DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5508 times:
There is a thread on Pprune currently with the resident photographic "experts" claiming this is a fake. I don't think it is. If it is it is a very good one.
Not sure it is very smart flying though. I believe Russian ejection seats are good!
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5464 times:
If the gear were down wouldn't the aircraft be on the very edge of the runway rather than the centreline? You can also faintly see, I think, the afterburner flame of the left engine, behind the tailcone, which would suggest that the aircraft is under high power.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5462 times:
For one the IFR probe is out. Why would it be out on a fly by? It wouldn't. Why would it be out on the ground? Because if you extend it, it sets all the fueling valves to the proper position for a "hot refuel", as would be the case during in flight refueling. A very common practice to open it on your way to the fuel pit.
Also, the AOA is wrong for that aircraft, it should have slightly more. Look at the stabilator...with flaps up, and at a speed that would allow them to be up, if the stabilator was in that position, the plane would dive into the ground. It's the wrong angle.
Lastly, there is absolutely no blur to the image. Under that lighting, and at the speed it "should be" moving, I would think it close to impossible to NOT have any motion blur.
Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5427 times:
My biggest concern is with the apron lines visible through the canopy. One line seems to just disappear and not pass through the canopy (the thick one from top right) and another line seems go in a curve top left to botom right inthe canopy. What does this connect to on the apron/runway areas behind the aircraft?
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1198 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
I don't think it is fake. If you look at the top right of the photo, in front of the red fire trucks, you can see a few firemen looking towards the plane - lends a lot of credibility to the shot.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5342 times:
Well, I did a brief search of that airshow, and it does indeed look like the stunt shown was done.. I'll retract my comments on the fake photo. Apologies to the photographer.
Paulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5294 times:
In a case like this does Johan (or any one esle) email the photographer to ask if it is fake or not.
Just curious.
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
C133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4898 times:
If the gear was raised before the start of climb on takeoff it would be tough enough, but to descend to a meter or two altitude at high speed would take nerves of titanium. It looks real to me though, and hats off to the crew as well as the photographer. Now, when does the court martial begin?
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4855 times:
I don't imagine it was a low transition take off, rather a low pass. With the aid of a spotter on the ground, as is common for all airshow participants, the aircraft's altitude was probably relayed via radio to the pilot as you surely would not want to be looking anywhere except straight ahead. Even a glance to the radalt display on the HUD could be distracting at that point.
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4672 times:
Quoting Paulinbna (Reply 10): In a case like this does Johan (or any one esle) email the photographer to ask if it is fake or not.
Just curious.
No doubt it is part of the screeners' job to be on the lookout for dubious shots but I wonder why so many people's first reaction is that it must be a fake. There are plenty of pictures around of pilots performing very low flypasts. While one might regard them as dangerous, they are not an impossibility, even with large aircraft.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 49 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4503 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 8): Well, I did a brief search of that airshow, and it does indeed look like the stunt shown was done.. I'll retract my comments on the fake photo. Apologies to the photographer.
Good to see someone actually take the time to check the facts rather than just speculate..and be big enough to apologise, don't see a lot of that around here!!(having said that other forums are worse than this one!!)
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 16):
Good to see someone actually take the time to check the facts rather than just speculate..and be big enough to apologise, don't see a lot of that around here!!(having said that other forums are worse than this one!!)
Especially JeffM - Well done mate. Not as tough as I thought you were!!!
Grbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3829 times:
It's not so hard to believe. If you know anything about formation flying, you'll know that they can fly formation with distances just like this between planes at higher speeds than this flyby. Which is much harder, because the other planes are not static and moving in three dimensions. The ground is fixed stuck on a single "plane" so to speak.
And where formation flying is done by a lot of people, these airshow pilots are the cream of the crop. They know the aircraft inside and out and also know how to push it to the limit!
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1601 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
Stratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3658 times:
I started a thread on this photo last week and havent been able to get conclusive evidence from anybody regarding authenticity of it.
For the record, I belive it is real, however the lack of heat plumes behind the engine and almost no blur makes me wonder if I am right. Also, flying that low away from the center line poses a risk of getting FOD sucked into engines.
So, heat plumes, blur, and position of the aircraft make me questions this.
Elcableguy77 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 523 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 20): I started a thread on this photo last week and havent been able to get conclusive evidence from anybody regarding authenticity of it.
I would think the photo in the post above your last one should prove conclusive enough.
Former ZW F/A | "Wisconsin 72A, contact departure, see ya."
Stratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3584 times:
Quoting Elcableguy77 (Reply 21): I would think the photo in the post above your last one should prove conclusive enough.
That one is no doubt real. Look at the heat plumes, background blur, and is reasonably high off the ground. It is the one from the other angle that is making me curious because it's so low to the ground, no heat from the engines, and no background blur. If something can explain that, I am all ears - or eyes in this case.
If you thought it was real you wouldn't need the evidence of any 'heat plumes' to prove you are right.
I may believe something, but that doesnt mean that it's right What I am trying to establish is that my belief is right.... Didnt think about it that way did ya?
Elcableguy77 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 523 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3561 times:
In the information that comes with the above photo, you'll see he mentions the first one as coming from a fellow photographer at about the same time. I think that because it's taken from slightly above the aircraft, it looks closer to the ground than it is.
You are indeed right in your belief that the marvelous photo is genuine.
Former ZW F/A | "Wisconsin 72A, contact departure, see ya."
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11949 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, 
From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1198 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, 
What I am trying to establish is that my belief is right.... Didnt think about it that way did ya? 
Printer friendly format 
