It is extremely common to have either a VFR corridor over or to be vectored right over the top of a primary class B airport while flying VFR. I don

Sometimes we think something is fake becasue it does not quite fit into our expectations, but what if our expecations are not quite accurate, especially when coloured by the unreal world of FS2004?I personally know several of the photographers on airliners.net and they are not in the business of faking shots, but let's put that to one side.For example, one basis on which this is deemed a fake is that a small plane would not be allowed to overfly a major international airport. I am sure that is said without the benefit of firsthand knowledge of flying a real plane. Just like other folks that have posted above, I have also been vectored over an Intl airport (at 2000) with heavies taking off and landing underneath me. That is the safest way to do it - pre and post 9/11.The other thing said is because of the "steep climb". The body angle of the B747 is steep, but I can guarantee you the climb isn't steep - at almost 400 ton it's not a jet fighter. Remember he said they were at 3500, there is no way the photographer's plane is in the 74's way. It will be several miles from the airport before it reaches 3500 feet!So that leaves things like size and perspective, well that's for each one to decide but it is taken from 3500 feet away (no doubt with one of those 10,000 dollar telephoto lenses) so there may be a slight amount of distortion but not overly so.

Ooops, sorry for posting into wrong forum, I forgot this is basically off topic :)Well, thank you everyonr for many replies.I'm still not convinced that this photo is a real one, but it might be and if it really is, than my hat down to the maker, becuase then it's a really great shot and really awesome quality.

That's what removed my doubts too, the name of the photographer.I doubt he'd post fake shots.If it were almost anyone else I'd not believe them still I think.And to people saying it's common to have light aircraft overflying airports and runways while operations are underway: maybe it is in the US but at Schiphol it's rare. Once in a while a trainer from Martinair or KLM flight schools will get permission for a familiarisation flight but they have to stay well clear of the active runways and never come directly overhead at any altitude. That happens maybe once a day at most...Apart from that, the airspace is closed for some 15nm around the airport to all light aircraft except those arriving and departing for which a separate runway is set aside (the 04-22).

A few light aircraft use the main runways at Manchester International Airport in England, although I can't remember if I have seen one of these small planes flying over the runways when a large jet is taking off.Chris Low.

I am impressed with Mr. Chui's photographs and contributions to airliners.net and have admired his work for a while. However, the folks who were questioning this picture's authenticity prompted me to really study its details. I've looked at how the shadows on the plane are consistent with the appearance of the shadow on the ground and am convinced that all is above board in that regard. One nagging little question still haunts me.At the top of the photo, I see two small objects on either side of the runway that may be signs indicating distance-remaining or other types of markers. They may not protrude from the ground at all, and if anyone can identify them and relate how they sit in relation to the ground, I would appreciate it. If they do protrude vertically from the ground, it would seem as though the shadows they cast are, while from a similar azimuth, perhaps not from the same time of day. However, I do not have much experience watching how an airplane casts its shadow from an airborne perspective (regretfully :-) ) and may be simply wrong in how I am positioning the sun in relation to this picture in my mind. As I stated before, if these two objects are flush with the ground, this is a moot question. Any thoughts?KevinEDIT: spelling

Maybe it's my "tired old eyes" but I cannot see much of a heat trail distorting the ultra sharp lines of the background...I would have thought the PIC would be giving it plenty of "welly" at this point and a long shimmering trail of hot gasses would be visible in this mega clear photo.As I said...maybe my glasses need retuning! :-roll

Those are distance markers and they stand vertically. The sun is coming from the aircraft's high 10-11 o'clock. The shadow of the aircraft appears ahead of the aircraft due to the fact that it is a high sun which means the shadow is not too far away from the plane's position and that he is most likely using a telephoto lens shooting from several thousand feet above it, thereby capturing both plane and shadow, with the shadow falling ahead of the plane from his perspective, as the 747 climbs.

Kevin,That brings things together for me very nicely. Thank you.Happy flying,Kevin

Yeah, get some new glasses. Between the #1 engine and wing, you can see the heat distortion practically wipe out two skid marks on the runway from view, compare the grass behind the wing and ahead of the wing just outboard of the #4 engine and you can see the distortion behind, for the #3 engine, you can see the line of black caulking on the runway edge get distorted as it goes between the engine and leading edge of the wing and slightly distorted aft of the wing.

Fair enough Kevin. My original comment was based on the fact I thought you would have expected to see the "blurred" image a lot further back which I didn't see...but looking closer I can see that it does go further back...just not straight back but curving off to the right as you look at it. Point taken and I have now cleaned my glasses! :-lol

I am guessing its LAX heading out towards the ocean. There is a VFR coridor that overflies the airport, literally bisecting the four runways at about 5,000 feet. It is possible that this is how the photo was obtained.