Is it possible to add this effect into the 777 engines? Or does this after burner only happen on the PW engines?

 

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-777-346/2675132/L/

That isn't an afterburner. It's the combustion chamber turning the nozzle red hot

Yeah but I saw that movie with Tom Cruise where he lands one of those on an aircraft carrier...

That isn't an afterburner. It's the combustion chamber turning the nozzle red hot

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, either way it would be neat to see this feature on the 777.

Looks like a heavy dose of editing went into that, too, honestly.

Looks like a heavy dose of editing went into that, too, honestly.

According to the comments that accompany the photo, it is the right lighting conditions as well as camera settings to capture that effect...one in a million, I might add.

 

-Jim

Looks like a heavy dose of editing went into that, too, honestly.

 

I thought so too but airliners.net is usually pretty strict with that sort of thing.

 

 

 

According to the comments that accompany the photo, it is the right lighting conditions as well as camera settings to capture that effect...one in a million, I might add.

 

This is true although I will admit I have never seen it on a commercial jet before, excluding Concorde.

I've seen it at certain angles taxiing behind A320s and 737s before.

 

Based on the infrequency of seeing it I suspect you need fairly specific conditions/angles to see it (i.e. lucky photographer & right place at the right time)

 

 

I thought so too but airliners.net is usually pretty strict with that sort of thing.

 

haha - Artistic effects? Sure...but editing? Absolutely not.

(The reason I laugh is that I just witnessed them reject an amazing photograph a friend sent in. He then edited it to the feedback they gave him, and then it got rejected again...all the while, a more edited and worse looking one got submitted and accepted by a known/trusted photog. I'll spare you my 'frat' rant on that site)

 

A somewhat famous one 346 at cruise shot is highly edited (www.airliners.net /photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Airbus-A340-642/1088680/L - copy/paste, delete the space). The edits are very clear to anyone who has done any photo editing:

-Highly saturated (the red in the engines is one giveaway, the yellowed tint of the airframe is another)

-High contrast

-Halo around the wing suggests highlight dampening

-Black sky suggests a high amount of editing in and of itself (the photog notes that it was at FL310, and we all know FL310 is not black like that, at least with enough light to light the underside of an aircraft, and refract off of the contrails)

 

There's another one that I'm thinking of, yet can't find, where an aircraft is on short final and its wake has cut through the low clouds/fog. That photo is overcontrasted like crazy, but that's what made the photo.

 

So yeah, they're going to reject anything that's additive (like someone 'shopping an afterburner onto a 777), but they won't reject things that are just enhancements to bring out the effect...unless you're not in their club...then they just reject it because they don't recognize your name.

 

 

So yeah, they're going to reject anything that's additive (like someone 'shopping an afterburner onto a 777), but they won't reject things that are just enhancements to bring out the effect...unless you're not in their club...then they just reject it because they don't recognize your name.

 

I have to say that I do agree some photos on there appear, well, larger than life, to put it nicely. But actually adding an effect? If that slipped through, hmm...

 

As for enhancements, I suppose the question here is, what is the highest EGT possible on a GE90-115B, and at this temperature, is it hot enough to make the very last area of the nozzle heat up enough to emit any visible light at all. (Bearing in mind this gas has already passed through several turbine stages to get to the exhaust nozzle.)

 

If the answer is no visible light, then I think we know where this effect came from (The "Filter" menu would be a good start)

 

If there is visible light, then the question is how much was it enhanced.

 

That pic is tricky because you clearly see the open area between the tailpipe cone and the exhaust nozzle, which would often be blocked by a normal photoshop job.

 

Perhaps it is just very, very well done...

I'd say the glow in the turbine area is natural. The flame effect looks fake and unnatural. It appears to envelop the whole exhaust cone, something you never see from any angle. It implies combustion temperature gas after the turbine which is unlikely.

 

 

this gas has already passed through several turbine stages to get to the exhaust nozzle

 

I think Wes nailed it.  The gas has already expended a significant amount of work including adding energy to the big fan where significant thrust is derived at this speed and altitude. By the way, if you saw this effect in some Tom Cruise movie then I assume it is as fake as Cruise himself.

I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is there is no Santa Clause, or Easter bunny either.

If you've ever tried to take a video with your phone of the sensor of a TV remote while it's being used, you'll often be able to pick up the infra-red light it emits to tell your TV what to do (on, off, etc.). I'd imagine a similar sort of thing is going on here, where the photographer's camera is able to pick up light in the infrared spectrum that has a frequency that is very close to the visible spectrum. Hence, with his current camera settings and lighting conditions, he is able to pick up the infrared 'glow' of the exhaust gases coming out from the combustion chamber.

 

Regards.

That is indeed a very odd picture that i struggle to believe, i've never seen that, Im not photographer but could the camera sensor pickup infared? And as been mentioned the exhaust gasses have passed through the LP turbine so i cant see how it would be glowing after that!