Russian plane shot down by Turkey

[MaxLam]

You might be interested in this one then:



The crash site is behind the hill apparently, but you would need hours to find the actual location, if that's even possible.

[MrTiki]

The location of the rescue helicopter's landing is not necessarily near the crash site. Firstly the pilot ejected long before the plane reached the ground. Depending on wind etc he could have landed quite a way away. Secondly, the pilot would very likely try to move away from the crash site, as that's where rebels would go to start searching. I have no idea how long after the plane was downed that the rescue helicopter came.

[Dazzer]

You might be interested in this one then:



The crash site is behind the hill apparently, but you would need hours to find the actual location, if that's even possible.

im not joking, but that guy saying "Allahu ackbar" at 1:36 sounds like czech. He sounds like he is saying Allahu Ackbař

[MaxLam]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

[MrTiki]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

Which crash site? The first one they claimed was miles away from the second one, and now the second one they claimed was pretty close to the one the Turks initially estimated.
Either way, the Belgian physicists were way off.

[MaxLam]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

Which crash site? The first one they claimed was miles away from the second one, and now the second one they claimed was pretty close to the one the Turks initially estimated.
Either way, the Belgian physicists were way off.

I'm talking about the crashsite on the Russian map. I haven't seen any other. Where is the other one?

As for the physician, his calculations are based on the Turkish version (we only need Turkish data). So if the calculations are ok, then the Turkish version is necessarily wrong. We know the distance between the hit and the crash (around 8 kilometers). We also know the time it took for the plane to fall and crash, so his estimation is realistic.

[MrTiki]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

Which crash site? The first one they claimed was miles away from the second one, and now the second one they claimed was pretty close to the one the Turks initially estimated.
Either way, the Belgian physicists were way off.

I'm talking about the crashsite on the Russian map. I haven't seen any other. Where is the other one?

As for the physician, his calculations are based on the Turkish version (we only need Turkish data). So if the calculations are ok, then the Turkish version is necessarily wrong. We know the distance between the hit and the crash (around 8 kilometers). We also know the time it took for the plane to fall and crash, so his estimation is realistic.

If you check the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34950355), they have the initial Russian estimate alongside the Turkish one. The one from the site Reje linked is the new one, which is closer to what the Turks estimated.

We don't know the distance between the hit and the crash, and as I said before, it is definitely not 8km from the camera. The physicists based their calculations off of a perfect environment, assuming a sphere falling for the 40 seconds. However, the plane instead nose-dives, which transfers some of the velocity it had going forwards into it's speed approaching the ground, plus any extra thrust from the engine for any part of the descent that it was still working for.
That being said, I'm glad you've stopped complaining that the altitude was "too low" for the SU-24, given that it's used for low altitude bombing.

Also interesting to note is that this happened before, minus the blowing up of the Russian plane.
Last time the SU-24 was accompanied by an SU-30SM which kept a lock on the Turkish F-16 which came to escort it for over 5 minutes. The Turks stated that they would engage the next plane to do so, and I guess they kept their word.
It was also due to a "navigational error". The Russians really seem to have shitty satnav, maybe they should use TomToms
http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/24/ruaf-su-24-shot-down-by-turkey/

Also, Olaf, if you're interested in trying to find the location of the crash, that link would be pretty useful I think. There's another angle in the photo. Also this video (from ~2:11) seems to have another angle in it:

[MaxLam]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

Which crash site? The first one they claimed was miles away from the second one, and now the second one they claimed was pretty close to the one the Turks initially estimated.
Either way, the Belgian physicists were way off.

I'm talking about the crashsite on the Russian map. I haven't seen any other. Where is the other one?

As for the physician, his calculations are based on the Turkish version (we only need Turkish data). So if the calculations are ok, then the Turkish version is necessarily wrong. We know the distance between the hit and the crash (around 8 kilometers). We also know the time it took for the plane to fall and crash, so his estimation is realistic.

We don't know the distance between the hit and the crash, and as I said before, it is definitely not 8km from the camera.

The hit and the crash locations are written on the Turkish map, thus we know the distance according to the Turkish version, which was the point of the discussion (discussing whether their version is coherent or not).

As for the altitude, my point was that this plane wouldn't fly at low altitude and at low speed. The plane is designed to fly at low altitude at supersonic speed. The video proves that it wasn't flying at low altitude, rather 6000m as both countries acknowledged. You are saying that the plane could have fallen faster than a "sphere". In this case a high altitude is confirmed too. So the arguments against the 17 seconds remain unchallenged.

The crashsite location that you have on the BBC website is the one I was talking about (near Kepir). I haven't seen any other map.

The last time that Russian jet fighters entered Turkish airspace, their was bad meteorological conditions according to Russia. In this case there was nothing like that.

Also I propose to open a vote with 3 choices:
Turkey is lying.
Russia is lying.
Both are lying.

[Rejenorst]

The strange thing is; if you look at google maps the crash site where the Turks claim it is then its  like at least 15 - 16km away from the exit point of Turkish airspace they flew through.  On google maps right click and then select measure distance.

[Olafson]

You might be interested in this one then:



The crash site is behind the hill apparently, but you would need hours to find the actual location, if that's even possible.

Thanks, but I doubt that the helicopter landed close to the wreck. Most likely they did what Tiki said. They landed where they expected the Pilots to be.

-snip-

Thanks for that Tiki, that actually helped.

I might have found the location of this. You can see my upscaled Google Snapshot overlayed. They are almost 100% correct. I bet by adjusting the camera position a little and a more accurate elevation data, I could make it match up perfectly.



I think what the video is showing are fragments falling down? Because I can see several impacts in several of the videos, followed by one large impact that must clearly be the rest of the aircraft crashing into the ground.

But I could be completely wrong ofc. This looks suspicious though. It is between the Russian and the Turkish crash site which sounds good.

The strange thing is; if you look at google maps the crash site where the Turks claim it is then its  like at least 15 - 16km away from the exit point of Turkish airspace they flew through.  On google maps right click and then select measure distance.

That doesn't seem to wrong? Given that they probably did not shoot or hit the Jet right away and that it was going at a quite low angle for some time after being hit. On the video you can see it going on a low angle at first, and then it starts nosediving.

[Rejenorst]

Yeah sorry I am getting to confused because there is to many versions of the story out there lol.

[Batraan]

Yeah sorry I am getting to confused because there is to many versions of the story out there lol.

It's like the start of WWI all over again. Albeit this is less confusing.

[Grantrithor]

MaxLam did you read anything that the rest of us wrote?
The physicists are completely wrong in their calculations.

Didn't the physicist say that the information given by the russians and turks does not compute? That's why you guys had the huge argument, because the numbers aren't factually correct but they were assumed to be.

The location of the rescue helicopter's landing is not necessarily near the crash site. Firstly the pilot ejected long before the plane reached the ground. Depending on wind etc he could have landed quite a way away. Secondly, the pilot would very likely try to move away from the crash site, as that's where rebels would go to start searching. I have no idea how long after the plane was downed that the rescue helicopter came.

two pilots, it's a two seater plane. The russians claimed that the assad regime recovered one of the pilots while the other pilot was claimed by turkmen to have been shot dead whilst parachuting. If I recall correctly the rescue helicopter went looking for the pilot that, at the time, was missing in action, not the one that was recovered by the Syrians.

[Salcos]

My opinion is that the Russian crash site is more accurate than the Turkish crash site. Indeed, we know that there was both rebel groups and government forces in the area. The location given by the Russians, somewhere around Kepir, can correspond to this. The location given by the Turks, however, corresponds to an area under rebel control.

Also I propose to open a vote with 3 choices:
Turkey is lying.
Kebab is lying.
Turkeys are lying.

[MaxLam]

What? The pilot simply couldn't move without his seat, because the beacon is inside. Moreover you can clearly see the crash site on my video. You can't assume that the pilot fell too far from the plane.