Disappointed…

Tangmere1940

Errr….would you like me to ask Alfred?

Yes please, that would be great, thank you Tangmere…

He wrote a piece for the Aeroplane (May 2006 Issue) titled “Flying the Whirligig” where he talked to Sqn Ldr John Wray DFC, who led 137 Sqn during 1943 about what the Whirlwind was like to fly…

Brilliant news, thanks again…

Do you need any other info?

The chap who wrote the article with the cockpit photo is a Dr Alfred Price… 🙂

A quick Google showed he is quite the aviation writer, with a number of books to his name…

Errr….would you like me to ask Alfred?

Two things to consider here could the picture in the magazine have been enhanced from the pilots notes useing modern digital immaging methods.

Andrew, in my limited experience with manipulating images, i’ve found its far easier to simplify an image by losing detail than it would be to enhance one by adding something that isn’t there. So no I don’t think it has been enhanced.

Is your version of the picture from original or reproduction AP? I have a few copies of original pilot’s notes and the cockpit images are quite good quality

The top image is a photocopied image from an original Whirlwind AP that I got from Rolls-Royce Derby Heritage Trust a number of years ago.
I also have a copy of the ‘Crecy’ AP.

There is a certain amount of degradation between the two, as you would expect between a photocopy and a printed version, but not as much as there would be from an original photograph and a retouched one…

Tony, how come someone so beautiful, knows so much… 😉

I’ll give them a bell first thing Monday…

Cheers

Stuart

PS, that first bit, don’t take this to heart, did’nt really mean it…

Have you tried the Research dept at RAF Hendon, over the years I have written to them many times ( 15 or so odd occasssions) requesting pictures or pilots notes of various cockpits WWII to Post War and each time they have come up trumps and sent through the post exactly what I wanted (They charge a small nominal photocopying fee of a couple of pounds) Just log on to their website WWW.RAFMUSEUM.COM click on the research section and just fill in the query box. Remember to quote the variant type or mark type of aircraft you are looking for. Give them a few weeks and you should have something through your door with a small invoice. The only time I have been refused is when I asked for some Canberra PR9 cockpit diagrams a few years back and they were unable to do so due to it still being classified material (were still in active service). Good luck.

Two things to consider here could the picture in the magazine have been enhanced from the pilots notes useing modern digital immaging methods.

Is your version of the picture from origonal or reproduction A.P. I have a few copies of origonal pilots notes and the cockpit immages are quite good quallity

The chap who wrote the article with the cockpit photo is a Dr Alfred Price… 🙂

A quick Google showed he is quite the aviation writer, with a number of books to his name…

RAF pilots notes were produced by Handling Squadron which was and still is at Boscombe Down……the photos are often touched up so much (or were) that they look like pen and ink…..try asking HSqn?

Ah! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that… :rolleyes:

Think we knew it, but assumed you had thought of that!

The first pic looks different from the original, having heavier contrast, probably to aid definition in the mass copied Pilots notes where identifing the various bits was important.

Ah! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that… :rolleyes:

Well spotted that man… 😉

Especially when you read the heading A.P. 1709A!:D

http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140272436947&indexURL=

Would this not be a photo from the Pilot’s Notes?

Ah! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that… :rolleyes:

Well spotted that man… 😉

JDK

Best suggestion I can make is ask if they can forward a letter to the feature’s author, and he/she may be able to advise where they got it.

Good, I shall do that, thank you JDK

It’s amazing to find out just how much work went into getting a photo of a cockpit into print.

Mind you I would have sacked the bloke who traced the original, his shoddy work has made my eyes bad trying to make out whats-what… :rolleyes:

That last bit was a joke, so don’t take offence… :diablo:

Thanks for the replies

Would this not be a photo from the Pilot’s Notes?

The bottom picture appears to be a real picture from which the top picture was made from? Hence the small differences between the two.

I think that’s correct. What I’m guessing is that the photograph was converted to a screened image after it had received a certain amount of ink retouching to accentuate some features – others would be brought forward by the screen process, such as the row of bolts on the left side of the cockpit. IMHO, the differences in the images in structure and layout are to small for it to be a different image, and tellingly the shadows being the same, as well as the camera’s position makes it highly unlikely they have different origins. The switch and gauge differences MBS spotted would well fit an ‘update’ or correction from a photograph to usable manual illustration.

AFAIK technical writers often traced the lines on photographs, so details were easier to see and the picture would look better when printed in books/manuals.

If i am wrong please forgive me…

Can’t really tell from the pictures posted but there are suttle differences between the two.
I dont know what its called, but the top picture appears to be a “drawing” ? and not an actual photo.
I have seen these before in old magazines etc where these high quality drawings (based on photos i assume) have all names of the cockpit layout.
Im not sure how its done.

The bottom picture appears to be a real picture from which the top picture was made from? Hence the small differences between the two.

I would be very surprised if its not the same photo. As JDK writes, too many details exactly identical.

have you Googled the author??

is it not fair to reason that the first photo with annotations is just a re-touch of the second photo, rather than being different photos, looks like it to me. The Germans loved doing it in their manuals and it looks like that is what has been done here

Pretty sure you are right – too many details like exact positions of items, relations of items, glass in gunsight, and shadow positions are the same for it to be a different photo.

MrBlueSky – Magazine offices don’t have time, generally, to search back for particular pictures or data, even in case of offer for payment of a copy. Best suggestion I can make is ask if they can forward a letter to the feature’s author, and he/she may be able to advise where they got it.

HTH.

is it not fair to reason that the first photo with annotations is just a re-touch of the second photo, rather than being different photos, looks like it to me. The Germans loved doing it in their manuals and it looks like that is what has been done here

Better eyes than me :0)