Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sun Mar 29, 2026 5:37 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Douglas C-39 photo
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:17 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:26 pm
Posts: 4974
Location: PA
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! :roll: :x :bs:

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

Image

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:34 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am
Posts: 7961
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA.
Neat! one more sidebar of aviation brought to light while on it's way to becoming a true legend...... 8)
Any info on where the photo was taken?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 605
Location: West Hammond, Illinois, USA
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.

_________________
.
.
.

"Welcome back Mr. Lasky."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 605
Location: West Hammond, Illinois, USA
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.

_________________
.
.
.

"Welcome back Mr. Lasky."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:54 pm
Posts: 60
Location: St. Louis, MO
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

_________________
World War II Airborne Demonstration Team Foundation
www.wwiiadt.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:21 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:02 am
Posts: 4738
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
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

_________________
Image
All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 605
Location: West Hammond, Illinois, USA
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.

_________________
.
.
.

"Welcome back Mr. Lasky."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:30 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:26 pm
Posts: 4974
Location: PA
The tail code is: 62 TG 31. :wink:

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: yep.....
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 962
Location: my home planet is EARTH!
Mark Cook wrote:
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.

_________________
EVERYTHING that CAN fly should be ALLOWED to FLY!
IWO JIMA'S best narative..."GOD ISN'T HERE"
http://www.amazon.com/God-Isnt-Here-Ame ... 0976154706


P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.

S: Took hammer away from midget.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 411
Location: Minden, NV
It looks like a model placed on a hangar roof. That looks more like roofing material than ramp area.

Les


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:30 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Mark Cook wrote:
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... ;)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:43 pm
Posts: 234
Location: KABE
In addition any reasonably sized model would fit within one concrete section not overlap many of them.

Tom-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:15 pm
Posts: 951
The exhaust stains do not look air brushed. The C-39 looked more like the DC-2 than the DC-3.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Zac Yates and 79 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group