What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?
$begingroup$
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
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
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
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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♦
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago
|
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
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
aircraft-identification
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
67.7k7214358
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
asked 2 days ago
user38075user38075
18623
18623
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user38075 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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♦
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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♦
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago
6
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
3
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
2
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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♦
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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:
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
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.
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Federico♦ 2 days ago
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?
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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:
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
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:
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
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:
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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:
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
edited yesterday
ymb1
67.7k7214358
67.7k7214358
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
answered 2 days ago
LFSSLFSS
68115
68115
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
LFSS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
add a comment |
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
9
9
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
2 days ago
35
35
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
$begingroup$
any idea why the plane didn't leave a trail?
$endgroup$
– Manuki
yesterday
7
7
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Manuki Contrails require specific atmospheric conditions that may be present at one altitude but not another.
$endgroup$
– ceejayoz
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
$begingroup$
(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
yesterday
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.
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
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.
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
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.
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
$endgroup$
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.
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 2 days ago
reirab
14.1k139108
14.1k139108
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
answered 2 days ago
John KJohn K
22.4k13166
22.4k13166
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
3
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
$begingroup$
What is the reason for this separation of flight levels?
$endgroup$
– koalo
yesterday
2
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
22 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
22 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Federico♦ 2 days ago
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?
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♦
2 days ago
$begingroup$
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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♦
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
2 days ago