that. 😡

I could try and be clever, but as you weren’t there, and I didn’t duck, I think my opinion bears more weight than your amateur sleuthing.

People like you are the reason I am not making programmes about aircraft any more.

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “people like me” being the reason you don’t make aviation programs. You made a statement that the Spitfire passed over your heads at 50′. I said I did not believe your statement, based upon the visual evidence, and my experience as a warbird pilot who has made low passes.

But, as you seem to want to make this personal why don’t we just let the members of this forum decide. Below is a still frame from the video, with the prop disc “added” in the computer.

You be the judge…

Sconner, please do not leave this forum your input is always interesting, if you remember when this raised its head a couple of months ago I said it was a fake ! but you have now made me realise why to me it looks fake as you point out about the lens being used which now makes sense. I watched this video quite a lot of times trying to work out how it was faked, a few people that watched it with me made the same comment ” how come the camera man does not move?, and you don’t get any prop wash” you have now explained why not.
I have also sat at the end of a runway on numerous occasions over the past 30 odd years and that clip just did not look right.

Stay Mr C

I’m keen, but that a***hole just called me a liar.

Certainly going to be my last post on this forum!

As Skypilot says, this has been done to death to no ones benefit before. Can we drop it please.

I could try and be clever, but as you weren’t there, and I didn’t duck, I think my opinion bears more weight than your amateur sleuthing.

People like you are the reason I am not making programmes about aircraft any more.

My last comment on this subject…the Spit was over our heads it was at well over 50 feet, the prop never came anywhere near us.

Sorry, but there’s not a bit of truth in that statement. People on the ground never have a good estimate of the height of low flying aircraft (thank goodness), but I assure you that the Spitfire in question did not climb to 50′ within the time frame of passing the camera. You were probably ducking for cover at the time, but the aircraft, by my estimation, passed about 20′ over your heads. The low point of the pass (directly in front of the camera) appears to be about 10′ above the ground (spinner to earth). You can say 50′ all day long, but the evidence says otherwise.

So would anyone care that I saw it on American television not so long ago, on one of those funny video shows? They bleeped deCadenet’s more ‘colorful’ comments after the take off….still fun to see, laughed my ass off…

M