Concord's final flight: When you've only got 1 frame to get it right

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[LesPalenik]

The plane looks nice and sharp, but the sky is spectacular. Great shot, Slobodan.

[Alan Klein]

Ok.  I'll give away the secret.  1/500 at f/7.1. 


Oh, wait.  That's not the point, is it?   



Sky at Altitude by Alan Klein, on Flickr

[degrub]

Airbus A-340 over some place slightly tropical ?

[Alan Klein]

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

At 35,000 Feet by Alan Klein, on Flickr

[Peter McLennan]

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.

[faberryman]

Does anyone think the photo of the Concord is anything special to begin with?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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

[Peter McLennan]

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".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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).

[Rob C]

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.

[dreed]

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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Some of your comments suggest that you have not comprehended what people have written. Is English your native language?

[dreed]

<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...

[degrub]

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.