PDA

View Full Version : Is this Genuine !!!


CoffmanStarter
17th Nov 2012, 09:04
A spot of idle browsing one evening ... as you do ... and I came across this photo on the RAF Halton 86th Entry Association's homepage.

RAF Halton 86th Entry Association - (see news tab Nov 2011) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/petert.pandm/)

It purports to show a Rhodesian Air Force Canberra flying through a hangar ! :eek:

It doesn't look "mucked about" ... if genuine ... I'm sure the story would have reached some of our Ex Canberra chaps ? Difficult to judge dates ... but (1) the pilot appears to be wearing only a "cloth electric hat" with no bone dome and (2) the Rhodesian's operated Canberra's around this time ... so it could be 50's as a punt ?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/petert.pandm/RhodesianCanberra.jpg

Apparently ORAFs stands for Old Rhodesian Air Force Sods.

What do fellow PPRuNer's think :ok:

Best ...

Coff.

essexlad
17th Nov 2012, 09:06
True or not. That a cracking looking photo!

P6 Driver
17th Nov 2012, 09:11
I'd like to think it's genuine!
:D

I seem to recall that a long time ago this photo featured on another thread but maybe not on this site. I can't remember what the consensus was at the time.

lasernigel
17th Nov 2012, 09:18
Looking at the stack of pallets, middle right, they are in sharp focus as is the Canberra. Early photoshop methinks.
Shame though it would be a good story esp from the guy on the floor.

herkman
17th Nov 2012, 09:19
if you go to the adf serials site amd do a search.

there is a photo very much the sale only this time it is a RAAF aircraft

regards

col

LT Selfridge
17th Nov 2012, 09:34
Those crazy 2 SQN guys!!

CoffmanStarter
17th Nov 2012, 09:44
Herkman ... Just had a look ... exact same picture but this time described as ...

"RAAF Un-Official' Canberra Mk20 A84-216 'Hangar Fly Through' Amberley C1970"

ADF Serials (see photo gallery under EE Canberra) (http://www.adf-serials.com)

Humm ... cracking image though :ok:

Best ...

Coff.

Lima Juliet
17th Nov 2012, 11:37
Fake...

No heat haze, it looks foggy outside (or it really is as flat as a pancake outside!), the front fan blades look stationary, no dust or debris kicked up and the cloth G-helmets were blue in those days so would not look so dark (I suspect that is a groundrcew mate with dark hair).

LJ

Fareastdriver
17th Nov 2012, 11:45
With the speed of photograghic film in those days if you could pan fast enough to keep the Canberra in focus there would be no chance of the background being the same.

CoffmanStarter
17th Nov 2012, 12:57
Also ... if RAAF ... then the guy would have been inverted :E

sharpend
17th Nov 2012, 13:12
Pretty sure it is a fake, but as for the comment re the fan blades being stationary, on the Avon the first stage was inlet guide vanes and they did not revolve; merely altered their angle with rpm.

lomapaseo
17th Nov 2012, 13:45
Wow that's quite a trick with the compressor blades not turning in the first pic

longer ron
17th Nov 2012, 14:00
Yes a/c was on jacks :)

longer ron
17th Nov 2012, 14:09
This is the real deal though... on the 21st Aug 1950 Swede Ralston flew his T-6 through one of the ex Airship Hangars at Tillamook OR,halfway through he rolled inverted and flew out inverted...

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/HarvardTillamook-1.jpg

Runaway Gun
17th Nov 2012, 14:55
Ron, using the T6's inverted fuel system perhaps?

longer ron
17th Nov 2012, 15:41
Swede Ralston had his name painted upside down on his AT 6...he was an Airshow performer :ok:

Best pic I could find...

Google Image Result for http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7184/7041755299_2c61aed666_z.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?q=swede+ralston+AT+6&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbnid=aSrz9CFDD9a1SM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sailorlynx/7041755299/&docid=5wjN0e6XkrhX9M&itg=1&imgurl=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7184/7041755299_2c61aed666_z.jpg&w=640&h=426&ei=l72nUJyICYmIhQeliICAAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=521&vpy=100&dur=841&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=153&ty=105&sig=113339092777250830839&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=207&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:72)

Not his a/c but same paint scheme

longer ron
17th Nov 2012, 15:45
It is fairly well documented RG

Here (http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/misc/hangarplane.htm)

FlightlessParrot
17th Nov 2012, 22:55
From the notes in the link: Ralston (born 1916) "unfortunately ... suffered from congestive heart failure, and passed away November 14, 2007. Many will miss him."

That must make him a truly old, bold pilot.

longer ron
18th Nov 2012, 07:17
Hopefully Coff will not mind if I introduce another pic which is often presented as a mid air collision... but is quite obviously a ground collision - possibly at Speke !


http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/3968644495_3e028c6482_b.jpg


As previously posted...even in the 40's people had a sense of humour with photos :)

Boy_From_Brazil
18th Nov 2012, 08:39
Definately not Speke, they haven't knicked the wheels!

BfB

longer ron
18th Nov 2012, 09:00
:):):)

Just to finish off about Canberras on jacks,if you scroll down in the link below you will find some lovely pics taken during WK163's repaint inc a nice head on with the a/c up on jacks (bottom left in block of images) -if you close the initial image then the main page will open...

Google Image Result for http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/images/pages_images/classic_aircraft/canberra/canberra_wk163_repaint/canberra_wk163_repaint_14_photo.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=ee+canberra+in+hangar&start=87&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1C1ASUM_enGB491GB491&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbnid=3beYGak1FZ74BM:&imgrefurl=http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/royal_air_force_wyton.shtml&docid=ILmatErHmWRorM&imgurl=http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/images/pages_images/classic_aircraft/canberra/canberra_wk163_repaint/canberra_wk163_repaint_14_photo.jpg&w=350&h=233&ei=eLCoUNS_JuSq0QXeq4HgBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=341&vpy=236&dur=585&hovh=154&hovw=232&tx=120&ty=83&sig=113339092777250830839&page=4&tbnh=130&tbnw=196&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:100,i:40)

Roland Pulfrew
18th Nov 2012, 09:12
I have no idea whether that is a genuine photo or not, but there are some lovely comments from people who don't understand photography. Particularly loved "it looks foggy outside", which of course would be much more likely to have been caused by over-exposure. The camera is set to the lower light conditions in the hangar and therefore the outside world would be over exposed and bleached out.

Pallets in the background and ac in focus can all be achieved by using the camera's f-stop. IIRC F-stop wide open (which it would be to allow in maximum light) would also produce a wide (or should that be deep) depth of field.

Just a thought, but if it was a Canberra on jacks it would be in an unusual position on the hangar floor and blocking access to much of the hangar. Aircraft are normally serviced along the side of a hangar.

longer ron
18th Nov 2012, 09:22
It is a small Hangar Roland,I have worked in hangars where the a/c are positioned parallel with the centre line ,an a/c with a tall fin would not reverse into a side slot in a blister hangar...especially jacked up :)
Definitely a jacked up a/c :)

teeteringhead
18th Nov 2012, 13:19
Pallets in the background and ac in focus can all be achieved by using the camera's f-stop. IIRC F-stop wide open (which it would be to allow in maximum light) would also produce a wide (or should that be deep) depth of field. 180 out Roland I'm afraid. Larger aperture (smaller F number) gives narrower depth of field .....

All explained here. (http://photography.about.com/od/takingpictures/ss/DOF_2.htm)

A2QFI
18th Nov 2012, 17:37
In my younger days I worked somewhere abroad where there were HASs with doors at each end I gave consideration to doing a roller through one of them. Didn't consider it for long!

Old Photo.Fanatic
18th Nov 2012, 18:56
I think you may be wrong!!! The whole subject of Depth of Field can be a bit complex being dependant on which criteria you chose.
As I see it in simple terms:
The "F" stop to give most light ie wide open would be the smallest F stop on the camera. eg f2.8
This would reduce he depth of field, in this case if the Aircraft is in focus in the darker conditions of the Hanger , then I would expect the background to be out of focus. Also background should show movement blurring assuming the Photographer was "Panning" the camera.

Also if the photographer had taken the shot at very high speed in the reduced light of the Hanger, then again most light would be needed, so again a small f stop would be required. same result, small depth of field!!

PS
OOOPS, should have read the thread properly, full credit to teeterinhead's
reply, left mine in as an extra observation.

OPF

Trojan1981
18th Nov 2012, 23:53
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh68/trojan1981/Hunter.jpg

I don't know if this is a fake also, but the Canberra certainly appears to be...

Courtney Mil
19th Nov 2012, 17:47
I've been looking at the Canberra and Hunter images and have run them both through a piece of software I use for adjusting white ballance for underwater video. Interesting to note that both are 24 bit colour images of monochrome stills, but only the 'Berra shot shows the discolouration you'd expect from a picture of that age.

It would have been a very good peice of work to fake the Canberra picture as the tone curves of the aircraft are a very close mathe to that of the inside of the hangar - both have similar levels of exposure and ambient light. The Hunter picture has had all the tones removed, which would have made it much easier to match the tones of the aircraft with the rest of the picture.

I know we're not looking at the native format pictures (probably), but the pixelation inthe firat one is a better match too.

Given that one must be a fake, I'd probably suggest that the Hunter pic is the more likely candidate.

Courtney

CoffmanStarter
19th Nov 2012, 18:07
Thanks Courtney ...

That hanger on the Hunter pic looks too familiar ... check out the box on the floor left ... it appears to have the same lettering and in the same position as that on the Canberra pic along with the chap on the floor :8

I also think the Hunter jet exhaust looks a bit sus in terms of the supposed direction of flight ...

Best ...

Coff.

Vitesse
19th Nov 2012, 18:08
Ref the Canberra shot - the wingtip is going to come awfully close to the photographer.

longer ron
19th Nov 2012, 18:48
If you look at the link that I posted to the pic of WK163 up on jacks - you may notice the similar 'Altitude' and also that the a/c is level.
The OP pic a/c is also exactly level...Hmmm would be extremely accurate flying LOL.
The 'foggy' background is a little sus - compare to the Halifax/F5 pic that I posted...also 'foggy' and obviously the Halibag has been painted out for a laugh !
Sorry but I do not buy the canberra pic.....:)

Agaricus bisporus
19th Nov 2012, 18:56
I don't know if this is a fake also, but the Canberra certainly appears to be...

Oh come on! This just goes to show how easy it is to string people along with doctored photos. Its a technique almost as old as photography itself.

The backgrounds of both pics are identical, down to the number painted on the bucket . Is anyone seriously suggesting that guy lay there while a Canberra and a Hunter did that and never moved, and it isn't something the whole world has known about ever since?

That's flat-earth territory!

CoffmanStarter
19th Nov 2012, 19:02
Bu99er ... You mean the Earth is round ... That bloke Mercator has a lot to answer for :suspect:

Agaricus bisporus
19th Nov 2012, 19:18
No No Coffman, that's all wrong. Some ancient Persian or maybe Aristotle discovered it was round, Magellan proved it so and then along came good ol' Mercator and made it flat again. That's the whole point about Mercator, see? Aah well. No wonder everyone's still confused ;)

Courtney Mil
19th Nov 2012, 19:29
The backgrounds of both pics are identical

That's why I said one HAS to be a fake. If both are, I don't know. Just offering some scientific pointers, Old Chap.

Milo Minderbinder
19th Nov 2012, 20:13
I see someone took it into his brain to delete the original that I found, so here it is again

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t56/Curly063/hanger2.jpg


at least I thought it was the original, but then this appeared

http://www.operatorchan.org/v/src/13529380562.jpg

CoffmanStarter
19th Nov 2012, 20:36
Milo ... Is that a Walrus I see on the boat/ship thingy ?

Milo Minderbinder
19th Nov 2012, 21:14
hadn't spotted that....sure looks like it

I wonder which ship that is........its certainly not the Philadelphia

betty swallox
20th Nov 2012, 01:00
How come there's Adolf Hitler's head in the starboard engine nacelle on the Canberra photo?!

betty swallox
20th Nov 2012, 01:03
...or maybe Wg Cdr Spry...

500N
20th Nov 2012, 01:24
The ship looks a bit like HMAS Australia.

Will have to do some research.

500N
20th Nov 2012, 03:42
Not sure if it is HMAS Australia but definitely similar.

I think it is either HMAS Australia at two different stages of her life
- ie after a refit etc - or it is a sister ship.


Here is another photo broadside.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/australia/cruisers/australia/australia_b.jpg

CoffmanStarter
20th Nov 2012, 06:40
Betty old chap I'd start taking the yellow pills as clearly the red ones aren't working :}

CoffmanStarter
20th Nov 2012, 06:48
Agaricus old chap I always found the round/flat Earth debate a bit rhumb :ok:

CoffmanStarter
20th Nov 2012, 06:52
I think some of our Aussie mates might like to comment on the supposed ability of a RAAF Pilot flying a Canbarra through said hanger :E

Courtney Mil
20th Nov 2012, 08:01
Betty old chap I'd start taking the yellow pills as clearly the red ones aren't working

That won't work, Coff. I'm already on the yellow ones and I can see it too now.

Wensleydale
20th Nov 2012, 08:29
The ship is a Norfolk Class cruiser (sub-class of the County Class). Two hulls were laid down - HMS Norfolk and HMS Dorsetshire. HMAS Australia is a Kent Class cruiser (another sub-class of the County Class). The difference is best noted at the rear superstructure behind the "Walrus" and the height of the front superstructure. (Kent Class is much taller here).

500N, I have just had a look at the photograph that is supposed to be "Australia" under your link above. http://www.maritimequest.com/warship...ustralia_b.jpg

Not sure of the source of this link, but the forward superstructure of the ship in the photo is only half-way up funnel height. In my recce book, the front superstructure should be nearly at full funnel height for Kent Class. Similar, but no coconut.

pontifex
20th Nov 2012, 09:49
1964, I was a student at CFS and streamed onto Gnats. We flew from Fairford to get us away from the holy hill. The Arrows were also based there and things were a bit free and easy in those days. No names but I actually saw a couple of the guys fly through one of the huge hangars that the yanks had left there for us. I also recall seeing one with a very bent pitot tube which hade been up the leader's jet pipe. The synchro pair's low runs down the runway in ground effect were worth watching too. Ah! those were the days but the accident rate was horrific.

500N
20th Nov 2012, 10:56
Wensleydale

Thank you. I was never 100% certain as the two didn't jump out at me as being the same but were close and didn't have time to go into it more. Appreciate you sorting it out. I'll let the thread go back to it's original focus.

BOAC
20th Nov 2012, 11:21
I also recall seeing one with a very bent pitot tube which had been up the leader's jet pipe. - yes, yes, but were there any baby Gnats?:)

CoffmanStarter
20th Nov 2012, 11:59
Thanks Courtney ... you see that's my problem ... when Quacks did the Rorschach Test on me I just kept saying "inkblot" !

And still do :ok:

On-line Inkblot Test (http://theinkblot.com/)

Courtney Mil
20th Nov 2012, 14:06
Oh good. I took the test and it said

WARNING: Your "Sickness Quotient" of 91% is very disturbing.

CoffmanStarter
20th Nov 2012, 14:28
See ... I told you "Inkblot" :ok:

Here's mine ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/InkBlot.png

Courtney Mil
20th Nov 2012, 14:32
That's not good, Buddy, that's not good.

hval
20th Nov 2012, 17:33
I think I confused the test thing. This is what I got.

Sickness Quotient: 50%
Congratulations! At a 50% "Sickness Quotient", you're almost well-adjusted.

Detailed Diagnosis

Interpersonal Insights
You complain about everything regardless of what it is. You wouldn't be happy even if you were hit by a new car. You have a positive attitude towards nearly everything, which is incredibly stupid and very annoying to those around you.

Job Performance & Attitude
You aspire to becoming the CEO of a large, powerful company. This is unlikely since you rarely leave your parent's basement. Your primary function at work is to serve as a bad example, but at least you do that very, very well.

Personality Insight
Your personal motto is "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission." And you would certainly know.

cuefaye
22nd Nov 2012, 19:51
Fakes. Trust me. PM me if you're in doubt.

longer ron
25th Nov 2012, 07:54
I had a few minutes googling this morning,the subject a/c jacked up in the Amberley Hangar is alleged to be Canberra Mk20 A84-216 :)

Trojan1981
26th Nov 2012, 23:33
Thanks longer ron :ok:

My goodness you people have a lot of time on your hands...