Check this out guys.http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=y9b8anjS6Xs

Don't know if it's real. Something looks strange about the rollout from the landing but quite concievable with an aircraft such is this with a high thrust to weight ratio.

Looks like the wing departed during an uncoordinated rolling maneuver. The asymetric G limits on an airframe can be considerably lower than when loading G up symetrically.

HMMM  how come when the plane takes off the left wing has no letters on it and when it lands it is lettered?

looks like bad 3D animation to me, big time.  The lighting seems off, and there's no dust kicked up when he "lands"

Quoted from crazy canuck

HMMM  how come when the plane takes off the left wing has no letters on it and when it lands it is lettered?

I've checked it, and, the left wing has letters but not as dark as the right one.

Quoted from machine.slave

looks like bad 3D animation to me, big time.  The lighting seems off, and there's no dust kicked up when he "lands"

Do you know what makes the dust when a plane lands? Tires braking... if the guy would of put the brakes with that kind of landing he would of killed himself by a nose crash.

I don't know, there appears to be a significant amount of evidence about differences in the plane when it's in the air and when its on the ground (nose to wing space, markings, wheel shrouds, etc.) and quite a bit of controversay about whether the pilot actually exists.

When watching it I had the distinct feeling I was watching an RC plane, the way it moves vertically much quicker than larger planes (and I and neighbourhood friends flew RC helicopters for a while until pinballs took over - not well I might add).

Quoted from websherpa

I don't know, there appears to be a significant amount of evidence about differences in the plane when it's in the air and when its on the ground (nose to wing space, markings, wheel shrouds, etc.) and quite a bit of controversay about whether the pilot actually exists.

When watching it I had the distinct feeling I was watching an RC plane, the way it moves vertically much quicker than larger planes (and I and neighbourhood friends flew RC helicopters for a while until pinballs took over - not well I might add).

Maybe.

I must be too naive.

Looks like viral marketing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing

http://www.reggiepaulk.com/2008/10/killathrill-generates-huge-buzz-with.html

Fake.

I agree it's fake from another perspective. An aerobatic plane like an Extra 300 is able to handle +/-10G with one pilot on board. The maneouvre where the wing fell off IMHO did not look aggressive enough to cause the wing to come off. It does not rule out mechanical failure due to other factors though.

What I did find very odd as I stated before was the landing though. The way he pancakes that aircraft onto the ground I would expect the remaining wing, fuselage, and the pilots neck to break from the that impact. The other issue would be to obtain the depicted snap roll rate to right the aircraft on landing with only one aileron. Again I would anticipate this to be virtually impossible and would not look like a snap roll but in fact have the aircraft barrel roll as aerodynamic roll forces would be grossy asymetric. Furthermore I would anticipate if controlled flight were possible the lateral C of G of the aircraft would be now toward the winged side of the aircraft and it would roll to the opposite side with the wing being below the fuse not above. This single wing would be able to generate lift, but to be able to keep the wing vertical with a single aileron in control would be exceedingly difficult, not to mention that any control assemblies for the remaining aileron would have likely been greatly compromised by the departure of the other wing that would most likely share the same bell crank assemblies resulting in damage to those units.

I would have been more willing to believe a controlled crash on the side of the fuselage than him flipping it upright and landing on the gear.

I guess that wouldn't make as good a story though.