Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 84 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 2513

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    448
    How about this theory:

    The first 3 photos are a model, perhaps 1:48 or 1:32. The close up is just that, a much larger scale piece of the fuselage. The cockpit interior is baffling, it looks too realistic. Maybe it's from another, genuine P-40?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    I love the conspiracy theories.

    So this guy set up the screen name "AWOT" nearly a decade ago on a modeling website and patiently waited for just the right opportunity to post his masterpiece diorama that can fool even the most seasoned experts. GENIUS!

    Do you think he might have been referring to model building (the subject of the website) as being "A Waste Of Time" when he created that handle all those years ago?

    Occam's razor has sure lost its edge.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    448
    Well his cover story rings true, there appears to be plenty of oil and gas in the Sahara...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by pistonrob View Post
    its all fishy to me. was the photograther on his/her own?. normaly with discoveries like this there is always one or two people mooching around in the photo`s.

    total lack of sqn code and no photo of the tail serial seems realy odd. any ref number or detail you would try to record. does not matter if it was an old lorry or a sunken ship.
    Who says he didn't write down serial numbers or identifying numbers? Many parts of that airframe have been sandblasted down to bare metal. What is so surprising about someone releasing pictures without positive identifying numbers? Intentional or not? I would do the same thing until I had time to do more research myself. Likewise with people in the photos. I seriously doubt that these are the only pictures this person took, and we know that this isn't someone alone in the desert. Maybe they didn't want their faces show just yet, or at all. Just because they didn't post GPS coordinates and serial numbers to a modeling site? Petrol exploration has led to many of these discoveries over the years.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver (beautiful british columbia) Canada... Tiz a long way frum Devon
    Posts
    910
    Hi
    Well a previous post does imply high modelling skills

    Pytanie jak w temacie. Czy ktoś wie w jak sposůb i gdzie zdobyć uprawnienia instruktora modelarstwa ?

    .. anybody knows as manner in and where earn entitlement of instructor modelarstwa?



    one of his models and full post name possibly

    [model] Samolot Gee Bee R1 (Autor: Awot/McGregor)

    http://www.konradus.com/forum/read.p...filtr=0&page=1

    But then maybe I am just to suspicious or to old...

    or will it be at legends ...as they say...

    cheers
    Jerry

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    448
    Having messed with the screen contrast the interior shot is definitely 'in situ' with the sand and rocks just visible outside. But why is the canopy closed? Would they be able to open the canopy to get in?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,648
    Lots of posters are expressing concerns about the distant shots and I shared them until looking at them in Photodeluxe (a fore runner of Photoshop).

    Details can be seen inside the cowling but I'm no expert on the P40 nor the Allison engine so I don't know how accurate they may appear? The guns protruding from the leading edge are nicely done too, if it's a model. Why go to all that trouble and then not expose the (convincing) detail in the photos?

    I'm struck by what appear to be footprints in the other photo (circled) - a nice touch if done by a modeller?

    But, what's to stop these being genuine photos taken 40 or 50 years ago? What if they've been colourised to appear more recent than they are?

    And if the paintwork has been preserved by being covered by sand, recently shifted to reveal the aeroplane, then I'm afraid I agree with the earlier poster who questioned why the cockpit wasn't full of it...

    Another thought strikes me - in the days of film cameras, you were limited by the number of frames on the film roll and you tended to be careful of how many exposures you made. In the days of digital pictures and memory cards, I think whoever discovered this hulk would have photographed it from every conceivable angle and we ought to be seeing many more photos than we have here.

    On balance then, I'm saying genuine but not recent, but I hope I'm proved wrong!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	02-2.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	66.3 KB 
ID:	221703   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	03-3.jpg 
Views:	153 
Size:	67.3 KB 
ID:	221704  
    The garage that keeps on giving.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    oswestry shropshire uk
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by DC Page View Post
    Who says he didn't write down serial numbers or identifying numbers? Many parts of that airframe have been sandblasted down to bare metal. What is so surprising about someone releasing pictures without positive identifying numbers? Intentional or not? I would do the same thing until I had time to do more research myself. Likewise with people in the photos. I seriously doubt that these are the only pictures this person took, and we know that this isn't someone alone in the desert. Maybe they didn't want their faces show just yet, or at all. Just because they didn't post GPS coordinates and serial numbers to a modeling site? Petrol exploration has led to many of these discoveries over the years.
    well perhaps some people aint so thoughtfull, after all they were looking for oil and perhaps not realy into old things and aviation. odd that the 1st couple of pics are distant shots.seems a waste if its old film photography as you didnt have many frames to spare.. but bad alignment and crap shots if digital.. im half convinced its real.. the cracks in the front R/H screen are the same inside as out and the close up detail looks correct in light and scale but the distant shots look odd. like the first shots of MAN ON THE MOON.

    is there a date given for when the photo`s were taken?
    www.restorebike.co.uk
    www.ezraysnet.co.uk/bhaa
    (aviation archaeology)

    ITS NOT HOW BIG YOUR LENSE IS, ITS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT THAT COUNTS

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY, USA
    Posts
    653
    Do you think he might have been referring to model building (the subject of the website) as being "A Waste Of Time" when he created that handle all those years ago?
    Lots of us scale modelers do, in obvious jest...

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by pistonrob View Post

    is there a date given for when the photo`s were taken?
    He just says 'recently'. The close up seems odd. Why take a couple of shots from miles away and then decide that the what-ever-it-is-for hatch is interesting? Also, would the photographer's own shadow not be present anywhere?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    oswestry shropshire uk
    Posts
    878
    we have got members from all over the world. any polish out there who could interpret???,
    www.restorebike.co.uk
    www.ezraysnet.co.uk/bhaa
    (aviation archaeology)

    ITS NOT HOW BIG YOUR LENSE IS, ITS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT THAT COUNTS

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    You guys are still talking about these pictures like they are the only ones. They are the only ones we've seen so far, but who knows how many pictures may have been taken? Maybe they aren't showing any other pictures because they do show numbers or other identifying marks. The poster claims the shots were taken by a friend so maybe those are the only shots the photographer gave him. Why is it so hard to imagine that there could be many reasons why the photographer doesn't want to give all his secrets away just yet? Never heard of that around here?

    Or it could all be a hoax. But so far no one has pointed out anything that could positively disprove this story. A lot of poorly thought out speculation is all I'm seeing so far. I've become used to a much higher standard of thinking and analysis around here. Disappointing.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by pistonrob View Post
    we have got members from all over the world. any polish out there who could interpret???,
    I posted the OP's first two lines earlier in the thread and someone posted the whole page yesterday in this thread. Or you could use Google Translate like we did if you want to be sure for yourself.

    They are talking about the Burmese Spitfires today.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Dobbins View Post
    Also, would the photographer's own shadow not be present anywhere?
    Depends on the time of day they were taken. During the middle of the day,
    the sun would be pretty much overhead. As indicated by the shadows under the wings.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,781
    Canopy could simply be open because those images were shot first, so the outside shots show it open, I think the look real, for one the shadow cast in the front and side views are both indicative of a fixed light source, ie the sun.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    151
    I sent him a email asking him for confirmation of their authenticity and if there were any more photos if possible. Reply below.

    Hello
    The photos are real. In a few days I'll have next.
    Raphael

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gdynia, Poland
    Posts
    26
    Hello

    After my last Private Message from AWOT (Rafal):
    He is waiting for more information and photos. He also wrote that the plane will not be abandoned.
    I see that he knows very little and He is waiting for more like us.

    greetings
    Michal (Losiu on Konradus.com)

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,180
    As a modeller of 13 years, there's absolutely no way in my mind that could be a model. It's several orders of magnitude beyond anything I have ever seen in photographs or in the 'flesh' on display tables.
    Just taking the close-up of the fuselage as an example (in my mind the most convincing shot). There really is no way to recreate in any reasonable scale the puckered skin, jagged holes, faded stencilling, worn flush rivets, and screw heads.
    Even disregarding technical skill, there are so many tiny details that even the best modeller probably wouldn't have the imagination to think of, let alone create. Just look at the way the Perspex of the flush rear cockpit windows (top left of the fourth picture) is not only crazed and cracked, but some of the splintered shards have slipped down behind the ones below them. As another example, look at the way the different qualities of the paint shades on the roundel have made them fade and wear to different degrees under the sandblasting conditions. The yellow has barely changed at all, the blue has mostly worn away back to the Dark Earth underneath, while the White has worn away revealing the Blue (or is that primer?) underneath.

    To have that much imagination and to get it so perfectly right is more or less impossible. I grant that they could well still be old pictures, however. Still, the quality of the fuselage picture looks much too good for a shot taken 20-30 years ago?

    I wonder if, had the Burma Spitfire story been accompanied with pictures of this detail and clarity, would the same torrent of disbelief and (dare I say it) on occasion cynicism still apply?

    I sincerely hope this rather significant aircraft gets rescued and preserved.
    (If it does turn out to be a model, I shall eat my hat! )
    Armchair enthusiast, but also a fan of sofas and recliners.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Dunstable Bedfordshire
    Posts
    2,902
    I reckon there's one born every minute--or in this case several of you.
    I say fake--although it looks very good.
    The local A-rab population would have a real one in the smelter long ago--sadly.
    It is better to be born a beggar than a fool.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    Only if they can get to it, and know of it. There are still many areas of the deep desert where nomads and Bedouin don't go. That could be a clue as to the location of this aircraft. Or maybe it's just a mirage.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The wart on the ass-end of humanity (Penicuik)
    Posts
    18,534
    Doesn't look like a Mirage to me... :diablo:














    (sorry!)
    Daren Cogdon

    Spitfire fanatic

  22. #82
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver (beautiful british columbia) Canada... Tiz a long way frum Devon
    Posts
    910
    Quote Originally Posted by Air Ministry View Post
    I'm struck by what appear to be footprints in the other photo (circled)

    Hi
    But surely they could just have been in a background photo used as the backdrop for the p-40 photo.

    As for detail of a model I recall a thread here recently of a whitley or a lancaster ? made by a greek modeller,and it was awesome, I think thin tinfoil containers were used to simulate fuselage skinning, and did it even have a toilet roll by the elsan ?

    edit found it :- http://www.helmo.gr/index.php?option...=684&Itemid=35

    for example

    an awesome P-40
    http://www.p40warhawk.com/smf/index....a5&topic=17.15
    just look at he detail of the finished model on page 3

    a few other examples

    http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1839/dsc02582pd4.jpg

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751...saga+continues.......

    http://www.helmo.gr/gallery2/d/41259...DI_NOISSES_PMT

    Anyway hopefully I am proved wrong and it is real, if so it deserves a fitting home.

    cheers
    Jerry

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY, USA
    Posts
    653
    As a modeller of 13 years, there's absolutely no way in my mind that could be a model. It's several orders of magnitude beyond anything I have ever seen in photographs or in the 'flesh' on display tables.
    Thirteen years? Welcome, newcomer... You need to attend some classier scale-modeling shows if you think this is "several orders of magnitude" beyond what can be done.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Aust
    Posts
    834
    A couple more thoughts from me;

    -the canopy does not appear to be open in any of the shots, it looks like the perspex has come off the front section of it and the photographer has just stuck his arm through the hole to get the interior shot, I would also imagine that if it is a model the camera angle is too low to be able to get a camera in at all. I really like the frame for the stbd glareshield that has come loose and the covering come off whereas the port one is still in position and still has most of its covering

    -In regards to the AWOT, I frequent Polish forums regularly because of my Su22 and many of the posters there use weird names such as EPMI, EBPM (airbase locations) etc as these mean completely different things in Polish to their English translation. The final AWOT AWOT looks like he has finished his message with say 'Paul' but there is also an automatic signature that also says 'Paul'

    Michal, thanks for posting these and keep us updated if any more become available.

    Where is VX927 when you need him?

    Cheers
    Paul

    Paul (could mean 'a waste of time in' swahili but I am not really sure)
    Facebook: Aussie Cockpits

  25. #85
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver (beautiful british columbia) Canada... Tiz a long way frum Devon
    Posts
    910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Triangle View Post
    As a modeller of 13 years, there's absolutely no way in my mind that could be a model.
    Hi
    Look at this one, it is amazing
    http://www.p40warhawk.com/smf/index.php?topic=17.30
    cheers
    Jerry

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    So judging by the six guns I'm guessing this would be a Kittyhawk III (P-40M).

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,669
    Iím going to say itís a model.....but (if it is) it was made by an exceptionally skilled modeller!

    In the crash-landing could the propeller, hub, reduction-gear casing and the front of the airframe be torn off like that and leave the rest of the cowlings so undamaged? I donít know but Iíd expect to see some of the upper engine cowlings at least dislodged.

    I hope Iím wrong; I hope it isnít a model!
    WA$.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Surviving In Croydon
    Posts
    2,338
    I have to admit I would love for this to be a real find. From the close up photographs it does "Feel" very real to me, but the distant shots bug me and they do not have the same for want of a better word reality about them.

    What we have so far really neither proves or disproves anything, but whayt I wonder on are
    1) If a hoax why would you go to such levels to fool people? A lesser effort would of fooled many.

    2) If real how come the years have not left it more damaged?

    3) Where is the pilot? the condition of aircraft would say he would of survived the "accident" If he survived surely this would be a registered wreck, If not has any efforts been made to find the poor soul?

    I guess if its real its a great find and if its fake its a great model and photoshop effort. Hopefully soon all will be revealed until then I won't get any hopes up.
    Martin
    To see my photos go to,

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dxhawk/

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post
    Iím going to say itís a model.....but (if it is) it was made by an exceptionally skilled modeller!

    In the crash-landing could the propeller, hub, reduction-gear casing and the front of the airframe be torn off like that and leave the rest of the cowlings so undamaged? I donít know but Iíd expect to see some of the upper engine cowlings at least dislodged.

    I hope Iím wrong; I hope it isnít a model!
    Bear in mind that the terrain we see in the photos could be very different from the surface it landed on nearly 70 years ago. It doesn't appear that the engine was under power when it came down, and its nose also is smashed hard up against a rock, which may have been just beneath the sands when this aircraft came to a stop. It might have been a fairly smooth slide along the sand until it caught that rock with its chin. The leading edge of the port wing is banged up but the starboard side looks to be in very good condition.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY, USA
    Posts
    653
    If a hoax why would you go to such levels to fool people? A lesser effort would of fooled many.
    But here he has perhaps fooled the putative experts, who will go on for many more pages debating this silliness. That could be very satisfying to somebody who hasn't wasted effort, as you imply; he has (perhaps, not sayin') had great fun in creating a diorama that currently sits on his bookshelf, or wherever, while for years to come he will tell his pals that it was the source of The Great FlyPast P-40 Hoax.

    Though perhaps he's a she.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES