Can anyone please explain??
 

:confused:

How is this possible? I've never heard of a commercial jet such as the B744 be able to perform a vertical climb.

Photos: Boeing 747-446 Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing special, light 747 with reheat :E

Just kidding, that`s an optic illusion

If you look closely, you'll see that it is in fact not a vertical climb. It may be steep, but the taxiways and ground markings give it away. If it was vertical you wouldn't be able to read the signs... It is a terrific picture though!
/LnS

Where was the photographer at the time?

Behind the camera as usual, one presumes.

Or on his way to purchase some clean undergarments.

IIRC there is a VFR corridor around LAX that would let you take a shot like this.

He's just passing taxiway 'P' (the black ‘P’ on a yellow sign at bottom left of the picture) after lift-off from 25R at LAX. There are 9,000 ft remaining to the threshold of 25R (the white '9' on a black sign at the bottom left of the picture).

The gear is not quite retracted, so he's probably passing about 600ft. To be that high after 9,000 ft means he may be relatively light, hence a deck angle of maybe 15 degrees. The picture was taken in August, 2004. There used to be (still is?) a VFR corridor running down the coast. Most SIDs off 25R have an initial restriction of 3000ft, so the photo aircraft was probably at 4,000ft. A good telephoto lens and perspective complete the illusion.

Any which way, it’s a great shot!

Overhead [distant aerial view] distortion from telephoto lens creates optical illusion. The B744 deck angle typically wouldn't be more than 18 degrees nose up even when empty. But because of the extreme wing flex the airplane obviously wasn't light weight; besides, JAL wouldn't be in the business of operating empty airplanes across the pond. No 744 can climb vertically.

Any aircraft can climb vertically given sufficient kinetic energy. See below. :}

YouTube - 757 vertical climb

@Barma...
Tech Log description says:
"Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web. "

Given the presumably high AOA of the B744 in this photo being of questionable nature I figured this leads to a highly relevant technical discussion. Thus the reason for using this particular forum.

The other bit of fakery in the picture is the use of Photoshop to distort the picture so that perspective in the distance is expanded. This has the effect of making the runway as it recedes in the distance and gets apparently narrower with perspective actually get expanded so the runway sides are visually parallel again. This makes the viewpoint look vertically down resulting in the picture being a vertical shot, so the aeroplane appears to be climbing vertically. It is not longer a 'photogaph'! It is now a 'work of art', a fake production picture, and does not belong in a photographic archive!

Hey Rainboe!
Ever heard of telephoto lens? Does exactly what you said, distort perspective, make the background appear bigger than it is and compress the distance between objects.
Nothing to do with the digital darkroom...

Yes, I have used telephoto lenses extensively, and that picture has been distorted. Even a telephoto lens taking pictures that sharp cannot produce parallel runway edges like that without a bit of help. That is why the impression is a vertical view. The camera is actually viewing a slant angle below the horizon of not more than 20 degrees. The camera is not all that far from the runway. Take it from me it is a photo manipulation job. Maybe you don't know as much as you think!

This picture has been flogged to death here already! Just reread the thread!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/spectat...pic-taken.html

This quote from that thread says it allIt can't be that long a lens as the corridor is close to the west edge of the airport, so the distance is not great. Therefore how can the top of the runway (further away) be wider than the bottom (closer).

It's a fake, like a clockwork orange or a £2 note! Not a picture, a 'recreation'.

Ever heard of telephoto lens?

How rude!

For your possible education, the only factor that determines perspective is the distance between eye/camera and subject(s). Or are you claiming that light does not travel in straight lines (depending on lens used)?
The "distortion" you think you see is also called 'magnification'.

Well explained, Rainboe.

The top of the runway is not wider than the bottom. You think it is, because of an optical illusion.

If you measure the top and bottom width of the runway on your screen you will see that the top is less wide.

On my screen the bottom side of the runway covers 16,3 cm while the top measures 15,2 cm

Bart

I believe, that both a Lear 23-25:ok: and a Boeing 757-200:ok: with RR RB211 can do a good loop---can't test it with out a possible prison term though:}:}:}
edited to add ---B727---:ok:

BTW do you fellas ever read that stupid Youtube debating why do those Muppetts even talk????---also the one word every non-aviation person uses--although with ZERO---understanding is ''Stall":*

I'll give a general reply---you see it works in 99.999% of cases---NO--that Not a stall!!!


THEY KNOW NOTHING!!!

Lester:E

I don't think you'd want to loop any of those, requires a minimum of around 3g to get it around without overspeeding it on the down line, however Rolls are well within the realm

Rigpiggy---thanks for spoiling all my fun:}


PA

For Rainboe and Klog
 

This is a genuine photo.

The runway is measurably narrower at the top of the picture than the bottom (by at least 3% on my ruler).

Telephoto lenses do create this effect. I don't understand how someone who claims to have experience of such lenses fails to recognise this.