Any P-40 experts care to comment on this image?

[JDK]

Mossie, Where does your information about the Pilots relations with his CO come from?

It's quite clearly marked as all quoted from The Telegraph, link and heading provided in Mossie's post. It's NOT Mossie's opinion or information.

Regards,

[Buz]

Additionally the distance was approx. 150 miles (rough estimate), or about 35-40 mins flying even with the damage to the airframes, so certainly not far either.

buz

Hi Buz
Early on in the discussions (on here or FP) I seem to remember (possibly wrongly) that it was at LG-106 and was meant to go to LG-009 which was only 25 west, the location as found is in the general direction of LG-185 (570 miles SSW) which was also know as LG-9 and may be he was heading for there ?

Hi Martin

It was supposed to go from LG09 (quoted LL 30° 58′ 0″ N, 28° 12′ 0″ E) (or 009 depending on your documentation) to LG100 (quoted LL being 30° 26′ 0″ N, 30° 21′ 0″ E home of 53RSU), this is an approx. heading of 100-110 when plotted on a map. The distance is approx.

Buz

[Mossie]

[quote="43-

Mossie, Where does your information about the Pilots relations with his CO come from?[/quote]

Yes sorry, my post was copied from the Telegragh. Where it says 'my sources' , it refers to the Telegraph not mine

[Pathfinder]

The link to the photo gallery is quite good. There is a clear shot of the damage to the port horizontal stabilizer with part punch through and part dented.

I was wondering if this was crash damage or from the mission that crippled her--requiring the flight to the repair depot.

Could you (would you want to) fly a P-40 with that kind of damage in that location? This damage almost mirrors the bullet-holes and denting near the hatch aft of the cockpit.

Thoughts?

[JDK]

I was wondering if this was crash damage or from the mission that crippled her--requiring the flight to the repair depot.

I'd surmise crash damage - there's a number of reasons for thinking that, starting with the fact that the raw metal's visible, not mitigated in any way.

This damage almost mirrors the bullet-holes and denting near the hatch aft of the cockpit.

I think the damage on the aircraft's spine looks like a small charge set off inside the fuselage, not gunfire, unless it's an explosive round, as the holes are all very different sizes (calibres) and exiting from the fuselage interior.

Regards,

[Pathfinder]

Agreed...seeing the impact on one of the .50's I was thinking those hole might have been made by the plane's own guns....wild thought.

The site forensics are history...nothing will ever be learned from materials that were in situ....sad.

[CDF]

There you go, centre hole looks bigger than 50cal, more like Rheinmetal Borsig

[Flat 12x2]

Additionally the distance was approx. 150 miles (rough estimate), or about 35-40 mins flying even with the damage to the airframes, so certainly not far either.

buz

Hi Buz
Early on in the discussions (on here or FP) I seem to remember (possibly wrongly) that it was at LG-106 and was meant to go to LG-009 which was only 25 west, the location as found is in the general direction of LG-185 (570 miles SSW) which was also know as LG-9 and may be he was heading for there ?

Hi Martin

It was supposed to go from LG09 (quoted LL 30° 58′ 0″ N, 28° 12′ 0″ E) (or 009 depending on your documentation) to LG100 (quoted LL being 30° 26′ 0″ N, 30° 21′ 0″ E home of 53RSU), this is an approx. heading of 100-110 when plotted on a map. The distance is approx.

Buz

OK got that thanks.

[shepsair]

hi all

43-2195 and JDK
The loss report states he should have been on a course of 110Deg but headed off at 240 degrees. As for the hard landing, just don't know. It is listed and recorded by another pilot in his book though nothing in the squadron records though these are sparse and only really listed aircraft number, time and a single paragraph. It is possible but it would indicate HS-B was damaged that night as well and he might have been forgiven for a 'hard landing' if he had flak damaged. I still believe this is a flak high from below (you can see daylight from the bottom of the fuselage in one of the videos. Round hit below and went through and peppered the upper fuselage punching out. A think a 20mm would have made more of a mess so I think it is more 13mm explosive round.

13 mm (MG 131)
1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur o. Zerl

The 13mm Panzergranatpatrone was a solid AP round. The Brandsprenggranatpatrone was a conventional HE/I round, a bored-out projectile filled with an explosive mixture. German armourers were warned that the first round fired had to be an AP round: The cap over the muzzle had to be destroyed first, and there was the possibility that the HE/I round would go off when it hit this. Note that for both rounds, tracer was chosen (L'spur, or Leuchtspur) but that there was no selfdestruction (o. Zerl, or ohne Zerlegerung).

JDK, fair enough. Seems to be from Cundy's book. Cundy did fly a lot in his accounts though I believe some of them are movement/transfer flights and escort flights (for ambulance aircraft and so wuld not necessarily listed in squadron records) Also not really combat/front flights.

Pathfinder, I think the the horizontal staberlizer damage was either from the prop (which I discount as it is on the wrong side of the aircraft to where found) but more likely the undercarriage oleo/wheel/tyre when it sheared off.

Cundy's book does make mention about the flight as does Sheppard's. Both seem to recall that day in a lot of detail and I do agree and unusual loss would be more memorable than the day to day. Cannot find any evidence about the hard landing, reprimand or he was depressed but it not take away the fact he was on a single unswerving course by all accounts.

regards

Mark

[Jason]

There you go, centre hole looks bigger than 50cal, more like Rheinmetal Borsig

Sorry if this has already been suggested, but perhaps the damage shown could have been caused by a radio or IFF destructive explosive charge?

I know at least some P-40's carried this equipment, which included a BC-765 dual button controller on the lower r/h side of the cockpit.

I don't know if it was standard fitment or Government Furnished Equipment?

Jason

[Pathfinder]

In my line of research (pathfinders) I have become familiar with a rather unique piece of equipment called PPN-1 which was the man-portable radar signalling device (code name: EUREKA) carried by pathfinder personnel to a drop zone to guide incoming flights.

The PPN-1, being as highly secret as it was, had a red cap on the back side with the word DESTRUCT stamped into it.

Nearly everyone who tries to write about it refers to this destructive element as an "explosive destruct mechanism". I too labored under that misconception for decades. A veteran who carried one--and actually had to destroy one--cleared up the function.

Rather than an explosive--which when you think about it could have negative collateral results--the destruct function was electric.

Pulling the cord under the destruct cap caused a cross circuit that basically super-fried the circuitry. There was no ballistic scatter of exploded parts.

If you're over the age of 50 you will recall the line from the TV show Mission Impossible where "...this tape will self-destruct in five seconds..." That was precisely the nature of the "destruct" charge in the PPN-1....and I am inclined to believe the nature of the destruct function in aircraft radios--if there were such things (?). Over to the radio specialists...

Sorry to ramble over my first cup of coffee.

[JDK]

Interesting! However W.W.II British Commonwealth IFF units did have an explosive destruct charge:

Pilots, who were not familiar with radar, did not appreciate the importance of switching on the IFF. Alongside the switch to turn on the unit was the IFF destruct switch to prevent its capture by the enemy. Many a pilot chose the wrong switch and blew up his IFF unit. The thud of a contained explosion and the acrid smell of burning insulation in the cockpit did not deter many pilots from destroying IFF units time and time again. Eventually, the self destruct switch was secured by a thin wire to prevent its accidental use.

http://jproc.ca/sari/sariff.html

But it does sound like the (contained) explosion wouldn't be big enough to cause structural skin damage to the aircraft. Doesn't rule out an extempore Desert Air Force oversize charge, but much less likely.

Regards,

[John Kerr]

Don't know if this information has been posted yet. Didn't ET-574 have the
US military serial number of 41-35928?

[wingman1]

Don't know if this information has been posted yet. Didn't ET-574 have the
US military serial number of 41-35928?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/1 ... =allsearch

on CNN this AM.


(sorry late to the post on this.)

[Rossco]

Think the charge in the Spitfire was half a stick of Gelignite...