B-29s Battle Nicks

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:51 pm

The shape and configuration look correct for a Ki-45, but I agree it's just to small. Here's a pic from Udvar-Hazy that gives a rough size comparison. The Nick is the olive drab fuselage in the forground.

SN

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Terrific photo. I wish they would put the rest of the Nick together!

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

I've been looking at that picture since I was about 9 years old. It is in Martin Caidin's book 'Air Force' on page 189. It is identified there as a Nick.
I really don't think it is fake. The book was published in 1957. You guys really crack me up sometimes.

Flattening telephoto angles?

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:15 pm

Wasn't the photo originally published during the war? I wonder if it was "doctored" by the AAF to make the B-29 appear bigger than it actually is. Whatever the captions say in various books..the reality is, it's still too small for a Ki-45.

SN

Second Air Force · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:28 pm

Yes, Steve that photo is in an edition of the AAF publication "Impact" that was produced during the war. Ryan made mention of that earlier, and I always took the photo at face value, that the Nick was in the original photo. Now I'm not so sure the guys in the photo lab didn't work on it since you all have brought up the size issue. It is puzzling, indeed.

Scott

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

I've been looking at that picture since I was about 9 years old. It is in Martin Caidin's book 'Air Force' on page 189. It is identified there as a Nick.
I really don't think it is fake.

I don't think it's a fake either. I just can't square the physics of the thing.

While we're cracked up, not everything Martin published was 'true'. He was a definite subscriber to the 'print the legend' school of writing; great reading, not exactly historically reliable.

Perhaps we should take everything at face value?

Regards,

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

Quote:

I just can't square the physics of the thing.

Maybe you can enlarge the photo and get an accurate rivet count and determine if it is really a Nick.

:wink:

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:22 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

Quote:

I just can't square the physics of the thing

Maybe you can enlarge the photo and get an accurate rivet count and determine if it is really a Nick.

I wouldn't mind seeing a decent size copy of it, for interest. I leave rivet counting to those who annoy Eric. But tell us - what do you think is going on then?

Regards,

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:45 pm

Quote:

Maybe you can enlarge the photo and get an accurate rivet count

Actually, that's not a bad idea..unfortunately, none of the drawing I have are accurate enough.

Sooooo...I dug a couple of model kits out of The Stash and taped together some major components to do a size comparison. Make of it what you will, but the "Nick" in the photo still looks to small to me.

SN

Second Air Force · **Posted:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:13 pm

After looking at Steve's models laid out together I'm still (maybe more) confused. I'm wondering if the photo lab added the "big" B-29 to the photo later, as the Nick and other two Superforts seem to be in correct scale relationship. I've got a copy of the Impact issue somewhere in the "library" but I doubt the photo quality will be any better.

Also, I just now noticed that the aft bomb bay doors are open on only the closest B-29.

Scott

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:02 am

Well, here's my contribution for the thread. From Footnote:

Ryan

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:13 am

Thanks to Ryan and Steve for their efforts. I thouight I was being silly grabbing some measures off the interweb; but hey, let's see what we can do!

It's trivial, sure (certainly compared to battling hurricanes!) but interesting.

Despite the size problem, I don't read it as a fake, as the pixillation (originally grain) of the image is consistent; the shadows and blurs seem reasonable, and if it was a fake, why go to the trouble of superimposing aircraft where it doesn't 'work'?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:20 am

I'm still not convinced myself.

Ryan

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:30 am

.
I think it is doctored.

The small size of the twin aircraft presents the first uncertainty, but I am also surprised by the shadow line on the leading/banking B29, which appears to be at the same shadow line on the rear fuselage (below the roundel) as the aircraft flying level?
It would be expected to be higher up the fuselage relative to the level aircraft due to the banking attitude?

regards

Mark Pilkington

J. Armstrong · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:58 pm

Do we know what kind of camera was used for the picture ?
I'm really dredging the stagnant corners of the old brain, but am I correct in recalling that horizontal "window shade" focal plane shutters like the old Leicas could distort images if the subject was moving relaitive to the cameras shutter ?
If the camera was aimed at and moving "with"the B29s, the Nick going the opposite direction would seem to exacerbate the situation.

Possibility ???

Warbird Information Exchange

B-29s Battle Nicks

Who is online