Engine fire or shadow?

It was probably taken remotely after bomb release, to record results – as per my previous posts

Definitely shadow, as already stated you can see it cast on both wings & the stbd tailplane.

If you take into account the film exposure allowance being for the silver areas it would result in a slight under exposure of the shadow areas and enhance the the oil streaks from the nacelle making them appear much darker.

Lightwaves are parallel,so a shadow would be fairly sharp which is the case – the similar dimentions of the shadow to that of the aircraft in the photo suggest the top aircraft was very close, so I just hope they weren’t too close to the bomb release point at the time the photo was taken.:eek:

It’s a b&w print. The area above the fuselage has been burnt in during printing (the print has been exposed for longer in that area), probably to bring out more detail of the target. This results in the shadow area on the wing and tail being darker than the shadow on the fuselage.

I’d concur with the theory of damage from a previous mission. Perhaps there was an engine fire or oil leak; the mechanics have fixed this, but simply not bothered to clean the surface. Not mission critical. The tail surfaces might have been given a wipe to make sure the elevators still worked.

Simply coincidental that the shadow should line up so exactly with the engine.

..to further the oil plus shadow theory, check out the discolouration behind No.4 on the pic I attached a few posts ago. It matches the pattern of the really dark bits on the wing of the B29. The point of that pic was, though, to illustrate a bomb-bay automatic camera photograph, for comparison (with the added interest of the unfortunate bomb strike on the tail).

I reckon that the point about the event being finished remains – if I understand correctly, it was made to suggest that the photographer was NOT trying to record a massive oil leak/fire when he took the photograph. I am going further by suggesting that no-one actually took the photograph.

If the engine was spewing oil, the event is finished

The argument is that is the staining left over from a calamitous engine event on an earlier flight, not the current one.

Moggy

It’s likely a combination of oil & shadows. You can clearly see oil stains aft of the cowl on the nacell…but I don’t think the marks on the stabilizer are oil…too far away to be that perfect.

I agree…..

if #3 has lost that much oil to darken the entire nacelle to that degree…would it still be running?

Not for long!

This thread proves that too many people have too much time on their hands 😀

I can agree with that too, but I’m on a break and it’s pouring down outside… :rolleyes:

It’s likely a combination of oil & shadows. You can clearly see oil stains aft of the cowl on the nacell…but I don’t think the marks on the stabilizer are oil…too far away to be that perfect.

One question worth asking….

if #3 has lost that much oil to darken the entire nacelle to that degree…would it still be running?

This thread proves that too many people have too much time on their hands 😀

I don’t think so,as the cockpit is not in view.
My reasoning was that he noticed the engine spewing oil,and thought that it would be a great shot. and at the moment he pressed the button. The plane he was in lost enough height to allow the shadow to fall at the exact point he was trying to get a pic of.

If the engine was spewing oil, the event is finished… and I don’t believe there is enough divergence on the streak to be an oil leak.

At altitude, I’d imagine hot aircraft oil streaming out would show a plume of vapour as well as the oil. Further more, wouldn’t any turbulence as the airflow from below and above the wing meet behind the trailing edge of the wing cause further divergence of a vapourising stream? I’d imagine that the same process would happen on the stbd elevator aerofoil section, causing a more rapid fade out of the ‘stain’.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it’s a shadow. Any darkening of the area may have been caused by post processing of the photo in the lab in order to make the under exposed sections stand out. Such under exposure may have been caused by a bright sunny day and metal reflective airframe, especially on an automatic camera!

Would like to hear other ideas though!
Scotty

Not so lucky…

I’m not sure oil leaks of this kind were uncommon enough for pics – and my other doubt is the composition – if the photographer wanted the oil leak specifically he would have centred on it, or alternatively captured the whole aeroplane. OK, this is conjecture over what may or may not have gone through someone’s mind for a few seconds..

I think the automatic bomb bay camera is far more likely. The picture was taken vertically downwards, the ‘accidental’ subject is not properly composed in the frame, and there are many other examples of just this kind of shot, most without other aircraft in, but some with.

His mate below him bombing a Japanese city.

I don’t think so,as the cockpit is not in view.
My reasoning was that he noticed the engine spewing oil,and thought that it would be a great shot. and at the moment he pressed the button. The plane he was in lost enough height to allow the shadow to fall at the exact point he was trying to get a pic of.

Answered my own question – or rather, Roger Freeman has. Fixed bomb bay camera in each aircraft, on a timer. Could well be..

‘The Mighty 8th’ also has examples of this type of photo, including at least one that captures another aircraft.

Then presumably it was also manipulated to make the fuselage shadow much darker than where the shadow of the wing crosses the fuselage ahead of the dorsal turret.

I wonder why?

Moggy

Moggy, it might be simple….

The aircraft formation is presumably made up of all natural metal airframes which in bright sunlight will be highly reflective.

The lighter shadow that Pagen darkened is likely lighter as it is reflecting sunlight back to the camera lens more from this area than the starboard side of the aircraft. That’s one explaination…
Or… it could be the shadow of an aircraft higher than the one taking the photo, hence the difference in shadow intensity.

Reflection is my best guess… Just going from what I know about photography However I do reckon Stbd inner has been a bit sooty too….

Best Regards,
Scotty

OK, arguing with myself, but… were target photographs taken by individual USAAF aircraft after release to record bomb strike accuracy, in the way that RAF Bomber Command did? This might possibly be one of those.. in which case the aircraft below was extremely lucky, fire or no fire..

Possibly as evidence for him having to go round again (or go to a secondary target,) because somebody got in his way, and prevented bomb release. You all seem to be forgetting the standard of the actual print; I have several dozen wartime reconnaissance photos, and none have such strong contrast as this one. Either it’s been printed on an unusually hard grade of paper, or maybe it’s a (photo or laser?) copy, which has deepened the contrast. For me, that engine has shed a lot of oil, some of which has reached as far as the tailplane, and the shadow of the photograher’s aircraft has made it even darker; copy the photo, then play with the contrast, and it’s possible to make out the outlines of the top aircraft’s port engines.
Edgar

Of course, one needs to bear in mind that this probably isn’t a reconnaisance photograph. It’s more likely a snap, like many hundreds of similar snaps taken by US airmen of each other’s aircraft in flight. It is unlikely one would take a reconaissance photo with a bl**dy great B29 in between you and the area to be reconnoitred.

Pagen01, exactly!

Edit because I read the post again – properly this time – Interesting ‘proof of obstruction’ theory. Would there be time to say ‘would someone get a shot of that plane that’s in the way, please’? I suppose it’s possible – are there any other examples of such photos?

What was the man with the camera trying to get in the pic?

His mate below him bombing a Japanese city.

Possibly as evidence for him having to go round again (or go to a secondary target,) because somebody got in his way, and prevented bomb release. You all seem to be forgetting the standard of the actual print; I have several dozen wartime reconnaissance photos, and none have such strong contrast as this one. Either it’s been printed on an unusually hard grade of paper, or maybe it’s a (photo or laser?) copy, which has deepened the contrast. For me, that engine has shed a lot of oil, some of which has reached as far as the tailplane, and the shadow of the photograher’s aircraft has made it even darker; copy the photo, then play with the contrast, and it’s possible to make out the outlines of the top aircraft’s port engines.
Edgar

When I take a photo,I usually have a reason for taking it.
What was the man with the camera trying to get in the pic?

Finally having twigged on to what the shadow-argueres are on about…. I must eat my words to a point. The shadow does match and I must admit that it appears to be a mix of oil and shadoiw on the engine nacelle, while the stabiliser is pure shadow.

Bloody unlucky camera angle….

I think I am sold on the mixed shadow/oil explanation too! 😮

That’s a bit clearer now.

Note the density of the shadow cast by the its own vertical tail upon the inboard side of the starboard horisontal stabilizer. The very same density as the shadow cast on the wing and outboard stab.

All a trick of the light and not oil I would wager.