Douglas C-39 photo

[Nathan]

I won this off ebay the other day. I am kinda ticked cause the seller said this was an original photo but its only a copy!

Anyway...here it is enjoy..Nathan.

[The Inspector]

Neat! one more sidebar of aviation brought to light while on it's way to becoming a true legend......
Any info on where the photo was taken?

[TonyM]

Nathan,

What is the serial number on that C-39? I'll check it against my data base.

Is it 621931

Or 621031

Or 621631

What does it look like?



TonyM.

[TonyM]

The number just doesn't make sense.

The range of C-33 and C-39 serial numbers for AAC are:

C-33 serial numbers 36-70 thru 36-87

and

C-39 serial numbers 38-497 thru 38-535


It is baffling- 36-21?31. I don't think the AAC had even accepted 21,000 airplanes in their whole existence up to 1936, let alone 21,000 for fiscal 1936.




Anybody have any ideas on this one?

TonyM.

[Mark Cook]

To me this photo looks a little odd.
Almost like a scale model, or a mockup...
Notice how all of the windows look black?
Perhaps it's because there is nothing else around to give it scale.
Where are the props?
I've been very wrong before though, just ask my wife....
Mark

[Chris Brame]

I think this tail code might be "62 TG 31". Check out this page and scroll down to the C-39 photo:

http://www.oldwings.nl/content/o0/not_oh.htm

[TonyM]

Chris,

Yep, that is it. The photo you referred us to can be found on page 16 of the Squadron/Signal publication C-47 IN ACTION. Should of looked there too when I went to the book shelf. Reached for the serial number data folder instead. Thanks. And I agree, the photo does look odd in some way that I can't quite put my finger on. And I too thought that it looked like a model at first sight. My reference book on C-47 indicates that the 62nd TG was based at McClellan Field in 1941/1942. Is that McClellan Field? Thanks for the help Chris. TonyM.

[Nathan]

The tail code is: 62 TG 31.

[n5151ts]

To me this photo looks a little odd.
Almost like a scale model, or a mockup...
Notice how all of the windows look black?
Perhaps it's because there is nothing else around to give it scale.
Where are the props?
I've been very wrong before though, just ask my wife....
Mark

I think its a staged toy airplane....IMHO of course.

[BigGrey]

It looks like a model placed on a hangar roof. That looks more like roofing material than ramp area.

Les

[JDK]

To me this photo looks a little odd.
Almost like a scale model, or a mockup...
Notice how all of the windows look black?
Perhaps it's because there is nothing else around to give it scale.
Where are the props?
I've been very wrong before though, just ask my wife....
Mark

I'd bet it's the real thing. Why?

Firstly, if you were making a fake, it'd be more 'credible'. It's hardly worth faking up something like that.

The wingtips and tail are the right shape and correct thinness for a real aircraft, not a model. Not a lot of C-39 models out there, either.

It shows all the characteristics of a fixed lens Box Brownie type photo - distant, slightly soft subject (not focussed properly) slow shutter speed (props vanish) dark windows because that's what they do at that angle, etc. Shadow's good, and there's no evidence of out of scale features anywhere. Taken from the top of a hangar or the tower.

I recon your wife's right here...

[gilt]

In addition any reasonably sized model would fit within one concrete section not overlap many of them.

Tom-

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

The exhaust stains do not look air brushed. The C-39 looked more like the DC-2 than the DC-3.