Cavanaugh CASA 2.111 (Spanish He 111) at Ezell

[Noha307]

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:

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:

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?

[DaveM2]

- My source was a friend of mine who was an engineer at ARCo and was involved in the airframe inspection when it came out of store.
Heinkel He111H-16 was painted on the interior, but that is not unusual for Spanish license built Luftwaffe types, some Buchons also had Messerschmitt painted on their interior- no doubt following the 'type' which was stated on the manuals /drawings etc

- Some smaller parts had German data plates attached but nothing on the airframe structure itself. This is consistent with Germany supplying some airframe accessories along with the drawings.

- The aircraft was likely involved in the Spanish-Ifni war, so any battle damage would be from that involvement.

- I had my German sources contact a He111 specialist and he stated it was possible that one H model airframe was supplied prior to wars end but there is no record confirming that. A couple did crash land during the war, but highly unlikely they were recovered given at that time Spain had no use for them even if they could be salvaged

- Spanish historians state that no airframes were supplied from Germany, all were CASA built from drawings in the 1950s.

Anyway, the museum is doing a great job on the aircraft which sat neglected in storage for decades, so kudos to them. No doubt the debate on the aircraft's origins will continue.

[Steve Nelson]

Awesome news! I've wanted to see one since my Dad introduced me to Battle of Britain as a kid. I've never even seen one on static. Would be awesome to see a flying example!

Come to think of it, I think the only one I've ever seen in person is the one in storage at the USAF Museum. 30 or 40 years ago I caught a glimpse of it behind a partition in the old Annex hangars.

Back in 1993, I was at a model show in Dayton and the Restoration Director from the USAF Museum (Metcalf? Upstrom? I don't recall) gave a talk. He had a piston from a Jumo engine he passed around. He said the museum had a pair of Jumos recovered from a sunken wreck in Norway, and planned to use them to replace the CASA's Merlins to make it a facsimile of an He 111 (like they did with the Buchon now owned by the MAM.) He told a story about how they were trying to figure out how to remove the prop hub when one of the guys leaned on it and it simply slid off and oil started pouring out of the engine. A quick-thinking volunteer collected it in a coffee can so it could be chemically analyzed (not a lot of original WWII German oil samples around.)

Of course, the CASA is still in storage and I don't think the museum has ever done anything with it. I know they've been offering some of their stored aircraft for loan to other museums (they've been trying to sell the Ju 52 for years and I hear their looking for new homes for the B-23 and YC-125.) I have no idea if the CASA is on the list.

SN

[JohnB]

A small point, I was at W-P in 1993 and Upstrom (IIRC, Metcalf was his successor) were both museum directors, not restoration directors.

Upsyrom was removed and retired about that time. As I remember it, there was a feeling at the highest levels of the USAF, that he was running a private fiefdom. His successor, was a retired general and was made to report the the AF Material Command Commander who of course happened to be a W-P.

[Steve Nelson]

A small point, I was at W-P in 1993 and Upstrom (IIRC, Metcalf was his successor) were both museum directors, not restoration directors.

Upsyrom was removed and retired about that time. As I remember it, there was a feeling at the highest levels of the USAF, that he was running a private fiefdom. His successor, was a retired general and was made to report the the AF Material Command Commander who of course happened to be a W-P.

Thanks! I was unsure of the specifics.

SN

[Archer]

Would another engine, say Allisons, be any cheaper?
It might be worth exploring if it encourages owners to restore them to flight.

That was my question as well. If doable (as we've seen with the Erickson HA111.2) I think it could be a better (more economical) route to power this airframe rather than with Merlins or Jumos.

There might not be much difference between a pair of Allisons or a pair of Merlins from an economical standpoint and I think it is usually easier to use an engine type that was actually certified to be used on the airframe. The Allison modification on the Erickson Buchon was mostly done to enable it to look more like a Bf.109, something that you can't do with a Merlin up front, and in that respect, the Allison is easier to operate and more economical than a DB.605 engine. While the Erickson Buchon appears to be a successful modification, don't underestimate the challenges inherent in operating an oddball combination of airframe/engine as opposed to running the 'correct' combination. There are manuals out there with performance data for the Merlin engined CASA 2.111. You would be starting from (mostly) scratch with a different set of engines.

But in the end it's the owner's decision, and all dependent on the depth of their pockets of course.