Pull back and you can see the contrail. This is so weird that I wonder if someone at Google or the satellite company is having some fun with us. If it is real, anyone know what Utah missile test range this is on?
UPDATE: As intrepid commenter, Dr. Funbags, pointed out, this probably is an airplane. If you zoom in as far as possible, you can just make out the wings.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4466 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Well, the town south of there is Circleville. Other than that — it looks like all of Utah!
Is that a Tomahawk?
If you look closely, you can see it has wings that are painted black. I’m not sure that makes it not a missile, but I can’t find pictures of too many cruise missiles that have a swept wing design and tail wings like a plane. Most have straight wings and 4 tail wings.
The Plane!!! The Plane, boss the Plane!!!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/408498198_feff37fb9e_o.jpg
That is cool. Watch you ass James Hill, theyre comin to get ya.
That’s Casper’s, the friend ghost’s erection.
Might as well post other planes – via – google pics!
Here’s a WWI bi-plane in New York.
http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/01/31/77-water-street-biplane/
Found on boingboing.net today
Here are 2 planes passing at the same point (different altitudes) over Belgium — with contrails
http://tinyurl.com/2tdfa3
[Editor: please use tinyurl.com for long urls]
It’s more than 80 feet long; it’s an airplane.
The more I look at that analysis, the more I think it’s not an airplane.
1. Why the very odd paint job? You call those wings?
2. Where is the tail?
3. Why are other gmap images of commercial planes so much larger at the same level of zoom?
Cruise missile with dual engines? The are 2 contrails behind that thing.
#5 – Run away! Run away! 🙂
My best guess is it’s a flight from PHX… maybe to SLC, maybe to SEA.
“The are 2 contrails behind that thing.”
duhh.. too much focusing on the wrong parts….
It’s a missile. Aside from size it looks very much like a Harpoon missiles, stub swept wings and all. I used to work on Standard and Harpoon missiles in the Navy. Either it’s a new fangled Tomahawk or another breed all together.
Somehow, I think DoD is more then happy with the confusion; is it a plane or is it a missile! Plausible denibility, it’s a wonderful thing.
If you access to Janes, they got all kinds of cruise missile pictures.
I think Dr Funbags nailed it.
I figured out it was a rear engined airliner but was thinking more along the lines of an L1011. But I’ve always been noted for my looks over my aircraft identification.
although the “missile” is 80’+ long, the wing span is a short 19′ from tip to tip.
@16 Guess it’s time for you to don your tinfoil hat then.
Now that I think about it, the 80 ft measurement is erroneous because this plane isn’t sitting on the ground. Either way, there are two contrails, and normally proportioned wings (squint if you must, but they’re there). My guess is it’s an MD-90.
The F-104 had a 22 foot wingspan and was 56 feet long (Wing is 40% of Length). A Cessna 421 I fly has a 44 foot wingspan and is 36 feet long (Wing is 122% of length).
The important thing is wing area… the larger the area of the wing, the more lift will be generated, and more weight can be flown. Things like weapons, people, cargo ………useful heavy crap.
The picture of the supposed wing is only ~20% of its head to toe length, and the supposed wing is not much bigger then the rear fins.
This is not a design of a passenger or weapons payload carrying plane. This design is typical of a relatively light war head carrying missile, surface to surface or air to surface. You don’t need recon work experience to figure this puppy out.
Mr. Fusion, your B.S. stinks. And what did you say about your looks?
Look very close and you can see the black swept wings that have a span slightly shorter than the length of the fuselage. It does not appear to be a missile. Also, I have never heard of a missile with two engines. Two engines are used almost exclusively for passenger safety. If a missile had two engines and one failed, it would render it totally ineffective as a weapon. To me, this looks like a commercial airliner.
The apparent lack of visible engine nacelles on the aft fuselage make me wonder if the white on the wing might actually be engine nacelles. That would indicate a configuration similar to the Honda Jet that has then twin engines mounted on top of the wing next to the fuselage. That would make sense if the wing is a dark color and the engine nacelles atop the wing are white like the fuselage. Check out http://world.honda.com/HondaJet/ to see what I mean.
Anyway, this plane is too large to be the Honda Jet. And the engines on the Honda Jet are mounted aft on the wing. Also, the Honda Jet has a straight wing while this photo shows swept wings.
As for the MD-90, the engines should be clearly visible on either side of the aft fuselage just forward of the T-tail (which aren’t apparent in the photograph). It could be that this is some sort of “engine over wing” research aircraft. NASA does this sort of stuff all the time.
The Honda Jet has sparked interest in the “engine over wing” configuration in the last couple of years. It has some interesting benefits such as a more centralized center of gravity, greater FOD resistance, vastly reduced loads on the aft fuselage resulting in lighter overall weight, more efficient fuel system, less cabin noise and vibration, etc. I can imagine that NASA might invest some research dollars in a test aircraft in order to evaluate this configuration more fully.
Of course, that is all speculation. Modifying a MD-90 to this configuration might not be feasible without some very major structural re-design of the wing. Usually, a demonstrator this size would be predicated by a much smaller proof of concept aircraft (either of which would probably be on the cover of Aviation Week).
It is definitely not a L-1011. That aircraft has engines on the wings as well as being a “wide body” airliner, which this most definitely is not. This aircraft looks like a riddle to me. Too bad the image doesn’t have more resolution.
#18, My B.S. Stinks? You can’t even be bothered to check it out. Maybe you might want to upgrade your monitor from that VGA 14”. Better yet, read post #4 for enhanced views of this airplane. Maybe then you will see the actual wings.
There is more to wing / weight then just size to create lift. Excess lift requires increased tail down force. The tail down force is wasted energy and results in extra drag. Your little C 421 does what, 250 knots max? A MC90 cruises at 500 knots. The Airliner will want LESS lift in level flight in order to reduce drag. The reduced drag is extremely important to airlines that want to reduce fuel costs.
A MD90 wingspan is roughly 2/3s the fuselage length.
.
#19, Mark
Yes, I agree on second thought it is not an L1011. I was thinking that it had to have a rear engine because of the wing placement on the body and the wide wing roots.