Help with identifying unique aircraft over NE PennsylvaniaHelp Identifying a LEGO planeCan you help me identifying this circa 1910 airplane with tail number 72?Can you help me identifying this WW1 German or Austrian airplane from my photo collection?Could you help to identify this WW1 fighter?Can you help me identifying an A-4 Skyhawk-like jet?Partial Serial numbers on Military Aircraft - what combination is unique?Can anyone help me identify the plane in this photograph?Can someone please help me identify this?Are MSN numbers uniqueAny unique characteristics to identify aircraft engine?
Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?
How do researchers send unsolicited emails asking for feedback on their works?
Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?
How to read string as hex number in bash?
Justification failure in beamer enumerate list
PTIJ: Which Dr. Seuss books should one obtain?
How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?
Knife as defense against stray dogs
UK Tourist Visa- Enquiry
label a part of commutative diagram
If I cast the Enlarge/Reduce spell on an arrow, what weapon could it count as?
What is the difference between something being completely legal and being completely decriminalized?
Do I need an EFI partition for each 18.04 ubuntu I have on my HD?
Does the Shadow Magic sorcerer's Eyes of the Dark feature work on all Darkness spells or just his/her own?
How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?
Why doesn't the chatan sign the ketubah?
Why do I have a large white artefact on the rendered image?
Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?
Would this string work as string?
How can I create URL shortcuts/redirects for task/diff IDs in Phabricator?
Single word to change groups
Do people actually use the word "kaputt" in conversation?
Imaginary part of expression too difficult to calculate
Would mining huge amounts of resources on the Moon change its orbit?
Help with identifying unique aircraft over NE Pennsylvania
Help Identifying a LEGO planeCan you help me identifying this circa 1910 airplane with tail number 72?Can you help me identifying this WW1 German or Austrian airplane from my photo collection?Could you help to identify this WW1 fighter?Can you help me identifying an A-4 Skyhawk-like jet?Partial Serial numbers on Military Aircraft - what combination is unique?Can anyone help me identify the plane in this photograph?Can someone please help me identify this?Are MSN numbers uniqueAny unique characteristics to identify aircraft engine?
$begingroup$
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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♦
15 hours 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
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
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
14 hours 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♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
edited 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
edited 7 hours ago
fooot
53.2k17168321
53.2k17168321
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
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 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
asked 15 hours ago
user38075user38075
663
663
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.
2
$begingroup$
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♦
15 hours 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
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
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
14 hours 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♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
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♦
15 hours 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
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
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
14 hours 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♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
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♦
15 hours 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♦
15 hours 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
15 hours 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
15 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
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
14 hours 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
14 hours 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♦
13 hours 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♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago
add a comment |
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:
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:
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
7 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 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
$endgroup$
add a comment |
protected by Federico♦ 9 hours 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:
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:
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
7 hours ago
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:
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:
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
7 hours ago
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:
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:
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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:
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:
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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 10 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
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 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
answered 11 hours ago
LFSSLFSS
32114
32114
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.
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Wow well done!!
$endgroup$
– John K
9 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
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
7 hours 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
7 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 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
$endgroup$
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 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
$endgroup$
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 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
$endgroup$
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 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
edited 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 10 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
14.1k139108
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
answered 12 hours ago
John KJohn K
22.1k13166
22.1k13166
add a comment |
add a comment |
protected by Federico♦ 9 hours 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
$begingroup$
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♦
15 hours 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
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
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
14 hours 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♦
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
please use the edit functionality, if you want to add information.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
12 hours ago