Yes, I take your point about the Starboard Elevator – that’s the curve.

I was thinking NA-16 too – it’s as ‘identical’ as the Gamma, if not actually closer because of the rear fuselage orientation.

NII, There is more to changing the geometry of a stressed-skin monocoque than ‘sheet metal work’. In a fuselage such as the Gamma’s the ‘skin’ is actually a structural feature. You cannot metal-bash it about to change shape. How the ribs and skin attach to the wing is a fundamental part of how the aeroplane holds together. So what you are left with in this case is some extraneous fairing put over this structure, adding to the weight and defeating the object of a monocoque, or a complete redesign of the fuselage – both in front of and (more glaringly) behind the wing. Not saying it isn’t the former (lots of sheet metal fairing attached as a second layer over the stressed skin structure to create a new profile both in front of and behind the wing) but it seems extremely unlikely when there is the far less complicated idea of a different fuselage altogether.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256810[/ATTACH]

Also, the notion that the thrust line is identical is far from demonstrated by the image – even with the leading edge drawn lower than it actually is, as in your illustration, the frame of reference is just not there to say. To me it looks lower, but who knows?

I agree it is possible, but far from proven, that a Gamma wing was used.

Can you point to where all the digits of the ‘EC-CC8’ registration are visible, I’m just not seeing it?

But this is not someone who has witnessed something they cannot explain. This is someone who explains everything they see in the sky – including aircraft and clouds – as some vast conspiracy, unburdened by logic. As an example from this guy, his video of an airliner looking completely normal is titled ‘Fake plane being used to see if you can tell the difference’.

It is harmless enough in itself. Yes it probably means the individual might need help on other areas, but then posting on youtube does not mean they are not getting it, of course.

It can and will. The only hold-up has been premises issues, ie no workshop due to factors ‘beyond our control’. The project has a balance of funds that is sitting there waiting to be used once we have a workshop again, while behind the scenes the work of producing new ‘factory’ drawings continues.

As well as showing how ‘specials’ can easily arise ‘off the radar’ in all kinds of exotic locations, this collection also provides an illustration of how far from a Gamma our mystery ship is in terms of the redesign necessary:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256749[/ATTACH]

Interesting, what’s the story there?

Longshot – Yes, but that’s an XBT-2, not a Gamma – even with the same rear fuselage. Surely it’s more than simple sheet metal work when you change the shape of a monocoque fuselage to encompass a wing, and you end up with a different aeroplane? Unless you are in the business of tacking on extra fairing sheets over the structure.

The difference is where the wing is relative to the fuselage. Look at that Google image again, and see where the rear fuselage, and the engine sit relative to the wing. Note this is not a gull wing – the centre section really sat that low. It is more than an alleged design difference, it is right there in the image. It can be remedied with a fuselage redesign, but one so severe it wouldn’t be a Gamma any more.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256745[/ATTACH]