Plane crashes into tree

"N2310D" wrote:

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.


The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.

I took it.

Ron Lee






"N2310D" wrote in message
news:bJJeh.1604$Ft4.496@trnddc02...
Photoshopped as well, of course.

I wouldn't think so.

I'm pretty sure it was not photoshopped. Here's why:

1. The anti-aliasing on diagonal edges, especially where part of the
aircraft and part of the building form an acute triangle, is consistent.
The pixel areas are the same, and the color blends are uniform.
2. I fiddled with the contrast to look deep into the shadows where
the aircraft and the roof merge and there is a strand of wire or rope that
loops around the left main gear, around the leading edge, back across the
flap at the wing root and crosses under the fuselage. Entirely too much
detail for a photoshopper to do, and the anti-aliasing is again, too
consistent for the aircraft to have been plugged in as an overlay.

I'll bet dinner for two in any restaurant of your choice within ten
miles of L72 that this photo is valid. [Transportation not included.]

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"N2310D" wrote:

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.


The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.

I took it.

Ron Lee

I've no doubt, Ron and I apologize if it sounded like I was implying
that yours was photoshopped. I just wanted to make sure that my bet was
directed to the one on the roof. I did, however, look at yours with the same
scrutiny but you certainly don't need any confirmation from me about its
authenticity.

Peace??

I noticed about the only part not severely damaged was the oil access
cover. Since the plane in the tree is the same model as mine, I was
sorely tempted to drive down (about 30 min) and ask about salvaging it.

"N2310D" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"N2310D" wrote:

CAVEAT!! This applies to the airplane on the roof, not in the tree.


The plane in a tree pic is 100% real.

I took it.

Ron Lee

I've no doubt, Ron and I apologize if it sounded like I was implying
that yours was photoshopped. I just wanted to make sure that my bet was
directed to the one on the roof. I did, however, look at yours with the same
scrutiny but you certainly don't need any confirmation from me about its
authenticity.

Peace??


No problem. Another guy did photoshop this to make the "Learn to Fly
Here" sign more prominent. I will accept the limitations of what
conditions existed.

Ron Lee

Blanche wrote:

I noticed about the only part not severely damaged was the oil access
cover. Since the plane in the tree is the same model as mine, I was
sorely tempted to drive down (about 30 min) and ask about salvaging it.


I looked for it a few minutes yesterday and could not find it. It was
removed from the tree on Friday.

I could use a longer oil filler tube! Thanks for the suggestion.

Ron Lee

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

FLAV8R writes:

Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

rg

Ron Garret writes:

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

I am. The drop shadow behind the sign has been very amateurishly
executed.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

How long is "not very long"?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
FLAV8R writes:

Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.

Regards, Kev

In article om,
"Kev" wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
FLAV8R writes:

Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.

Regards, Kev

Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

rg

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

I am. The drop shadow behind the sign has been very amateurishly
executed.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

How long is "not very long"?

I actually pressed him for details because I knew you would ask this.
He said several things. First, he said he didn't really know because
he'd never actually tried it. Company policy forbids disconnection of
the autopilot in cruise. The airplane is unstable enough that doing so
is actually potentially dangerous. To keep the plane flying safely
without the autopilot at cruise requires constant attention. An
autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
nearest airport.

Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.
This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

rg