F-16 Ejection (Photoshopped)

AvWeb ^ | 1/29/2004 | Unknown

[HangThemHigh]

I think I see the photoshop. Look at the lower portion of the picture, the foreground dirt is lighter colored with lots of cars, but it suddenly becomes darker as you look further up. The plane background consists entirely of the darker ground with no cars. The line between the dark and light is distinct all the way across the picture.

[hattend]

A little trivia tidbit. This occurred on Sunday Sept 20th. We were driving back from the Reno Air Races and heard about the ejection. The Thunderbirds were at the air races on Saturday and went to the airshow where the accident occurred for a Sunday show.

The Friday before, my wife and I rode down the elevator at the Silver Legacy with the pilot who ejected. Got his autograph and some pictures.

No biggie, but like I said...trivia time.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I recieved this yesterday, with as near as i can tell identical picture from here:

http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/jan04/0010.html


Thunderbirds accident report released



Air Combat Command Public Affairs


01/21/2004 – LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) – Pilot error caused a U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds F-16 aircraft to crash shortly after takeoff at an airshow Sept. 14 at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. The pilot ejected just before the aircraft impacted the ground.

According to the accident investigation board report released today, the pilot misinterpreted the altitude required to complete the “Split S” maneuver. He made his calculation based on an incorrect mean-sea-level altitude of the airfield. The pilot incorrectly climbed to 1,670 feet above ground level instead of 2,500 feet before initiating the pull down to the Split S maneuver.

When he realized something was wrong, the pilot put maximum back stick pressure and rolled slightly left to ensure the aircraft would impact away from the crowd should he have to eject. He ejected when the aircraft was 140 feet above ground – just eight-tenths of a second prior to impact. He sustained only minor injuries from the ejection. There was no other damage to military or civilian property.

The aircraft, valued at about $20.4 million, was destroyed.

Also, the board determined other factors substantially contributed to creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement for demonstration pilots to convert mean sea level and above ground level altitudes and performing a maneuver with a limited margin of error.

[hattend]

K, everything I said in previous post minus one week...LOL!! That'll teach me to post dates off the top of my head.

BTTT.

[Fierce Allegiance]

No criticism intended!

The photo i saw, from a USAF source, is identical as far as i can tell, so I wonder why the photoshop reference?

[aimhigh]

If you want to buy it, aplly for a community college class, and then buy it at student rates - $400 off.

If you are into edited photos, check out www.worth1000.com. It is a site devoted to Photoshop photo editing contests.

[Professional Engineer]

Aim High, er Low ping

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Hey, that image has been Photoshopped.

Really? Where did they hide the Tourist Guy this time?

[Darksheare]

*winces*
Even so, it still looks painful.

[SAMWolf]

Thanks PE. That just doesn't look like it's be any fun at all.

[gcruse]

The reference refers to the F16s ability to outfly the pilot and, before g-limiting software, cause them to lose consciousness and plow into the ground. If anything, it was a compliment to the F16s amazing maneuverability as a dogfighter.

When i was doing some photo work for the fighter factory in Fort Worth, they told me that the F-16 is built such that is always wants to climb and that if it was not for the computer making constant corrections, the thing would be almost impossible to fly.

[ASOC]

** ensure the aircraft would impact away from the crowd **

We lost an A7D driver at DM when he rode his A/C almost to ground level to ensure it missed a high school full of children - he punched, but the A/C either did not have a zero/zero seat or he got caught in the fireball. Even at that, some folks on the ground were killed.

Gonna fly the fast ones, you better have b@lls of steel.

[quietolong]

Cool!

[GeronL]

that if it was not for the computer making constant corrections, the thing would be almost impossible to fly

If I understand correctly, all modern jets would be impossible to fly without a computer...

[justlurking]

Followup: F-16 ejection photo has been confirmed to be authentic by the original publisher:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069982/posts

[r9etb]

When i was doing some photo work for the fighter factory in Fort Worth, they told me that the F-16 is built such that is always wants to climb and that if it was not for the computer making constant corrections, the thing would be almost impossible to fly.

The technical term for this is "dynamically unstable."

The difference between "stable" and "unstable" aircraft is just this: if you make no control inputs to a stable aircraft, it will fly in a nice, steady attitude. If you make no control inputs to an unstable one, it will lose its attitude almost immediately.

Here's your handy, do-it-yourself demonstration.

1. Make a paper airplane and throw it. A well-made plane will fly straight and level: it's stable.

2. Throw an unfolded piece of paper. It will flutter and flap and fall to the floor: it's unstable.

Modern fighter jets are pretty much all designed to be unstable. For one thing, it makes them much more agile. Second of all, it allows the designers to achieve some high-speed aerodynamics that they couldn't otherwise achieve.

[Darksheare]

Weird.
Initially it was said tobe photoshopped.
Of course, photoshopped could mean they lightened the image, darkened the glare, or defuzzied some fuzziness.
Since it was released as official..*shrugs*

If it really was 'photoshopped', that means it was somewhat cleaned up and made less glare and fuzz plagued.
(I am told that it is now routine to clean up an image slightly to reduce glare and improve clarity.)
Since it isn't photoshopped in the sense that it is 'faked', it's a heck of a scary image!

[justlurking]

Since it isn't photoshopped in the sense that it is 'faked', it's a heck of a scary image!

The incident it depicts is real and was known to be so. I think the initial assessment is that it was a composite image that depicted the incident -- but that the image itself was a reconstruction, rather than the actual picture.

Apparently, one of the contributing factors was the extreme depth of field and sharpness of the image. You need a very fast shutter speed to do so, and at that distance you need a very good telephoto lens. The one described by the Air Force photographer (in the follow-up article) is extremely unusual and very expensive.

[aruanan]

That Photoshop was used to prepare the image doesn't mean the image is a composite.

[Darksheare]

I know it was a real incident.

I do suspect that any glare was reduced a bit.
The image is still awfully bright right by the aircraft itself.