If the pilot of G-JPTV is reading this... [Archive]

DamienB

10th Aug 2002, 21:25

Believe me there is no monkey business going on with this image, I have the original still in my camera, and several frames either side of it! Taken today, 17:15, at Cranfield. Was there testing the new camera, and as this JP had been quite low on two previous approaches I thought I'd try for a shot of it as it went over the road. The above is the result!

Edit - QDM - 75-300mm lens, pulled right back to 75mm. It really was that close to the lorry.

distaff_beancounter

10th Aug 2002, 21:41

If this was taken at Cranfield, I assume that they were using Runway 04 today (due to easterly winds). This is the only runway with a road ("C" road) on short finals. It has a threshold displaced by more than 125m, which is presumably a CAA licencing requirement, due to this road.

DamienB

10th Aug 2002, 21:58

Yep - 04.

treadigraph

10th Aug 2002, 22:09

Nice shot Damien - and is it me, or is he flapless? The JP I mean...

mattpilot

10th Aug 2002, 22:13

wierd

i know of an approach that is similar - it is a local runway in my area. roughly 100feet off the approach end was a busy street. It was about 20 feet lower than the runway, but it was still spooky as i was on short final. At one point i was maybe 30 feet over a truck. I wonder what the drivers below me were thinking :)

Bright-Ling

10th Aug 2002, 22:31

MMmmmm. Flapless and the canopy open slightly.........with little more than 1 degree nose up.......just like when it is on the ground.

Cool bit of manipulation though!

BEagle

10th Aug 2002, 22:32

Not only flapless, but with the canopy partly open. Which is a risky thing to do near the ground as if you need to use the bang seat.......

Bright-ling - we must have posted simultaneously!

DamienB

10th Aug 2002, 22:45

brightling - I am not averse to the odd bit of manipulation for cosmetic purposes, but none has been carried out here. Here's the complete sequence. If you want the originals straight off the camera, do let me know, but be warned they are 3072x2048 in size and around 2-3Mb each.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/honestguv.jpg

His previous two approaches for touch and go's used flap and had canopy closed; he landed from this flapless one.

Keef

10th Aug 2002, 23:04

Am I missing something? Ye seem to be speaking of a piccie, but pix see I none.

Brizzo

10th Aug 2002, 23:30

I still don't fancy it.

The sequence of shots shows the truck replaced by a car when the a/c has only travelled a few feet. What does a JP land at (flapless)? If (and I guess) it is 80 knots, then the truck must be doing 150.

Call me Mr. Sceptic but....

mattpilot

11th Aug 2002, 00:11

if you look at the second-to-last pic you can see the shadow of the truck

hmmm, ... if he's doing a flapless landing, that means his approach speed is higher. To compensate, he must fly a lower approach path (depending on runway length, which i have no clue of).

englishal

11th Aug 2002, 00:36

...and the cloud formations change ;)

distaff_beancounter

11th Aug 2002, 08:50

.... depending on runway length, which I have not got a clue of

Cranfield runway 04 is 1799m of aspfalt. BUT, the LDA is only 1672m. This is because the threshold is displaced by 127m, to avoid aircraft getting too low over the road, of short finals.:(

So, how long a runway does a JP need?
(A) with full flap
(B) flapless

Whipping Boy's SATCO

11th Aug 2002, 08:58

Many moons ago the RAF used to fly JP3s and JP5s at Church Fenton with an LDA of 1466m.

treadigraph

11th Aug 2002, 09:39

All the photos look perfectly natural to me. A good sequence, wish I could do as well with my digi. What camera have you got Damien, go on, make me jealous!

Cloud formations change because the aircraft is photographed across several hundred yards of its approach.

Also, if that's the hedge he's over at one point, not a lot of clearance!

Treadders

2Donkeys

11th Aug 2002, 10:41

The first photo (at least) is clearly a fake. The most obvious aspect of the fake is the clarity of the aircraft's registration, by comparison to the numberplate and other lettering on the lorry.

The relative scale is also incorrect. The JP is not a particularly large aircraft. For it to be behind the lorry, and still that size, the lorry would need to have shrunk.

The lighting of the JP and the background is also somewhat at odds.

englishal

11th Aug 2002, 11:38

Looks fake to me. Look at pic 3 and 4, the camera's position has changed, as well as the lorry doing 150 mph. If it was zoomed, why isn't the JP larger than in the other pics? Lighting is different in the last two pics....

nice try though ;)

rotated

11th Aug 2002, 12:49

Where's the shadow from the jet? Considering the proximity to the ground there should be one, it's dark enough under the truck...

Keef

11th Aug 2002, 14:22

Ah! I looked at this thread using MSIE and now I see pictures. Mozilla's anti-virus and spam was removing them.

The picture of the JP and the truck is a fake - the JP isn't that big compared to a truck (unless the truck is a Tonka toy).

Nice one though.

And isn't it amazing how that car got there within milliseconds of the truck, and how the truck had disappeared completely by then.

Flap40

11th Aug 2002, 14:35

Some observations:

I agree that the abnormal things in the main shot are the canopy, flap, and mainwheel. They all appear to be explainable. Note that the oleo's are extended so the aircraft was airbourne when the shot was taken.

rotated:- Look at the shadow of the tailplane in the main pic and compare to the shadow under the lorry and car. I think they match.

2donkeys:- If you pan the camera with the aircraft the it will be sharp and the lorry blured. Conversely, if the photographer had held the camera steady on the lorry then it would be sharp and the aircraft blurred. If both were sharp then I would suspect a fake.

englishal:- Lighting difference will be due to the change of exposure as the camera was panned away from the sun, Also I see nothing to suggest that the position has changed, the photographer has merely swiveled on the spot.

If it's genuine then I think the pilot might be needing a good lawyer.

If it's fake then the original poster might need one!

AlanM

11th Aug 2002, 15:19

Jury is still out...!

For example - this is a "manipulated" (aka Fake!) picture - just to show you what 60 secs in Paint Shop Pro can do for you

BA B777 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/201277/L/)

Not sure about the Mk5a above........maybe real - but as said before, someone needs a good lawyer!

Alan

Smoketoomuch

11th Aug 2002, 15:23

All looks feasible to me. JP length is approx 34ft, compared to truck width of what... 7ft? All seems in scale. As for the speed of the truck, the camera is rapidly panning, the truck doesn't so much 'vanish' - the shot with the car is of a completely different section of the road.
Nice pics.

englishal

11th Aug 2002, 15:28

Also I see nothing to suggest that the position has changed
The side of the road is significantly closer in pic 4 as opposed to pic 3, if zoom was used, the JP would also appear larger in pic 3...

Also, the is it my imagination or the pilot looking out the left side....straight towards the camera. Would have though looking forward would be slightly more sensible during this stage of flight :p

good one though;)

distaff_beancounter

11th Aug 2002, 15:49

The file name, for the strip of 4 piccies, is honestguv.jpg

Does this tell us anything? :D

DamienB

11th Aug 2002, 17:06

It tells you I have a sense of humour...

These pics aren't fake.

If anybody REALLY wants them the originals are available, but as I said before, they're 2-3Mb EACH.

Flap40 is dead on with his explanations.

I didn't want a shot with the JP sharp and the road blurred, so I went for a high shutter speed - 1/1000 to try and keep both sharp. However as the truck was still moving diagonally away from me, it's slightly blurred. It kept moving too, hence why it's no longer in frame in the shot with the car - though it's only just out of the frame. It *does* throw a little bit of shadow on the grass at the extreme right, better shown up on the full size version.

He also clears the hedge by a good few feet - from the small versions above you're probably thinking all that greenery is the hedge when some of it is actually trees in the distance.

Edit - Treadigraph - Canon EOS D60 - this was its first outing.

BlueLine

11th Aug 2002, 17:30

Well I don't buy it. The shot of the lorry is clearly taken with flash, look at the reflectors on the back: the level of light on the vehicle and bushes is consistent, but the illumination of the plane is not at the same level. There is no shadow of the plane to correspond with the shadow from the horse box. The shadow on the red car differs in direction too.

Now will the time confer with the ATC log at Cranfield?

undertheweather

11th Aug 2002, 17:58

Personally, these pictures look quite plausible, as do the explanations of my learned friends answering the doubters.

However, instead of arguing over shadows and reflections and slagging off Damien as a hoaxer, those doubters should remember that he has given a lot of information: Runway 04 at Cranfield, yesterday 10th August at 1715 - and we have a clear picture of the JP and its registration. Why would Damien provide all this checkable information if it could easily be disproved?

Surely its not beyond some of our more investigative bretheren to test some of this information which is being challenged. Do we have anyone that flys from Cranfield?

englishal

11th Aug 2002, 18:02

shot of the lorry is clearly taken with flash
Thats why the lorry is breaking...I would too if I saw a flash in my rear view mirror :p (speed cam)

Aircraft exists, just checked it on G-INFO....Still don't believe it though ;)
EA

Smoketoomuch

11th Aug 2002, 18:09

Amazing how many 'expert' photo-analysts we have on this board.
Have to say, if I was Damien I'd probably be getting pretty fed up of being called a liar and I'd simply delete the whole thread. :rolleyes:

Carlito

11th Aug 2002, 18:12

AlanM,
Are you admitting posting faked pics on Airliners.net?
Carltio

englishal

11th Aug 2002, 18:20

Smoketoomuch ...:rolleyes:

I like your website Damien, there's some nice pics there....(I see you are quite into aircraft photography and photo manipulation ;) ).....

Cheers
EA:D

distaff_beancounter

11th Aug 2002, 18:32

Well DamienB whatever the truth is about the piccies, many thanks for giving us an interesting topic, to mull over on an otherwise dull Sunday ;)

QDMQDMQDM

11th Aug 2002, 18:37

Seems unlikely these would be faked and they certainly don't look it to me. As another poster has said, there's a lot of checkable info there. If the picture is faked, DamienB, and indeed Capt. PPrune or whoever actually owns this forum, could easily and quite correctly be sued for libel. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took a picture of my aircraft and superimposed it in this fashion, especially if it lead to a CAA action. That would certainly malign my reputation, such as it is.

QDM

DamienB

11th Aug 2002, 18:52

As landing flapless is hardly standard practice this is clearly an emergency so no CAA action necessary surely - but if the mods think this thread could be a problem for the pilot, please delete it.

The doubters... well it's not nice to be called a liar repeatedly, but in their position I'd be doubting it too so I understand, and forgive :) Free flights from each of you, please, when you are proved wrong. A simple phone call to Cranfield ATC would sort it out, wouldn't it? Or would we then go on to 'yes a JP did land at that time but there was no lorry' blah blah... in which case we have his registration, write him a letter via the DVLA and ask the owner if he nearly had a jet take the top of his lorry off. I'm sure it was a memorable experience!!

No flash used - again the originals have EXIF data to back this up. The sun was fairly low, behind and to my right initially, then behind as I turned to the left.

john_tullamarine

12th Aug 2002, 13:47

DamienB,

How are you finding the D60 in general so far ? I have seen some good write ups on the camera and am angling to save sufficient pennies to buy one ....

Not worried about the good things ... rather have you found any nasty aspects to its capabilities and usage ... a respectable amount of pennies for a camera .....

DamienB

12th Aug 2002, 14:42

Ah, we're back then!

My opinions may be coloured by the fact I had been increasingly frustrated with film - seems nobody out there can do the simple job of developing negs without cocking it up, so now I'm released from all that I'm as happy as a pig in, er, brown stuff.

On the negative side... well compared to my 50E, the bad points are:

AF is significantly inferior. Almost useless indoors - especially for anything moving about. Outdoors it's not as bad a difference but a Sigma and Cosina lens are nearly unuseable on the D60 whereas on the 50E the Sigma was fine and the Cosina bearable. Thankfully may main lens for aircraft photography is a Canon 75-300, and that's fine, still nice and responsive. All lens lengths multiply by 1.6 as the sensor is smaller than the 35mm neg area, so a 28mm lens becomes a much less useful 45mm.

Heavier.

People keep telling you you're a faker. :)

Plastered with a 'digital' logo (on the strap too) which just screams 'steal me'.

Seems to under-expose compared to film - and wants slower shutter speeds, or lower aperture values, in similar situations.

On the plus side... the 1.6 multiplier turns that 300mm into a monster 480 - great for airshow work! 700 odd shots on a 1Gb microdrive and the battery still didn't run out. Being able to test settings and see the results right away. Not having to pay for film. Not having to pay for developing, and get it screwed up. Not having to scan the negs and lose hours and hours of my life as a result. Built in flash is more powerful - but it eats the battery.

I found a place in Norwich that did 9 months interest free credit on it, so my paypacket is suffering the death of a thousand cuts rather than simply being pulped.

I'm pretty darn happy with it so far anyway.

Aussie Andy

12th Aug 2002, 15:06

DamienB Top photos mate - I believe it! Flapless approach need not be an emergency though... probably just practice and may explain why the fella ended up a bit low. I don't see that there'd be any offence that CAA would follow-up though..? How about coming over to Booker one Sat/Sun and position youself on final for our rwy 25 from the other side of the motorway... I've always wonderd how close we must look to the motorway traffic! ;)

charlie-india-mike

12th Aug 2002, 15:29

I think that the pics are genuine.

I was training at Cranfield yesterday afternoon and this aircraft did some highspeed low level passes down runway 22.

CIM:)

DamienB

12th Aug 2002, 15:46

Aussie - looking at a map that looks like a tricky proposition, and quite some distance from the end of 25... surely you're not down to < 100 ft over the motorway? Any more than that and it wouldn't look very impressive... ;)

Aussie Andy

12th Aug 2002, 15:53

So stand at the threshold instead!?

DamienB

12th Aug 2002, 15:55

Probably get my head taken off, I've seen those BA jobs attempting to land at Booker!

:D

englishal

12th Aug 2002, 17:54

seems nobody out there can do the simple job of developing negs without cocking it up
I got a C41 processing kit from Jessops, and a tank, then bought my girlfriend (wife now) a negative scanner for her birthday or something ;) (saved buying it for myself). Can process a film for peanuts, and scan them at high res....

Ok, you've convinced me the photo's are real, nice job!

Cheers
EA:)

john_tullamarine

13th Aug 2002, 07:38

DamienB,

Thanks for that, mate ... it is all well and good to read up on professional writeups .. but what we need is the lowdown from the real world user .....

I have a reasonable prior investment in a couple of A1 bodies and a bunch of high end Canon lenses predating the EOS lenses ... have you tried any of the earlier Canon lenses at all with manual settings ? .. and have you overcome the problem with the generics as yet ?

Ref the AF problem, how do the internal algorithms correlate with manual exposure meter readings, if you have played it that way to date ?

.. and the multiplier aspect is nice ... we have done a bit of tech video work in the past with long lenses on .. with a multiplier around 3- 3.5 .... contemplate the fun with a 3500mm lens hung off the end of your average 35mm body ....... and the problems of avoiding body shake .......

If it is not too rude a question, what sort of street price for the body over on your side of the world ?

Grim Reaper 14

13th Aug 2002, 09:31

For what my input is worth, I can't believe these pictures. Had Damien said that they were taken during successive circuits, hence the different vehicles, I would believe it. A Jet Provost moves a whole 'length' forward (at what surely must be 100kts+, flapless), yet a horsebox that has by Damiens own admission, braked hard enough to cause screeching, manages to get itself into the right gear, and accelerate forward fast enough to completely disappear from the next picture. I'm sorry, call me a doubting Thomas, but this isn't quite a 'magic bullet', but it's pretty close. Horseboxes just don't have that good acceleration after slamming the anchors on. Also, had there been a horse inside, most drivers would want to check that the horse was ok after a decceleration of that magnitude.

Speaking photographic though, does anybody want to buy a Canon EF300mm f2.8L? Pristine. PPL forces sale. E-mail me for a bargain.:)your taking the wee-wee here now, If i remove this bit of your thread then i get another thread pop up with everyone bleating about me being heavy handed but if i leave it, i get a a nice e-mail from Danny saying whats going on in your forum..!!!!!! Can't win.....!!!! :) (Would it fit on a EOS10Pro body by the way....?? :) )

Aussie Andy

13th Aug 2002, 09:53

GR14 - I think the fact that he has swivelled to his left explains this... the little car was obviously behind the van.

expedite_climb

13th Aug 2002, 10:02

Brizzo, the last two are different approaches ! look at the sky.

mitten

13th Aug 2002, 10:14

Hello All,

Thanks for taking such an interest in my flying.

Not sure if the photos are real, but the lesson is the same everyone on the ground and in the air should keep a really good lookout from both.

For those interested, I have spoken with the CAA about the event.

For those who actully fly jets:

1. Yes we do and should practice flapless landings, an hydraulic failure in any aircraft is a manageable emergency.... ONLY if pilots are well trained and practiced. We are both

2. The canopy is cracked 'cos one of the individuals inside was not feeling too well and the aircraft will happily fly at landing speeds with the canopy open.

3. There is a sign on both ends of the road that says in red "Danger Low Flying Aircraft" or some such clear message.

Hope this helps...

Grim Reaper 14

13th Aug 2002, 10:21

Oh me of little faith....

Damien, may I suggest you re post your honestguv.jpg, but re-arrange the photos as a landscape, rather than in the order they were taken from left to right. I've just printed it, sliced it up and arranged it as a landscape. I'm convinced. Will you ever forgive me? Will anybody ever care?;)

Genghis the Engineer

13th Aug 2002, 10:22

And presumably the lorry driver will pay a little more attention to low flying aircraft signs in future!

Having said that, I think the point was probably well made that it might have been appropriate to be little higher as you crossed the road if traffic was visible. (But, isn't retrospect wonderful. You were flying a flapless approach, with a mildly unhappy pax, in a jet with poor ergonomics and a very high coaming, I don't suppose it was high on your "to do" list).

Nice looking jet.

G

Aussie Andy

13th Aug 2002, 10:22

G'day Mitten - presumably speaking to CAA was only precautionary, as I can't imagine what rule was broken? Rule 5 doesn't apply during approach, right?

sennadog

13th Aug 2002, 10:25

As I thought all along, the photo's are real.:p

Shame on you doubters.

DamienB

13th Aug 2002, 11:21

John - haven't got any non-EOS lenses, sorry. Not bothered about the Sigma & Cosina not working well with AF, the Sigma is up for sale and the Cosina will be joining it unless I get some good results from it in manual mode.

Price - have seen it for 1850 from one place in Cornwall, but he had no stock and no idea when he would get any. Ended up paying 2000, but 9 months interest free credit eases the pain.

Grim Reaper - I'll forgive you, call it 50 quid for the lens then?

Expedite - nope. Had a polariser on the lens. Light level varies considerably as you point at different parts of the sky - at 90 degrees to the sun the polarising effect darkens the sky nicely, but at 180 degrees it has no effect so the sky lightens dramatically, and I was over-exposing to keep detail on the subject rather than the sky, it gets washed out in the last two shots when I have turned to put the sun directly behind me.

mitten - if you want the original file to print out for posterity let me know. Apologies if any embarassment caused! Liked the fast pass just before this approach, also got a nice shot of that if you'd like.

This is not the only low approach I've seen at Cranfield and I would have thought that road warranted stop lights myself.

Genghis - I doubt mitten could have seen the lorry until far too late, there are trees either side of the road where it was coming from, and it would be totally hidden except from directly overhead.

Now, those free flights from the doubters... anybody got anything fast and noisy?

mitten

13th Aug 2002, 15:32

DamienB,

Thanks for the offer, I'd love both photos... could you email them?

All,

Yes the call from the CAA was one of guidance and advice. There are some individuals within its hallowed walls who have forgotten more about landing jets than I will probably ever know.

They discussed the event and offered good council.

DamienB

13th Aug 2002, 18:06

I trust those who wanted them know where to get the pics now, if I missed anyone, PM again.

Big Red L - immaterial whether it fits your camera or not, he's selling it to me for 50 quid after all.

BRL

13th Aug 2002, 19:30

ooooooh Damien you little tinker. I was after a 300 lens too...... Now, where is that ban button ;) :p

DamienB

13th Aug 2002, 19:33

:D [ACCOUNT REMOVED] ;)

john_tullamarine

14th Aug 2002, 00:46

BRL,

That's not a nice thing to do to a chap who has provided a most interesting thread for the bemusement of others ...

..... when he comes back .... may I have a copy of the other pix as well please ? ... and thanks for the commentary on the D60, Damien ..... I would appreciate any other things you might observe as you get a bit more time on the body .... regards ....

Perhaps Danny might consider an aviation photographic forum when the cost of bandwidth becomes minimal ? ... just joking, Danny ....

MasterGreen

14th Aug 2002, 02:19

My vote is that these are legit. I initially thought not, but the killer is the main gear oleo extension. It looks a tad low AOA for a flapless, but hard to call on that. Its definately too flat for a flapless - you don't need a 1 degree GP !!!

But great piccies all the same. I have a couple of grand on the 3/4/5 in various positions in Brenda's Flying School. Great little aircraft - although the 4 was the best. Pity about the vertical stab mountings.

MG

BRL

14th Aug 2002, 06:41

John. Its a joke. I edited his post and typed in the words in bold.... i.e [ACCOUNT REMOVED] just after the smile icon...... Sorry, my go at being witty i am afraid... :) :rolleyes:

DamienB

14th Aug 2002, 07:43

Yes, fear not John, I am intact...

For those still uncertain and wondering how the truck moved so far/got replaced by the car, have a look at this... I've arrowed points on each frame that are the same.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gjptv/panorama.jpg

Aussie Andy

14th Aug 2002, 08:43

Damien you are a megastar mate :)

john_tullamarine

15th Aug 2002, 00:32

BRL .... mate ..... joke .... mate..... JOKE .......

I guess that I am going to have to start lightening up in my posts ...... seems that people are taking me too literally ....

all in all, though .. this has been a top thread ...

formationfoto

15th Aug 2002, 21:38

Just like to add thanks to DamienB for the thread and the pics. Have to agree that the D60 is an excellent piece of kit in the right hands. Our team has two Nikon D1Xs and a D60 and the cheaper D60 seems to do the better job. Adding a 1/3rd over on metering though seems to be a requirement.

john_tullamarine

16th Aug 2002, 00:33

formationfoto,

Damien is new to the toy and I have pretty well made the choice to buy one ... probably others reading this thread also have an interest ...

Perhaps you could post a detailed overview of what problems you have experienced with the D60 and the work arounds you and your colleagues have developed ..... ?

rotated

16th Aug 2002, 07:47

Devil's advocate aside, sorry for giving the impression I disbelieved you. Nice shots.:o

RotorHorn

16th Aug 2002, 11:15

D. Cheers for the pics.

I've got some cracking software on my laptop for stitching them all together, but unfortuantely they didn't overlap enough to stitch correctly. (The software even accounts for the lens being used on the camera).

If you ever get a set of photographs that actually overlap to some extent, I can stitch them together. The end result can even be put inside a virtual viewer which lets you pan around inside the panorama..

:cool:

May be next time.

cheers again