If there really is strong support in the UK forum members to see this historic RAF P-40 secured and preserved either in an Egyptian or UK museum, why doesnt someone write a story for the local UK papers and get this thing on the daily newspaper front pages and TV instead of yet un proven buried Spitfires in Burma?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Nah, you can’t fool me. Definitely a model.

Why would someone place a model of a P-38 on the moon? it has to be real!

regards

Mark Pilkington

Its the old, old argument.

If you restore it to fly, you’ll throw away 50% of it

If you restore it to full static, you’ll throw away 30% of it.

Its about interpretation. Properly presented, and laid out much as it is now, it would be a fantastic exhibit, and far more valuable as an artifact than it would be if restored.

No, recover it, but leave it alone please.

Bruce

I would agree, we have people with the skills and ability to punch out a P-40 from new material and fly safely for many years, theres no need to consume this into that process and fly around a facsimile of it, and if its to be statically displayed in a museum a strong part of its story is being found in this condition 70 years later and the apparant tragic loss of its pilot, as well as being a time capsule of a Desert war combat veteran.

Restoring it to prinstine condition would be destroying history to present a factory fresh colour scheme, it would be undistinguishable from every other factory fresh restored P-40 sitting in museums.

It would in effect be indistinguishable from this one:

A heavily rebuilt ex-RAAF P40N from the Pacific war, but restoration and a coat of paint allows it to adopt the history of an RAF Desert Air Force veteran in the eyes of the general public, and largely indisquishable by them to restoring a derelict one from the Sahara, ie other than us purists “knowing” one actually flew in those colours.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Quick everyone, back over to the “20 Spitfires In Burma” thread, it’s in danger of being overtaken by this one. This is the Flypast Forum, we can’t let that happen! 😀

No I’m sorry but I’ve been spoilt now in terms of the quality of evidence I require to follow treasure hunt threads, I now require 5 blurry stills and at least two you-tube videos.

Besides, having been convinced how well modellers can recreate such things to fool unsuspecting warbird enthusiasts, I am becoming quite suspicious that the Burma scans are actually detecting small metal model spitfires previously buried on site in match boxes at a depth of 40′ by those nasty modellers simply to fool us again!

And of course if they are real they are only 20 late model spits with apparantly no combat service, you would wonder if they are worth the effort at all? (surely we have enough Spits already?)

(I’m still not sure the P-40 is real, I still suspect its done with stop motion animation and 1/72 scale figurines 🙂 )

smiles

Mark Pilkington

The canopy is all but shut in all the images. The assumption seems to have been made that the cockpit shot was taken by somebody sitting in the pilot’s seat. I doubt that canopy would slide open after all that time and sand. The glazing behind the canopy is clearly broken in the side hatch shot so surely the photographer could have reached in there and popped a shot, as many of us have done. The lens must be fairly wide to have got the full width of the panel, and some, again suggesting the camera was well back in the cockpit.

Mark

In this head on photo the starboard rear quarter window seems totally removed
so I assume the photo could easily be taken from that position,
but in any case the while the sliding canopy appears closed
doesnt it also appear to missing perspex in its front half sections/segments on the starboard side and top?

The enhanced version to the right of the original photo yields more detail.

The digital enhancing is the work of someone over on WIX, it certainly makes the photo more believable.

The larger and clearer enhancement also brings more attention to the debris around the wreck.

The cloth material in front of the leading edge is strange to have lasted all these years in external conditions?
perhaps it was removed from the cockpit more recently when the photos were taken? (remains of parachute pack?)

Of course we dont know how long the perspex remained intact, or what/who broke it?

I assume early P-40’s had a fully segmented canopy, not a single clear panel with centre coverstrips?
ie that one half panel could be broken without affecting the other?

as compared to the later single piece full side panel of the P-40N series?

images from adf-serials.com.au

regards

Mark Pilkington

If that’s a lifted-up hatch in the position where the fuselage roundel (?) is, isn’t it odd that there seems to be no opening visible behind it? And was there a hatch in the side of the P40 in the position where the roundel was usually painted? Above the wing trailing edge fairing?

I think the fuselage was twisted slightly during landing, which probably caused the hatch to spring open, and because its out of true and at an angle you can’t see the opening behind it.

I would agree with Simon – the hinge line at the top exposes a portion of the hatch opening underneath it at the RHS, surely a modeller creating a hoax wouldnt provide that level of detail there, and then intentionally leave out the opening lower down.

I havent seen any comments here or on WIX from experienced P-40 restorers suggesting any “errors” in the visible structure etc, and I understand from comments in either this or the WIX thread that the design of the hatch latching complies with a known airframe mod?

I consider you couldnt recreate that fuselage side detail without making a rather large mockup, not neccessarily full scale but a significant large scale, and there is first the issue of accurately re-creating the detailed structure of skin and rivet lines, and then creating the detailed weathering of the surfaces after that.

And as most others state, the cockpit seems far to detailed to be anything but a real one.

I agree with others that the open/close state of the canopy may have changed many times due to nomadic visitors to the wreck, even though it seems untouched by souvenir /scrap/village pilfering etc, that probably reflects its remoteness and difficulty of access.

If real its been sitting where it is for the last 70 years, apparantly bellylanding into deeper sand than is currently present given the rocky ground, but over that time it could have been exposed to the elements or buried in sand for considerable periods of time.

Assuming the canopy was closed and intact for any extended periods of burial, the lack of significant sand in the cockpit might be a result of the closed canopy?

The cockpit photo doesnt prove the cockpit floor isnt knee deep in sand, and we dont know what underbelly damage exists aft of the wing to allow sand to easily enter and exit the cockpit as the fuselage is exposed or entombed?
(The photo above suggests lower fuselage damage below the hatch and aft of the wing root fillet)

However the preserved fuselage paint on one side might simply reflect the direction its facing providing protection from the prevailing wind direction of sand blasting or simply weathering of sun and rain, and the fuselage may never have been fully buried to risk the cockpit filling up in anycase.

The first 3 photos are not brilliant photography but then these are apparantly taken by a geologist/surveyor etc who is not neccessarily interested in aviation, and who is probably not out with a high quality camera, as would be on a tourist trip or airshow flightline photo opportunity.

And most likely he’s not an aircraft enthusiast enthralled by the historic and significant wreck in front of him, if these same photos were of a crashed DC-3 in the Sahara would we expect him to be taking photos of the serial numbers and data plates?

We are all assuming they are recent digital photos implying the ability to snap off a few hundred without concern, as against a roll film camera of 10 years ago where cost and interest in the topic dictates the exposures taken.

But even if they are digital from an SLR versus a mobile phone, taking photos in the middle of the Sahara is taxing your battery and you may not wish to waste that on this one wreck? etc

Finally as I understand it, the discoverer of the airframe is not the person posting the photos, so we dont yet know if these 5 are the only photos taken, or the “best” in terms of proving its real, rather than the “best” in terms of providing overall view of the wreck.

We dont know how many other close up photos might exist and better evidence the technical authenticity of the wreck, but to the photographer or modelling friend be less impressive than the 5 posted so far.

We have been offered the opportunity of further photos and I hope those will remove any remaining doubt, and hopefully the source of the photos can also give us more information on when/where/who/how/what-now

I think the consistancy and detail of the landscape in all photos, together with the detail of the wreck and its detailed and identifiable debris is beyond mere modelling and photoshopping, it might be CGI but doesnt “have the look”, and as a mockup would need to be of reasonably large scale ie the work of a major film studio.

– hence I think its real.

So that leaves the obvious questions of:
– where & when where the photos taken
– is it still there,
– and is there any attempts to have it recovered and preserved.

I think its been suggested by others above that this is likely to be an RAF squadron airframe rather than a RAAF squadron based on the remanent code, and personally would prefer to see it preserved “as-is” such a significant battle field relic is worthy of conservation rather than restoration.

Hopefully if the RAFM was approached to identify it they might be pursuing its acquisition? as such a wreck has more historical relevence to their collection than the hybrid former RAAF P40 currently on display, alternatively it would be very appropriate for the IWM/Duxford to pursue and display “as is”.

I find it interesting to see such apparant discoveries still coming to light, hopefully the arab spring in North Africa will yield other rare and extinct types from the desert or remote crash sites.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Tim, we have only had a brief forum and private email encounter but I hope you make a full recovery, return to full health and collecting/playing with junk again.

good luck and best wishes

regards

Mark Pilkington