Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Plane Struck By Lightning - Video  
User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 819 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Is this real? The clouds do not look like t-storm clouds. Also, is that some sort of static discharge that you see after the plane is struck?

By the way, any guess on the airline. My guess is FedEx.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...n=vids.individual&VideoID=25663062

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineXtra1 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 111 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5207 times:

There's a short video of an ANA 747 being struck by lightning in Osaka. Its been posted on here before.
Here it is again:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNEZipGyRQ4

BTW; that plane was not FedEx...but a Qantas!

[Edited 2008-01-09 10:33:37]

User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5154 times:



Quoting Xtra1 (Reply 1):
BTW; that plane was not FedEx...but a Qantas!

After looking at it again, I agree the tail section is red lending credibility to your Qantas quess. As I study it some more, I'm thinking it's Virgin Atlantic....


User currently offlineXtra1 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 111 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5130 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 2):
After looking at it again, I agree the tail section is red lending credibility to your Qantas quess. As I study it some more, I'm thinking it's Virgin Atlantic....

Check out that same video on:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036hpBvjoQw


User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6279 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5115 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 2):
After looking at it again, I agree the tail section is red lending credibility to your Qantas quess. As I study it some more, I'm thinking it's Virgin Atlantic....

Looks like an A330 to me so I doubt it's VS.


User currently offlineAirplaneFan From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

It is infact a

Quoting Xtra1 (Reply 1):
Qantas



Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 4):
A330

.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Je89 W.




I AM ABLE THINK, THEREFORE I EXIST.
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9112 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

After looking at the video again, I can definitely make out the kangaroo on the tail.  Smile

Crikey!!!



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4683 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Thread starter):
Is this real? The clouds do not look like t-storm clouds. Also, is that some sort of static discharge that you see after the plane is struck?

It looks real. After the plane is struck it's probably still holding some residual charge that has to bleed off. Also, depending on the entry and exit points, it might be small burning bits of aluminum and/or CRFP.

Tom.


User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

As long as it is positively charge. No problem.


747SP
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31573 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4240 times:



Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 8):
As long as it is positively charge. No problem

Whats this?
Pls elaborate.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineWirelock From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4203 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Thread starter):
Is this real? The clouds do not look like t-storm clouds. Also, is that some sort of static discharge that you see after the plane is struck?

By the way, any guess on the airline. My guess is FedEx.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...63062

yep this is a real video.if you pause the video as the strike happens, you can clearly see the lightening enter at the front of the aircraft, travel along the fuselage leave at the rear and continue on its journey to ground.

the most serious strike i have seen so far is an entry point that deformed a frame, melted the skin around the entry point, 57 different areas of rivet damage and to top it all off, exiting through the elevator which delaminates an elevator hinge and damages trailing edge structure to a point where the elevator was unrepairable....an expensive lightening strike!!


User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Re-reply 9
The majority of lightening strike are positively charged which most if not all airplanes can handle. However, in the rare instance when it is a negatively charged bolt, the result can be devastating. There is only one instance that I am aware that a plane was brought down by lightening which is the Pan Am 707 near Philadelphia many years ago. W



747SP
User currently offlineRevo From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4054 times:



Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 4):
Looks like an A330 to me so I doubt it's VS.

I am certain its a 737-800 with winglets


User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6279 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4028 times:



Quoting Revo (Reply 12):

I am certain its a 737-800 with winglets

I think you might be right about that, it's hard to tell as you cant see the winglet clearly enough but the fuselage does look quite short at that angle.


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3964 times:



Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 11):
The majority of lightening strike are positively charged which most if not all airplanes can handle. However, in the rare instance when it is a negatively charged bolt, the result can be devastating. There is only one instance that I am aware that a plane was brought down by lightening which is the Pan Am 707 near Philadelphia many years ago. W

 redflag  There is no such thing as positively or negatively charged lightning bolt. There is only negative charge in the clouds against the neutral ground. Lightning is a discharge between them.


User currently offlineHangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3304 times:



Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 14):
There is no such thing as positively or negatively charged lightning bolt. There is only negative charge in the clouds against the neutral ground. Lightning is a discharge between them.

I think the correct distinction here is between cloud-to-ground and ground-to-cloud lightning. The former, although rare, is often more powerful and destructive than more common ground to cloud lightning.

It's more common in the winter. Personally, I have experienced it during a snow storm in March of 2002 or '03. It started a rumor that a chemical plant had exploded.

Quote:

From Wikipedia: Positive lightning, also known colloquially as a "bolt from the blue" makes up less than 5% of all lightning.[28] It occurs when the leader forms at the positively charged cloud tops, with the consequence that a negatively charged streamer issues from the ground. The overall effect is a discharge of positive charges to the ground. Research carried out after the discovery of positive lightning in the 1970s showed that positive lightning bolts are typically six to ten times more powerful than negative bolts, last around ten times longer, and can strike tens of kilometres/miles from the clouds.[citation needed] The voltage difference for positive lightning must be considerably higher, due to the tens of thousands of additional metres/feet the strike must travel. During a positive lightning strike, huge quantities of ELF and VLF radio waves are generated.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Ground-to-cloud_lightning



Spell check is a false dog
User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3062 times:



Quoting HangarRat (Reply 15):

I sit corrected.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Plane Carrying Senator Kennedy Struck By Lightning posted Sun May 14 2006 04:31:36 by Tappan
Plane Caught On Tape Getting Struck By Lightning posted Sun Aug 14 2005 06:13:51 by Crogalski
Struck By Lightning At 10,000 Feet Tonight posted Tue May 2 2006 22:45:13 by Pilotaydin
Aircraft Struck By Lightning? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 02:33:54 by Aileron11
Ramp Personel Struck By Lightning posted Mon Jul 18 2005 03:13:01 by Gkpetery
Tony Blair's Plane Hit By Lightning! posted Wed Apr 27 2005 18:33:38 by Jonty
Aircraft Struck By Lightning posted Mon Mar 8 2004 10:37:41 by JGPH1A
Bmi A321 Struck By Lightning posted Tue May 27 2003 14:54:37 by David_itl
JAL #754 DC10 Struck By Lightning Enroute HKG-FUK posted Tue Jun 4 2002 17:29:21 by Bobcat
Flight Attendant Struck By Lightning While Seated posted Wed Apr 24 2002 02:27:55 by Bobcat