The case of the faked 6-engined Saunders-Roe P.192

Jemiba

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2006
Messages
8,633
Reaction score
3,496
This "version" proved to be just fan art, NOT a real one and so it was move to this section.
It was also added to our blacklist here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26358.msg327144.html#msg327144

Thanks to my friend Paul ("lark"), I've got a picture from Arthur W. J. G. Ord-Humes book
"British Post-War Airliners: A History of Commercial Aircraft 1945-2000", showing what
principally is the well known artist impression of the P.192 . But here, the P.192 isn't powered
by 24 RR Conway engines, but just by six engines set in front of and slightly above the
leading edge, giving that flying boat a somewhat more modern look, I think.
I've made a quick modification to my drawing, but what strikes me, is the sive of those
engines. A rough estimate shows a diameter of at least around 4 meters, more, than that
of the GE 90, powering the B 777. To achieve the same overall power, as the original layout,
one of those engines would have to had a thrust of about 330 kN. Which engine would have
been a suitable choice back then ?
 

Attachments

  • P-192_6-engined.gif
    P-192_6-engined.gif
    145.4 KB · Views: 105
  • P-192_6-engined.jpg
    P-192_6-engined.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 101
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Very interesting, looking at same drawing but 24 Conway version (Giants of the Sky, Bill Gunston, pg 242) it is difficult to think about the identitiy of the engine selected for the 6 engined version.
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Its just a recent photoshop image
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Schneiderman said:
Its just a recent photoshop image
Click to expand...

Maybe, the different motorisation isn't mentioned in the text at all. Would be interesting to get
to know the reason. Or did the author himself fall for that picture ?

If we get a proof for a hoax, I would move that "version" to our blacklist.
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

It first appeared in 2006 on this forum

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread198736/pg1

scroll down to the comments section for the message posted by Waynos

Photoshop and the 'what-if' boys are a blight on aviation history ;)
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Photoshop and the 'what-if' boys are a blight on aviation history
Click to expand...

Wow :eek:

Jemiba, maybe we need to start a blacklist thread
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Blimey, I'm surprised an obvious fake like that slipped past an author like Ord-Humes.
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

Hood said:
Blimey, I'm surprised an obvious fake like that slipped past an author like Ord-Humes.
Click to expand...

I agree, if it truly is taken from his book, but he's not the youngest author around these days so we'll have to forgive him this one. The perils of sourcing images from the internet I guess.
 
Re: Re: Saunders-Roe Princess, Duchess, P.192 and other Flying boat projects

pometablava said:
Photoshop and the 'what-if' boys are a blight on aviation history
Click to expand...

Wow :eek:

Jemiba, maybe we need to start a blacklist thread
Click to expand...


I would suggest a specific sub-forum that covers "fan art" and other fakes that have made it into the world as "real". My suggestion would be to have well-titled threads that present the fake images... but the fakes would be overlaid with undeniable "THIS IS FAKE" watermarks as well as - in the image itself, mind - text describing, where possible, where the image came from and who created it. Make sure that forum is publicly visible. Use the forum as a place to dig up the truth on questionable art when presented; if art checks out as genuine, the thread can be moved to the appropriate forum. If the art s proved to be fake, then the originating post is revised to present the marked-up art.

This would allow the forum to serve as the "I frakin' told you so" source for would-be publishers.
 
Re: 6-engined Saunders-Roe P.192

The idea has merit. The downside is whether we really want this forum to be the repository for the endless output of all the teenage fanboys of the net.
Especially in the third world countries with poor technology but big egos, it is a holy duty for the frustrated nationalists to photoshop their national cockades onto pics of the biggest and longest most modern and glamorous high tech planes, tenks and the rest.

As far as I am concerned, all fanarrt is at best a source of dubious information, and too often simple fakery that complicates the genuine searches. Already the Alternate History and User Artwork sections here have drifted very far from genuine bona fide illustration, into fantasy and sci-fi. I do enjox fantasy and sci-fi as much as the next man, but this forum is not the place where I look for it.

Also, promiscuity tends to create contamination. It is clearly visible that those who frequent the Alternate and fanart subforums sometimes let their phantasies permeate into their posts in the serious parts of the forum. While this is not yet a problem, it is a disturbing drift and I'd propose to avoid anything that risks encouraging it.
 
Re: 6-engined Saunders-Roe P.192

This forum is often quoted as a dependable source of information so we should be very careful not to dilute that by posting material that could be taken as reliable when it is not. We are never going to stop all the photoshop and cgi, and I wouldn't want to, but we must be careful to discriminate between genuine and bogus otherwise we just add to the flood of confusion, so.....

Jemiba PLEASE remove or amend you 3-view. Posting that with a SARO logo just makes the original photoshop image appear genuine
 
Title, drawing and text were modified, so I think, there's no danger, that this forum is the
source for a delusion about this type anymore.

About a blacklist of known fakes, or maybe misinterpretations: We have it here since about 6 years !
And to my opinion, it's still useful and I would ask everybody, that such cases, that aren't listed there
should be added to form an index of Not-real-projects.

This case is one of those, which actually comes from a book of a serious and principally reliable author,
though perhaps he shouldn't be blamed personally, as long, as we don't know details about the making
of that book. As I said, that version isn't mentioned at all, so perhaps the sketch was just inserted by the
publisher, not by the author himself.

But at least for me, it's again an eye-opener, as I have to admit, that I didn't scrutinised that source. Again,
I don't think of any kind of maliciousness here, just of something like a quick Google search to find a picture of
the P.192 and no careful editing before printing. Can happen to everyone, I think, writing books or just posting
here, so it's our task to be careful.
This thread may be my favourite answer in the future, if there's an answer in a discussion like " ... but it is mentioned
in the book ! " ;)

EDIT: I've just move this thread, as well as the blacklist thread here to this section, as types and designs in the
"Theoretical and Speculative" section at least may have a serious background (like a diploma project), though they
weren't intended to be realised.
 
We have it here since about 6 years !
Click to expand...

I totally forgot we got it!

Since we are commited with study and preservation of unbuilt projects, a thread on the most relevant fake projects together with a tight policy of font citation can help to avoid confussion or contamination in our research and files.
 
Re: 6-engined Saunders-Roe P.192

dan_inbox said:
The idea has merit. The downside is whether we really want this forum to be the repository for the endless output of all the teenage fanboys of the net.
Click to expand...

What I'd recommend is to ignore the obvious nonsense, and use this place as a source of debunkery for images that *have* infected honest scholarship. It's hard - ok, impossible - to get ahead of that, but where fakes are known and are known to be causing trouble... stomp on 'em. Include the pictures, but make sure to include "This is fake watermarks on them in such a way that anybody else wants to use them, they'll have to either find them elsewhere or scrape the watermark off.

People produce fakes at a rate far beyond the ability to categorize, but only a fraction of them get seriously mistaken for the real thing. And when that happens, it needs to be pointed out. Where better than the SPF? Sure as hell won't be ATS.

As for user/fan art: I'd *really* prefer it if SPF only hosted, say, fan art of the Boeing Model 2050E Dyna Soar... not fan art of the Lockheed X-75 hyperdrive-equipped Klagenfurt Mark IV, or the Boeing model 2050E-Zwilling twin-fuselage Dyna Soar. The first has merit for this place. The latter fictional concepts... not so much.
 
Orionblamblam said:
... but make sure to include "This is fake" watermarks on them in such a way that anybody else wants to use them, they'll have to either find them elsewhere or scrape the watermark off.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan ! Will try to stamp the pictures in that thread during the next one or two weeks. If someone
else can do it quicker, ok ...
 
Don't rely on the internet!

If you're going to take an image seriously, ask for the paper provenance.
 
I principally agree, but that picture actually WAS printed in a book ! And that's exactly, what gives such
faults an even bigger impact. Maybe it's mainly a problem of my generation, but something printed seems to
be more trustworthy, I think. Just browse through lots of threads here and count how often there are statements
like " ... but it's mentioned in that book, too !", simply not taking into account, that at least today the preparatory
work is often done, or at least supported online.
Again, I won't blame the author for that error, I can imagine, that it's just the result of a quick addition by the
publisher. That the different motorisation wasn't mentioned in the text should have been a warning to me.
There are lots of books on the market, where you can find similar things, like gaps on a page filled with a photo, that
in the end has not really much to do with the content. And such things are probably in most cases done by te publisher,
not by the author.
 
I have to agree with Jemiba, we've all seen images in books and thought 'What's that doing in there?' Generally down to a publisher thinking it was 'Cool' and most folk won't know any better. Such images now inhabit the click-bait margins on many websites. I seem to recall someone saying that if the headline ends with a '?' it's garbage.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
I have to agree with Jemiba, we've all seen images in books and thought 'What's that doing in there?' Generally down to a publisher thinking it was 'Cool' and most folk won't know any better. Such images now inhabit the click-bait margins on many websites. I seem to recall someone saying that if the headline ends with a '?' it's garbage.

Chris
Click to expand...

Betteridge's law of headlines is one name for an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
 
As I made my cup of tea, the NZ Breakfast TV show said "Coming up after the break - Teething - do the alternative remedies work?".
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom