IsaanT

Side? On back. Problem solved.

If my arithmetic is correct, he would have been 42 when he filmed this. Whilst commendable, this isn't exceptional for a fit 42-year old.

Just wanted to say how much I like this shot. The composition is dramatic, the focus on the head, legs and left wing has been executed well, the lighting is good and the black background is perfect to contrast against the details of the wings. Well done!

Thanks for the clarification! 🙂

Inspired by all this photography mullarkey, I just wandered into the garden to see if I could find anyting of interest. This was taken on 8x zoom again, and I was at the closest focus (I was literally pulling the phone back and forth until the focus looked right). It's not perfect but it's representative of what is possible.

Great film. They actually flew the plane in the film that they constructed but sadly the professional pilot was killed because it didn't do landings very well. The pilot was Paul Mantz. The story goes that while performing a low-level take-off (aren't all take-offs low-level?) in the Arizona desert, the aircraft struck a small sand dune, breaking apart on impact. The impact was fatal for Paul Mantz. His co-pilot , Bobby Rose, survived but suffered serious injuries. Frank Tallman, Mantz's longtime business partner, completed the remaining flying sequences for the film.

How big is this spider, exactly? 🙂

This is from Norman Parkinson's archive. There are many great photos there but I liked the composition of this one...

Indeed I am. Slightly off topic but I also had a nice 35mm film camera once (I still have it in a box somewhere). It was a Pentax MX. At the time the Pentax ME Super was very popular but I wanted a fully-manual camera. It had a good light meter with half-stop over/under lights and full-stop over/under lights. Naturally, one twizzled the aperture and shutter speeds until the green aperture light lit. This was about 45 years ago and I remember at the time being very aware that the cost of film and developing meant that each shot cost me about 40p. It made me very selective about pressing the shutter. This was great training for composition, focus, light, subject matter, etc., etc., because nobody wants to see duds when they come back from the developers. So, I don't take snaps - I take photos. I'm British, and we used to have a great fashion photographer called Norman Parkinson (1913-1990). He would sometimes be commissioned to do royal portraits, for which he used a plate camera. I remember in an interview he stated that he took two plates to each assignment, just in case something went wrong with the first one. That's the way to do it. p.s. If you're interested (and you obviously are), have a look at NP's archive at https://www.normanparkinson.com/ Very inspiring.

I should point out that my shots are all hand-held - no tripod used. The shutter speed on the most recent one was 1/100th of a second. Here's a photo I took last year when I really wanted to get close in on the detail, which I think is a good representation of what is possible with a standard phone camera. I do like the really narrow depth of field that is possible. Regarding tripods, I seem to recall I was holding the spark plug in one hand, the phone in the other, and had to use the self-timer because I'd run out of hands. Apologies that the subject matter isn't more interesting - no convenient spiders here at this time...

Broadly correct but, strictly speaking, it's six flights because three come in (scheduled times 08:25, 13:15, 19:20) and each one departs half an hour later (08:55, 13:45. 19:50). So, with approximately five hours between each in-and-out flight, they appear to have plenty of time in the day to accommodate other traffic if needed. As for extending the runway, all the flights are internal flights to and from Bangkok so only use small airliners (Airbus A320's currently). These type of aircraft only need 1,500-1,800 metres under normal conditions. I'm sure they could find a better use for the money.

I tried again with my manual app but, unsurprisingly, the minimum focus distance is the same at about 10cm. To achieve this image I used 8x digital zoom. Manual camera apps are still worth investigating for better camera control (ASA, shutter speed, etc.)

I'll have a go with my manual camera app in the morning in natural light. I know I've had good results in the past.

Mobile phones can take close-up photos. This is a plastic cap on a 600ml water bottle, chosen as something we're all familiar with. I concur with what someone else has said that manual camera apps can give a degree of control that the standard manufacturer-supplied app doesn't (because that's not their target audience). However, for this shot indoors under artificial light I used the standard phone app (Pixel 7a, 2x zoom).

It's worth using a built-in charge limiting function. This obviously allows you to leave it on charge overnight without overcharging. All my batteries last at least five years but the strength of a full charge diminishes slowly over time. My current phone is a bit more than two years old and now has 94% of its original capacity.

I support this approach. All rechargeable batteries have a finite number of full charges before they expire. Charging from zero to 100% is one full cycle. On my phone, charging from 30% to 75% uses 0.11 of a cycle - 11% of a full cycle. I use an app called Accubattery which tells me when the battery charge reaches 75% (and repeats on my watch). My phone batteries last a long time.

The global stock markets move in cycles. Cycles are measured over time. It has been a long time since the last significant correction. One is due very soon. Past patterns also tell us that the next correction will be big, and last many years. What will be the catalyst? Time.

Airliners typically have four fuel tanks - one each in the wings, a central tank in the fuselage and perhaps an auxiliary tank. Fuel can be pumped between each tank to help the weight and balance throughout the flight. Unsurprisingly, aircraft have accurate fuel gauges so running out of fuel would be gross negligence. An airliner low on fuel will declare a fuel emergency to its inbound airport, giving it priority over all other inbound traffic. Some airlines have been banned from British airspace because they routinely loaded a marginal amount of fuel on their planes to be able to save money but declared too many low fuel emergencies. Ryanair and Wizz Air have both been investigated for this.

Complete twaddle. The aircraft is compromised, and its fall-back options have been reduced to zero, so how could it be safer? Also, the pilots are trained for all contingencies - and practice them regularly on simulators - so the word 'impossible' here is both irresponsible and disrespectful of their skills.

Airline crew still check the weight of passengers and cargo - it's called the weight and balance check. Passenger weights are assumed, of course - nobody gets on the scales. Aircraft passenger and cargo weight - and particularly its distribution in the aircraft - remains critical to this day. You won't find all the passengers on a half-full flight up one end of the cabin with the other end roped off, for example. Here are a few notable airliner accidents where overloading or weight and balance issues were major contributing factors: 1. Air Midwest Flight 5481 (2003) – USA Aircraft: Beechcraft 1900D Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, and incorrect weight calculations led to an excessively aft center of gravity. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch immediately after takeoff, leading to a stall and crash. Fatalities: All 21 on board. 2. Aeroflot Flight 8641 (1982) – USSR Aircraft: Yakovlev Yak-42 Cause: Improper weight distribution led to stabilizer overloading and loss of pitch control. The aircraft entered an uncontrollable dive. Fatalities: All 132 on board. 3. Emery Worldwide Flight 17 (2000) – USA Aircraft: Douglas DC-8 Cause: Improperly secured cargo shifted during takeoff, moving the center of gravity too far aft. This caused an uncontrollable nose-up pitch and stall. Fatalities: All 3 crew members. 4. Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 (1991) – Saudi Arabia Aircraft: Douglas DC-8 Cause: The aircraft was overloaded and had tire failures due to excessive weight. The overheated tires led to an in-flight fire, causing structural failure. Fatalities: All 261 on board. 5. Trigana Air Flight 267 (2015) – Indonesia Aircraft: ATR 42-300 Cause: The aircraft was overloaded, affecting performance and climb capability in the mountainous terrain. It crashed into a mountain while attempting to land. Fatalities: All 54 on board.

I guess it depends on your definition of emergency. To me - a single-engine aircraft pilot - an emergency is no power. This recent incident had the huge benefit of one remaining engine. Given that jet engines are usually extremely reliable, it is safe to assume that controlled flight could have been continued for several hours until the fuel ran out. Firstly, a plane still has adequate directional control and can maintain flight with one engine (or a minimum of two for a four-engined airliner (B747, A340). Even if both [all] engines fail, aircraft don't fall out of the sky - they can glide. They still have adequate directional control but now only in three directions - left, right and down. The 'up' option is removed. Having said that, if we use the A320 as an example again, the glide ratio with no engines is a very healthy 17:1 at the best glide speed of 230-250 knots. This means that for every 17 feet horizontally it goes down 1 foot. In 2001, an Airbus A330 (which has similar glide characteristics to the A320) glided 75 miles from 33,000 feet after running out of fuel, successfully landing in the Azores. So, unless you are mid-Atlantic, there are options. For context, let's contrast engine-out performance (and actions) with a helicopter. As you can imagine, the main rotor blades on a helicopter beat the air down, keeping the helicopter in the air. The angle that the rotor blades present to the air is controlled by the collective, a handle looking like a car handbrake down to the pilot's left (helicopter pilots traditionally sit on the right of their cockpit; aircraft pilots on the left). To take off, the power is increased and the collective is lifted (sometimes, the throttle is automatically linked but let's not get distracted). To lower the helicopter, or land, the collective is lowered. Having explained the collective, you will now appreciate that if the engine loses power, the rotors only have their own inertia and will slow down rapidly. This is not a good thing. The rotors rely on the engine, of course, but also centrifugal force. If the rotors slow down, centrifugal force diminishes, and the blades start to flap upwards (it's called coning). It's probably all over once this happens. There is a small moment of opportunity to save the day. If the pilot detects that the engine power has gone, he has a brief moment to push the collective down fast. This reverses the angle of the rotors. This means the helicopter will go down but the air now rises through the rotor disc and it operates like a sycamore seed. It can do this indefinitely all the way to the ground and, as a wonderful bonus, the pilot can control it left and right as it is doing so. At around 25-35 feet, the pilot hauls the collective up and converts the rotational inertia in the rotor disc to lift, slowing the descent and hopefully allowing for a controlled landing. You will imagine correctly that the pilot only gets one attempt at this. The state of controlled descent without power in a helicopter is known as autorotation. There will be many videos on YouTube if you wish to see it demonstrated. I mentioned that the pilot has a brief opportunity to do the above if the engine fails. Generally, the moment is briefer if the rotors have less inherent inertia (few blades, less mass). The world's most popular helicopter, the two-seat Robinson R22 has two blades and low inertia. The pilot has about 1.5 seconds to get the collective down. Responsible R22 pilots do first and think later. A Bell Jetranger pilot has a comparatively relaxed four seconds to complete the same action. Lastly, like an aircraft taking off, there is a period of inherent danger in the take-off for a helicopter if the power fails at a critical moment. Generally, you should imagine that a helicopter needs to have some forward motion to be able to convert to autorotation. This is why most helicopter take-offs commence by lifting off the ground by 10-20 feet then lower the nose and accelerate across the ground until they have sufficient speed to climb safely. What actually happens is that they reach a speed in this horizontal acceleration called the transition speed, and this is when the rotors get more lift and could autorotate, if required. Next time you are in a helicopter in this scenario, you will feel a small shudder as the helicopter goes through the transition speed. This is a good thing. Finally, you will appreciate that if a helicopter takes off and climbs vertically, it has no autorotation options until it has reached a relatively high height above the ground. For the R22, a safe height when hovering out of ground effect is around 150 feet. Engine failure in a vertical take-off between 0-150 feet doesn't usually end well. Stay safe!

The original poster mentioned Linux. This laptop is running Ubuntu, a popular flavour of Linux. I'm running multiple tabs on Chrome, just like I do on my Windows PC. Linux is open-source, so it's free to use and there are no licences. It also boots up and runs faster than Windows 1x because it's not bloatware. Before you all rush to convert your computers (did I mention I'm an optimist?), be aware that occasionally it needs some technical awareness, e.g. to complete a Chrome update. It's not difficult, and it's worth it, but I want to be transparent. Overall, I recommend it, but conditionally.

My demise. End of.

I've got better things to do than be ambushed into reading a post by Bob in his new incarnation. Like 'Bob', 'Elvis is now 'ignored'. Until the next reincarnation... P.S. Bob/Elvis - you are one-dimensional and very easy to spot.

For similar reasons, I was surprised to hear that Recaro, the seat manufacturer, was in trouble recently.