These pictures make my teeth itch

[mickk]

[Johnspex]

mickk said:

Took me a while to work out what that was but even now I can't see anything wrong with it.

[fathomfive]

james_TW said:

It's this:

Legal Guidance said:

If your vehicle has got tinted vehicle windows, the front windscreen must let at least 75% of light through and the front side windows 70%. There are no rules for tinting the rear windscreen or rear passenger windows

And legally, the plate must be a reflective yellow - This plate clearly isn't.

I'd bet that this is the kind of person to say "I know my rights" and "why don't you go and nick a real criminal"...

It's the muppets tinting their headlights that get my goat.

[Billsnemesis]

Johnspex said:

mickk said:

Took me a while to work out what that was but even now I can't see anything wrong with it.

It's a physically impossible combination of photoshop elements. If you genuinely were looking back out of the cockpit there would be glass down to the bottom of the picture. So the image through the glass is wrong and that means that the image of the inverted pilot must be wrong as well.

[67Dino]

Billsnemesis said:

Johnspex said:

mickk said:

Took me a while to work out what that was but even now I can't see anything wrong with it.

It's a physically impossible combination of photoshop elements. If you genuinely were looking back out of the cockpit there would be glass down to the bottom of the picture. So the image through the glass is wrong and that means that the image of the inverted pilot must be wrong as well.

If the camera were mounted under the instrument panel looking up at the pilot, could you not be looking at the underside of the bottom lip of the dash? Or is that not possible in whatever the Red Arrows are flying in the pic?

[droopsnoot]

I was just thinking it's because the centre plane isn't properly centred in the arrow-thing (heating element?) in the canopy glass.

[Abbott]

droopsnoot said:

I was just thinking it's because the centre plane isn't properly centred in the arrow-thing (heating element?) in the canopy glass.

I had it down as not aligned. Isn't the element the explosive track to blow the canopy on ejection?

[havoc]

Abbott said:

droopsnoot said:

I was just thinking it's because the centre plane isn't properly centred in the arrow-thing (heating element?) in the canopy glass.

I had it down as not aligned. Isn't the element the explosive track to blow the canopy on ejection?

HE to fragment the canopy before the pilot's head hits it.


One thought - if this was mid-manouvre, then from memory the outer chap barrel-rolls over the top of the formation, so this could have been triggered at what he thought was top-centre, in which case he came bloody close to the exact moment.

[KAgantua]

havoc said:

Abbott said:

droopsnoot said:

I was just thinking it's because the centre plane isn't properly centred in the arrow-thing (heating element?) in the canopy glass.

I had it down as not aligned. Isn't the element the explosive track to blow the canopy on ejection?

HE to fragment the canopy before the pilot's head hits it.


One thought - if this was mid-manouvre, then from memory the outer chap barrel-rolls over the top of the formation, so this could have been triggered at what he thought was top-centre, in which case he came bloody close to the exact moment.

LOL

Get back up there lads, and take the picture straighter.

[MartG]

Billsnemesis said:

Johnspex said:

mickk said:

Took me a while to work out what that was but even now I can't see anything wrong with it.

It's a physically impossible combination of photoshop elements. If you genuinely were looking back out of the cockpit there would be glass down to the bottom of the picture. So the image through the glass is wrong and that means that the image of the inverted pilot must be wrong as well.

It's the canopy arch

[RizzoTheRat]

Presumably he's barrel rolling over the top of the formation, so he'll be travelling at a slight angle to the rest of them, meaning you'd never get the other 2 to line up.

And yeah, looks like the canopy arch to me, photo's of the chap in the back, presumably that means it's a practice/training flight, they don't display with 2 on board do they?

[OscarIndia]

can't remember said:

Gav147 said:

Stolen from the badly modified car thread on here :

Not sure on that one. It depends on how old the child was and how many S's were in the packet of fridge magnets.

No one seems to have noticed the half painted door mirror....

[blueg33]

In Copenhagen yesterday this ruined my dinner. I was sitting staring at it through the whole of my meal.

[anonymous-user]

OscarIndia said:

can't remember said:

Gav147 said:

Stolen from the badly modified car thread on here :

Not sure on that one. It depends on how old the child was and how many S's were in the packet of fridge magnets.

No one seems to have noticed the half painted door mirror....

Is one half painted, or is the other one three quarters ?

[aazer89]

blueg33 said:

In Copenhagen yesterday this ruined my dinner. I was sitting staring at it through the whole of my meal.

Cant see it...

[blueg33]

aazer89 said:

blueg33 said:

In Copenhagen yesterday this ruined my dinner. I was sitting staring at it through the whole of my meal.

Cant see it...

The red house, top floor window ledge on the right, slopes down a lot more than the one on the left.

[eldar]

blueg33 said:

The red house, top floor window ledge on the right, slopes down a lot more than the one on the left.

Hardly a lot....

[blueg33]

eldar said:

Hardly a lot....

Really obvious when you are sitting there looking at it

[Ian Lancs]

MartG said:

Billsnemesis said:

Johnspex said:

mickk said:

Took me a while to work out what that was but even now I can't see anything wrong with it.

It's a physically impossible combination of photoshop elements. If you genuinely were looking back out of the cockpit there would be glass down to the bottom of the picture. So the image through the glass is wrong and that means that the image of the inverted pilot must be wrong as well.

It's the canopy arch

You can see most of the view in this youtube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUqpogi9Ws.

I'm assuming the inverted manoeuvre explains why you can't see the rear bulkhead (that's my itch with the pic)

[Evangelion]

blueg33 said:

The red house, top floor window ledge on the right, slopes down a lot more than the one on the left.

Blimey that's really subtle! I was thinking more in terms of the huge asymmetrically placed door on the ground floor.