Real Life aircraft challenge

[K4KittyCrew]

Richard,

The more I look at it, the more I can see 4 engines of a lanc. Just don't ask me which squadron it was from!
John

[Upkeep]

I lifted the original from TOCH (not that I don't trust Max of course !) and put it through the mill. And it is very odd. There are quite a few patches and blemishes, mostly circular, as you might expect. I'm quite prepared to believe the No 1 engine is there, but what I find strange is that the circular blemish over the wing and where the No4 engine would be would seem to have neatly removed the engine without affecting the image of the wing at all. It really is as if that engine isn't there.

[ME453]

I think it's definitely a Lancaster. The sharp bits of the picture - the profiles of the wing shape and the tailplane and elevators are Lancaster for sure. The "missing" engine I'm prepared to put down to atmospherics/light/camera etc etc.

[halifax1]

I suppose one should not perhaps apply logic.

The image is poor - thus it was presumably taken in unfavourable conditions - possibly the image was a long way away. So if it were a Lancaster - and I would expect the photographer could "see' the image better than the camera then why photograph it?? Or like us did the crew not recognise it and took the photo for "intelligence"? I also believe that the carrying of cameras for personal use was forbidden. Even if it were a crew member breaking the rules, why? Yes he might have done but would he have bothered to keep it??

[K4KittyCrew]

Could it have been taken by a bomb aimer who happened to be in the early stages of a bombing run? The way the photo is would seem to reflect as such. Maybe he was ready to 'drop' and the lanc below was in the way, so he has taken the photo to justify his reasoning for not dropping the pill......................... "Around again please skipper"
John

[R5868]

Just to pose another possibility. Was it a moonlit night at low altitude over water? It could be a reflection of their own aircraft. That would account for being indistinct and missing engines.
Kerry

[halifax1]

Well there we are - a myriad of possibilities - and bias in favour of a Lancaster. Frankly I do not think there is any argument in favour of - or against any of - the suggestions here. Any of them could be right. Must admit I am having difficulty with "four" engines though.

[ME453]

Here's the original shot that Richard K posted:



Clearly Berlin on 28/29 Jan 44 and I think it's a Lanc at lower altitude over the target area. I can see three engines, the one on the starboard wing is more difficult to discern but the lighting difficulties encountered with these shots can easily account for that.

[Upkeep]

Well, one thing's for sure - if it's 44, then it sure as hell ain't a Manchester !