Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: apeman81; First_Salute
The position of the wings in relation to the fuselage matched with the apparent lack of shadow strongly suggest to me that the wings in question are not attached to the fuselage.

Is this the same plane? Sure looks like it: tri-jet with no vertical stabilizer and a cockeyed wing. Time magazine calls this part of an "antiterrorist training camp in Iraq."

67 posted on 03/15/2003 8:27:30 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb

I don't think they'd trash a Tu-154 or 134 for this, and the scale of the roads makes me wonder that it's not quite a bit smaller.

I'm thinking short-hopper like a Yak-40


68 posted on 03/15/2003 8:37:38 PM PST by struwwelpeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
Great find.
69 posted on 03/15/2003 8:42:57 PM PST by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
The picture you provide displays a sizable tree aft of and in relatively close proximity to, the aircraft. The satellite image shows the aircraft to be in a barren spot.

The satellite photo does show a clump of tress to the rear and to the right of the fuselage as viewed from the nose. Given the 152 ft length of the 727, I estimate the distance from trees to aircraft tail at a tad more than 1000 ft. The trees in the photo, judging from their height relative to the 20 ft high top the engine, appear to quite a bit closer. Less than 200 ft, I should say. Of course, it could be a 727/100 series, which gives it a 134 ft length, decreasing the distance from tail to trees to about 830 ft. Still to distant for the ground photo.

If this is a 727, as has been suggested, the location of the wing in relation to the tail engine cowling is all wrong in the satellite photo. The distance between the trailing edge of the wing at the fuselage and the front beginning of the vertical stabilizer that house the engine cowling is approximately 25 feet. In the satellite photo, the trailing edge of the wing and the beginning of the vertical stabilizer appear to be at the same point. I don’t believe the wing in the satellite photo is attached. The wing in the ground photo clearly is.

It is, of course, difficult to say. The purely academic point of whether it is the same airframe is fun to explore, however.

Any evidence that the photo you sent is located at the same place as depicted in the satellite photo?

70 posted on 03/15/2003 10:40:15 PM PST by apeman81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Republican_Strategist; algol; dinodino; r9etb; apeman81; snopercod; brityank; Jhoffa_; safisoft; ...
Great work; and thank you.
84 posted on 03/16/2003 7:43:26 AM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
Great catch; and thank you.
85 posted on 03/16/2003 7:50:41 AM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb

Cargo Cult opens Baghdad mosque.
Imam al-Scott bin Ritter presiding.
92 posted on 03/16/2003 1:09:19 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson