|
If it was not for the fact that there was actually debate on the UKAR web site, about what the planes might be, suggesting that the plane may have been a TriStar, and there were not a large amount of offensive language, including gratuitous homophobic remarks, and the like, I might accept a view from someone reporting from that community.
As it is, I see no particular reason for the aircraft buff community to be quite so derisive in its remarks to those outside of it, and no good reason to accept its assertions.
My personal feeling is that if the members of that community showed the respect that I typically see members of the UK's armed forces showing to the public, including RAF, when, for example, out recruiting, instead of making offensive childish jibes, there'd be a lot less need for the armed forces to go and deal with situations in other countries caused by that kind of person.
I am grateful for positive input. I have, now, had a chance to try to enhance the original photo to try to establish the shape of the jet. It is possible, from what I have seen, that it has a section that is more the tubular shape associated with larger jets than the angular shape of fighters. But I don't think I could say that for sure. Myself, I don't feel qualified to rule out the possibility that the photo only shows two contrails and not three, from the only plane visible, though three does seem possible. However, my initial impression, when I took the photo was of a fighter, and until I had fiddled with the photo a lot, it still resembled one to me, and indeed still does, after some fiddles. Additionally, the craft was moving very fast - faster than I would have associated a tanker craft with - particularly if it were actually attempting to refuel customers at the time.
I remain mystified by the total invisibility of the actual customers. According to March's guide to aircraft, a KC-10 is 55.35m long ('big' is such a disappointingly crude word from an 'expert'). Fighters are about 15m long (assuming you can identify which ones they are) - ie: about 1/3 to 1/4 of the length of a tanker. You'd hope to be able to see something of that size, there, in that image. As it is, whatever I have tried to do to the image, I have, at best, only managed to bring out one small highlighted patch that might represent another plane, and that was some way forward of where I'd expect to see it, unless fighter contrails 'go white' after a longer period than those of tankers. I am, therefore, still very curious to know what might present so small an image, and how. Clearly, whatever they are, they are on the same course, and would be presenting the same surface(s) to the camera, and it seems reasonable to expect that similar reflectivity would cause similarly bright images.
It is quite possible that one or other of the posters on UKAR is correct (and one might hope likely), though there is nothing there to indicate which that might be. I am a former journalist. There were some rather negative remarks about the Evening News and the behaviour of journalists, on the UKAR site. Myself, if I had been reporting on this, I would certainly not go to press based upon the rather strident remarks of Joe Nobody who refuses to identify themself other than by a rather childish, macho 'handle'. What the Evening News has done is give airspace to one of the people on its bulletin board. It is not saying 'This is what this is'. It is making it possible for them to ask the public, on its site 'What is this?'. Which seems a very reasonable thing to do.
I imagine, from the large number of views, compared to the number of replies, that a lot of other people are puzzled by the image, including a friend of mine whose views and opinions I certainly do respect.
As for seeing this kind of thing over Norwich, it is rather unusual, as is the amount of jet activity. It may be that, now that there are Eurofighter Typhoons at Coningsby, we may well see more of them. My personal feeling is that I would expect the RAF to avoid flying low over heaviliy populated areas unless it wished to communicate to the public that it was there, for some reason. When I contacted the RAF to find out where the Typhoon may have come from, I was told there were 'over 20' stationed at Coningsby. This, again, is a remarkably vague piece of accounting, for machines of such lethality and cost. If the customers were fighters returning to America, then that suits me fine.
If anyone can offer more definitive advice (perhaps offer evidence to support one view over another), I'll be happy to read it. Ignorance is excusable. Stupidity is not. A person can always learn, and many actually have to. Don't go jumping down the throats of people who are merely 'ignorant'!
Jeremy Jones. http://www.jeremyjones.0catch.com
Jeremy Jones
http://www.jeremyjones.0catch.com
|