Any P-40 experts care to comment on this image?

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:39 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

Maybe someone took the cockpit photo and built all the other images around it. The cockpit photo reminds me of a couple I've seen downunder.

Really? Which? I ask as I am 'downunder' and I'm researching P-40s and I've seen most of them, and I don't know of any with a cockpit like this...

Nor that would 'fit' with the fuselage side image, which is also, I'd suggest, unarguably of a real Kittyhawk.

Jesse C. wrote:

Sorry, but that cockpit pic looks way to neat to me. Most times that I see cockpit shots, they are usually taken from the side, not straight on.

As earlier, and:

Dave Homewood wrote:

Perhaps the photographer did not slide back the canopy and hop into the cockpit as everyone seems to be debating, he may have stuck the camera through the small opening such as a broken canopy panel?

OK?

Dave Homewood wrote:

People refuse to believe it's real because you cannot see the bloody shark's mouth!!

It was a deliberate joke, I think, Dave.

Regards,

Bluedharma · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:41 pm

m50a1ontos wrote:

Looks like a tire to me. If it spun on impact and tore the Starboard main gear off, wouldn't it come to rest sticking out in front of the wing? Landing wheels down on soft sand or a perceived smooth surface that turns out to be not so smooth? Dunno....just throwing thoughts out here.

I don't think the gear was down... (as the tailwheel is not down.)
Not good to land with the gear down on that type of stuff (sand) is it?

PeterA · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:50 pm

The erosion of the paint and markings looks very similar to these shots of the 'Lady' that I took in March 2007. You can still see the US star on the fuselage.

PeterA

Enemy Ace · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:23 pm

I wonder also how much is showing in the pictures that is not readily seen by the naked eye? I know many times I don't see faded markings, etc when I am looking right at an actual part but it becomes visible in a picture.

m50a1ontos · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:33 pm

Bluedharma wrote:

m50a1ontos wrote:

Looks like a tire to me. If it spun on impact and tore the Starboard main gear off, wouldn't it come to rest sticking out in front of the wing? Landing wheels down on soft sand or a perceived smooth surface that turns out to be not so smooth? Dunno....just throwing thoughts out here.

I don't think the gear was down... (as the tailwheel is not down.)
Not good to land with the gear down on that type of stuff (sand) is it?

No, not good to land gear down on that stuff. But (and there's always one of those right?

) Just for arguments sake, he did land gear down for what ever reason. One gear caught, it spun around and nosed over a bit tearing the prob and gear unit off before completing it's merry go round landing and ending up where it is. Sand moves around in open flat desert terrain like that. There could have been several feet of the stuff under it when it came to rest. It may have weathervaned a bit as well. What's the prevailing wind direction there? It's an airplane, it like to be nose into the wind, right? The wind can get hellishly stong out there....and leave paint intact to some degree.

Lots of variables to think about. One thing though....no one on this board has been there. No one on this board was there when it crashed. Everyone on this board will likely have a different idea as to what happend. So, let the debate continue :drink3:

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7802

Well until more photos with actual dates attached to them and some sort of ID on the plane comes to light. I'm 50/50 on the whole thing. I'm hoping there's not someone out there in cyberspace just rolling on the floor at all of us here on WIX and elsewhere scratching our heads on this find. Wishful thinking wants me to say it's the real deal and if so more wishful thinking hopes it will find a better home.

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:42 pm

Here's a thread which claims to have comments from an actual P-40 owner..he believes the photos are the real deal, and I'm inclined to agree.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1334894631/desert+Kittyhawk%2C+comments+about+its+authenticty+from+a+Kittyhawk+owner

So far, these are the only comments I've seen from anyone with any real expertise in the subject. Most of those claiming its a CGI fake seem to be basing their opinions mostly on "because it can't be real." Sounds like a reverse version of the old fairy tale 'The Emperor's New Clothes.' In this case, everybody is piling on each other to be one of the "cool" kids, so they can look down their noses at the "kool-aid drinkers" who would be foolish enough to buy into such an "obvious" fraud.

My main question is of provenance: where and more importantly when where the pics taken? The original poster simply claims that they were sent to him by a friend who took them while working with an oil exploration crew..he makes no mention of when they were actually taken. They look like recent digital photos, but they could just as easily be good scans of old slides, which means they could date back 30 or 40 years.

SN

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:29 pm

We've actually had several comments in this thread from people very familiar with P-40s - y'know, like rebuilding them. And you'll note that another certain poster over there has posted numerous pictures showing the wrong and unadapted hatch type...

Some of the discussion and speculation is acute, other bits amusing or pointless, but it's all moot. The trick is what happens next.

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:47 pm

JDK wrote:

it's all moot. The trick is what happens next.

You hit the nail on the head, there! If the photos are recent, then the wreck needs to be recovered pronto. The LBG sat undisturbed for 16 years, but once her location was known, she was pretty thoroughly stripped in half that time.

SN

Vital Spark · **Joined:** Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:00 pm **Posts:** 89

I think one factor that must be considered is that a model, or 3d modeling would require a great deal of effort that seems to be wasted on a throw-away posting on a fairly remote (from the "warbird world") forum. I have to admit that my heart hopes that it is real and maybe is overruling good sense, but I believe they are actual images and the opening sentence of a story we can all enjoy.

OK call me naive and insufficiently cynical ( tho' you would be the first).

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:52 pm

In the enhanced photograph it appears that the gun muzzles are visible in the right wing. Were the RAF Kittyhawks armed with .50's or had they been fitted with the Browning .303's?

Buz · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:40 pm

Just to show what can happen with Kittyhawks, I have attached some photos showing where the fuselage breaks (or if the landing is not so hard the fuselage distorts at this point, and also some examples of the propeller being torn off however the cowls remain fairly intact.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33898088@N ... hotostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33898088@N ... hotostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33898088@N ... hotostream

Hopefully this will bring about more discussion. As for the Guns RAF Kittyhawks had the .50 cals.

Buz

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:56 pm

I don't know if anyone has addressed this...
Wouldn't the perspex be opaque by now?

There is a reason they spray sealant on them at D-M.
And Tucson is much milder than the Sahara.

(and Phoenix for that matter!).

hang the expense · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:44 pm

Steve Nelson wrote:

That Fw photo is obviously fake...models, CGI and photoshop (the B-24 formation may be a real photo.)

I'm getting a bit of a chuckle out of this P-40 debate (I think it's real myself.) The first reaction here was "Can't be real, must be a model." Over on one of the bigger model forums, they're saying "Can't be real, ain't a model, must be CGI." I wonder what they're saying on the CGI forums.

One of the "gotta be CGI" posters claims that there's no way the prop and gearbox could have been torn out like that but leave the cowl panels intact. Any P-40 mechs here have any input?
Plenty of pics of wrecked kittyhawks with the nose case snatched right out of the cowling.
SN

bombadier29 · **Joined:** Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:17 pm **Posts:** 272

The picture of the instrument panel and cockpit certainly looks authentic. Even down to the details on the canopy crank and the band around the throttle lever. I'm no modeler but I just don't think anybody can do that level of detail. The first picture just doesn't look right though. The second picture just seems like more damage should be shown on the upper cowling if the prop, spinner, backing plate and reduction gearing was torn out.

Its amazing what detail you can see in pictures, yet what detail is not seen.

Like most people, I'd like to believe its real!

Warbird Information Exchange

Any P-40 experts care to comment on this image?

Who is online