Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Crash test of a F-4 Phantom

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
149,185
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 17, 2006

A 1992 report by Sugano et al describes an experiment involving the crash of an F-4D Phangom jet fighter jet into a 10-foot-thick (3.04 meters) concrete block at 480 mph (772 km/h). In the experiment, the fighter is reduced to confetti, leaving no large pieces of debris.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • How did the pilot not see a FREAKING WALL?!?

  • @baef12 I'd prefer one filled with bigots myself.

see all

All Comments (144)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @Helirist

    Well spotted, you are quite right. the wing tips extended slightly beyond the sides of the concrete block so were not brought to a dead stop. They were the only recognisable parts of the plane left.

  • I can see parts that are much larger than confetti. The wing tips. :-)

  • nice work!

  • Goodbye tax dollars lol

  • This is why a Plane couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th

  • @MomoTheBellyDancer All u witnessed and testified is ur patented stupidity, u self-deluding retard. LOL.....

  • @MomoTheBellyDancer

    What truly insulted u is ur own stupid belief that Pentagon got hit by an invisible plane which liquefied upon impact.

    Do ur parents a favour, educate urself on what real air crash is like, see Air Crash Investigation!!! Yes, a sizeable portion of a crashed plane can be reconstructed from its debris. Real planes dun get "liquefied", moron :D

  • @kwokshsee

    "U SUCK!"

    Yes, personal insults. That will convince everybody you're right.

    watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

  • @MomoTheBellyDancer

    "what do you think that material is?"

    What "material"? To establish liquefaction occurred, u've got to NOT ONLY have liquefied remnants present, BUT ALSO they have to be in quantity large enough to make up a whole airliner. Is this simple logic still too difficult for a crocoduck like u to understand?? :P

    "Most would be inside the building"

    Again, u're admitting u havent seen enough liquefied remnants to prove liquefaction, u juz think they're out there. U SUCK! :D

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more