Hcfyk

What's the purpose of "true" in bash "if sudo true; then"

How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?

Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users

If you attempt to grapple an opponent that you are hidden from, do they roll at disadvantage?

How can I replace every global instance of "x[2]" with "x_2"

Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?

Is it correct to write "is not focus on"?

What would happen if the UK refused to take part in EU Parliamentary elections?

Your magic is very sketchy

What to do with wrong results in talks?

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

Confused about a passage in Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal

Efficiently merge handle parallel feature branches in SFDX

At which point does a character regain all their Hit Dice?

How do I define a right arrow with bar in LaTeX?

Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from?

Curses work by shouting - How to avoid collateral damage?

Is the destination of a commercial flight important for the pilot?

What's a natural way to say that someone works somewhere (for a job)?

is this a spam?

Can criminal fraud exist without damages?

What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?

What aircraft is this?What is this WWI aircraft?What aircraft is this flying near Greenford?What is this fighter jet that flew over KJST?What is this high-wing jet airplane?What flying machine is this model?Can someone identify this scrapped high-wing plane?What is this aircraft seen over Southern California?What is this high wing, single engine aircraft?What is this aircraft that has flown over my house all day?

40

1

$begingroup$

Yesterday afternoon I photographed a Boeing 777-300ER flying over my home, according to radar data it was at approximately 32,000 ft. In the photograph there is another aircraft present, it is much smaller and higher in altitude (40,000-50,000 ft) and it is a small aircraft, possibly a drone or military. It did not appear on any flight tracking sites. I usually see military traffic flying in that particular route and heading. I have numerous "raw" images of this particular aircraft.

I originally though it may be an L-39 although that particular aircraft does not have a T tail design and I think that it would struggle at that altitude. The photographs were taken at 1545 EST over the LVZ VOR.

The aircraft was flying an almost perfect east to west heading usually reserved for military traffic. One interesting note is that it was not leaving a contrail. I routinely photograph B-52's, tankers, and fighter aircraft transitioning over my home at or about that altitude and they almost always leave contrails.

aircraft-identification

share|improve this question

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  welcome to aviation.SE. If you want help identifying an aircraft, you will have to provide your data here in the open, we don't do anything via other means.
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 11:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Also note that after enlarging it appears to be a single "inline jet" engine configuration similar to a U-2's fuselage? Thanks Joseph
  $endgroup$
  – user38075
  Mar 18 at 11:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I asked a co-worker who flew U-2 and he says that to his knowledge all the wings used have a taper on the rear. But he has not flown ALL the variants. Also he points out that there are no visible pods for sensors, which is common with operational flights. Plus the paint schemes on all the U-2 that he has seen as operational are low reflectivity paints, and would not appear as in the photo. How about giving us more data on your photo acquisition details?
  $endgroup$
  – mongo
  Mar 18 at 12:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  as you seem to have created 2 accounts, please have a look on how to merge them and regain control over the question: aviation.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 13:39
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 14:47
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

40

1

$begingroup$

Yesterday afternoon I photographed a Boeing 777-300ER flying over my home, according to radar data it was at approximately 32,000 ft. In the photograph there is another aircraft present, it is much smaller and higher in altitude (40,000-50,000 ft) and it is a small aircraft, possibly a drone or military. It did not appear on any flight tracking sites. I usually see military traffic flying in that particular route and heading. I have numerous "raw" images of this particular aircraft.

I originally though it may be an L-39 although that particular aircraft does not have a T tail design and I think that it would struggle at that altitude. The photographs were taken at 1545 EST over the LVZ VOR.

The aircraft was flying an almost perfect east to west heading usually reserved for military traffic. One interesting note is that it was not leaving a contrail. I routinely photograph B-52's, tankers, and fighter aircraft transitioning over my home at or about that altitude and they almost always leave contrails.

aircraft-identification

share|improve this question

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  welcome to aviation.SE. If you want help identifying an aircraft, you will have to provide your data here in the open, we don't do anything via other means.
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 11:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Also note that after enlarging it appears to be a single "inline jet" engine configuration similar to a U-2's fuselage? Thanks Joseph
  $endgroup$
  – user38075
  Mar 18 at 11:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I asked a co-worker who flew U-2 and he says that to his knowledge all the wings used have a taper on the rear. But he has not flown ALL the variants. Also he points out that there are no visible pods for sensors, which is common with operational flights. Plus the paint schemes on all the U-2 that he has seen as operational are low reflectivity paints, and would not appear as in the photo. How about giving us more data on your photo acquisition details?
  $endgroup$
  – mongo
  Mar 18 at 12:52
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  as you seem to have created 2 accounts, please have a look on how to merge them and regain control over the question: aviation.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 13:39
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
  $endgroup$
  – Federico♦
  Mar 18 at 14:47
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

$begingroup$

Yesterday afternoon I photographed a Boeing 777-300ER flying over my home, according to radar data it was at approximately 32,000 ft. In the photograph there is another aircraft present, it is much smaller and higher in altitude (40,000-50,000 ft) and it is a small aircraft, possibly a drone or military. It did not appear on any flight tracking sites. I usually see military traffic flying in that particular route and heading. I have numerous "raw" images of this particular aircraft.

I originally though it may be an L-39 although that particular aircraft does not have a T tail design and I think that it would struggle at that altitude. The photographs were taken at 1545 EST over the LVZ VOR.

The aircraft was flying an almost perfect east to west heading usually reserved for military traffic. One interesting note is that it was not leaving a contrail. I routinely photograph B-52's, tankers, and fighter aircraft transitioning over my home at or about that altitude and they almost always leave contrails.

aircraft-identification

share|improve this question

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

share|improve this question

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

edited Mar 19 at 9:37

ymb1

68.5k7216363

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

asked Mar 18 at 11:11

user38075user38075

201123

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

88

$begingroup$

Using the location you gave, I tracked back aircraft in that area at that time, and found a scenario that fits with your photo:

(Source: Flightradar24)

So, judging by that, the jet in question is actually a Learjet 31, as said by John K.

Here are some blueprints, and the dimensions are similar:

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Wow well done!!
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 18 at 17:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  40
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I did a bit of pixel measuring. In the image, the Boeing 777-300ER is 87 pixels long; the Learjet is about 12 pixels long. A 777-300ER in 75 m long; a Learjet 31A is 15 m long. Putting all of these numbers together, we can infer that the Learjet was roughly 1.5 times farther from the camera than the Boeing. That's not too far off from the reported altitudes of 32,000 and 45,000 feet, particularly if the OP was at a higher elevation.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 18 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
  $endgroup$
  – Manuki
  Mar 19 at 14:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
  $endgroup$
  – ceejayoz
  Mar 19 at 15:06
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  (I should note that my pixel values above applied to the size of the original image on my screen. The image has since been changed, and I apparently wasn't viewing it at the highest possible resolution. But the basic logic still holds.)
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 19 at 18:46
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

49

$begingroup$

I'd say it's a corporate jet. Corporate jets normally play between 40-55000 ft, above the bulk of the airline traffic down in the 30s, so this is a perfectly normal sight.

Based on the wing planform with straight trailing edge and swept leading edge, and what looks like a T tail and ventral fins, I'm going with Lear 45 or a similar Lear variant (Service ceiling 51000 ft). The viewing aspect doesn't look like from directly below so the engines won't stick out very clearly.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  And, if you look carefully at the OP's photo, you can actually see a hint of something just behind the wings, in exactly the right place for the engines on a Learjet.
  $endgroup$
  – Sean
  Mar 19 at 3:16
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
  $endgroup$
  – koalo
  Mar 19 at 14:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Corporate airplanes just tend to have higher service ceilings, in the 50k range, while most airliners are in the low 40ish range, and generally operate between 30 and 40. It's unusual to operate right at your service ceiling - you have no surplus energy margin to speak of and it can take forever to get there - unless you are unusually light. You have to monitor your speed very carefully. If you slow down too much you have no choice but to descend.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 19 at 18:38
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @JohnK: IIRC, the most fuel-efficient altitude is around the tropopause, so higher than ~36k isn't better. Just because corporate jets can fly higher doesn't fully explain why they routinely do. But since they can while airliners can't, corporate jets fly higher to stay out of the way?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Cordes
  Mar 20 at 1:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I'd say it's mainly no traffic, and at least in the middle latitudes, you can fly over anvils with decent margin and avoid most CAT, which is usually associated with jets that reside at the tropopause at frontal boundaries. If you're crossing the Atlantic, you can go straight across without having to run in the NA tracks which top out at 41.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 20 at 2:05
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

protected by Federico♦ Mar 18 at 17:32

Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

88

$begingroup$

Using the location you gave, I tracked back aircraft in that area at that time, and found a scenario that fits with your photo:

(Source: Flightradar24)

So, judging by that, the jet in question is actually a Learjet 31, as said by John K.

Here are some blueprints, and the dimensions are similar:

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Wow well done!!
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 18 at 17:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  40
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I did a bit of pixel measuring. In the image, the Boeing 777-300ER is 87 pixels long; the Learjet is about 12 pixels long. A 777-300ER in 75 m long; a Learjet 31A is 15 m long. Putting all of these numbers together, we can infer that the Learjet was roughly 1.5 times farther from the camera than the Boeing. That's not too far off from the reported altitudes of 32,000 and 45,000 feet, particularly if the OP was at a higher elevation.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 18 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
  $endgroup$
  – Manuki
  Mar 19 at 14:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
  $endgroup$
  – ceejayoz
  Mar 19 at 15:06
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  (I should note that my pixel values above applied to the size of the original image on my screen. The image has since been changed, and I apparently wasn't viewing it at the highest possible resolution. But the basic logic still holds.)
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 19 at 18:46
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

88

$begingroup$

Using the location you gave, I tracked back aircraft in that area at that time, and found a scenario that fits with your photo:

(Source: Flightradar24)

So, judging by that, the jet in question is actually a Learjet 31, as said by John K.

Here are some blueprints, and the dimensions are similar:

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Wow well done!!
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 18 at 17:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  40
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I did a bit of pixel measuring. In the image, the Boeing 777-300ER is 87 pixels long; the Learjet is about 12 pixels long. A 777-300ER in 75 m long; a Learjet 31A is 15 m long. Putting all of these numbers together, we can infer that the Learjet was roughly 1.5 times farther from the camera than the Boeing. That's not too far off from the reported altitudes of 32,000 and 45,000 feet, particularly if the OP was at a higher elevation.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 18 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
  $endgroup$
  – Manuki
  Mar 19 at 14:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  9
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
  $endgroup$
  – ceejayoz
  Mar 19 at 15:06
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  (I should note that my pixel values above applied to the size of the original image on my screen. The image has since been changed, and I apparently wasn't viewing it at the highest possible resolution. But the basic logic still holds.)
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  Mar 19 at 18:46
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Using the location you gave, I tracked back aircraft in that area at that time, and found a scenario that fits with your photo:

(Source: Flightradar24)

So, judging by that, the jet in question is actually a Learjet 31, as said by John K.

Here are some blueprints, and the dimensions are similar:

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

edited Mar 19 at 9:44

ymb1

68.5k7216363

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

answered Mar 18 at 15:44

LFSSLFSS

74115

49

$begingroup$

I'd say it's a corporate jet. Corporate jets normally play between 40-55000 ft, above the bulk of the airline traffic down in the 30s, so this is a perfectly normal sight.

Based on the wing planform with straight trailing edge and swept leading edge, and what looks like a T tail and ventral fins, I'm going with Lear 45 or a similar Lear variant (Service ceiling 51000 ft). The viewing aspect doesn't look like from directly below so the engines won't stick out very clearly.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  And, if you look carefully at the OP's photo, you can actually see a hint of something just behind the wings, in exactly the right place for the engines on a Learjet.
  $endgroup$
  – Sean
  Mar 19 at 3:16
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
  $endgroup$
  – koalo
  Mar 19 at 14:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Corporate airplanes just tend to have higher service ceilings, in the 50k range, while most airliners are in the low 40ish range, and generally operate between 30 and 40. It's unusual to operate right at your service ceiling - you have no surplus energy margin to speak of and it can take forever to get there - unless you are unusually light. You have to monitor your speed very carefully. If you slow down too much you have no choice but to descend.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 19 at 18:38
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @JohnK: IIRC, the most fuel-efficient altitude is around the tropopause, so higher than ~36k isn't better. Just because corporate jets can fly higher doesn't fully explain why they routinely do. But since they can while airliners can't, corporate jets fly higher to stay out of the way?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Cordes
  Mar 20 at 1:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I'd say it's mainly no traffic, and at least in the middle latitudes, you can fly over anvils with decent margin and avoid most CAT, which is usually associated with jets that reside at the tropopause at frontal boundaries. If you're crossing the Atlantic, you can go straight across without having to run in the NA tracks which top out at 41.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 20 at 2:05
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

49

$begingroup$

I'd say it's a corporate jet. Corporate jets normally play between 40-55000 ft, above the bulk of the airline traffic down in the 30s, so this is a perfectly normal sight.

Based on the wing planform with straight trailing edge and swept leading edge, and what looks like a T tail and ventral fins, I'm going with Lear 45 or a similar Lear variant (Service ceiling 51000 ft). The viewing aspect doesn't look like from directly below so the engines won't stick out very clearly.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  And, if you look carefully at the OP's photo, you can actually see a hint of something just behind the wings, in exactly the right place for the engines on a Learjet.
  $endgroup$
  – Sean
  Mar 19 at 3:16
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
  $endgroup$
  – koalo
  Mar 19 at 14:41
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Corporate airplanes just tend to have higher service ceilings, in the 50k range, while most airliners are in the low 40ish range, and generally operate between 30 and 40. It's unusual to operate right at your service ceiling - you have no surplus energy margin to speak of and it can take forever to get there - unless you are unusually light. You have to monitor your speed very carefully. If you slow down too much you have no choice but to descend.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 19 at 18:38
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @JohnK: IIRC, the most fuel-efficient altitude is around the tropopause, so higher than ~36k isn't better. Just because corporate jets can fly higher doesn't fully explain why they routinely do. But since they can while airliners can't, corporate jets fly higher to stay out of the way?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Cordes
  Mar 20 at 1:54
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I'd say it's mainly no traffic, and at least in the middle latitudes, you can fly over anvils with decent margin and avoid most CAT, which is usually associated with jets that reside at the tropopause at frontal boundaries. If you're crossing the Atlantic, you can go straight across without having to run in the NA tracks which top out at 41.
  $endgroup$
  – John K
  Mar 20 at 2:05
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I'd say it's a corporate jet. Corporate jets normally play between 40-55000 ft, above the bulk of the airline traffic down in the 30s, so this is a perfectly normal sight.

Based on the wing planform with straight trailing edge and swept leading edge, and what looks like a T tail and ventral fins, I'm going with Lear 45 or a similar Lear variant (Service ceiling 51000 ft). The viewing aspect doesn't look like from directly below so the engines won't stick out very clearly.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

edited Mar 18 at 16:51

reirab

14.2k139108

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267

answered Mar 18 at 14:07

John KJohn K

23.1k13267