Tag Archives: test

The Fourth 787 Struggling to Fly

Of the original 787 development airframes, three are now in museums and Boeing has one that it continues to use for test work. It was the fourth of the jets and, I assume, the closest to a production standard. It was recently out at Boeing Field for a flight. It taxied by me to the end of the taxiway where it then waited for a very long time. Some fire trucks were close by but not attending it – just watching as far as I could tell. They called up to say that they would be there for a long time so the tower was diverting things around them.

Eventually they taxied back before finally getting whatever was the issue sorted out at which point the runway in use had changed. They had to head to the other end of the field for departure. This time they did take off and headed off for whatever testing they had planned. Not sure of whatever it was that caused them so much trouble but I guess it got resolved.

Return of the G600 Testbed (In The Rain)

Leave a reply

A rainy Saturday afternoon had very little going on except the return of a G600 test aircraft to the Pacific Northwest. I have no idea why Gulfstream has not painted this jet but it is still in primer. I half expected to see it had been painted when it arrived, but it was still green. The conditions were alternating between torrential rain and patches of sun. Indeed, the sun was out five minutes before the G600 arrived but, no surprise, it was back to rain by the time it came in. When conditions are like that, I go with a heavy overexposure and then pull things back down in post. Hopefully, before too long, I will be experimenting with a new body, and we shall see whether I need to modify my exposure techniques in bad conditions.

Finally WH003 Thanks to Nancy

Leave a reply

Of the four 777X test aircraft, one had eluded me. I had shot the third jet on the ground but never in motion. Supposedly it is the performance test aircraft so the suggestion was that it was being preserved until a lot of configuration work had been done to make sure the engines were in peak shape prior to measuring fuel consumption. Recently I heard that it had been making a bunch of flights. The good news was that these flights – lots of straight line flying out over the Pacific – were quite long and they usually landed in the early evening. A trip after work was on the cards.

The problem with this timing is that is clashes with dinner. Fortunately, I have a wife that is tolerant of my interest (although I think it would be wrong to say she understands my obsession!). Nancy was willing to delay dinner until it came back (and I could then get home). With test flying, there are no guarantees about timing so I would watch the jet head back up the coast only to turn around and go for another run south.

Fortunately, it finally turned back towards Seattle and it was pretty certain it was coming back. The benefit of this waiting is that the light is getting better and better. The downside of shooting the 777X is the size means the long lens is too much for the touchdown area. The wide lens doesn’t do well for the rest of the approach though. Two cameras was the answer. I thought I had one set up right but it turns out I had messed up something with the result that the shots were rather overexposed. Fortunately, RAW came to the rescue and I was able to get the shots back to what I wanted. Now I have them all in flight.

DxO PureRAW Testing

Leave a reply

Whenever you suddenly see a bunch of YouTube videos on a similar topic, you wonder whether a company has been sending out copies of its product to people to get them talking about it. I think this must be the case with DxO Mark since I have come across a lot of videos about their new raw convertor, PureRAW. Having watched a couple of the videos – the technique clearly works – I was curious about the capabilities of the product. Since they provide a 30 day free trial, I decided to give it a go.

One of the topics which seems to get people really worked up if they are too focused on the products and less on the photos you take with them is Raw conversions. You can shoot JPEGs in camera but, if you shoot Raw, you tend to have a lot more flexibility with post processing. (For those not in to this stuff – and I am amazed you are still reading this if that is the case – a Raw file is the data that comes off the sensor with very little processing applied.). Software developers come up with their own ways of converting this data into an image. Camera manufacturers provide their own raw converters but they don’t share the detailed understanding with the software manufacturers so they have to create their own.

The most widespread software provider is Adobe with their Camera Raw convertor built in to Photoshop and Lightroom. There are others with their own software and you can come across some quite heated discussions online about which is the best. Hyperbole abounds in these discussions with anyone getting in to the debate almost always dismissing Camera Raw as terrible. It’s clearly not terrible but it might have its limitations.

PureRAW is a convertor which doesn’t really give you much control. Instead, it takes the Raw file, does its magic and then creates a new DNG raw file which you can them import direct in to Lightroom (if you choose – which I do) to continue to edit in much the same way you would have previously. Watching the reviews, they seemed to suggest that for normal shots at normal ISO settings, there was not much in it. However, for high ISO images, they showed significant differences with reduced noise, sharper images and clearer detail. Some reviewers thought it might even be a bit oversharpened.

I figured I would try out my own experimentation with some really high ISO images. I have some shots at ridiculously high ISO settings that I took at night or in poorly lit environments. These seemed like a good place to start. The workflow is not ideal – this would not be something I do for all images but only for some that seemed like they would need it – because I have to select the shot from Windows Explorer (getting there by right clicking on the image in Lightroom) and then drag in to PureRAW. I can drag a whole bunch of shots over there before having to do anything to them.

The program will download profiles for the camera and lens combinations if it doesn’t already have them and you have to agree to this. Not sure why it doesn’t do it automatically to be honest but I guess there is a reason. When you have all of the shots of interest selected, you click Process and off it goes. It isn’t terribly fast but I wasn’t dealing with a huge number of shots. Interestingly, I took a look at Task Manager to see how much resource it was using and the processor was barely ticking over so it wasn’t stressing the machine at all. At a later stage, for reasons I shall explain in a while, I did deactivate the use of the graphics card and things got considerably slower.

When the processing is finished, you have the option to export them to Lightroom. It saves them in a sub folder for the original folder and they all import together. Since I have Lightroom sort by capture time, the new files arrive alongside the original which makes comparing them pretty simple. For the 204,000 ISO shot (an extended range ISO for that camera), things were slightly better but still really noisy. For the 51,000 ISO shots, things actually did appear to be pretty impressive. I have a normal profile for the camera that I use for the raw conversion and a preset for high ISO conversions and the comparison is not dramatic but it is definitely a sharper, more detailed and slightly cleaner result.

I have put pairs of shots in the post with crops in on each image to give a comparison of the output so you can judge for yourself. Will I buy the software? I don’t know. It is currently $90. That is quite a bit for software that does one thing only. The interface with my workflow is a bit clunky and it has benefit in a relatively limited set of circumstances from what I have seen so far.

Now for some further feedback as my experimentation has progressed. I did try the tool out on some more normal shots. There are some minor differences from a conversion of the raw within Lightroom but they don’t seem to be significant enough to justify the investment. I played with some shots that had very contrasty scenes and it was slightly less noisy but, again, not that big a deal. They also felt over sharpened.

I have had some problems with the program. After a while, I got conversions where the new DNG file was just black. This happened on a few occasions. I found switching to CPU only solved the issue but only after I deleted the DNGs that had been created. Interestingly, once I went back to Auto mode, it continued to work. A weird bug and not one unique to me apparently. I have also had erratic results when it exports to Lightroom with it failing to do so on a number of occasions. This is really laborious to deal with and, combined with the fact that the drag from Lightroom to PrimeRAW only works on a Mac and not on Windows, the lack of integration is really enough to put me off.

So far, I will let the trial expire. It is a tool that is capable of some interesting improvements in more extreme situations but the integration is poor and the benefits are limited for me so, with that in mind, it just isn’t worth the expenditure. If it made more of a difference to normal shots, I might consider it but it currently doesn’t offer enough to justify the cost or the process slowdown.

Boeing 737 Max 10 in Flight

Leave a reply

I missed out on the first flight of the first Max 10 version of the Boeing 737 family. I got to Boeing Field as it was landing on its initial flight which I watched from the freeway as I got close to the airfield. However, a flight test airframe is going to get a lot of use so I knew I would have more opportunities. The Max 10 rolled out a long time ago so the start of flight test was heavily delayed, presumably as a result of the overall Max grounding and the more intense scrutiny being given to Boeing as a result.

I have now seen it flying a few times. It is still flying around with a trailing static cone so they either haven’t completed calibration of the air data system or just haven’t got around to removing the cone yet. It is in Boeing house colors with the large 10 on the fin being the main giveaway. It is longer than the Max 9 but not noticeably so. I’ll need to put them side by side to see where to identify the differences.

More 777X Test Shots

Leave a reply

With the extended test program for the Boeing 777X, I have had ample time to shoot the four test aircraft. (The fact I have only shot the third jet on the ground is a function of the very limited flying it has done to date. It is the performance aircraft so they are not using the engines much to maximize performance until the configuration is tightened up and the performance tests are required.). That hasn’t stopped me getting shots of the jets when the opportunity arises.

They have flown over the house a few times when on the return journey to Boeing Field. I have also caught them on occasions when down at Boeing Field. I got two in one day with the second and fourth airframes heading out close together. I got the second as it rolled for take off and the fourth taxied past while I was eating my lunch. I’m sure I will get more shots of them with the test program scheduled to continue through certification at the end of 2023!

Early Pegasus Jets Getting Reworked

Leave a reply

The KC-46 Pegasus program continues to be a problem for Boeing. Delivery rates are lower than planned and articles describing the shortcomings in the jets continue to get circulated. They have a long way to go, and Boeing is going to have to spend a lot more money before they are fully capable. Meanwhile, jet do continue to be built and delivered. The earliest jets were given civil registrations because they were undergoing a civil certification program as well as a military one. Two of those jets are now back at Everett getting reworked – presumably because they will ultimately get delivered to the USAF. I shot a couple of them on the airfield while up there one sunny weekend.

Alaska and Southwest on Test

Leave a reply

The return to airworthiness of the 737 Max was first given in the US so there was a focus on getting airlines deliveries if they were under FAA jurisdiction. I guess we didn’t realize at that point that there would be some follow on issues that resulted in these jets getting grounded but such is the life of the Max watcher. Southwest started taking jets very soon after it was possible and Alaska soon followed with their first delivery – the grounding having come into effect before they had a chance to take their first jet.

On one day when I was watching the activity at Boeing Field, both airlines had aircraft out on test. They were operating under Boeing flight numbers but it wasn’t possible to tell whether they were production flight tests for Boeing or customer acceptance flights. No doubt I shall see a lot more of both operators with these jets in due course – once Boeing sorts out the latest issues and they become a more reliable part of service!

Tailskid On A 777X

Leave a reply

There is plenty of the 777X on this blog. The delays for the test programs and the likelihood that service entry will slip in to 2024 means that test aircraft are all that is going to be available for a while yet. Even so, with four test aircraft in use, there is plenty of test activity underway. One of the more dramatic testing processes is the minimum unstick testing.

The test is to determine the maximum lift at takeoff in various configurations. This allows calculation of the required take off speeds and the runway distance required. The test involves accelerating the aircraft more slowly than usual and pulling the noise fully up. The tail is dragged along the runway and the aircraft will then get airborne once it reaches sufficient speed.

The test requires a decent runway length and, presumably, nothing much off the end should anything go awry. To protect the aircraft, a tailskid is fitted to the rear fuselage to allow the crew to drag it along the runway surface without damaging the airframe. The skid frame is a metallic structure but I am not sure what the wearing surface is for the 777X. In the past, wood has been used as the abradable element.

WH001, the first 777-9 airframe, is the one that is going to be used for these tests. It has been fitted with the skid. I’m not sure whether the testing is already underway or whether it is ready for future use. I shot it on departure on a couple of occasions.

Return of a P-8 Test Flight From Above

Leave a reply

The first decent sized arrival I got on my BFI visit was a US Navy P-8 Poseidon returning from a test flight. It gave me a chance to get the hang of picking the arriving planes up against the background and working out their positions as the are on final. Things are pretty cluttered in the background which doesn’t help make a photo look interesting but, once they are over the airfield itself, the background is a lot cleaner and the plane stands out more.

Once over the runway, everything is unobstructed so you get a good view of the touchdown and roll out. The runway wasn’t too damp so not much in the way of spray from reverse thrust but a good amount of tire smoke as the mains hit the ground. Heat haze was not too much of a problem as the conditions were not too sunny but you still had to be pretty close in before the shots were sharp enough to look at closely.