DaveM2 wrote:
It was thoroughly checked by ARCo, Duxford, before it went to Hawkinge....they found no evidence the airframe was German built, only some parts which were supplied by Germany along with manufacturing drawings.
Do you happen to have a reliable source for this? The museum is presenting it as if it is an He 111:
Kent Battle of Britain Museum wrote:
More importantly we believe she was built in the early 1940's as a Heinkel He 111H-16 and later converted, including her engines to a CASA 2.111.B.
(Source:
Kent Battle of Britain Museum)
To be clear, based on circumstantial evidence I believe it is actually a Spanish-built CASA 2.111 and the museum is suffering from confirmation bias. It's not that they're being deceitful, they just
want to believe it is a He 111 and so any evidence that supports it is immediately accepted without question. For example:
Kent Battle of Britain Museum wrote:
More information about its past was revealed when the paintwork was removed from the leading edge of the port wing stub, when German style battle damage repair to a bullet hole was discovered, confirming that it had flown with the Luftwaffe during WW2 and had seen combat.
(Source:
Kent Battle of Britain Museum)
What is a "German style battle damage repair"? How do you know it was a bullet hole? (In my experience, people will assume any hole in a piece of military equipment is a bullet hole.) If it is indeed a bullet hole, what makes a "German style" repair different from a Spanish one? Given that the Germans gave the Spanish a license to build He 111s, couldn't it be possible that the "German style battle damage repair" was simply the local mechanics following techniques taught to them by the a German advisor that could have been part of the technology transfer? (Think the Grumman technicians that accompanied the F-14s to Iran.) Or perhaps that was the way the instructions in a structural repair manual said to address the damage. How does a bullet hole prove that an aircraft saw combat? There are a number of ways for an aircraft to be hit by bullets that don't involve combat. (How many warbirds suffered damage while sitting derelict before they were restored? Look at the condition that the
Bf 109 E-1 that was recovered from a dump in Spain.) There are a
lot of assumptions being made in that one sentence.
I'll admit, I'm open to being proved wrong. Maybe there are more details that could substantiate the museum's position. However, at the moment, I have yet to see any of that.
Anyway, to get back to my question at the beginning of this post, could you provide a published source for the examination by ARCo that would help refute the claim? A magazine article perhaps?
_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant
Warbird Philosophy Webmaster