By: Dobbins
- 21st April 2012 at 23:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce I posted that #103 there are some clever guys out there.
Yes, there are. I don't know why people are so easily convinced. The rivets and panels line up exactly? Well that's the kind of thing a good modeller will get right!
Re. the codes/serial, surely if this is a fake then someone could have done their research and found a P40 that had been lost in action and used its serial?
By: Eddie
- 21st April 2012 at 23:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, there are. I don't know why people are so easily convinced. The rivets and panels line up exactly? Well that's the kind of thing a good modeller will get right!
No - "match up exactly" to the real P40s that the posters in question have access to. And I simply have NEVER seen scale modellers get the structural damage/puckered skins right, or the appearance of flush rivets (or slotted screws for that matter).
We have several people with lots of real world experience of the aircraft type in question, and they are convinced.
By: paul178
- 21st April 2012 at 23:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an excellent Hustler model and well photographed. But also obviously a model as the depth of field gives it away in all three shots.
Yes it does but placed for effect to show of his work with no intent to deceive anyone. Flicking through a book and without asking if it was fake most people would not spot it. So is the P40 genuine or an elaborate hoax? I don't know anymore. I want it to be real, but more than that I want to be put out of my suspence!
By: Jayce
- 22nd April 2012 at 00:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As someone who's built all kinds of scale models over the years and worked with the real thing, I know what details and tricks of the trade to look for. I don't see any of the usual signs.
There's only two ways it could possibly be a fake: Incredible CAD skills or incredible Panel beating skills and both with a lot of man hours in play.
It's either THE best fake in history or it's very much the real thing.
By: WebPilot
- 22nd April 2012 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it does but placed for effect to show of his work with no intent to deceive anyone. Flicking through a book and without asking if it was fake most people would not spot it. So is the P40 genuine or an elaborate hoax? I don't know anymore. I want it to be real, but more than that I want to be put out of my suspence!
I shall now go back to building my KC97G!:D
You're probably right in that as it is very convincing. When you look at it in more detail you do see it for a model. I'm much in agreement with you and Jayce further down.
By: otis
- 22nd April 2012 at 00:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can see why the action of the sand lying on the wings would have erased the paint from them as shown in picture 3.
What I can't follow is why all the paintwork is missing from the front of the aircraft, both on the sides and tops of the cowlings, but is present on both the rear fuselage sides, top and tailplane ?
It almost seems as though the rear paintwork, including roundels, has been added in pics 1 to 3, to lead the viewer into beleiving that this must be the same aircraft as pic 4.
By: brewerjerry
- 22nd April 2012 at 00:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
....
There's only two ways it could possibly be a fake: Incredible CAD skills or incredible Panel beating skills and both with a lot of man hours in play.
It's either THE best fake in history or it's very much the real thing.
Hi,
The kind of time someone in the desert may have, lots of spare time at the hotel in the evening maybe ?
I wrote a small book in my spare time evenings in the hotels, when I was on field service in europe and learnt to get by in two languages, it save me a fortune in beer money and kept me sane.
But seriously I would like it to be real and to go somewhere safe.
cheers
Jerry
By: Eddie
- 22nd April 2012 at 01:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can see why the action of the sand lying on the wings would have erased the paint from them as shown in picture 3.
What I can't follow is why all the paintwork is missing from the front of the aircraft, both on the sides and tops of the cowlings, but is present on both the rear fuselage sides, top and tailplane ?
It almost seems as though the rear paintwork, including roundels, has been added in pics 1 to 3, to lead the viewer into beleiving that this must be the same aircraft as pic 4.
Could be the leeward side has paint on it, and the side facing into the prevailing wind has been sandblasted. Or it could be lighting (given that the digicam would be a bit lost in those lighting conditions), or numerous other things.
Kind of encapsulates much of what we have been thinking.
The 'when' is the tricky bit!
Edit - In fact, thinking about it, if these were taken on Kodachrome, it would be quite logical that there were only 5 pictures; it not being common practise to waste film before the advent of digital. I am very much tending towards this being a picture taken in the 1960's.
Bruce
New
By: Anonymous
- 22nd April 2012 at 10:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure why the throttle or canopy position should indicate one way or another whether this is fake or not. Surely, both could have been moved post crash (and probably would have been!) by other parties.
In any event, and pardon me for being slow or stupid here (but its Sunday am after a few bottles of red) but was not the open-close throttle direction on US aircraft the reverse as that on British/RAF aircraft??
By: Mark12
- 22nd April 2012 at 10:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce,
Here is a 2003 scan of an original 1965 Kodachrome slide for analysis and comparison. I am likely to have applied minimum PSP for publication purposes.
I am also of the view that this P-40 image is from the 1960/70's and well away from the coastal operational area.
By: bazv
- 22nd April 2012 at 10:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In any event, and pardon me for being slow or stupid here (but its Sunday am after a few bottles of red) but was not the open-close throttle direction on US aircraft the reverse as that on British/RAF aircraft??
That was on French a/c Andy (possibly other european countries)
rgds baz
edit...yes some eastern european countries also had 'wrong' throttle sense
By: TonyT
- 22nd April 2012 at 10:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The close ups are not models, and I would say the fwd shots are not either, you cannot get that amount of detail or damage and lack of solidity in a model, no matter how good you are
By: scotavia
- 22nd April 2012 at 11:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Mark for the splendid LBG image, certainly got me re thinking about the P40 pics being from slides and explains why so few,I remember the feeling of being careful with film stock. Ok I am now convinced,real but when?
New
By: Anonymous
- 22nd April 2012 at 11:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was on French a/c Andy (possibly other european countries)
rgds baz
edit...yes some eastern european countries also had 'wrong' throttle sense
Posts: 442
By: Dobbins - 21st April 2012 at 23:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, there are. I don't know why people are so easily convinced. The rivets and panels line up exactly? Well that's the kind of thing a good modeller will get right!
Re. the codes/serial, surely if this is a fake then someone could have done their research and found a P40 that had been lost in action and used its serial?
Posts: 1,707
By: WebPilot - 21st April 2012 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an excellent Hustler model and well photographed. But also obviously a model as the depth of field gives it away in all three shots.
Posts: 1,331
By: Eddie - 21st April 2012 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No - "match up exactly" to the real P40s that the posters in question have access to. And I simply have NEVER seen scale modellers get the structural damage/puckered skins right, or the appearance of flush rivets (or slotted screws for that matter).
We have several people with lots of real world experience of the aircraft type in question, and they are convinced.
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 21st April 2012 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it does but placed for effect to show of his work with no intent to deceive anyone. Flicking through a book and without asking if it was fake most people would not spot it. So is the P40 genuine or an elaborate hoax? I don't know anymore. I want it to be real, but more than that I want to be put out of my suspence!
I shall now go back to building my KC97G!:D
Posts: 1,331
By: Eddie - 22nd April 2012 at 00:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's the model I built earlier:
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/KC97.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/KC97.jpg)
:diablo:
Posts: 485
By: Jayce - 22nd April 2012 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As someone who's built all kinds of scale models over the years and worked with the real thing, I know what details and tricks of the trade to look for. I don't see any of the usual signs.
There's only two ways it could possibly be a fake: Incredible CAD skills or incredible Panel beating skills and both with a lot of man hours in play.
It's either THE best fake in history or it's very much the real thing.
Posts: 1,707
By: WebPilot - 22nd April 2012 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're probably right in that as it is very convincing. When you look at it in more detail you do see it for a model. I'm much in agreement with you and Jayce further down.
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 22nd April 2012 at 00:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very nice try but its KC97L you have there! Still you have helped me out I really did not want to paint artic red on the wings and tail of mine!
Posts: 187
By: otis - 22nd April 2012 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can see why the action of the sand lying on the wings would have erased the paint from them as shown in picture 3.
What I can't follow is why all the paintwork is missing from the front of the aircraft, both on the sides and tops of the cowlings, but is present on both the rear fuselage sides, top and tailplane ?
It almost seems as though the rear paintwork, including roundels, has been added in pics 1 to 3, to lead the viewer into beleiving that this must be the same aircraft as pic 4.
Posts: 917
By: brewerjerry - 22nd April 2012 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
The kind of time someone in the desert may have, lots of spare time at the hotel in the evening maybe ?
I wrote a small book in my spare time evenings in the hotels, when I was on field service in europe and learnt to get by in two languages, it save me a fortune in beer money and kept me sane.
But seriously I would like it to be real and to go somewhere safe.
cheers
Jerry
Posts: 1,331
By: Eddie - 22nd April 2012 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could be the leeward side has paint on it, and the side facing into the prevailing wind has been sandblasted. Or it could be lighting (given that the digicam would be a bit lost in those lighting conditions), or numerous other things.
Posts: 313
By: DC Page - 22nd April 2012 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cockpit View Forward
Panel View
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 22nd April 2012 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An interesting and pertinent post on Britmodeller here:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=234916834&view=findpost&p=1016084
Kind of encapsulates much of what we have been thinking.
The 'when' is the tricky bit!
Edit - In fact, thinking about it, if these were taken on Kodachrome, it would be quite logical that there were only 5 pictures; it not being common practise to waste film before the advent of digital. I am very much tending towards this being a picture taken in the 1960's.
Bruce
By: Anonymous - 22nd April 2012 at 10:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure why the throttle or canopy position should indicate one way or another whether this is fake or not. Surely, both could have been moved post crash (and probably would have been!) by other parties.
In any event, and pardon me for being slow or stupid here (but its Sunday am after a few bottles of red) but was not the open-close throttle direction on US aircraft the reverse as that on British/RAF aircraft??
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 22nd April 2012 at 10:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce,
Here is a 2003 scan of an original 1965 Kodachrome slide for analysis and comparison. I am likely to have applied minimum PSP for publication purposes.
I am also of the view that this P-40 image is from the 1960/70's and well away from the coastal operational area.
My money is on this being my 'Spitfire'.
Time will tell.
Mark
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 22nd April 2012 at 10:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was on French a/c Andy (possibly other european countries)
rgds baz
edit...yes some eastern european countries also had 'wrong' throttle sense
Posts: 8,984
By: TonyT - 22nd April 2012 at 10:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The close ups are not models, and I would say the fwd shots are not either, you cannot get that amount of detail or damage and lack of solidity in a model, no matter how good you are
Posts: 5,589
By: Dave Homewood - 22nd April 2012 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Italian aircraft had the throttle backwards too.
Posts: 2,810
By: scotavia - 22nd April 2012 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Mark for the splendid LBG image, certainly got me re thinking about the P40 pics being from slides and explains why so few,I remember the feeling of being careful with film stock. Ok I am now convinced,real but when?
By: Anonymous - 22nd April 2012 at 11:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure I knew that really....:o