Did any of you see this yesterday?

Originally posted by Flood
The photographer was apparently the chief phot at The News, who was in the area ‘for a different job’, but suspect that due to the fact that only one image seems to have come to light this was a sudden off the cuff grab – although my informant has suddenly become too busy to answer the phone (huh, work!).
The location can be found at http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=468500&y=99500&z=3&sv=468500,99500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
The picture was taken from the west side of the north-south channel, looking across at the dunes adjacent to Sinah Common. As you can see it is not wide and a lot of marine traffic would be going through the gap. I mentioned above about the tidal race because this would be the best place for sail vessels and the like to use their engines, without having their sails up. Imagine trying to make out a steel mast against a hazy background – or maybe you have tried go-karting or something (I am trying to put forward the idea of speed at low level and the way that things become difficult to see).

Willow,
You are right – it has been sometime (but how could I avoid them!) since I’ve seen any James Bond films despite all the opportunities… On reflection maybe I should have said something more like:- “could not handle the concept of why an aircraft should be able to – or would want to – land on and take off from a water mass”!
The Bond reference I used when talking to my mate was all I could think of to describe the notion, at that point, because
a/ I was on my own mobile phone and therefore paying a highly inflated fee;
and
b/ he likes to think that he knows about films – and the 70s he regards as his forte – although he has more to do with motoring.
That said I should have known since I think Bond gets out through the aircrafts nose in a manner that you certainly couldn’t do in a Buccaneer.

Janie,
Your expert would probably know this as forshortening – which IIRC is the use of a ‘long’ lens and a small aperture to create a deep depth of field in such a way that most of the image is in focus (but not necessarily sharp) so that scale becomes difficult to judge; ie the yacht appears to be a similar size to the fuselarge although it might be twice the length. In the bright weather this would be very simple – coupled with a slow-ish shutter speed used to blur the prop and minor background pan. This effect would be enhanced, of course, by the cropping of the image so that it appears to fill more of the frame – making it look as though taken on a longer lens, although it was probably the standard issue Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 that they use. Other technical bits are that it would have been taken on a Nikon D1 almost certainly set on maximum JPEG size (compressed to 6-7000k I think, but that is me way out of my depth!).

Flood

Janie,
You have just provided adequate proof that you are an anorak
Still I guess we all have something we are passionate about

I was just wondering in what manner he might have crashed that could have “killed hundreds of people”.

I’ve got a Kodak Brownie that takes nice photos too.

The photographer was apparently the chief phot at The News, who was in the area ‘for a different job’, but suspect that due to the fact that only one image seems to have come to light this was a sudden off the cuff grab – although my informant has suddenly become too busy to answer the phone (huh, work!).
The location can be found at http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=468500&y=99500&z=3&sv=468500,99500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
The picture was taken from the west side of the north-south channel, looking across at the dunes adjacent to Sinah Common. As you can see it is not wide and a lot of marine traffic would be going through the gap. I mentioned above about the tidal race because this would be the best place for sail vessels and the like to use their engines, without having their sails up. Imagine trying to make out a steel mast against a hazy background – or maybe you have tried go-karting or something (I am trying to put forward the idea of speed at low level and the way that things become difficult to see).

Willow,
You are right – it has been sometime (but how could I avoid them!) since I’ve seen any James Bond films despite all the opportunities… On reflection maybe I should have said something more like:- “could not handle the concept of why an aircraft should be able to – or would want to – land on and take off from a water mass”!
The Bond reference I used when talking to my mate was all I could think of to describe the notion, at that point, because
a/ I was on my own mobile phone and therefore paying a highly inflated fee;
and
b/ he likes to think that he knows about films – and the 70s he regards as his forte – although he has more to do with motoring.
That said I should have known since I think Bond gets out through the aircrafts nose in a manner that you certainly couldn’t do in a Buccaneer.

Janie,
Your expert would probably know this as forshortening – which IIRC is the use of a ‘long’ lens and a small aperture to create a deep depth of field in such a way that most of the image is in focus (but not necessarily sharp) so that scale becomes difficult to judge; ie the yacht appears to be a similar size to the fuselarge although it might be twice the length. In the bright weather this would be very simple – coupled with a slow-ish shutter speed used to blur the prop and minor background pan. This effect would be enhanced, of course, by the cropping of the image so that it appears to fill more of the frame – making it look as though taken on a longer lens, although it was probably the standard issue Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 that they use. Other technical bits are that it would have been taken on a Nikon D1 almost certainly set on maximum JPEG size (compressed to 6-7000k I think, but that is me way out of my depth!).

Flood

Two articles with more info. One is a duplicate of the one above, it just keeps them together.

http://www.thenews.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=455&ArticleID=573476

http://www.thenews.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=455&ArticleID=573887

Any chance that it could have just taken off?

Looking for those drug runners on the beach, no doubt 😉

The following quote is taken from someone on the UKGA.com forum:

“As a Visual Effects technician in the Film Industry I view that shot of the Lake? seaplane as having been taken with an extremely long focal length lens. The pilot was not apparently travelling at high speed as the background is hardly blurred and the jetski “pilot” was more likely to damage a swimmer anyway. The spray from the jetski is not that ‘frozen’ so a really high shutter speed was not being used. I notice that the yacht, which is in the RHS background is probably not much longer than the seaplane in actuality. With the amount of water visible between the two craft the lens was probably in the 1000 – 2000+ mm focal length or on the long end of a 20:1 zoom lens. This means the pilot was well away from the shore/jetski/swimmers in this particular shot. Also there are no foreground ‘endangered’ swimmers/sailors either. What he did before or after this moment I couldn’t possibly comment. “

Originally posted by Flood
My insider at The News (aptly named local paper) says they held on to the story for a day or so because they couldn’t identify the aeroplane type – despite having the registration! (And when I said “Man With The Golden Gun” to him he knew immediately!)

Sorry Flood, the amphibian in ‘Man with a Golden gun’ was a Republic Seabee. Basically a similar layout to the Lake Buccaneer, but a much older design (1940s).

What really got to me was that they blew it up for the film):mad:

Somebody please make my day and tell my that what they blew up was a mock-up (wishful thinking)

Willow

Loved the bit in the article about “drug runners” – Portsmouth Vice anyone?? 😉

That picture was taken between Eastney (south east corner of Portsea Island) and the south west end of Hayling Island. It is not much more than a ¼ mile wide gap and – at this time of the year – extremely busy with yachts, dinghies, the usual cruising gin palaces etc. I have been down there and watched the unknowing try to sail against the tidal race for an hour – and more – so the last thing really needed is someone coming in at below mast height, especial when Portsmouth was recently declared the smog capital of Britain and the visibility is poor. Wonder if pilot Colin Macaulay was actually watching out for the nudists that take up residence on these beaches when it is sunny?
My insider at The News (aptly named local paper) says they held on to the story for a day or so because they couldn’t identify the aeroplane type – despite having the registration! (And when I said “Man With The Golden Gun” to him he knew immediately!) I emailed him G-INFO to pass on to the relevant scribe… I did keep quiet about previous incidents involving low flyers since they would just go way way overboard and probably start a campaign against all flying below airways levels! So schtumm about the Red Arrows in 1980, or (alright, I did some archival work on aviation in the Solent a few years ago – but I can’t remember the details) the sight-seeing biplane that flew into the side of a cruise liner in the Solent in the 30s!

Picture was apparently much better and in colour on the front page – try and see if I can get one.

Flood (Chuckle – does this fit in with the historic aviation tilt that caused a bit of a rucus recently?)

Where the press flying in formation or just conveniently up a tall mast for this shot ?

It shouldn’t be to hard to track the pilot down since they have the aircraft registation number.

So the fact that its a LA4 amphibian and can take off from water has escaped the good old press;) . BASO used to be based at Popham, I heard the owner had ditched a previous aircrft in the channel so decided on a seaplane just incase! The photo looks quite false, and the aircraft is probable 1/2 a mile out to see, but what does that matter!

Yeah I saw it – they should book the guy to fly at ‘Legends 😉

Snipit two, the article to go with it.