Flt Sgt Copping's P-40 From The Egyptian Desert

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 74

OK chaps this is my take on the photos!
As a photographer one thing that I look for in any pictures that are of interest is the exif data from the original digital file, this data is embedded in most if not all digital images, however, I'm not certain whether this is the case in all models of camera phones.

The exif data tells you basically the type of camera, shutter speed, aperture etc, but most importantly in this case the time and date when the photo was taken.

Unfortunately, this series of photos doesn't appear to have this data embedded so I can only think that it has been deliberately removed. Kind of think that's a strange thing to do if the person who took the shots is just a bit of a happy snapper!

Data is only removed if you don't want others to know what settings have been used, it's basically being a bit protective I guess.

Anyway, here's a couple of enhancements I've come up with, you can in some instances yield a little more info converting the images to b & w and playing around with levels, sharpness etc.

Must admit it's looking like the real deal the more I look at these shots.

Cheers
Tim

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7050/6952294634_9751211287_o.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7119/6952294738_b31e2f9d54_o.jpg

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,810

Rather puzzled that the rear fuselage is not included in the views, hence no serial.That would have been helpful. I recall the Air Britain Aeromilitaire had a section published on all the RAF p40s with extracts from the aircraft record cards. Mine are in the loft feeding the mice.

Many years ago a guy tried to hoax me with stories of a mark 12 Spitfire rebuild near Cleethorpes, the serial gave me the clue that the aircraft went down in the channel(no dataplate ) and then I found other errors in his story.

So why no serial? And no vehicles or people in the views,cant believe he was on his own out there. For comparision look at the video of the FW190 in the forest in Russia , people all over the place.

Profile picture for user DCK

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 1,318

I'm not an expert in Photoshop, but I have some experience seperating fakes from real images.

In my opinion, these photos are genuine and real.

And I'm quite sure that I will be proven right :)

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 9,780

Scotavia -there is a big assumption that the person who took the photographs is in some way an aircraft enthusiast. If we picked an average person off the street and asked them to photograph an aircraft there is no guarantee that they would take a picture that would include a serial or registration. Similarily if your taking a picture of something you find of interest its human nature to try and confine your picture to the subject.

The fact that there were lots of people in the FW190 pictures doesnt really have any relevance - maybe there were more people on that recovery -local villagers turned out to look who knows !

Simply looking at the facts -nobody has yet put forward an identity or location for a very well preserved cockpit of a P-40 that could be used for the shot -therefore its a 'new' P-40 .

Profile picture for user Mark12

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 10,029

The exif data tells you basically the type of camera, shutter speed, aperture etc, but most importantly in this case the time and date when the photo was taken.

Unfortunately, this series of photos doesn't appear to have this data embedded so I can only think that it has been deliberately removed. Kind of think that's a strange thing to do if the person who took the shots is just a bit of a happy snapper!

Data is only removed if you don't want others to know what settings have been used, it's basically being a bit protective I guess.

...and if they were scanned slides from the 1970's/80's?

Mark

Profile picture for user Air Ministry

Member for

11 years 11 months

Posts: 1,685

Very nice enhancements, Timc63, revealing a lot more detail.

Looking at the external photo in particular, is there anyone out there still claiming this to be a model?

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 86


Unfortunately, this series of photos doesn't appear to have this data embedded so I can only think that it has been deliberately removed. Kind of think that's a strange thing to do if the person who took the shots is just a bit of a happy snapper!

Data is only removed if you don't want others to know what settings have been used, it's basically being a bit protective I guess.

Not necessarily so. EXIF data can be routinely stripped in many ways, either deliberately or unknowingly. Previous versions of Photoshop would strip metadata when using the Save For Web function, for example.

Uploading images to photo sites, social media or the like will often mean this kind of embedded data is stripped too...its a PITA for photographers who do embed information (keywords, descriptions, copyright notices etc) when it happens.

However, if the lat & long was embedded...and it can be quite easily...then removal of said data may well have been deliberate. If not by the photographer, then whoever posted the image.

Profile picture for user Beaufighter VI

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 545

Have had a quick look through the P-40 drawings and so far this is the only one I have found for "the door". Drawing number 87-21-526 shows different safety method.

As regards markings 75-88-465-289 shows lots of decals including North Africa Stars and Stripes, Brit and US markings but not "the door" markings.

Will continue the search. Could be the door change was issued as a Technical Order or to us Brits. a modification.

Attachments
Profile picture for user DragonflyDH90

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 102

Quick comparison of the interior shot VS the enhanced front view shots shows the crack in the front right windscreen matches. If you look closely in the interior shot the canopy is ajar maybe 2" on the left side and if looking through this gap and comparing a similar sight line with the front quarter shot it looks a if you can make out some of the parts scattered in front and to the left of the aircraft.

Just as an aside to the comments of why no better or more detailed pics, some people have no more than a passing interest in aircraft, which may be a surprise to some on the forum, and potentially the only reason for stopping would be curiosity or to determine if it were a current wreck as from the air it could appear very new as its so intact (oil exploration or geology work would be helicopter based using magnetic survey equipment).

The cockpit is spot on and unless a full scale model (big big dollars for a no return hoax) would be virtually impossible to in minature scale. CGI maybe but model, no way. The tie ins with the interior shot and the external would have to be a model / CGI mix if that were the case.

The access panel shot is spot on also and given the fuselage twist and denting above the hinge line, the fact you cannot see the actual access hole is exactly right.

I will get a few shots of a P-40 from the same angle on the access panel late next week for reference.

Looks like a very real forced landing site to me, and if not, a modeller and very talented CGI artist will no doubt have a job very soon with a movie production company.

Profile picture for user Dr Strangelove

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 1,310

I too am hoping that these are real, only time shall tell I guess.

If it is real, & if it is discovered, I think it would be sort of neat to display it in 'as found' condition.

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 74

They may have been scanned from slides or prints but they look way too clean for that, if this was the case they have been over processed which could explain the "fake" appearance.

The reason why I think they're digital is in the first 2 shots (original shots on page 1) there's evidence of a dust spot on the digital sensor. Look above the nose, slightly to the right and about half way up in the sky in the first photo there's a faint darker spot.

These dust spots (or it could be a spot of lubricant) are traits of digital cameras and are a b****r to get rid of without damaging the sensor.

Profile picture for user Dobbins

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 442

People are saying that if the close up of the hatch is a model then why isn't the modeller earning big dollars on the real thing. Well, how do you know they aren't!? This could have been a 'side project', perhaps a personal challenge, perhaps a P40 nut who can't afford a real 'un? Who knows!

Profile picture for user Flat 12x2

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 503

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.


David
Saab B17, fuselage only ? only I used to have a pic taken about 10 years ago of a complete intact Saab B17 sat on its belly in the middle of nowhere desert in North Africa

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 9,780

Yes -a few years ago there was a picture of a very stripped SAAB B.17 hulk out in the desert posted.

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 62

So.... there really aren't any photo interpreters / image analysts on here ready to out themselves??

As I said, it's real but the nay sayers are giving me hours of amusement! :diablo:

Regards,
Frank

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 9,780

Dr Strangelove - there are already pictures of it! It doesnt need 'discovering' again!

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 9,780

Dobbins - by all means it would be possible for a P-40 nut to produce a fuselage half for display. However if you went to all the effort of producing it to the standard we see you might as well carry on and build the rest!

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,810

Great puzzle, look forward to the solution and interesting to see all the background on the P40 being posted.

Profile picture for user TempestNut

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 474

Another point about the photography that may not have been made yet. If that were a model then it would be difficult to get the depth of field as seen in the photos with a model diorama. I know I have tried with quite expensive kit.