Well that is confusing. You agree that the virtual fish is larger than the actual fish. You agree that only the virtual fish can be seen when above the surface. But you disagree with the size? In order to determine overall apparent size, a ray tracing diagram must have the eye or camera line of sight touch and end on the extreme of the virtual image. The line of sight line cannot return to the real image or object as it cannot be seen. I’ll prepare some ray diagrams that have larger angles. Maybe that will explain it better. And thanks Meddie and Chris for keeping the thread at the top.

The important item both Beermat and I haven’t discussed yet is the virtual image created by refraction. It is elementary, as Beermat says, to the question. My favorite example is the fisherman who looks down on fish in water below the high pier. He knows from experience that the fish is not quite so big as it appears. And should the fish move away so that the view angle is -say- 45º he knows that in order to spear the fish he must throw under the virtual fish because the real fish is actually displaced below it’s apparent virtual position. All light rays that pass through the water to the air surface is bent so that when looking into water all the objects we might see are virtual images of the real object. We can not see the real object. The ratio of refractive indices 1 and 1.33 means every virtual image is magnified by 1.33. If ray tracing is to be meaningful, the virtual image must be included. The virtual image does not change size as the eye or calibrated camera increases in height. The satellite camera at 400Km measures the size of the virtual image and can not see the actual real object. My stick figure is attached. This is my understanding of how refraction magnification works and makes the satellite measure meaningful with regard to the aircraft size.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256015[/ATTACH]

I entered the following figures into an online trig / right triangle calculator in order to check refraction bending: height =400Km; angle to the normal in water 0.0015 (lookup 89.9985. Refraction bends this light to .002 (reference the normal) in air in accordance with Snell’s law. The base of the right triangle(s) using .0015 is 10.46 meters and using .0020 the base is 13.97. The difference 3.5 meters is the added magnification due to the refraction. So Beermat’s back of the envelope math is wrong. For me this measurement(s) by Google Earth is a good clue that this object is indeed the Electra. Once again the image of the Electra in the Orona lagoon.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]255964[/ATTACH]

yes Meddle, mostly. I quit flying 45 years ago. For the safety of everyone including myself. I wasn’t much of a pilot and have never flown a historic aircraft.

The 2017 search for AE’s plane has ended. Nauticos strikes out again. Millions over the side. TIGHAR tourists strike out no surprise. PNG strikes out or I haven’t heard any good news. However, Mili atoll did find a picture that tells a lot. Les Kinney and the history channel are on the wrong track but at least they are in the ball park and it’s another clue in the mystery.

But maybe the 2017 explorations are not totally complete.The Schimdt Oceanographic team is going to be in the Phoenix Islands in the Fall and I wrote to them suggesting the crew of RV Falkor could take a look at the Orona lagoon. They ask for ideas for the expeditions. In this case, they said no thanks. They will be so close but so far away. Others have come close. I may have earlier posted this image of a NEA dive in 2012 near the planes location.

Snell’s law does allow the bending required for magnifying the planes dimensions. Think small angle approximation when (sine ø=ø ).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]255167[/ATTACH]