Jim Meads was a photographer living in Hatfield, Hertfordshire near the Hatfield aerodrome in 1962. A pilot friend notified him on September 13th of that year that he would be test flying an English Electric Lightning F1 XG332 if he would like to come take some photos. Happy to get shots of the only British built fighter capable of Mach 2 speeds, he set out toward the airfield hoping to get photos of his children with the F1 landing in the background. The photo he ended up getting would become famous.
As he and his family walked up, a grounds keeper for the airfield approached them in a tractor to tell them to leave the area. That’s when the plane went out of control at a very low altitude with the pilot ejecting at the last possible moment, setting up an incredible, one of kind shot (especially for the time). As it turns out, the pilot was not Mead’s friend, but another test pilot named George Aird. He landed on a tomato greenhouse nearby, crashing through the roof and breaking both legs on the way down. The story is well documented by Aird, Meads, and Mike Sutterby, the tractor bound groundskeeper who was only 23 at the time.
"Ghosts The Past" of an original acrylic painting of 2 fighter planes at the bottom of the ocean in the Marshall Islands. A 12x16, this one is available! Dm me for the details and the link, or to start a commission!
[Image Description: Square photo divided into 3 frames. Top frame shows a plane wreck with a person standing by the wing taking a close photo. In the second window of the plane, the sunlight peeks through. The middle frame is a landscape photo of the plane wreck scenery. The head of the plane has a person standing by it, while the back end of the plane has another person. The sun is also setting at the back end of the plane. The bottom frame shows the opened and damaged back end of the plane with the sunlight peeking through all the holes.]
A plane can be seen submerged in the waters of North America. Or is it simply an image glitch?
Name: Sunken Plane?
Lat, Long: 22.6783453,-73.8289684
Location: The Bahamas, North America
Finally finished what I started almost a year ago. Literally just wanted to fill a page with little things from all the different movies and TV shows I've loved
i'm noticing this pattern of comic book writers defaulting to incompetence when it comes to giving characters "flaws" instead of like… actually making them flawed. what narrative purpose does hal jordan crashing his test plane (a task he is meant to excell at) serve? it contributes to neither the plot nor character, unless the writer deliberately wants to make his protagonist seem like a joke.
a character fucks up and learns nothing from it, because there was no compelling reason for them to have failed in the first place. rather than developing a character, it regresses them. there's no nuance in their mistakes; none of the their errors stem from faults of personality and the guise of imperfection dissipates as soon as the narrative requires it to. where's the struggle in all this? the hard-wrought character development? incompetence is generic, nothing but a red herring to distract from the fact that most characters now have but a fraction of their pre-reboot depth. the so-called internal struggles these heroes have are shallow caricatures of the moral debates that used to be present in comics.
a flawed character is not an incompetent character. it's just something i wish writers would remember.
Croz picking Rosie up in a jeep when he gets back from mission. He’s wearing his leather jacket and aviators, kinda leaning back with one hand on the wheel and an arm resting on the back of the other seat all relaxed-like with a smirk on his face.