Fair Use of False Advertising?

Sure. I think it's possible.

What they don't show, is that the guy can't drive over 45 MPH because his frame is bent, he's got 5 more years of payments on the truck, and all he got from his employer is 30 days in the "employee of the month" parking spot.

Is that comment based on speculation or real life post accident developments?

Speculation combined with having worked for some real "special" employers.

I think it's total BS if that's supposed to be a production truck. The true nose load from that aircraft would bottom out the suspension of a half ton truck.

I would suspect a full sized commercial flatbed type semi truck with a 80,000 pound load rating could take the impact and load of half of a 80+ ton 747 but not any less of a truck!

The stock half ton Ford wouldn't even carry the weight of the 4 tons of landing gear by itself let alone the whole front of the jet while it was coming down.

Based on the discussion so far, Nissan's mistake is the ad is not 'over the top' enough for people to understand it isn't serious.

Or worse, Nissan thinks this is appealing.

And the aircraft is a 727.

So the math kinda sorta works if the pilot holds the nose up long enough, but the truck wouldn't survive once full load dropped into the bed.

But like pickups dragging around rail cars, stock trucks leaping sand dunes, etc. there is always a certain amount of hyperbole in advertising

I think it will be more popular if at the end add some thing like:

Not possible ... but our truck can handle some tough jobs.

Under typical conditions the landing speed of a 727 is 130 knots, minimum, and the 727 has one of the lowest landing speeds of any large commercial jet. That's about 150 mph. Either the folks who did that commercial are idiots, or they think the typical viewer is an idiot.

They think the viewers are idiots...or maybe both sides are. The people writing the ad might not understand physics so they assume something like this is possible.

What do you expect from people who grew up on X Box and Play-station. Their whole sense of reality is fundamentally distorted. To them, physics is what you get at the doctors office.

The typical viewer is an idiot. Advertising is powerful stuff.................and it works.

or they think the typical viewer is an idiot.
That is SOP in advertising.Ron

I have however had a cessna land on the thule rack of my Scion xB.

Guys, this is the extended version of the Fontier pickup add. I don't think the viewers of the TV version would think it's real. Read the text at the bottom right just under the "NewsHD". It's clearly says "Fictional.Do not attempt". I don't think the "typical viewer" is an idiot and I'm sure the ad guys don't care if it's possible or not. Not everyone knows the landing speed of a 747 or how much load truck axles can take. Keep in mind that not everyone on the planet is a nerdy engineering type like you and me!

It's an entertaining commercial that catches the viewers attention and that's the whole point.

"Well according to my calculations...landing speed of a 747..blah,blah,blah"...you guys are hilarious. You're more entertaining than the commercial!

Have a great weekend.

I'm surprised someone from the aviation industry has not already chimed in with comments. I skyped my buddy, a senior mechanic from United.

My first question to him was what type aircraft? What is the static weight on nosewheel. He has had to dig out a plane that skidded off the runway and buried the wheels in mud.

He recalled the incident and identified the aircraft as a 727-200. At the time of contact the plane had decelerated from minimum landing speed. Possibly to less than 100 MPH so within the possibility of achievable speeds by the truck.

As Kramath says the truck would not be road worthy afterwards. Even though the nose wheel downforces when parked is light it still exceeds the normal weight tolerance of the truck. According to my buddy they use a 12 ton jack to lift the nose wheel assembly during tire changes.

But as unlikely as this video seems to be; remember that in 1965 a C-130 was landed on a carrier deck as a test . A more unlikely scenario is hard to imagine.

AS one poster wrote. Landings by sports planes on pick-up roof racks is feasible. I have seen this done at many air shows. Plane takes off and land on truck. Skilful yes impossible no.

I'll wait for the Myth Busters version. You know, exploding tires and sparks from the chassis igniting......

Greta stunt!

Yeah I know what you mean. Durn near imposible to co-ordinate without communications between truck and cockpit. How would either driver know where the other was and what would either use as a guideline. From truck it would be impossible to line up on nosewheel using mirrors above line of sight from inside. Still think it was photoshopped even if on the boundary edge of plausible.

I just didn't buy the 747 argument early in the thread. They don't call them heavies for nothing.

Of course it was done with CGI. They got the idea from this . Some kid did it a few years ago on his PC.

Adds is a science if thoughtful impossible acts are shown in pictures / videos like:

In the 1960's an add on a Signal Generator in a 2" column in Wireless World in which a mouse [Rat] was shown to activate a Mouse-trap by a fishing hook .. lablled as

"A new solution to an old problem"

And the add was much discussed in Technical Press for its beauty.