Warbird Information Exchange

This is either an RAF or RCAF Typhoon and it looks to be in the process of being disassembled?

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

What an awesome, evocative photo. Many thanks again for posting Mark.

I was going to make a wisecrack and say "Please send these bits of Typhoon to Ian Slater at https://www.typhoonlegacy.com/ "
It will save him no end of trouble.

But!

If you look at the website in the link, the second photo down looks to be the same machine a little earlier in the process!

https://www.typhoonlegacy.com/

Andy

From that photo Andy, it may not be a "tear down" but perhaps a "build up"?

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

Very much depends on which order the photos were taken. It seems unlikely that an aircraft would be built up in this way at an off-base/rudimentary location. More likely it would go via Queen Mary trailer to an MU, be built up and flown to its user unit.

Incidentally the Auster/L-3 at left further indicates that this is the recovery of an aircraft which has force-landed. And what's the betting it was engine-related?

Certainly could be going either way.
If she force landed, it was with the gear down.
Truly awesome machine.
Mark, hope you don't mind me plugging the rebuild project.
Ian Slater just released his lates Youtube episode. Some great insight in to the engineering involved with this amazing aeroplane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7C7EYd ... gacyCo.Ltd.

Andy

Not at all Andy. Thx for posting. We have two guys posting with a great deal of insight. Great stuff as always.

M

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

It is certainly an interesting way to take an aeroplane apart. I would think you would take the prop off and remove the engine before removing other big chunks.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

From the sequence of the RCAF reference numbers it would seem the rear fuselage monocoque was being added rather than removed. The date was 21 August 1944 and it is likely that the aircraft was being reassembled at one of the RAF strips in Normandy, for transport back to the UK.

Part of the aircraft serial number is visible and taken with the part code letters it is possible to identify the Typhoon as MN860 OV-G (197 Sqn) which was badly damaged in a combat with Bf109s on 13 July 1944, near Lisieux. The pilot, John Rook, managed a wheels down landing at a strip in Normandy, despite serious damage to both wings. More than 30 years later he told me he had latched on to a 109 which was on his No 1's tail but was hit in the rear fuselage by 20mm ground fire (possibly the patch visible on the 'G' in the second photo). He continued "I broke away to avoid this and not seeing any further aircraft decided to return to base. I came down out of cloud and was suddenly bounced by a 109. The first I knew of the attack was seeing 20mm fire passing my cockpit and hitting the wings. I threw all the controls in one corner and opened the throttle wide with full fine pitch. I screamed round after the 109 and saw him suddenly stall and spin off." After landing Rook found seventeen 20mm cannon shells had hit the wings, including one in the main spar. There were holes in the propeller and gouges out of both side of the engine cowling.

MN860 was declared 'category B' and allocated to 'Repair in Works' on 28 August 1944, which meant return to the UK and repair at a major facility, most likely Marshall of Cambridge or Taylorcraft at Rearsby, both of which held Typhoon repair contracts. Repair was completed by 28 October 1944 and 9 days later it was delivered to No 51 MU, RAF Lichfield.

Nice detail but notice the Auster: I think this would be the forced-landing site and so a tear-down prior to despatch for repair. I can't imagine it being dismantled and then reassembled here or anywhere else for despatch to UK. More sense surely to just do it at the off-base location. Also why reattach the rear fuselage (for transport) with the prop in place?

I guess I won't complain about "data plate rebuilds" being ahistorical any more.

August

I just can't imagine anyone complaining if this project makes its way to fruition.
I'd love to hear a Napier Sabre run, nevermind at full chat!

Andy

I cannot see the significance of the presence of an Auster in relation to a forced landing. The RCAF captions state the photos show the work of a Repair and Salvage Unit. Most 2ndTAF squadrons had Austers for comms work and at least three R&SU handled Austers as well as Typhoons.

Some repair work has been carried out - note the repair patch on the rear fuselage - but perhaps (unexpectedly) it had reached a point beyond the R&SUs scope. It may have been part reassembled for ease of loading on a Queen Mary. Note the date of the photo is some 5 weeks after the date of the damage and only a week before the aircraft was reported 'Repaired in Works' in the UK.

I have tried to determine which R&SU is shown in the photo. 197 Sqn were still based at Hurn in the UK when MN860 was damaged, but were operating temporarily from B.15 Ryes and that is where Rook landed, wheels down, after the operation described above. Unlike many of the Normandy strips, this did not have a resident R&SU. The two photos which started this conversation were followed in the RCAF sequence by a shot featuring a pair of 438 Sqn Typhoons, suggesting (no more) that the photos could have been taken at the latter unit's base, B.9 Lantheuil. This airfield was also the home of 419 R&SU, which handled both Typhoons and Austers as well as other fighter types. So ... just maybe.

I know the Napier Sabre was a huge lump but take the aeroplane off the engine, or start with the engine and attach an aeroplane, depending on what exactly is happening, is a new method to me.