Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on September 16, 2019, 11:06:44 am
-
I read this and I'm embarrassed - there's no way I'd know exactly what shutter/f-stop to get it all right. Back in the days of film, there was no chimping and frame rates weren't in double digits, so you had to know what you were doing. I'm astounded that one shutter press captured this but that is a testament to the photographer's skill.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/concorde-last-flight-photo/index.html
-
Such a detailed story, yet these crucial details still missing: camera, lens, f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO used?
-
Such a detailed story, yet these crucial details still missing: camera, lens, f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO used?
Why would knowing that make a difference?
Rob
-
The important thing is the shutter speed - I'd go with a minimum of 1/2000s.
-
Why would knowing that make a difference?
Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).
Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40831519293_a2f7fc4709_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X)Synchronicity (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
-
Oh, for Christ's sake....
YES ?
-
Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).
Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40831519293_a2f7fc4709_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X)Synchronicity (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
So this was taken from your flying carpet, which was cheaper than the helicopter? ;D
Very impressive shot, Slobodan.
-
Nice catch Slobo.
-
Ground to air is effortless. Air to ground is harder. Air to air is harder still. Air to air to ground (which characterizes the Concorde shot) is by far the most difficult.
-
Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).
Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40831519293_a2f7fc4709_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X)Synchronicity (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Well, what you did worked, so what was the problem?
Rob
-
Well, what you did worked, so what was the problem?
The problem was that I was guessing*, and some of it worked. For instance, I stopped down too much, which caused the ISO 1000 (and noise). I guessed that 1/2000s might be enough, but I also tried 1/3200s 1/4000s, which resulted in ISO 2000 and even more noise, and loss of dynamic range and sharpness.
* I was guessing based on reading about other people's experience in similar situations. Knowing the Concorde photographer's settings, for instance, would have been a valuable addition to my theoretical knowledge.
-
Now wait a minute! Here is a photographer in a chase plane to document the last, historical flight of the Concorde and he can only take on shot? Pretty unbelievable in my book.
-
Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).
Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40831519293_a2f7fc4709_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X)Synchronicity (https://flic.kr/p/25d9d8X) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
It's just photography. All the rules are the same. Nothing changes, except the subject, which is constantly and rapidly changing. That's why aerials are so difficult.
No offense, but Slobodan's image, while pretty, is very easy to make given the right hardware. IMHO, more credit goes to the pilots of those F-18s and the weather.
Some of the images from the space station have been made with very long lenses and shutter speeds in the order of 1/4 sec, back-panning to match the earth's motion. Now THAT is photographic skill.
In other words, the answer is "whatever works on the day".
-
Why would knowing that make a difference?
Rob
;)
I guess there is more shutter criticality in shooting a Mach 2,04 airplane than there is in shooting a blonde under a California sunbounce. 8)
-
;)
I guess there is more shutter criticality in shooting a Mach 2,04 airplane than there is in shooting a blonde under a California sunbounce. 8)
I’m not saying the one is ‘soweazy’ and the other not. It’s all in the correct use of the qwiupment. 🥳
https://youtu.be/fl8hPfs3o8c
-
And that's the point: every shot that's not studio formula is different, with a different set of problems, some that have solutions and some not.
Knowing which camera settings made the Conkie shot doesn't mean zilch in different weather, atmospheric conditions etc. etc. Even the relative size of the aircraft makes a difference to perspective, proximity to camera and problems such as DOF coming from that. Frankly, I was surprised at the question from somebody with Slobodan's ability.
But hey, I'm not going to get into a hassle over it.
Nice set of aircraft, but I'm led to wondering what the pilot of the near one had for dinner the night before.
:-)
-
Speaking of Concorde image... the plane was in a landing phase, where speeds are usually 150-200 miles per hour. Certain cars can match that and exceed. If the helicopter was moving in the same direction, the relative speed was even lower (max forward speed for helicopters is about 250 m/h). So, if all elements aligned perfectly (and I am sure they didn't), it is theoretically possible that the photographer was shooting a stationary object.
If I remember correctly, my planes were flying at 400+ m/h and at a very close range. For those interested, and again if I remember it correctly, the wing-tip to wing-tip distance was 18 inches between the planes. This is just FYI, not meant to compare my skills or image with that of Concorde's.
-
What counts is not aircraft speed, but angular rate.
Easy: aircraft approaching head on, angular rate near zero.
Like this:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aiwOa4-n3hKpxlWSghE80Dt6D3Knwwm6TWyzogFPpJY42ljrepNbMlBI0qzX4VqI57osfg_vWqGDB_sjtZpF1QCgygySI5Otq19ijhkpq0brpULy7YWit5T74ci5Alq-NP4atiyTgg=w2400)
Slightly more difficult: aircraft moving fast, but laterally, and at a great distance. Angular rate low.
Really hard: aircraft moving fast and very close. Angular rate high.
Like this:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/z8jYXtD28LQhy30jQQ6t5mqzfDeDUWv0NJTNTqwdchraForFHTNq5E3FkYt6sHDW0BDtq0fafbmZrCev2-dRlH9YydiJ1A0wcwfmUSeBO84eT6CQ2OA-bWLljX-TiWiW-ItXkuerBA=w2400)
Steep bank, directly overhead, a few hundred feet above me. D300, 70-200 @ 140mm 1/750th @f8. Barely fast enough shutter.
There is precisely zero chance the helicopter photo ship was travelling at anywhere near the same speed as Concorde, which in the image is in supersonic configuration.
Especially with a photographer hanging out the door.
-
Nice shots Peter. There's some movement in the first but still very nice. It's more interesting than the second even though the second is sharper.
-
Interesting point about the mode of the front part of Conkie. I thought those aircraft were prohibited from going supersonic over Britain. I also thought that the half-opened penknife attitude was essential for low speed flying. Clearly, I'm not much into such matters, thinking that the less I know, the less I worry. It's bad enough knowing something about jet engines through having worked with so many broken turbine blades in my early pro learning curve. I have not flown for about fifteen years. It still surprises me how when I was working, I couldn't get enough of jetting away somewhere. Must have had the gypsie in my soul.
Rob
-
;)
I guess there is more shutter criticality in shooting a Mach 2,04 airplane than there is in shooting a blonde under a California sunbounce. 8)
The equation is always the same - shutter/aperture/ISO/light, but more complicated with flash instead of a reflector.
A leaping blonde produces her own problems for you, and unlike an aircraft, her trajectory is much more brief and bound to rapid change in direction.
Never underestimate a woman. But you knew that...
:-)
-
Interesting point about the mode of the front part of Conkie. I thought those aircraft were prohibited from going supersonic over Britain. I also thought that the half-opened penknife attitude was essential for low speed flying...
I think you are right, Rob. The nose-up mode is more likely in preparations for landing. They were only 6 miles from the airport! in other words, only 2-3 min from landing.
-
The nose-up mode is more likely in preparations for landing. They were only 6 miles from the airport! in other words, only 2-3 min from landing.
Sorry, precisely the opposite is true. Nose up is for supersonic flight, nose down is to allow the pilots to actually see the runway.
Thanks, Alan. I identified the pilots from the tail number and emails to the squadron with the exact time of flight. I made a few prints and sent 'em off.
-
Sorry, precisely the opposite is true. Nose up is for supersonic flight...
They are in supersonic mode 6 miles from the airport??? They are returning to the airport, not leaving it.
-
... The nose-up mode is more likely in preparations for landing...
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant is that the front of the airplane is higher than the tail. Which to me indicates slowing down in preparations for landing.
-
They are in supersonic mode 6 miles from the airport??? They are returning to the airport, not leaving it.
I don't believe she was on final for that image. She's in a relatively tight turn, so it appears from the camera angle that she's at a high angle of attack. There's no way she'd be making that kind of turn that close to the ground if she was landing. That was a demo pass. I think the nose is in the retracted position for photography, not for landing. Concorde looks WAY prettier with the nose up.
I had the singular pleasure of witnessing a takeoff in Rio. Right at the end of the runway. My ears are still ringing.
-
I don't believe she was on final for that image. She's in a relatively tight turn, so it appears from the camera angle that she's at a high angle of attack. There's no way she'd be making that kind of turn that close to the ground if she was landing. That was a demo pass. I think the nose is in the retracted position for photography, not for landing. Concorde looks WAY prettier with the nose up.
I had the singular pleasure of witnessing a takeoff in Rio. Right at the end of the runway. My ears are still ringing.
I agree that he was turning but not landing. Then nose is down for landing. One thing about the noise. As a New Yorker where Concorde landed and took off at Kennedy Int'l, I recall that there were a lot of complaints about the extra noise this jet made compared to all the other jetliners. Concordes had afterburners that they used for the first minute or so of takeoff. You can see that in this night video where the flame caused by the afterburners disappear after the burners are shut off. They iused them again when going thru the sound barrier but shut them off again while cruising at 1.7 mach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7mt6AKKhq4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7mt6AKKhq4)
-
I can confirm Slobodan’s theory by analogy.
One of my ex girlfriends nose was also always up when she was landing.
And the noise she made in the taking off, talk to my neighborhood to believe.
🤐
-
I can confirm Slobodan’s theory by analogy.
One of my ex girlfriends nose was also always up when she was landing.
And the noise she made in the taking off, talk to my neighborhood to believe.
🤐
And their is more analogy with the Concorde. I also don’t fly here anymore.
:o
-
But where is Russ in this discussion? He will now, I’m pretty sure he will tell us, he flew one of the first Concorde home from Korea to Charles De Gaulle airport in the late ‘60...
;D ;D ;)
-
I can confirm Slobodan’s theory by analogy.
One of my ex girlfriends nose was also always up when she was landing.
And the noise she made in the taking off, talk to my neighborhood to believe.
I can recall similar situations, but usually these were night landings in poor light conditions, so I didn't pay too much attention to the nose and concentrated on the core of the body. As to the noise, yes, it always got louder after the touch down. But the riders seemed relaxed at that moment.
-
I can recall similar situations, but usually these were night landings in poor light conditions, so I didn't pay too much attention to the nose and concentrated on the core of the body. As to the noise, yes, it always got louder after the touch down. But the riders seemed relaxed at that moment.
Hence the stealth bomber. You never know if it's coming or going, and by the time you find out it's too late.
-
But where is Russ in this discussion? He will now, I’m pretty sure he will tell us, he flew one of the first Concorde home from Korea to Charles De Gaulle airport in the late ‘60...
;D ;D ;)
No, Ivo, at that time I was commanding a radar site in the Vietnam delta. I always thought the Concorde was a dangerous mistake, and I was right. At that time our knowledge of the problems associated with supersonic flight just wasn't extensive enough to allow us to build a safe supersonic commercial aircraft.
-
As I recall it was junk on the runway that was sucked into the engines that caused the last crash and doomed the Concorde from future use.
-
I also recall that America had a supersonic commercial plane. But it was canceled because they didn't think it could make a profit. Actually that's what happened to the Concorde as well. Operational costs exceeded income. But it was a pretty plane.
-
Re: Alan's post on an American supersonic transport:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
-
As I recall it was junk on the runway that was sucked into the engines that caused the last crash and doomed the Concorde from future use.
Here is a summary of what happened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
-
Such a detailed story, yet these crucial details still missing: camera, lens, f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO used?
hahahahaha!
Perfect response :)
(Or in other words, today people think that reporting all of these things is important because it will make their photos better when in actual fact the numbers are totally irrelevant and being able to work out what they should be is the real skill that matters but nobody cares about that any more.)
-
Speaking of Concorde image... the plane was in a landing phase, where speeds are usually 150-200 miles per hour.
Have a look where that bridge is. Look at where the airfield it is going to is. That plane is not "on approach." This was the last flight so expect some sort of "show" being a part of the flight plan. Why would it be a "show" flight? The Concorde was made in Bristol (where that bridge is) and this particular plane is still there, in Bristol, to this day.
-
Have a look where that bridge is. Look at where the airfield it is going to is. That plane is not "on approach." This was the last flight so expect some sort of "show" being a part of the flight plan. Why would it be a "show" flight? The Concorde was made in Bristol (where that bridge is) and this particular plane is still there, in Bristol, to this day.
Well of course it is! They can't get permission to fly it since 5% of the world's kerosene supply has just been bombed!
I suspect that was just a noisy, flashy diversion to hide the fact that Bibi's tenure may soon be over, and his time to serve in another, very different place may be approaching fast!
All of which reveals that Nature has a wonderful sense of equilibrium and natural justice. Of all people, he should be one to know that so it has been written on tablets of stone. But perhaps he will find a one-way ticket-for-two to Venezuela just in time.
;-)
-
Have a look where that bridge is. Look at where the airfield it is going to is. That plane is not "on approach."...
So, you tell me where they are (bridge and airport) and how that doesn’t lead to the conclusion about approach?
-
So, you tell me where they are (bridge and airport) and how that doesn’t lead to the conclusion about approach?
“When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
That aircraft is not on short final, it is performing an aerial demonstration pass. It cannot land in that configuration.
-
... (Or in other words, today people think that reporting all of these things is important because it will make their photos better when in actual fact the numbers are totally irrelevant and being able to work out what they should be is the real skill that matters but nobody cares about that any more.)
Your (and Rob's) stance is totally ludicrous.
So, how do you think "being able to work out what they should be" works? How are you being able? How do you acquire that "real skill"? You just wake up one morning and you just "know" how to shoot planes, for instance? Or you learn it by reading about it first?
He said he changed his settings 10 times. He was obviously struggling to come up with a winning combination, in spite of being an experienced professional photographer. I am curious as to what his thought process was as he was going through those 10 and why he settled for the last one. As curious as Rob is to read, even today, about how and why another (famous) photographer decided to go into photography and how that photographer handled certain issues of their professional life.
Curiosity. Not to discover a secret formula to replicate exactly in every case.
-
quote Dreed: "and this particular plane is still there, in Bristol, to this day."
(Along with a '53 Bristol or two one would hope)
-
... That aircraft is not on short final, it is performing an aerial demonstration pass.
It landed right after passing the bridge.
-
It landed right after passing the bridge.
That's an assertion. Validate it, please. "right after" is pretty vague.
"Short final" in aviation terms means the last few moments before landing. Less than a minute.
-
Your (and Rob's) stance is totally ludicrous.
This is like someone asking "What exposure did you use for that image?". For which the answer is: "The correct one".
An on-set bystander once asked me as I stood behind a Panaflex on which was mounted an 800mm Canon: "How far can you see with that lens?"
For some questions, there is no appropriate answer.
-
It landed right after passing the bridge.
Why do you insist? Are you trolling us? Or do you just refuse to accept that you're wrong?
You can use a web browser, open up Google maps, find that bridge, note the angle of the plane, etc, and then locate the respective airfield. If you like, get a "magic marker" and draw on a GIF or JPEG for us the path that plane took (or at least the path you think it took) and upload it in a reply. Of course you won't do any of that, will you?
-
So, how do you think "being able to work out what they should be" works? How are you being able? How do you acquire that "real skill"? You just wake up one morning and you just "know" how to shoot planes, for instance? Or you learn it by reading about it first?
Study and hard work. The same way that everyone else does. Or in the following order:
1. Practice/study
2. Practice/study
3. Practice/study
4. Maybe study but likely practice.
Reading internet forums doesn't rate - neither does being lazy or having a lazy attitude.
He said he changed his settings 10 times. He was obviously struggling to come up with a winning combination, in spite of being an experienced professional photographer. I am curious as to what his thought process was as he was going through those 10 and why he settled for the last one. As curious as Rob is to read, even today, about how and why another (famous) photographer decided to go into photography and how that photographer handled certain issues of their professional life.
If he changed his settings 10 times then he was doing a lot of thinking about what was going to happen when he pressed the shutter release. I wouldn't call that struggling. The story documents that he was weighing up a whole host of different things in his mind as to what would be the right exposure. The story paints a picture of a very experienced photographer that was weighing up lots of pro's and con's as he prepared to take the photo. That type of shooting is a forgotten art today.
-
If he changed his settings 10 times then he was doing a lot of thinking about what was going to happen when he pressed the shutter release. I wouldn't call that struggling. The story documents that he was weighing up a whole host of different things in his mind as to what would be the right exposure. The story paints a picture of a very experienced photographer that was weighing up lots of pro's and con's as he prepared to take the photo. That type of shooting is a forgotten art today.
Is not using a fast shutter speed kind of a duh? That only leaves aperture and ISO. Not sure why he needed ten changes.
-
quote Dreed: "and this particular plane is still there, in Bristol, to this day."
(Along with a '53 Bristol or two one would hope)
Nah, Patricia; for those delightfully innocent years - at least I was - it has to be six years later, another continent, and the '59 Coupe de Ville! But you knew that, and were being kind.
:-)
-
That's an assertion. Validate it, please. "right after" is pretty vague.
"Short final" in aviation terms means the last few moments before landing. Less than a minute.
(Bold mine)
After the fly-by, we landed at Filton airfield, where Concorde had also landed. I took other photos of it being towed into its hangar with the pilot waving from the window.
In other words, the helicopter went back to Filton after the fly-by, but the Concorde was already there, and not just touching the ground, but done with taxiing and being towed into its hanger.
To me it says the plane landed right after the fly-by with the helicopter. Unless the helicopter continued flying around Bristol for sightseeing. But I prefer the Occam's razor explanation.
The alternative scenario, the one you seem to be advocating, is that the plane was ascending at a sharp, almost 45 degree angle, at a supersonic speed. If so, the plane would have had to make a very wide circle around the airport (it doesn't have the maneuverability of a fighter plane after all), slow down and descend again. That's possible, but coupled with the fact that it landed well before the helicopter, I'd say unlikely.
For your scenario, you need two assumptions to work: the plane went for a wide circle and the helicopter went sightseeing. Possible, but unlikely.
-
Does anybody really care when and where it landed?
-
Why do you insist? Are you trolling us? Or do you just refuse to accept that you're wrong?
You can use a web browser, open up Google maps, find that bridge, note the angle of the plane, etc, and then locate the respective airfield. If you like, get a "magic marker" and draw on a GIF or JPEG for us the path that plane took (or at least the path you think it took) and upload it in a reply. Of course you won't do any of that, will you?
Why this aggressiveness? Why would I troll? I thought we are having a reasoned discussion about possible scenarios. I will admit that I was wrong when you prove it, not just keep repeating "you are wrong."
Btw, I did check the map before I made my earlier comments, but here it is, per your request:
-
Study and hard work. The same way that everyone else does. Or in the following order:
1. Practice/study
2. Practice/study
3. Practice/study
4. Maybe study but likely practice.
Reading internet forums doesn't rate - neither does being lazy or having a lazy attitude...
And how does one study if not by reading about it, internet or otherwise. And this emphasis on "lazy"? Is that directed at me?
-
Look, photographing airplanes in flight is not rocket science. I shot an airshow about thirty years ago. I didn't read about it first, there was no internet, etc., etc. I just used common sense. I shot with a high shutter speed and whatever aperture was necessary for proper exposure. All my slides turned out great. Photographic technique just isn't that hard. Everyone wants to make it out as some kind of mystery. It's not.
-
Look, photographing airplanes in flight is not rocket science. I shot an airshow about thirty years ago. I didn't read about it first, there was no internet, etc., etc. I just used common sense. I shot with a high shutter speed and whatever aperture was necessary for proper exposure. All my slides turned out great. Photographic technique just isn't that hard. Everyone wants to make it out as some kind of mystery. It's not.
You must be an exception, being a genius and such. It was apparently a mystery for the poor professional photographer, with years of practice, so much so, that he needed to fiddle with his settings 10 times.
-
Sometimes, you can make decent airplane images even with an entry-level gear and at a relatively slow shutter speed.
The below image is no comparison to Slobodan's image, the plane was ascending, just getting to the speed and I had a 50mm lens mounted on the camera.
It was taken a long time with a lowly Canon T2i at 1/400s.
-
Nice shot Les. What are those things at the top? UFO's?
-
Hmmm. They might be helicopters. :)
-
Sometimes, you can make decent airplane images even with an entry-level gear and at a relatively slow shutter speed...
Hey, look at my micro-airplane, shot with a 16mm lens and 1/160s :)
-
The plane looks nice and sharp, but the sky is spectacular. Great shot, Slobodan.
-
Ok. I'll give away the secret. 1/500 at f/7.1.
Oh, wait. That's not the point, is it? :-[
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6189/6151368161_3536e6b8e4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anznrK)Sky at Altitude (https://flic.kr/p/anznrK) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Airbus A-340 over some place slightly tropical ?
-
Airbus A-340 over some place slightly tropical ?
The 340 is a four engine and this only has two engines. In any case, I have no idea what plane it was. Well, it wasn;t the Concorde. :)
Here's another tricky shot. I had to stand on my head to get it. ::) 1/200 f/7.1
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6206/6151368271_dabe3617f6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anzntD)At 35,000 Feet (https://flic.kr/p/anzntD) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
The alternative scenario, the one you seem to be advocating, is that the plane was ascending at a sharp, almost 45 degree angle, at a supersonic speed.
I "seem to be advocating" no such thing. It's you that's making these assertions. I specifically denied the fact that the aircraft was even climbing, let alone "ascending at a sharp, almost 45 degree angle". In fact, I doubt that Concorde could, under any circumstances other than a test flight at high altitude attain a 45 degree angle of attack.
What I did say was that it was apparently in a low altitude demonstration pass and in a relatively tight turn.
As for me "advocating" that Concorde was "at a supersonic speed", that's just preposterous. I certainly didn't and wouldn't because it isn't. You made that up yourself.
Concorde flying supersonic at that altitude would be rather unlikely, especially while overflying a crowd.
If so, the plane would have had to make a very wide circle around the airport (it doesn't have the maneuverability of a fighter plane after all), slow down and descend again. That's possible, but coupled with the fact that it landed well before the helicopter, I'd say unlikely.
For your scenario, you need two assumptions to work: the plane went for a wide circle and the helicopter went sightseeing. Possible, but unlikely.
Please quit making stuff up and then attributing it to me. I did not create that scenario. You did.
-
Does anyone think the photo of the Concord is anything special to begin with?
-
... As for me "advocating" that Concorde was "at a supersonic speed", that's just preposterous...
... There is precisely zero chance the helicopter photo ship was travelling at anywhere near the same speed as Concorde, which in the image is in supersonic configuration.
-
... I specifically denied the fact that the aircraft was even climbing..
Watch the video. The part around the Clifton Bridge starts at 1:43. The plane flies almost parallel to the ground and rather low over a flat terrain. Then, at 1:59, it starts to climb in order to keep the distance over the approaching hills that carry the Clifton Bridge. Yes, it makes the turn at the same time, which exaggerates the appearance of the angle of climbing. However, it started to climb before making the turn.
Back to my initial claim, that the plane was flying at relatively slow speed. Watch the video from 1:43 again. As it approaches the helicopter, the plane clearly appears to be moving faster than the ground underneath. However, at 1:59, as it starts to climb, and simultaneously flies by the helicopter, the ground appears to move faster than the plane, and the plane appears almost stationary for a brief moment, relative to the helicopter.
At that is the gist of my argument: slow relative speed. It matters much less if it was climbing, turning, landing, approaching, etc. What matters is that it was flying at a relatively slow speed (especially relative to the helicopter). It was slowing down, in preparations for landing. It takes a lot of slowing down from its max speed of 1,354 m/h (even if it wasn't used during the last flight) to the landing speed of 184 m/h.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr0v64evBxc
-
I have several decades experience in air-to-air photography, most of it from helicopters. Look me up on IMDB if you wish validation.
I'm done with this ludicrous "discussion".
-
I have several decades experience in air-to-air photography, most of it from helicopters. Look me up on IMDB if you wish validation.
I'm done with this ludicrous "discussion".
Appeal to authority? Works every time when you run out of logical arguments.
I respect your experience. But no amount of experience can defeat simple laws of physics. If two bodies move in parallel at the same speed, they would appear stationary to each other. If two bodies are to crash at each other, their speed would be added (i.e., two cars crashing head on at 100 mph would have an impact of 200 mph). Consequently, if two bodies are moving in parallel at different speeds, the speed of the faster one will appear to the slower one as a difference (i.e., to a helicopter moving at 100 mph, the plane moving at 150 mph would appear as 50 mph).
-
Appeal to authority? Works every time when you run out of logical arguments.
I respect your experience. But no amount of experience can defeat simple laws of physics. If two bodies move in parallel at the same speed, they would appear stationary to each other. If two bodies are to crash at each other, their speed would be added (i.e., two cars crashing head on at 100 mph would have an impact of 200 mph). Consequently, if two bodies are moving in parallel at different speeds, the speed of the faster one will appear to the slower one as a difference (i.e., to a helicopter moving at 100 mph, the plane moving at 150 mph would appear as 50 mph).
That explains it: when my Ford passed the Lambo (tractor) some years ago - how time flies - it looked as it it was standing still, which it wasn't, in real terms, but just looked like it in relative terms which considering it was a tractor and possibly six or seven times - think of a number, any number in these situations - heavier than the sum of my parts and the parts of the Ford, and the impact, had we been flying towards one another, would have resulted in a slow-speed crash but a major crush. The man driving the tractor may not have noticed anything unusual. Photography can never match thrills like those.
-
Why this aggressiveness? Why would I troll? I thought we are having a reasoned discussion about possible scenarios. I will admit that I was wrong when you prove it, not just keep repeating "you are wrong."
Btw, I did check the map before I made my earlier comments, but here it is, per your request:
Here's a tip: next time you feel compelled to make up your own "fact", do some research on the subject/topic at hand first.
Some of your comments suggest that you have not comprehended what people have written. Is English your native language?
-
... Some of your comments suggest that you have not comprehended what people have written. Is English your native language?
-
<silly picture removed>
You've failed multiple times in this thread and here you show that you aren't in the least bit interested in trying to improve and given that there's only one thing left to do...
-
There are a number of instances of telescopic compression in that video that give the appearance of the aircraft doing something it was not.
The museum probably has the record of the final flight path, but i could not find it online. Most likely they would have been on level flight or gradually descending over the course of the loop, approach over the bridge, and then turn on final to Filton. The only time i saw a high angle of attack was on the final approach during landing as they drop the nose for that reason. The banking performed during the turns looked no different than ordinary commercial flight to me - 15-20 degrees give or take. Some of the instances of telescopic compression did make it appear more severe as well as cause apparent ground speed changes. The videographer appeared to zoom in and out to address some of the issues with relative velocity and keep a roughly constant fill frame with the aircraft.