On The Deck

[Airframes]

What did that pilot have against the perimeter fence

His feet?

 

[Njaco]

 

[Gnomey]

Good shots guys!

 

[gumbyk]

1987 - Dino Martin Jr.

Had I known that, I may not have posted it.

but... it does put it out there that this sort of flying is risky business. It doesn't take much for it to all end very badly.

I'd be fairly safe in saying that for every photo here, there are many more dead because of this sort of flying.

 

[Njaco]

Ok, the Phantom pic is NOT Dino Martin Jr. I was making a bad joke as Dean's son was killed in a National Guard Phantom in 1987. So you are safe gumbyk. It was a good pic. I should take my meds sooner.

 

[gumbyk]

Ok, the Phantom pic is NOT Dino Martin Jr. I was making a bad joke as Dean's son was killed in a National Guard Phantom in 1987. So you are safe gumbyk. It was a good pic. I should take my meds sooner.

phew!!

still makes you think though..

 

[Wayne Little]

Love that Phantom shot!

 

[stona]

That's an early shot of the M.B.5. The serial (R2496) hasn't been applied. I wonder where the photo was taken? Maybe Harwell?

A beautiful aeroplane, once described as a cross between a P-51 and a V2 rocket

Cheers

Steve

 

[vikingBerserker]

I agree. I think his work was very under rated.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Beautiful airplane

 

[Lucky13]

Seeing that there were some more modern stuff posted....

Now, a Canberra isn't really a small plane...

 

[fubar57]

Something familiar about that photo.....

Geo

 

[GrauGeist]

Something familiar about that photo.....

Geo

yep, there was a discussion about it some time back...

It was manipulated...I suppose the first clue would be the lack of a pilot in the cockpit...

 

[Lucky13]

Really?
Who's the guy in cockpit, navigator?

 

[GrauGeist]

Really?
Who's the guy in cockpit, navigator?

The aircraft was being serviced, there is no one in the cockpit.

From a photography standpoint, there is too many things wrong for that to have been real. In a shadowed hangar, the shutter speed would be reduced to preserve clarity of stationary images, especially if the depth-of-feild were adjusted to keep focus in the foreground and background. with that in mind, the passing aircraft would be a blur. If the camera was "panning" to match the motion of the aircraft, the hangar's interior details would be a blur.

Here, check these out!

And how about the real deal?

A RAAF A84 thrashes on some mechanics about 25 feet off the deck

 

[Gnomey]

8)

 

[Njaco]

Yup, already discussed...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/deck-27561-9.html

.... and here is the original. You can tell by the blurred lines.

.

 

[pbehn]

Yup, already discussed...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/deck-27561-9.html

.... and here is the original. You can tell by the blurred lines.

.
View attachment 268977

That hanger must be freakin enormous!

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Along with the guy lying on the floor.

 

[Airframes]

No, for that shot, Scotty reversed polarity on two of the warp drives, which enabled the 'Shrink Drive' to be engaged, thereby allowing the craft to 'shape shift' to the required dimensions to clear the hangar. Of course, this meant that speed was greatly reduced, allowing the photographer to capture an otherwise impossible shot ..........