A bit too narrow for comfort...

[Deeday]

...but the view is stunning.

Discussion: how (un)safe is that? The aircraft appears to be an Avid Flyer or similar.
The original picture is here.

[ChrisVJ]

Maybe he knows the route and is flying floats. So long as there are no rapids ahead, not too bad.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Once Upon A Time in the days of chemical cameras, I ran out of film when a pax in a flightseeing trip above a glacier between walls no further apart than that.

So the pilot cut the power and circled in a steep turn whilst I changed the film.

Back on the ground I expressed surprise at this, saying that I'd been taught to increase power in steep turns. Ah yes, he said, you carry on doing it that way, but I needed a tighter turn than that to fit between the cliffs.

[B2N2]

Not to be an @ss, but I thought they had flight restrictions in the Grand Canyon.
Well maybe not in 1996, alledgedly the time the pic was taken.
Not very clever to put the Tail # on the pic...( DUH)

[IO540]

I think that a canyon with a river in the bottom is not going to have a dead end - where would the water go? Into a tunnel, perhaps...

The Grand Canyon (if that's what this is, and it does look like it) is very long between curves, in places, so this kind of flying would be possible.

Of course it could also be a montage...

[Fuji Abound]

I think that a canyon with a river in the bottom is not going to have a dead end - where would the water go? Into a tunnel, perhaps...

Yeah, but what does a fish say when it swims into a wall - dam, and if there is one round a bend it could give this pilot a bad day!

That said, in all seriousness, I dont see an issue given the "right" weather. If the donkey quits you are going to get wet, but you knew that anyway.

My last float flying through some of the lochs in Scotland was not that different even if the valleys were a little wider, but then again the floats were a comfort!

File:Hoovernewbridge.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Deeday]

Of course it could also be a montage...

If it's a montage, the fake reflections on the engine cowling look pretty damn good. To get that result, it might be easier to just fly the aircraft down there and take a real picture.

[Molesworth 1]

Interesting discussion on canyon turns here

[PompeyPaul]

I'm suprised

I'm suprised that you don't get severe turbelence in the canyon. Think catabalic winds on steroids.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat

Once Upon A Time in the days of chemical cameras, I ran out of film when a pax in a flightseeing trip above a glacier between walls no further apart than that.

So the pilot cut the power and circled in a steep turn whilst I changed the film.

Back on the ground I expressed surprise at this, saying that I'd been taught to increase power in steep turns. Ah yes, he said, you carry on doing it that way, but I needed a tighter turn than that to fit between the cliffs.

I think that he was wrong. Initial turn radius is set by the stall, not by power - power allows you to maintain the turn radius without descending. Unless the aircraft had a very high thrustline and thus increasing power increased speed substantially I don't think that his argument held water.

The only reason why I think he *might* have been wise to do it that way is that in many SEP increasing power tends to degrade the stall warning margin - which in a steep turn nibbling the stall might be a bad thing.

Still he obviously got away with it!

G

[Pace]

I'm suprised that you don't get severe turbelence in the canyon. Think catabalic winds on steroids.

With the correct conditions you would as you would flying over any feature that could cause an obstacle to wind whether the obstacle be mountains or canyons.

I feel this is a montage as there is something not right about the picture. The front of the cowl looks cut and pasted into place and there is a sharp line on the edge of the cowl which isnt right.

I have seen some pretty good and realistic MSFS pictures as well although am not saying that this is one.

As for the flight there is no big deal if the conditions are correct there is no nasty blockage somewhere along the line which the aircraft cannot climb out of. A fake ?

Pace

[Lister Noble]

Pace

That canyon is seriously wide,just look at the tree line etc.
The photograph is taken up close to the windscreen so this makes the canyon appear narrow,when it is not.
I've flown up the Grand Canyon in a single a few years ago,and it was not scary at all,it was just totally amazing.
Lister

[BackPacker]

I feel this is a montage as there is something not right about the picture.

The prop is missing. It's good weather, sunny day so a short shutter speed. You should see at least a blur of the prop blade or maybe a prop disc depending on the type of camera used. Particularly since the sun is from behind.

Also the sun seems to be rather high and at his 4-5 o'clock. Under those conditions the cowling should catch the sun and there should be a clear shadow from the wing. Both of which are absent.

On the other hand the reflection of the canyon walls in the cowling looks quite real.

think that he was wrong. Initial turn radius is set by the stall, not by power - power allows you to maintain the turn radius without descending.

True. The tightest turns are either 1.4Vs0 (assuming a 2g limit with flaps down, and assuming that 1.4Vs0 is below Vfe), flaps down and the bank angle that leads to the highest g's you're allowed to pull with flaps down, or at Va, flaps up and the bank angle for the highest g's you can pull in that configuration.

Trouble is that this leads to bank angles of 60 degrees (2g, the typical flaps down limit) or 75 degrees (4g, the typical limitation of a light aircraft in the utility category). Unless you have passengers with a lot of flying experience and strong stomachs this is going to mean puke all over the place, including the inside of the camera. I somehow doubt that that's the experience these passengers would want to achieve.

So if you can make a sufficiently tight turn with a slower speed and less bank angle, without getting into a stall, that's what I would go for under those circumstances.

Also not all planes have sufficient engine power to maintain 1.4Vs0/60 degrees/2g/flaps down or Va/75 degrees/4g/flaps up configurations indefinitely.

[Flintstone]

.....catabalic.....

You got me there. 'Catabalic' is not a term I recall from any book or course but then I do have the memory span of a goldfish. Katabatic*, yes. Anabatic, likewise. Catabalic, you lost me.

I doubt there'd be any katabatic wind anyway. Anabatic or thermals, certainly.




*Spelling with a 'c' or 'k' optional.

[Pace]

BackPacker

On the other hand the reflection of the canyon walls in the cowling looks quite real.

Actually that comment has given the game away as the reflections are far from real. Go to behind where the prop centreline should be on the cowling and you will see blurred canyon wall reflections where there should be blue sky reflections. 90 degrees to the top of the cowl should reflect the sky above.

As you stated no sign of a prop. Also too sharp a white line behind where the spinner should be. This is a FAKE

Pace

[TimGriff6]

'Also too sharp a white line behind where the spinner should be. This is a FAKE'

But looking at this aircraft from the other side can you see a sharp white line?

Photos: Light Aero Avid Skyraeder Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

[Deeday]

I've contacted the author of the photo privately, through airliners.net, and this is his reply (quoted with his permission). It makes enough sense to me (and no, it's not the Grand Canyon).

Hi Deeday, I have seen some of this on the web. The photograph is NOT a fake and is not a photoshop composite as some believe it to be. It was also not taken in the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is very restricted and I would probably be writing this from jail if I had flown through it. It is also much deeper than the one in my picture. The prop is not seen in the photo because I used 1/60 sec to make it disappear. Because the back side of propellers are painted black you almost never see a prop disc. The airspeed is about 100 mph {not much blur on the canyon walls} and the top of the canyon is about 300-400 feet {100+ meters} high. The canyon walls are maybe 4 to 8 wingspans wide? Some say it's not safe but relative to what. Flying is not safe and I have seen far worse. Single engine IMC at night or over mountains or fast airplanes over forests, not me. Worst thing in my situation is I go for a very short swim. I have had two engine failures and both were in the mountains so I am very aware of what can happen. I try to never fly over anything that I'm sure will kill me if the engine quits {oceans, lava rock, etc} and I always try to leave myself a way out were I can at least survive. If there are still some non-believers my invitation to come fly with me, I have barf bags. Hope this helps, Jim

[Mark 1]

Some time back, I did the floatplane course with Joe LaPlaca at Havasu on the Colorado.

We seldom got above 500' flying along the river. The canyon flying and the box-canyon turn were the most fun bits of the training.

The floats did give you extra stability in the turbulence and increased your options with an engine failure.

If I lived around there, I think it would be hard to resist. The width looks fine, if you know what's around the corner.

[Pace]

I've contacted the author of the photo privately, through airliners.net, and this is his reply (quoted with his permission). It makes enough sense to me (and no, it's not the Grand Canyon).

I am sorry but even with his claims of it being real this picture is touched up.
The biggest give away are the reflections on the cowl? There is a deep blue cloudless sky above yet NO reflection of that. Take each angle of the cowl left to right and consider the reflections will be 90 degrees to that surface and there is no way this picture is untouched.

He clames the shutter speed and colour of the prop have removed any trace but sorry dont buy that either.

What I do agree with is that the feat of flying along the Canyon is no big deal

Pace

[Deeday]

Pace,
I'm afraid you are getting the angles wrong. The canyon walls obviously appear upside-down, in the cowling reflection. The base of the wall is reflected near the spinner, while the top of the wall - with any sky - would be reflected near the windscreen, but the cowling is clearly not large (or curved) enough to reflect that.
The only 'anomaly' is the blurred shadow on the canyon wall, at 2 o'clock to the spinner, and that could really be the only effect that the propeller left on the picture.

You are not among those who think that we've never been to the Moon, only because the pictures taken there look a bit weird, are you?