What’s really funny is that the same video links posted here are also posted in the thread that I first saw this clip. Just to save time, I’ll just post these two. They’re bound to come up eventually!
So, I’ll just go with the Mythbusters’ standby - plausible, but not verified.
Just to echo this in a bit more detail. With a compressed digital video, ghosting, doubling, blurring, edge artifacts, and more are to be expected and will not be consistent. A single frame may (and probably is) be pre-fetching or post-fetching data from other frames to anticipate and guess at what it is drawing in the current frame. It is not at all like comparing film frames which exist in isolation.
I have to question a lot of these 10 ft off the deck videos if for no other reason I would assume it would be extraordinarily dangerous to fly that way. There is a lot more tubulance at low levels and all you need is a slight downdraft at 500 mph and that’s that.
Also, they look way too fast. We’ve all seen an aircraft on final approach (about 150 - 200 mph). Aircraft don’t just go from appearing on the horizon to being right on top of you in two seconds.
Dunno about any of the other videos, but the one in the OP is probably real. It’s a Harrier, and it’s probably flying with the thrust vectored slightly downward.
Anyway, it’s not doing a lot more than 150-200 mph. Cars on oval racetracks pass you at the same speeds.
To be honest, all of those linked so far a considerably further off the ground than ten feet. As for the danger, RAF practice low flying in the mountains around here all the time and they do lose the odd one. Most of those clips are in flattish areas. Trust me though - they really come on to you surprisingly fast when they’ve got a bit of speed on.
Love that clip - third guy is a mentalist. Is it RAF as titled? They’re all speaking French, you’d need some Gallic flair to pull that off.
Correct. To be specific, induced drag (of which the wingtip vortices are the physical manifestation) is proportional to the inverse square of the indicated airspeed.
Sure it’s more dangerous, probably not as dangerous as you’re thinking though. Flying low and fast is what many military pilots are specifically trained to do, it’s their job and they’re good at it. There is no turbulence on a nice day, particularly over water. These aircraft are going a lot faster than an airliner on approach and they are a lot smaller and need to be reasonably close to the camera before they’re visible to the camera. The people standing around can obviously see the jets for a lot longer than we can.
Actually, at very low levels, you get into Ground Effect, which helps somewhat.
But yes, low level flying is dangerous. So is being caught on enemy radar. That said, one of the hallmarks of jet jockeys is supreme self-confidence. And hijinks. So it’s totally believable.
How about “If you were faking it, why you make a double image”? 
I decided to take one for the fight against ignorance and look deep into the comments section. The consensus is that they are Belgian airforce Alphajets (I’m having bother pausing the video at a good frame to get a look but they definitely aren’t Tornadoes as claimed - single engine ) and the spectators are speaking Flemish. Possibly.
Not really. Turbulence certainly can make for a rough ride, but has no greater tendency to cause loss of control at high speed than at low - indeed, at high speed, you have much higher control authority.
The video title clearly states it’s a Mirage F1, not a Harrier (and I don’t think it’s an Alpha Jet either). Spotting features include the only slight anhedral (droop) of the wings, compared to the much more noticable anhedral of the Harrier’s wings, and the large centerline tank or pod. The tandem landing gear of the Harrier does not allow large centerline tanks to be fitted.
According to Wiki, eight countries still fly Mirage F1s, including Frande, Spain and several middle eastern militaries. Based on the appearance of the terrain in the video, it could a French machine operated in Chad or Afghanistan, or by one of the middle eastern operators in its home country.
Here’s another video of Mirage F1’s (and -2000s) in French service, possibly shot at the same location, showing, among other things, the same aircraft type doing a relatively low-speed pass at an even lower altitude than the video linked by the OP. The sequence in question starts around 1min 19.
So it does. Only looked at the first link, which is untitled. It also has the odd bulge just below the top of the vertical stabilizer that the F1 has.
I make no judgement as to the validity of the clip, but if I recall my long ago pilot training correctly, the major vorticies from an aircraft come from its wingtips. If it was passing directly overhead there wouldn’t be that much turbulence.
I may be wrong.
Former fighter pilot …
I watched the youtube linked in the OP’s post. I haven’t looked at the other links
Looks like a Harrier to me. It is 100% certainly not a Mirage F1 as the video is titled. Ref Dassault Mirage F1 - Wikipedia , the size of the engine intakes is way wrong, and the wing anhedral is all wrong too.
He’s doing ~300mph. IOW, moderately fast. He’s also at 50’. IOW, moderately low. That’s not at all hard to do over a perfectly flat smooth runway. Against the rules, at least in the peacetime USAF I dealt with, but not difficult.
I’ve done both the flyby & stood on the ground myself in fairly similar situations.
IMO, the flyby is 100% real. The camera shake as the jet goes by is 100% real. The guy standing there is 100% real. But not all at the same time. The recording of the guy standing on the runway then walking away was composited over the recording of the flyby.
Not flinching even a smidgen is real unlikely given the number of chances you get to practice something like this: once or twice before the Boss catches on. If you thought the video was loud, you ain’t heard nuthin’ yet, mouse-ears or no. It will rattle your skeleton.
But the real killer is that the camera is shaken by the wake & engine blast. The guy isn’t, and neither are his clothes. Even nerves of steel don’t make for stiff but baggy camo pants. Trust me, there is plenty of wake to do that.
Not necessarily. If you steady the shot of one, then you can easily track and composite it back into the other.
Those look like standard issue BDU pants to me. And, especially if they’re winter weight and starched, they’d be pretty stiff.
That aside, I think they do move. The wake would hit the guy after the plane passes, so most of the effect (conveniently enough!) would happen during the camera shake. But just before the camera does move look real close at where his pants are bloused - just above the tops of his boots. I think I see the right one move.
Still, good discussion. And nothing conclusive one way or another!
Can’t agree with you there. The anhedral of the Harrier is severe, with the wingtips almost as low as the tip of the nose. I’ve never seen a Harrier equipped with a centerline drop tank either.
Correct, the Harrier doesn’t have a centre hardpoint, that space is taken up with the main undercarriage.
I think the aircraft in the video has less anhedral than it looks like. The aircraft is above the height of the camera and so you’re looking up at it slightly, this makes the sweep of the wing look like anhedral, or at least it exaggerates the anhedral.