Junkers 88 & The "Battle of Graveney Marshes"

That looks to me like a German VDM prop, although I strongly suspect it came from the sea. Certainly not one of the Seasalter or Whitstable Dorniers, though.

Hope I’m not indulging in too much necromancy here! Whilst guddling around looking for something utterly different, what should I turn up but…

Dunno if anyone can ID it from those, as they’re all I have, but that’s the prop outside the Sportsman.

As a total aside, if you find the photo of the Seasalter Dornier taken from the Sheppey side, you can make out the roof of the Sportsman in the distance. Now if I knew how to track down the film clip of it used in “Spitfire Ace”…

Adrian

So was there anything particularly special, technically, about this Ju88 or is that just newspaper spin?

No, nothing “special” about this aeroplane or its equipment.

Just newspaper “spin”.

Both prop assemblies were torn off as the aircraft hit the lip of a ditch and were laying some yards away in the field behind the aircraft. One of the starboard blades tore into the gondola on the stbd side and you can see the damage in the photo. They simply sheared on impact, tore off the shafts and shattered the reduction gear housing. The blades were metal VDM type. Not wooden.

To clarify, I researched this incident in great detail some twenty five years ago and have eye witness accounts, correspondence from two of the crew, intelligence diaries and the like as well as several photos.

The Daily Mail article was based upon my article in “Blitz Then & Now-Vol 2” and my more recent contributions to “Britain at War” magazine. I supplied some of the material to Bournemouth News Services who sold the story to the Daily Mail. The embelishments to the story are the journalist’s…not mine.

Then I am convinced.

First time I saw a double sheared propeller, but hitting a ditch lop would be the impact force to fracture the shaft.

S! Andy!

To clarify, I researched this incident in great detail some twenty five years ago and have eye witness accounts, correspondence from two of the crew, intelligence diaries and the like as well as several photos.

The Daily Mail article was based upon my article in “Blitz Then & Now-Vol 2” and my more recent contributions to “Britain at War” magazine. I supplied some of the material to Bournemouth News Services who sold the story to the Daily Mail. The embelishments to the story are the journalist’s…not mine.

A…..and when Andy researches something to this depth, he don’t get much wrong…………believe me.

So was there anything particularly special, technically, about this Ju88 or is that just newspaper spin?

Both prop assemblies were torn off as the aircraft hit the lip of a ditch and were laying some yards away in the field behind the aircraft. One of the starboard blades tore into the gondola on the stbd side and you can see the damage in the photo. They simply sheared on impact, tore off the shafts and shattered the reduction gear housing. The blades were metal VDM type. Not wooden.

To clarify, I researched this incident in great detail some twenty five years ago and have eye witness accounts, correspondence from two of the crew, intelligence diaries and the like as well as several photos.

The Daily Mail article was based upon my article in “Blitz Then & Now-Vol 2” and my more recent contributions to “Britain at War” magazine. I supplied some of the material to Bournemouth News Services who sold the story to the Daily Mail. The embelishments to the story are the journalist’s…not mine.

I think we’re getting confused here; the Jumo 211 did use a shaft to mount the propeller and the propeller did have a hub but the shaft was manufactured in two sections. The rear section was mounted in the engine and carried the large reduction gear; the front section was bolted to the rear section at the ‘toothed’ flange that is shown so well in your photographs. This front section was indeed splined to take the propeller hub (the smooth shaft in your photograph is something to do with handling the engine for display I think).

I’m also not disputing the fact that some Ju88 had wooden propeller blades.

As for removing the propellers from the shaft (if that was the case) the easiest way to do it would be to remove the retaining nut and slide the hubs off the splined shafts, leaving the shafts in situ. I suppose it is possible that the front shafts were removed after this was done but the propeller would have to be removed first and again I’m not sure if the front shafts could be removed without removing the annular radiators (which are still in place) and cowlings.

My own conclusion is that the propellers, hubs, shafts and reduction gear were ripped off during the crash.

As for the ‘intelligence men’ I think we may be giving the report in the Daily Mail a bit too much credence; I doubt there was anything particularly special about this Ju88 and the RAF would certainly have a few other examples to examine at this time.

…is that DB 610 behind it??

Yes.

Also, and although the props were torn off when the aircraft hit the bank of a ditch, they were metal VDM blades, not wooden.

Humm, looks like this one was metal.

Wood tends to leave a splintered mess:

While a metal of course tends to be bent around but intact (looks like engine running in feathered position):

But we need to be aware some Jumo 211’s did not use shafts, but hubs (it was not uncommon, Bramo 323 was like that too)

See this VERY large photo of a wooden propeller Jumo, and note the HUB mount.

Now I do see some kind of shaft INSERT (is that DB 610 behind it??), but it may be removable (just a guess).

My guess on those propellers:
I very rarely see propellers sheared off at the shaft, and most of those was due to much harder impact then this 88 had.
I would bet the intelligence men where already at forced landed (I don’t want to call it a wreck, yet) 88 and one of the first things they took was the props, not a very difficult thing to do, just need some muscle.

Come to think of it, a smooth shaft-and-toothed-hub would be easier to mount a prop then the spline shaft common on may allied engine (bet which design is cheaper to make?).

I think we are in danger of 2+2 = 88 here!

Yes, I know, I know! 😀 😀 😀

As always, I bow to your vastly superior knowledge on the subject…..at least I was right about the propellers being torn-off! 🙂

I think we are in danger of 2+2 = 88 here!

I am pretty certain the propellor at the Inn was NOT from the Ju 88 in question.

Also, and although the props were torn off when the aircraft hit the bank of a ditch, they were metal VDM blades, not wooden.

Exactly, the propeller outside the pub being discussed did have a reduction gear attached…

…and looking at the photograph from the Daily Mail the propeller shafts seem to be missing too.

Of course, two-plus-two doesn’t necessarily make four!

Just looking at the Daily Mail photographs it occurs to me that both propellers are missing from the aircraft. Assuming they have been torn from the engines in the crash-landing, as opposed to having been dismantled (the fact that most of the cowlings are still in place would count against this), I suppose it is possible that one of them could have been ‘souvenired’ by the London Irish who were, after all, billeted at the pub?

I believe, at least the early Ju-88’s, had WOODEN propeller blades, and are usually very wide blades. He 111 and Do 17 had narrower aluminum blades.

With few exceptions, one can remove a propeller without removing the cowling.

If “gear reduction” (rather then the pitch change) mechanism is seen, the the engine was smashed, usually suffered from a powerful impact, ie. a crash.

Just looking at the Daily Mail photographs it occurs to me that both propellers are missing from the aircraft. Assuming they have been torn from the engines in the crash-landing, as opposed to having been dismantled (the fact that most of the cowlings are still in place would count against this), I suppose it is possible that one of them could have been ‘souvenired’ by the London Irish who were, after all, billeted at the pub?

If the picture surfaces, Andy, I’ll post it – though as it’s a print from a Boots 126 camera don’t expect high art!
(incidentally, note that EOD let me come down to the bomb with them – I doubt that would happen these days!)

Adrian

I don’t know why, but lurking at the dark recesses of my memory is some hint of this propellor blade. Although I never saw it I am inclined to think it was a British (DH) prop assembly from discussions about it that I must have had eons ago.

Had there been any hint that it was connected to the Graveney Ju88 I am convinced I would have gone up there to see it.

Phew – not as big a wally as I thought! I wondered if there was some terribly arcane significance I might be missing…

Adrian

Yes, that’s what it means…..no bevel, so not from a Do17.

I’m pretty certain it was straight cut rather than bevelled – at least, the gear did not have a 45 degree face to the toothed edge, which is what I’d understand bevelled as meaning. If that makes any sense…

Adrian

I can’t find my photo of the propellor. It was a bent three blader with a dirty great single cog reduction gear behind it. Like that helps…

Actually, if it was only a single cog I’d say it wasn’t from a Do17.

Can you remember if the gear was a bevel gear?