Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can Someone Please Explain This Pic To Me?  
User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17315 times:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/925096/L/


I don't know much about photos, and tricks to the eye, but i keep looking at this and it looks like the plane had an unreal climb angle/rate, it almost looks vertical!

What is the illusion i have caused by?


The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, first of all, looking at the runway long ways you cannot get a definite feel for the lateral movement of the aircraft during the climb. So it looks as if the climb out is more vertical then it is.

There are two other factors that will affect the climbout slope:


  • The aircraft is a cargo aircraft, and thereby can climb out at a much steeper rate than one that is confined by passengers that may be queasy of stomach. It is a well known fact that cargo aircraft tend to have much steeper climb and dive rates than passenger aircraft because the only people aboard are the pilots and they will get to altitude as quick as they are able.
  • The Aircraft might be empty or mostly empty, futher increasing its performace capabilities and making it able to climb out even quicker. I witnessed a Delta 767 leaving DAB after a Super Bowl charter early this year and it got out in a hurry, with an almost unbelieveable climb rate because it was empty except for the crew.


Aircraft perform better at higher altitude, so it is in their best interest to get there as soon as possible. So a rate of climb like this is not uncommon. And the effect in thatpicture is just downright cool.

I hope this helps!

Edited for spelling...

[Edited 2005-09-20 21:46:34]


For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineJayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17016 times:

ups guys flying a light 767 climbing out at V-2

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16954 times:

I think it's just the angle at which the picture was taken... Because the a/c is coming almost straight at you, you can't really see the angle it is taking off. All an optical illusion.

Cheers



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12639 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The foreshortening effects of a telephoto lens make the climb look steeper than it really is. To understand this, consider how short the runway looks.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16912 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
Because the a/c is coming almost straight at you

It looks like the aircraft is going away from the photographer, to me.

Am I correct??


Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16825 times:

It certainly gives a visual impression of a very steep angle of climb which would perhaps not be if looked from aside, but I remember seeing B767 lightly loaded climbing steeply. It was about 15 years when AA, PA & TW still served GVA. All were flying to CDG before going across the pond, and were lightly loaded. AA & TW B767 climbed very fast and were always as twice as high as the PA A310. It always impressed me! So perhaps the UPS aircraft was climbing quit fast in this picture...

Regards.

M


User currently offlinePlanefreakaa From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16699 times:

one thing though, if everything else has shown up in the picture, where is the aircraft, you have all the equipment on the ground showing up, but no airplane.
plus if this is a real picture, the aircraft would be going away from you, the white lights, which are on the aft end of the wings would give that away..


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16675 times:

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 7):
one thing though, if everything else has shown up in the picture, where is the aircraft, you have all the equipment on the ground showing up, but no airplane.

Everything on the ground was in the same place for the entire picture, therefore it shows up. The 767 was moving throughout the frame, and therefore was never in one place long enough to show up, especially since it was probably dark against the background. The lights, though, were bright enough to show up.

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 7):
plus if this is a real picture, the aircraft would be going away from you, the white lights, which are on the aft end of the wings would give that away..

I'm pretty sure it is heading away from the photographer. Whoever said it was coming at the photographer is probably wrong.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7643 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16638 times:

Since the aircraft in question is a freighter (flying at night), and it does appear to have such a steep takeoff followed by an almost level turn, it wouldn't surprise me if noise abatement procedures were a factor.


A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlinePlanefreakaa From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16626 times:

one other thing that im not buying on this photo is the strobe lights, the red anti-collision and the white wing tip strobes and going off together. on boeing aircraft this is a complete seperate system, they would not be going off together.

User currently offlineElectech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16590 times:

Quoting Pilotaydin (Thread starter):
and tricks to the eye

Yep, tricks to the eye... I can't explain it entirely, but here are a few pieces that can help to put the photo in perspective:

The wingspan of a 767 is relatively huge compared to the lights in the foreground whereby a viewer estimates scale. This fact causes the eye to think that a very large object far away is actually a smaller object closer.

Think of how long the runway is--likely over a mile, right? But it looks much shorter. So the aircraft leveling off and taking a southbound route after initial climb could be at 3-5 miles from the airport, but look like only 1/2 mile from the end of the runway because the wingspan still looks wide.

A 767 5+miles out will not fade to a blur where the wings and body lights mix on a clear night like this. I watch widebodies from 15-20 miles out approach IAD, and on a clear night I can easily pick out the red wingtip lights at that distance.

Quoting Pilotaydin (Thread starter):
it looks like the plane had an unreal climb angle/rate

Not at all to me...Perhaps a steep angle, but the climb rate tells the truth to me. Think of this: The time between the strobes is approximately (I'm ashamed to say I don't know exactly...) 3-4 seconds. If the aircraft was actually climbing along the near-vertical path imagined from the picture, it would have to be practically crawling. No way it could maintain that lift, unless it was a military/aerobatic performance aircraft with thrust-to-weight greater than one, using the thrust to climb instead of the lift. (At which point I say, kudos to the pilot for keeping such an excellent flight profile!)

So my analysis is, the near-direct line of sight down the runway on the aircraft's departure path causes a misjudgement in depth perception, and what looks like a steep climb in a short distance is actually much more gradual than what appears. The fact that the view is near-direct, but not direct (i.e. down the centreline) reinforces this error in perspective because the viewer thinks thay are looking at a runway at a 20-30 degree angle, but are actually looking at a 3-4 degree angle.

(Also look at the runway lights- see how close together they look?)

Edit: Another thought- the caption says it was a package carrier (UPS), which frequently fly light loads. (Could also be a nearly-empty repositioning flight) Combined with the 767's engine performance, the climb rate can actually be pretty steep, adding to the perspective issues. (but not as steep as it appears!)

Option 2: The picture is actually of an F-16 with 0.75-second strobes that levelled off at 1,000 feet, and the caption is incorrect.

Any other guesses?



Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7643 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16565 times:

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 10):
one other thing that im not buying on this photo is the strobe lights, the red anti-collision and the white wing tip strobes and going off together. on boeing aircraft this is a complete seperate system, they would not be going off together.

They are not going off together. The 767's anti collision light is quite aways forward of the wings. If you look in the picture they appear to be parallel, but since the picture was taken with a long exposure and the aircraft was moving, it looks as if the lights went off at the same time which they didn't.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16525 times:

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 10):
one other thing that im not buying on this photo is the strobe lights, the red anti-collision and the white wing tip strobes and going off together. on boeing aircraft this is a complete seperate system, they would not be going off together

You're right, but on a 767, the upper red light is not at wingtip level, it is upfront between the first two doors of a pax B763 or at about the level of the cargo door for a cargo B763. As the picture is a long time exposure, you have to consider that the red light was first, and then came the wingtips white lights. In other words you can the aircraft doing triangles with its strobs, one red - two whites, with a slight time separation between.


User currently offlineElectech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16467 times:

Oops, my reply took to long...# 1 for departure ends up reply #11!

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 9):
it wouldn't surprise me if noise abatement procedures were a factor.

I was wondering that too, not familiar with where that would apply in Iowa. Any local yokels?

Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 10):
one other thing that im not buying on this photo is the strobe lights, the red anti-collision and the white wing tip strobes and going off together. on boeing aircraft this is a complete seperate system, they would not be going off together.

Whether or not they are a separate system, I would expect them to operate on the same time spacing. For one thing, the timing circuits are standard (the capacitors recharge at the same rate) For another thing, the lights would not want to ever coincide as would eventually occur with different timing, due to potential adverse power discharge/electromagnetic effects, and finally, cyclic light patterns tend to have a hypnotic effect and are generally discouraged for that reason.

I also don't think they are going off at the same time, I don't think they do on Boeings, but they do on some smaller aircraft. I think they are repeating strobes with the anti-collision strobe about 1 second after the wingtip lights.

I don't doubt the possibility of the picture being valid- I'm one of the naive ones who will believe it does until told (or proven) otherwise by a reliable source.



Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16441 times:

This looks a lot like the departure profile out of John Wayne airport in Orange County, CA. They climb like hell to about 2k ft, and then put the throttles way back, and make a gradual right turn. Steep profiles are the norm, as many of the planes are very light when the leave.

About it being a fighter, I've seen F-15s leave PDX, and they do the opposite: they stay very low, put the wheels up, and then start going up like rockets. The fighter jet theory is plausible, except that I don't know about the position of the lights, especially the white nav lights on the wingtips. Also, the F-15's red beacon is on one tail, so it's not an F-15.

I agree that the depth of field on the pic is VERY compressed, leading you to believe that it's steeper that it really is.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineElectech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16364 times:

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 15):
About it being a fighter, I've seen F-15s leave PDX, and they do the opposite: they stay very low, put the wheels up, and then start going up like rockets. The fighter jet theory is plausible, except that I don't know about the position of the lights, especially the white nav lights on the wingtips. Also, the F-15's red beacon is on one tail, so it's not an F-15.

I agree, the wheels up would have had to occur very shortly after takeoff, if nothing else you would see a change in the flight profile if they were retracted during climb. Also, on second thought, I believe an F-16 is underpowered to do a direct vertical in most circumstances this shortly after takeoff- the engine needs more ram air to generate enough thrust to do this. I also agree it's not an F-15, or any other twin-tailed fighter. The white aft-facing wingtip lights are another giveaway, I don't recall seeing those on any fighter aircraft.

What single-tailed aircraft has a greater than 1:1 thrust/weight ratio at takeoff speed?

(answer: The Boeing 767, with a compressed depth of field!...Thanks for the terminology, those were the words I was looking for.)


[Edited 2005-09-20 23:37:36]
edit- spelling/verbage correction

[Edited 2005-09-20 23:39:55]


Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee
User currently offlineIowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4416 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16302 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Electech6299 (Reply 14):
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 9):
it wouldn't surprise me if noise abatement procedures were a factor.

I was wondering that too, not familiar with where that would apply in Iowa. Any local yokels?

Well I'm not local local, but the airport is on the southside of Des Moines, and at night they may have wanted a quick climb out. According to airnav.com: INFORMAL NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES IN EFFECT. EXPECT ATC TO ASSIGN PREFERRED RY.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16213 times:

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 5):
It looks like the aircraft is going away from the photographer, to me.

Am I correct??

True!

But either way, looking from behind or the front, you will still only see the vertical component of the take-off.

Since the a/c is not coming towards you, nor going away in a perfectly stright line ahead (photographer is at a slight angle from the runway), you only see a small portion of the horizontal change (the foward movement, what gives take-off an angle).

Cheers



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16161 times:

I didn't read through the entire thread, but think about it this way

If you have a camera that is positioned directly at the end of the runway, with the lens facing the length of the runway. Then, you have a plane taking off, basically taking the picture the same way except you're positioned differently. What will show up on the picture? You'll see almost vertical lines of the aircraft's lights, and then another line at a different angle once it reaches a level altitude. The almost vertical lines, of course, don't mean the aircraft took off vertically! It's just that with a 2d plane that's all we can discern.

So.... that's why this looks steep -- we're looking at it mostly from the end. If we're taking this picture sideways it wouldn't look so steep.


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7643 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16134 times:

I don't know anything about optical illusions in photography, different angles and their affects (I'm still a novice). And if this photo is an optical illusion or not, I don't know. But what really confuses me is why can't some people accept the fact that sometimes for various reasons commericial airliners have very steep rates of climbs. I've seen a TU-154 take off from DUS that could make the Space Shuttle blush. Where's the problem?


A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16122 times:

wow, im amazed at the quality of the answers and the fact that no one has come off with a witty comment to me!

it's an excellent photo and i didnt mean to question whether it was real or not, just meant the climb looks unreal, but i think i get the idea that when ya zoom in that much, things seem different



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16108 times:

I don't know about the terrain in Iowa, and could be way off here, but I think the hills are very characteristic of Southern California. Does Des Moines have rugged hills like that?

I also agree that this is most likely a noise abatement departure. I'm sticking with my theory that we're seeing a 757, 737NG, or A320 departure from SNA (Orange County, CA).

Any military folks out there? Do fighters have wingtip nav lights and strobes? My guess is no.

I'm very curious about how the red beacon disappears. It's as though the red beacon is far ahead of the wing.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7643 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16010 times:

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 22):
I don't know about the terrain in Iowa, and could be way off here, but I think the hills are very characteristic of Southern California. Does Des Moines have rugged hills like that?

Where do you see hills?

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 22):
I'm sticking with my theory that we're seeing a 757, 737NG, or A320 departure from SNA (Orange County, CA).

The photographer stated that it was a UPS B767 out of Des Moines. Why would he say something other then that? What does he have to benefit out of it?
B767's and other airliners are very capable of achieving very steep climb rates, it's quite normal.

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 22):
I'm very curious about how the red beacon disappears. It's as though the red beacon is far ahead of the wing.

It is, please refer to replies 12 and 13.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15979 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 23):
B767's and other airliners are very capable of achieving very steep climb rates, it's quite normal.

But not that kind of apparant angle. Try doing that in any flight simulator you won't get far (in either direction).

Some fighters can't even do that [vertical] for more than a few seconds, much less an airliner--as light as it may be.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-09-21 01:08:10]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Post contains images ZSOFN : Ever seen an empty 757 out of LHR before? Including all the factors here (empty cargo, noise abatement, compressed field depth etc) there can be no d
26 Aeroflot777 : This is one of the most gorgeous pics on a.net ever, IMHO. Just WOW!!! Aeroflot777
27 Newark777 : But the apparant length of the runway is only a few hundred feet or so, so judging the climb rate by just looking at it won't be very accurate. Is it
28 Post contains links and images ACDC8 : FS and the real world are 2 very different worlds. The angle or climb rate in that photo is really not that spectacular, I've seen more impressive. V
29 PPVRA : No, but... This is what hapened: + maybe, probably actually, combined with a powerful take-off. That may be, I don't know, but how can you tell the d
30 Birdbrainz : On the horizon. Does Des Moines have a horizon like that? Certainly yes. The 767 is very capable, and it could very well be one. About the airport, I
31 ACDC8 : A question regarding to the whole camera angle thing. Just an observation on my part, but I can't seem to make out the end of the runway. It may not b
32 Post contains images PPVRA : If the runway seems only a few hundred feet or so, what does that say about the horizontal component of the take-off? The same thing. = It's actually
33 Newark777 : That looks like a tree line to me. Harry
34 Flyabunch : Several of you have mentioned telephoto/depth of field effects. That is exactly what is causing this effect. Telephoto lens compress the depth. The mo
35 Post contains images Newark777 : Exactly. Looks like a long exposure shot actually, just to be picky. Harry
36 Post contains images PPVRA : Neither can I, really. But it doesn't really matter. Even if it was a helicopter moving forward while taking-off the illusion would be similar. Cheer
37 Post contains links and images AndrewUber : View Large View MediumPhoto © MSTAerodrome That's much easier.
38 Post contains images Birdbrainz : Upon further inspection, you may very well be right. Thanks for the sharp eyes, Harry! Maybe I'm too used to the California coast with hills/mountain
39 Post contains images ACDC8 : Just trying to understand the whole camera angle/depth/telephoto lens stuff ... I've been flying for years, so I can understand aircraft perofrmance
40 Swabur : There is no way that this is at SNA, you would be able to see the terminals on the left side of the picture. Besides I live just north of ONT, and I'
41 Meister808 : The telephoto effect is hard to understand for those who haven't experienced it in person before, but the fact that the wingtip white and bottom red s
42 Post contains images Mandrake : What a good picture! Technically a fascinating shot. It has generated a lot of opinionating. I think Harry and Mike have covered all the bases in inte
43 CosmicCruiser : It is not a well known fact because it's not true. You fly the jet according to the manufacters certification limitations. For most large jets you wo
44 Rampkontroler : All I can say is....COOL Shot!! I'd love to get one like this.
45 Loisencroach : That ain't nothin'.....just Spiderman screwing around again.
46 Post contains images Electech6299 : I had the same problem, no discernable far end to the runway. For that matter, I'm not sure about the foreground- is that the beginning of the runway
47 Post contains links and images Vikkyvik : This is likely a perfectly normal climb. The photographer's perspective is almost looking directly down the runway (he/she is probably a couple hundre
48 Zeke : The 767 is limited from memory to a 23.5 degree pitch as the fuel pumps can be uncovered and start sucking air. Depending on the weight, the aircraft
49 Post contains images ACDC8 : The green lights at the bottom of the picture would be the begining of the runway from the angle we are looking at it, so the end of the runway would
50 Cmd777300er : Why are just the lights visible? Why didn't any lighted part of the fuselage get blurred durring rollout? The runway/aircraft lights would cast a silh
51 Birdbrainz : Hi Swabur! Thanks very much for the correction. You're right. No terminal. I saw the profile, got SNA on the brain, and wouldn't let it go.
52 Post contains images Zippyjet : I'll go with the technical ramifications that were shared by my fellow A-Netters. I give it a 5 Star!
53 BrowntailWhale : He is departing rwy 5 at DSM.
54 CosmicCruiser : Don't bet on it. I've seen plenty of MTOGWs to know a bunch of packages will not necessarily bulk the plane out and it sure weighs more than all that
55 Post contains images Boeing747_600 : My thoughts exactly - I somewhat suspect that this is a doctored image and that we may have all been taken for a (rather steep ) ride!
56 Newark777 : Are you even a photographer? Do you have any reason to believe it is faked, besides the fact that you can't understand it? The aircraft moved through
57 Post contains images PPVRA : Remember, B747_600, that photography works by capturing light. For you to see anything, light needs to reflect from the object. That's why you can't
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Someone Please Explain This Yellowstone Thing 2 Me posted Fri Jun 9 2006 03:15:57 by UAL747
Could Someone Please Explain This DL Picture To Me posted Sat Mar 17 2001 05:13:10 by Pendrilsaint
Explain This Airfare To Me Please... posted Fri Apr 29 2005 22:16:09 by Greyhound
Someone Please Explain This. posted Sun May 7 2006 09:57:51 by BlazingCessna
Please Explain This Pic Of B73S Freighter posted Tue Jun 7 2005 16:15:28 by AkjetBlue
Can Someone Please Explain Upgrades? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 15:12:13 by Bustraveler
Somebody Please Explain Standby Tickets To Me! posted Sun Sep 29 2002 22:25:20 by LGW
Rule 2-40. Can Someone Please Explain posted Thu Jun 21 2001 12:29:50 by SA-JET
Can Someone Explain Russian Airlines To Me? posted Fri Mar 12 2004 00:13:27 by Mozart
Can Someone Explain This Pic? posted Sun May 4 2003 18:21:08 by 727LOVER