Metal detector finds thread

It’s starting to feel like I’m flogging a dead horse here, but I’ll persevere a little longer.

The larger item appears to be a T.R. Controller face plate, but is it a 1143 or a 1430?

Two separate pieces have transpired to be an instrument or switch mount approx 4cms diameter. Any ideas?

Well we’ve made a start. Middle row far right in the first picture is now identified as the top of the flap lever. And in the second picture top left, the ‘tap’ shaped item appears to be a window latch.

Well now it’s been found let’s use it shall we 😉

Anyways my first visit to a Mosquito crash site bought up a few items as shown. Comments / I.d’s welcome.

You have to be specific about a thread or the nut will not fit

Just realized we can fully moderate again.. !!!! so…  harsh comment removed.. replies tweaked a little ( sorry gents) Hope that helps?

I read this thread’s title and my reaction was to wonder why anyone would need a metal detector to find a thread. Could one not just look for it in the list of thread titles? And even if a metal detector finds a thread, why is it necessary to have a specific thread in order to tell everyone that this has happened? I’m confused.

Well my B-50 Superfortress finds thread seems to of been lost in the mists of time by Key, so any guesses on what this was part of? It reads SAFETY 41M.

My initial thought was part of a gunsight…

Give it to the bluebird guys 🙂

Nice find from people with a metal detector: http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/remnants-me-262-excavated-netherlands.html

Clearly lost on some of you, but an important point none the less. This is why I feel that simply digging random objects up (aviation-related or not), and them squirreling them away to your shed or attic, is perhaps not best practice…

Without the ‘random digging’ by people with metal-detectors, traditional archaeology (of non-aviation objects) in the United Kingdom would be far poorer; some of the most important historical finds in recent years have been made by non-professionals.

As for important ‘contextual’ information being lost I would argue that this is far less important for 1939-1945 aviation objects; our understanding of the period of history in question is probably the most complete of any period of history, it is still in living-memory (just) and it is certainly the most widely understood period of history amongst the general public.

I doubt that any object ‘randomly dug’ on an old airfield and squirrelled-away would have fundamentally changed our understanding of the history of World War Two; which is surely the point of ‘best practice’ in archaeology?

Contextual information relating to time, as much of it is, is irrelevant on major digs of known aircraft; I doubt there are any other branches of ‘archaeology’ where the placing of the object in the ground can be ‘dated’ to within the minute (in many cases) during a six year period!

Or disappear into another flying Spitfire which so many love to carp on endlessly about on this forum, some of these Spitfires and some to come wouldn’t be flying if it wasn’t for this kind of activity. Not to mention projects like the Stirling, Whitley etc have I am sure benefitted

I remember ‘Time Team’ doing a dig on a B-26(?) and getting all ‘ancient monument’ on it, no, you’ve not discovered some previously unknown artefact that will change people’s concept of world history, you’ve got a few scraps of metal from an aircraft that hit the ground at warp factor six, better to save what you can than leave it in the ground where it will disappear relatively quickly – Aluminium isn’t Samianware or stone

I can only imagine that there aren’t going to be many digs that adhere to the high standards (and costs?) of “best practice”. The morality and competency factors in collecting wreck materials is something that does not have to be proven before photos are posted here asking for parts IDs. Naturally, there are lowlifes involved sometimes, and there are responsible wreck enthusiasts, too. And everything in-between.

Before I study a forum posting, I cannot possibly know if “best practice” methods were employed.

Archaeos have their definitions of “best practice”, but my guess is that the economics would stifle most efforts not backed by a deep-pockets investor. Which means that few digs would pass the ‘best practice” test.

I see a few more have come out in defense of this hobby. Perhaps it would be pertinent to read this: http://new.archaeologyuk.org/best-practice

To quote:

All archaeological discoveries have the potential to add to our knowledge, but for this to happen, any new finds must be reported and recorded so that the information they offer can be shared. Also, the place (or context) in which any find is made will yield additional knowledge, as will any materials found in association with the find.

Any disturbance of the relationship between finds and the features they relate to within the ground will result in a loss of knowledge unless it is undertaken carefully using archaeological techniques and with full recording.

Digging for objects can destroy archaeological evidence. In some parts of the country, for instance, top-soils are thin, and archaeological remains may be close to the surface. Even objects apparently adrift in plough-soil have an archaeological setting. Some items will be casual losses, but these can still add to our knowledge.

Many other items will come from archaeological sites (e.g. settlements, cemeteries, buildings) remains of which may survive under the plough-soil or nearby. The cumulative plotting of individual finds can build up into historical patterns. This is why even a single find can add to our existing knowledge.

Clearly lost on some of you, but an important point none the less. This is why I feel that simply digging random objects up (aviation-related or not), and them squirreling them away to your shed or attic, is perhaps not best practice. There seems to be a rich tradition of snaffling away any wreck material you can fit in the back of your car. Glossing over this fact by citing the one time you were able to post wreck remains off to the family of a deceased airman doesn’t cut it for me.

Thank you, Alloy. Very interesting. What were tempests doing at Hawkinge, then? Rhubarbs or anti-Diver patrols?

Anon.

Beat me to it. Checked my hurri one this morning. 6 digits are normally later than Hurri.

Hi Anon,

It is a Hawker number (B124318-9), navigation light window/frame assembly for the Tempest II, V and Fury I.

I don’t have the drawing for the assembly itself, but PNB124320-1, the drawing for the frame has a notice of cancellation for Tempest II (by Mod 171) and Tempest V (series 2) (by Mod 206).

The frame drawing matches your image 🙂

That’s a late mark. The earlier marks required a key.

Ditto for me too, Tony.

Anon.

Miss those days Maple, it’s part of what got be hooked?