People are saying that if the close up of the hatch is a model then why isn’t the modeller earning big dollars on the real thing. Well, how do you know they aren’t!? This could have been a ‘side project’, perhaps a personal challenge, perhaps a P40 nut who can’t afford a real ‘un? Who knows!
The hatch looks to be in the correct place, but yes it is odd that there is nothing visible behind it.
The white broken plastic is the perspex from behind the canopy which has crazed and broken, presumably with heat.
Good reference pic here:
Photos 3 and 4 look far too contrived and posed
If it is real, and is recovered, do we favour a restoration or do we leave it as is?
Leave as it is. Do not do a 50/50 job like Duxford’s 109!
The enhanced photo on wix does look a lot better though I’m still not totally convinced.
There’s speculation on another forum that it could be a film set. Anyone?
I don’t get it. Even if he has more photos, those are an odd choice of five to post.
The cockpit shot is a real P-40 -therefore where is that P-40 bearing in mind that survivors are very well documented!
That’s why the scenery through the windscreen is baffling me.
I’m not saying it isn’t real, only that I’d really expect that it would have been found (or stripped by the locals) by now.
The internet is home to a lot of people with seemingly nothing better to do than make phoney discoveries.
Sorry, until proof arrives, I’m skeptical.
And in that vein, I’d ask why the photographer didn’t take a photo with his friends alongside..or park his truck a bit closer to the wreck…and post those as well to help prove authenticity. In this day and age, anyone would have known there would be doubts about such a find.
I too am sceptical!
But, let’s look at the evidence a la Through The Keyhole:
1. Photos 1, 2, 3 look fake. And if they are not fake then they are crap photos. Who stumbles across a crashed aeroplane and takes a shot like photo 1? I reckon we are looking at a fairly small scale model.
2. Photo 4 looks real, but could and I repeat could, have been done by a modeller. I reckon it was, albeit on a much larger scale. It looks suspiciously set up if you ask me, perhaps over detailed, like with the shattered perspex pieces. I don’t like the bullet holes either.
3. Photo 5 looks the real deal and you can see the same terrain through the windscreen if you change the screen contrast.
So, did someone have a genuine cockpit photo and feel like messing around with an airfix kit? People are saying that modellers couldn’t be that good, but they are the ones who know all the details. I have the feeling that these could be traced back to someone’s kitchen table.
How likely is it that an intact aircraft in that environment would not have been seen before now?
Yes, the Sahara is big, but THAT big?
It’s been a half century since the “Lady be Good” was found.
I don’t think there are many surprises left to be found in the desert.
Try Google Earth!
If this is not a model then why was it posted on a modelling site?
Here is a link with some pics for comparison.
http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?25848-Libyan-Desert-Wrecks
Most of those look far more convincing… Just found some similar P-40 crash photos, the props are still attached but the tops of the cowlings aren’t.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Crashed_Kittyhawk_I_260_Sqn_in_NAfrica_1942.jpg
Scotavia – the level of skill required to fake that part of the rear fuselage is beyond most people. You would need to fabricate that part pretty much full size to generate anything that you could model from. That would cost a lot of time and money -not worthwhile for a hoax.
I bet this bloke could have a good stab at it:
Would the rudder and elevator fabric have perished like that in such dry conditions?
Here’s a model desert for comparison:
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/thunder/ep5/4.jpg
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/thunder/ep5/17.jpg
Personally I don’t see much difference!
is there a date given for when the photo`s were taken?
He just says ‘recently’. The close up seems odd. Why take a couple of shots from miles away and then decide that the what-ever-it-is-for hatch is interesting? Also, would the photographer’s own shadow not be present anywhere?
Having messed with the screen contrast the interior shot is definitely ‘in situ’ with the sand and rocks just visible outside. But why is the canopy closed? Would they be able to open the canopy to get in?
Well his cover story rings true, there appears to be plenty of oil and gas in the Sahara…