Planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3492 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
sure looks low to me...the shadow represented on the water looks to be about 75% (roughly) as large as the airplane, indicating that it is fairly close to the water. It would be easier to tell if we knew what time of the day it was or where exactly the sun was at for the shot, but it looks like we don't have that information. it also looks like the airport has 2 parallel runways extremely close together.
perhaps the angle and altitude at which this image was shot is just throwing everything off?
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
An interesting find, and an interesting optical illusion. Somehow our eye looks at the plane and its shadow and assumes the sun is at the plane"s 8 o'clock or 7:30 position. But there's no actual reason to assume that. Looking at the airport doesn't give us a good idea of the sun's position, but far as we can see it might be 9:30 or 10 o'clock for a plane in position on runway 22, and for the plane on downwind. I'd say the plane could well be 1000 ft above the water. If the photographer knows what time the pic was taken we can do a better estimate.
"the shadow represented on the water looks to be about 75% (roughly) as large as the airplane, indicating that it is fairly close to the water."
The shadow gets less distinct as the plane gets higher, but of course its size doesn't change.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1666 times:
Does anyone have an idea of what time that particular Eurofly flight departs from Venice? Then that should give us an idea for the time, unless they have a lot of flights from Venice, but I am not familiar with the airline.
Just from my armchair, that bird looks low. Maybe 2000 feet AT THE MOST!
WestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2124 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
The runway is 10800 feet, the A320 is 120 feet long. If you rotate the picture so that the plane and runway are horizontal, and compute the relative pixel lengths of runway and A320, it appears that the aircraft is half the distance to the camera as compared to the runway. Not sure if this helps, but can someone cross check this ?
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
http://www.worldaerodata.com says runway 4R is 3300 meters, so if he took the pic with a "normal" lens he must have been at-- maybe 10000 feet?
And ignore my comment about the size of the shadow-- its size doesn't change, but he must have been referring to its apparent size, on the image. So if the shadow really is 75% of the apparent size of the plane itself, that's a useful clue all right.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Quoting PapaNovember (Reply 7): Considering that the photographer stated he's on an outbound turn after takeoff, if the airplane in question were at 1000' to 2000' ft. as suggested, what altitude would the photographer have been at?
The aircraft the photographer was on tookoff on 04L and made a right turn towards what appears to be a reciprocal heading at some point, and if I had to venture a guess, I'd say the photographer's aircraft was at somewhere around 6,000-7,000 feet. The preceeding also tells us that the camera shot is pointing pretty much due north, so maybe someone can take a better guess at the sun angles on Wednesday February 3rd than I can...
Olivnebe11 From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Hi there. First of all thank you for the interest in the picture. A little correction: Picture was taken on the 2nd of March (slight mix up between 2.3 and 3.2... sorry) and the take off was from runway 04R, which is the normal runway used in Venice. 04L is a secondary runway usually used for taxiing. A correction note was sent to the editor and it should be rectified in the coming days...
The take off was around 0950 UTC and the picture was taken at exactly 0956 UTC using a Canon EOS 10D with a 75-300 lens.
The altitude must have been roughly 8000' and we were given a direct to VIC VOR which would make the heading towards the north-east.
I guess the Eurofly A320 must have been at 1000'. Normal procedure for visual patterns is normally at 1000' AGL or in that particular case ASL.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1128 times:
He took the pic at 0956 UTC on 2 March 2005-- so if you were looking down runway 22 the sun would have been 68 degrees left of your nose, 34 degrees above the horizon. Far as we can tell, that's just about where the camera aircraft is in relation to the Eurofly A320. If the Eurofly pilots had looked up at the camera aircraft they would have seen the sun fairly close to it-- within 10 degrees, say. So, viewed from above, Eurofly's shadow should be almost in line with Eurofly. 1000 ft altitude seems reasonable for Eurofly-- even 2000 is possible.
He took it with at least a 75 mm lens on a 15.1-by-22.7-mm sensor-- so runway 4R subtends around 10.7 degrees at the camera. The angle at the 4R threshold between the runway centerline and the line to the camera looks to be 110 degrees, or maybe 120? That puts the camera 40000+ ft away from the 4R threshold. Based on the angle at which the camera is looking down at the runway, I'd say camera altitude was at least 10000 ft-- likely more, don't you think?