By: RAF Worksop
- 20th April 2012 at 16:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd question why only 4 photos and those taken outside of the aircraft at the side are so far way? I'd have taken a side on so serial would be visible. Something dodgy about the lighting too.
By: David Burke
- 20th April 2012 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scotavia - the level of skill required to fake that part of the rear fuselage is beyond most people. You would need to fabricate that part pretty much full size to generate anything that you could model from. That would cost a lot of time and money -not worthwhile for a hoax.
It should be pointed out that other aircraft have been found in the desert long after you would expect them to be gone -the likes of the SAAB B17 fuselage springs to mind.
By: David Burke
- 20th April 2012 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dobbins -you would have Irish linen so bear in mind that it coated with silver dope to protect it from the sun. That protection wouldnt last sixty plus years then add the sandblasting effect and its pretty much what you would expect.
By: DC Page
- 20th April 2012 at 16:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why all the speculation regarding the canopy position? Nothing can be inferred from the position of the canopy or any other switches or controls in the cockpit. How many people have visited this site in the past 70 years? We don't know. What if the pilot bailed out and the aircraft came down empty and then came to an abrupt halt after digging in to the sand and rocks. That could slam a canopy shut couldn't it? Canopy position and switch positions are meaningless in this context. There are still many aircraft lying in the deserts that have been seen by only a few humans, but are still in such remote locations that they haven't been stripped for parts and sheet metal. (But you might take away a small item like a clock.)
Likewise aircraft position and the debris field doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the pictures because we don't know what has been moved, removed, vandalized, or even staged.
The pictures are still yielding some good clues but I'd stick to environment, metallurgy, markings, equipment set, impact damage, witness marks, etc. At least some things can be gleaned from those areas, unlike all this uninformed speculation about an event that no one witnessed nearly 70 years ago.
By: Dobbins
- 20th April 2012 at 16:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scotavia - the level of skill required to fake that part of the rear fuselage is beyond most people. You would need to fabricate that part pretty much full size to generate anything that you could model from. That would cost a lot of time and money -not worthwhile for a hoax.
By: David Burke
- 20th April 2012 at 16:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I was going to make something with that size and complexity I would do something like a lump of Spitfire fuselage and then you know you can sell it!
By: Beaufighter VI
- 20th April 2012 at 17:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beau VI; you are a tease.
So what is the Spitfire in the background of the Ju88 tail shot??
Well done Bruce, I wondered how long it would take for somebody to notice!
Question for both pictures, where and when?
I have a lot more types to share but do not want to hijack the thread.
By: brewerjerry
- 20th April 2012 at 17:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi
Just a thought, if it is a kittyhawk I .... etc
It would have the short nose allison engine, not the long nose, so would it still break off at the place it has supposed to in the crash photo ?
The new shorter engine would not have the same weak point ?
cheers
Jerry
By: Shorty01
- 20th April 2012 at 17:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having edited thousands of photos in photoshop, built models & faffed about with CGI I reckon the photos are real. However I've seen then on the 'net sometime ago so I wouldn't like to guess when they were taken.
I have seen a picture of the Italian SM79 in the desert before it was recovered & it was reminiscent of these P40 pictures.
Most of the fabric had gone, which makes up a fair portion of the fuselage, though the visible metal surfaces appeared bare after probably having been given a good grit blasting with sand.
WRT the clock missing, if it is a wind up one, could it have been removed as a navigational aid ? i.e. time of day & sun position giving an idea of where north is in the event of the pilot having no functioning compass & deciding to walk back to friendly lines. He probably wouldn't fancy doing it in the middle of the day.
Posts: 22
By: RAF Worksop - 20th April 2012 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd question why only 4 photos and those taken outside of the aircraft at the side are so far way? I'd have taken a side on so serial would be visible. Something dodgy about the lighting too.
Posts: 10,174
By: Peter - 20th April 2012 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
He is supposed to be taking more pictures so will see....
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 20th April 2012 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Peter this thread and buried Spits have certainly livened up the forum if nothing else!:D
The first thing I did after the weekends shopping with SWMBO was log on here!:)
Posts: 10,174
By: Peter - 20th April 2012 at 16:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true there Paul..
Posts: 554
By: Beaufighter VI - 20th April 2012 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some recoveries where paint has not faded.
Posts: 442
By: Dobbins - 20th April 2012 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would the rudder and elevator fabric have perished like that in such dry conditions?
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 20th April 2012 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scotavia - the level of skill required to fake that part of the rear fuselage is beyond most people. You would need to fabricate that part pretty much full size to generate anything that you could model from. That would cost a lot of time and money -not worthwhile for a hoax.
It should be pointed out that other aircraft have been found in the desert long after you would expect them to be gone -the likes of the SAAB B17 fuselage springs to mind.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 20th April 2012 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dobbins -you would have Irish linen so bear in mind that it coated with silver dope to protect it from the sun. That protection wouldnt last sixty plus years then add the sandblasting effect and its pretty much what you would expect.
Posts: 313
By: DC Page - 20th April 2012 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why all the speculation regarding the canopy position? Nothing can be inferred from the position of the canopy or any other switches or controls in the cockpit. How many people have visited this site in the past 70 years? We don't know. What if the pilot bailed out and the aircraft came down empty and then came to an abrupt halt after digging in to the sand and rocks. That could slam a canopy shut couldn't it? Canopy position and switch positions are meaningless in this context. There are still many aircraft lying in the deserts that have been seen by only a few humans, but are still in such remote locations that they haven't been stripped for parts and sheet metal. (But you might take away a small item like a clock.)
Likewise aircraft position and the debris field doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the pictures because we don't know what has been moved, removed, vandalized, or even staged.
The pictures are still yielding some good clues but I'd stick to environment, metallurgy, markings, equipment set, impact damage, witness marks, etc. At least some things can be gleaned from those areas, unlike all this uninformed speculation about an event that no one witnessed nearly 70 years ago.
Posts: 442
By: Dobbins - 20th April 2012 at 16:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I bet this bloke could have a good stab at it:
http://www.fightingcolors.com/relicpage.htm
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 20th April 2012 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I was going to make something with that size and complexity I would do something like a lump of Spitfire fuselage and then you know you can sell it!
Posts: 917
By: brewerjerry - 20th April 2012 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi
That actually looks quite good
cheers
Jerry
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 20th April 2012 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beau VI; you are a tease.
So what is the Spitfire in the background of the Ju88 tail shot??
Posts: 554
By: Beaufighter VI - 20th April 2012 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well done Bruce, I wondered how long it would take for somebody to notice!
Question for both pictures, where and when?
I have a lot more types to share but do not want to hijack the thread.
Posts: 917
By: brewerjerry - 20th April 2012 at 17:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi
Just a thought, if it is a kittyhawk I .... etc
It would have the short nose allison engine, not the long nose, so would it still break off at the place it has supposed to in the crash photo ?
The new shorter engine would not have the same weak point ?
cheers
Jerry
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 20th April 2012 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You have seen this one Bruce. :)
Mark
Posts: 313
By: DC Page - 20th April 2012 at 17:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like a Kittyhawk III (P-40M) doesn't it? It appears to have 6 guns in the wings. The RAF had nearly 600 of these.
Posts: 722
By: Shorty01 - 20th April 2012 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having edited thousands of photos in photoshop, built models & faffed about with CGI I reckon the photos are real. However I've seen then on the 'net sometime ago so I wouldn't like to guess when they were taken.
I have seen a picture of the Italian SM79 in the desert before it was recovered & it was reminiscent of these P40 pictures.
Most of the fabric had gone, which makes up a fair portion of the fuselage, though the visible metal surfaces appeared bare after probably having been given a good grit blasting with sand.
WRT the clock missing, if it is a wind up one, could it have been removed as a navigational aid ? i.e. time of day & sun position giving an idea of where north is in the event of the pilot having no functioning compass & deciding to walk back to friendly lines. He probably wouldn't fancy doing it in the middle of the day.
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 20th April 2012 at 17:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40E
Hi D C Page
more likely Kittyhawk IA (P40E) which also had 6 guns. The roundal style is correct for the period they become operational. Early 1942.
The Kittyhawk III had a later style roundal.
http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/edwards.htm
Second photo is Kittyhawk III's in late 1942.
regards
MS
Posts: 722
By: Shorty01 - 20th April 2012 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here is a link with some pics for comparison.
http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?25848-Libyan-Desert-Wrecks