Probably Chelveston.
What a lot of interest I can find in the image. At first I thought the guy in the right foreground was drawing a sidearm, but I think he’s actually just snicking off his chute, which means he came from the bomber.
Moggy
By: Whitey - 28th February 2012 at 15:29
Hello Moggy.
I’m not sure where the 8th AFHS comes into this. The family of the man who had these photos posted them on our 305th BG facebook page 21st Feb. They had forwarded them to us, the 305th BGMA, some weeks prior to that. As far as I know and can see, they havent been anywhere near the 8th AFHS page. Putting them out on any public website does leave them fair game I guess. Yes they are great shots, taken by the base photo lab team, hence they are super quality. I just ask that where credit is due, they are marked up as such for the sake of the family concerned foremost. Thanks very much.
Hey Paul! No need to apologize. For exactly the same reason, they are out in the public domain and thats what the family wished to do. They have contributed to our 305th page and for that the BGMA are grateful. Regards Ian PS. You didnt make it to Horham on Sunday? Was a long day, but quite interesting in what the people are trying to achieve. Pity you couldnt be there as you could have made it two people from 1st Air Division (401st) and our selves. Ian
By: Moggy C - 28th February 2012 at 08:21
Answered my own question – Port outer probably still running
Moggy
By: Moggy C - 28th February 2012 at 08:11
It looks a while after the incident – Maybe the tender was just some RAF guys rubber-necking?
I wonder was the port outer dead too?
Last flight for this airframe, it was written off subsequently as too badly damaged for repair
Moggy
By: P Bellamy - 28th February 2012 at 00:00
Ex-RAF Crossley fire tender just visible in the background.
Interesting to see one still in use by the 8AF so late in WWII, I’d have expected the 2032nd Engineer Aviation Fire Fighting Platoon (Hethel’s fire cover unit) to have been fully equipped with AAF vehicles by Feb 45.
PB
By: Moggy C - 27th February 2012 at 23:32
Mike JGH wanted to share this with us but was flummoxed by the image posting hurdle
I do love the quality of some of these official photos.
Thought that this pic of a B-24J in similar circumstances might be of interest. The B-24 (serial 42-50548) is from the 389th Bomb Group, Hethel, Norfolk and came down at East Carelton, just short of Hethel, on return from Magdeburg on 15th February 1945.
Moggy
Moderator
By: P Bellamy - 27th February 2012 at 23:19
My apologies Ian,
I had included an accreditation when I typed up my post, along with a bit about them being part of a longer series of photos originally, but it would seem it got misplaced when I copy/pasted it into the reply box.
All the best,
PB
By: Whitey - 27th February 2012 at 20:25
Hello all.
The three images are indeed dramatic. I’m surprised someone hasnt mentioned, er, that these came from the 305th BG Facebook pages. It is as said ship 43-38052 366th Sqn KY-L. Assigned new to group on6th Aug 1944. Gear failure on landing as seen here. Later lost with Emil Potucek crew mission to Cologne. Was known on the Sqn as ”OH NATURAL”. The pictures came from one of the 839th Engineering Company Officer’s, involved in the maintenance-repair of all the ’17s at our field. There are superb images.
Regards Ian White VP – 305th BGMA UK-EU Contact-Group Historian.
(Ian – My original image came from the The Eighth Air Force Historical Society (official) Facebook page, presumably posted there by you? Great images whatever. Moggy)
By: 582-pff - 26th February 2012 at 22:28
Exactly so, T-21.
Moggy posted this for our interest and enjoyment. So lets take advantage of that opportunity. I offer my unreserved apology for inadvertently “kicking somebody in the guts.”
No offence just having a laugh not meant to be a go at you at all chill out!:)
By: Moggy C - 26th February 2012 at 20:32
Many thanks. Such a brief career.
Moggy
By: T-21 - 26th February 2012 at 17:11
92 Bomb Group Podington B-17G 43-37535 JW:F 326 Bomb Sqdn. named “Baby Button” del 4.6.44. Missing in Action 22.9.44 2/Lt M Sample.
By: Moggy C - 26th February 2012 at 16:44
Brilliant stuff.
Can anybody identify the B17 in the video from Last Lightning above?
Moggy
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th February 2012 at 16:14
What a great series of images! Thanks for posting these in addition to that posted by Moggy.
By: P Bellamy - 26th February 2012 at 15:59
Two more photos from the series:
All the best,
PB
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th February 2012 at 15:42
Exactly so, T-21.
Moggy posted this for our interest and enjoyment. So lets take advantage of that opportunity. I offer my unreserved apology for inadvertently “kicking somebody in the guts.”
By: T-21 - 26th February 2012 at 15:34
The date and serial number are on the photo we know the Group so a trawl through Bill Donalds “John Burn One Five” found the necessary serial number to back up Andys reply. Why is there always an inquistion and people being upset . Lets all share the info and help one another,afterall that is what this forum is supposed to be about 🙂
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th February 2012 at 12:33
582-pff
Errr…no. Sorry if it has been misinterpreted that way.
Just that there were a couple of well meaning posts suggesting how one might verify the identity. I was merely trying to explain that my process of coming up with a possible identity was simple (I only do simple!) deduction by using the obvious clue also pointed out by Melvin Hiscock. I think T-21 and others have confirmed that my supposition was correct.
I didn’t intend to offend, but lets get on with discussing Moggy’s excellent photo find.
By: Last Lightning - 26th February 2012 at 12:32
That’s a good find. Though I am not sure what you meant by the damage being different. It looks pretty similar to me.
Moggy
I meant the props, they are bent rather further back in the video than in the photo.
By: 582-pff - 26th February 2012 at 12:24
No magnifying glass…no photoshop….no image enhancement. My deduction was based upon the “a/c 052” inscription as Melvin’s points out.
It was hardly rocket science to find an a/c of that unit with a tail number that ended in 052. Just simple deduction and confirmed by T-21.
hmmmmmmm was that a kick in the guts!
By: Moggy C - 26th February 2012 at 08:04
That’s a good find. Though I am not sure what you meant by the damage being different. It looks pretty similar to me.
Moggy
By: Last Lightning - 26th February 2012 at 00:47
Have a look at this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNvL-zMLOZM&feature=related
I know they are different B-17s and the gear collapsed on different sides but the damage is very different, I think the B-17 in the pic was only traveling at a very slow speed, when the gear collapsed, Taxiing of the grass onto the concrete through a hidden hole perhaps?
Sign In
February 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm