New Rudolph Hess Me110 theory..

The same thought had occurred to me; (some of) the airframe was displayed and kept in storage from the moment its significance was realised.

Just as likely as any deliberate act of ‘sabotage’ or bad planning.

So how do we explain the ‘brass nut’ (presumably) blanking-off the auxiliary oil tank pipe?

Could it have been fitted by an RAF ‘erk’ or even a museum curator to stop an annoying drip of oil from an open pipe?

…any conspiracy theories about a British agent in the back seat…

Is that what this new book is suggesting?

Hess had the oxygen system in his ‘personal’ Bf110 modified so that there was not a separate supply for the Observer; the Pilot could use all the oxygen supply provided for both crew. This was done by Messerschmitt and is the only sort of ‘help’ I was suggesting.

There is also evidence, again from Hess himself, that he had the Bf110 modified so that he could transfer the oil from the auxiliary tank from the pilot’s seat. I am not sure how this transfer works; German aircraft so probably an electric transfer pump? Anybody know?

Hess said he was carrying two 900 litre drop-tanks (that he dropped); why would he lie?

Hess was also a very accomplished aviator who was taught to fly the Bf110 by the Chief Test Pilot at Augsburg and he certainly had the influence to have minor modifications made to what was, effectively, his personal aircraft. I am not sure but I think Hess had made several solo flights in this, and other, Bf110 in the months before his flight to Scotland…

…the impression that Hess just rolled-up and commandeered any old Bf110 or ‘stole’ one just before the flight is very wide of the mark; this was a carefully planned operation by somebody who knew exactly what he was doing.

The fact that Hess had ‘help’ isn’t a revelation but I am not sure what theory this new book is trying to support.

There was a hope from many on the Axis side that they could persuade the Allies to make peace, then after Barbarossa, join them fighting the Soviets. I think that overtures were made by the Axis on a number of occasions. Doubtless, the Allies were a little sensitive about this, perhaps not wanting to appear like they were dismissing attempts at ‘Peace’.
As for the Mail article;- ‘Hess was captured by the Allies in 1941 after he was discovered flying low over Scotland to see the Duke of Hamilton – a man he had never met – who he hoped would persuade Britain to the negotiating table.’ Well,The ‘captured’ and ‘discovered’ are rather an exaggeration. He got to where he wanted to be and bailed-out fully expecting at some point to be put into the hands of the authorities.
I was never convinced that Hess acted alone anyway. Either way, he clearly had enough fuel and oil to get where he wanted, so this ‘new’ information doesn’t really change anything. I wonder if there are still any sealed documents on this episode at Kew…?

The fact that he was flying an E-2/N does not mean that it was actually fitted with the 900litre tanks which would require the additional oil. Any oil found on site could have been residual from an earlier mission.

Sorry (not) if this bashes on the head any conspiracy theories about a British agent in the back seat…

As I think Hess was on his own, and if the back-seater was responsible for the transfer of fuel from the auxiliary tank ……….

According to ‘The Flight of Rudolf Hess’ by Roy Conyers Nesbit and Georges Van Acker Rudolf Hess was flying a Bf110E-2/N long-range fighter-bomber.

This was fitted with two DB601N engines with a 375 litre and a 260 litre in each wing and a 900 litre drop-tank under each wing. Flying at 490 km/h at 5000 metres this would give a range of about 2000 km (Augsburg is 1350 km from Glasgow as the crow flies).

Apparently an auxiliary oil tank was found at the crash-site; this could have held an additional 75 litres of engine oil. Each engine had an oil tank containing 35 litres of oil and there is a figure quoted of 7.5 litres for the oil-burn for each engine per hour. The transfer of oil from the auxiliary oil tank was done manually from the rear seat of the Bf110 (as was the jettison).

So it seems that the Bf110 that Hess flew not only needed this auxiliary oil tank but that it was definitely fitted with one. When found, the oil tank (misidentified as a fuel tank) contained ‘only three or four gallons of fuel (oil)’ but it is impossible to say how much oil could have leaked away from the, presumably, damaged tank.

So how do we explain the ‘brass nut’ (presumably) blanking-off the auxiliary oil tank pipe?

I am always interested to hear any new theory, especially one based on definite technical evidence, but I am wondering where the ‘blanked-off’ oil pipe is?

Not much of the Bf110 still survives; the engines and a section of fuselage only. The engine oil tanks and pipe-work probably do not exist completely so I am guessing that the ‘brass nut’ blanking-off the ‘other’ oil tank is located in a section of pipe in the remaining fuselage. How many standard Bf110 had this oil tank?

I’m guessing not many (from photographic evidence) so how were the oil pipes on these blanked-off…

…’brass nut’?

Except on aircraft with a total-loss lubrication system, oil consumption is a very different thing to fuel consumption…

But oil consumption is also surprisingly heavy on aero-engines of the period; measured in gallons per hour usually!

This may tie-in with something that I’ve always found curious; a cut-away drawing from ‘Flight’ that details a jettisonable extra oil tank that was located under the rear fuselage of a Bf110. Now these original cut-away drawings were often done from shot-down aircraft so it is probably not an invention by the artist (will look it up)…

…so is this the ‘oil tank’ that was blanked-off from the Bf110 Hess flew?

Five hours may be a long flight for a Bf110 but Hess knew he wasn’t flying back and he also probably wasn’t using much ‘combat power’ so his (considerable) ‘normal’ engine oil tanks would probably have lasted that long; anyway when the oil did run low what would the result be? He could always bale-out, as he did, when the oil ran out; up to that point increased engine temperature and wear would be the only result…..so what!

The implication about fuel is that why would a Bf110 not need fuel if it had to land to top-up oil…

…answer…..it didn’t need fuel so it didn’t need oil!

Do we give the story the credence it might deserve beating in mind where it has been published?

Didn’t read it ‘beating’ in mind where its published, but it doesn’t sound like I’m missing much.

It would be interesting to hear the author’s view, unfiltered by the gutter tabloid and its ‘journalists’

Moggy

Do we give the story the credence it might deserve bearing in mind where it has been published?

I’m no expert either, but it doesn’t say fuel, it says oil. Except on aircraft with a total-loss lubrication system, oil consumption is a very different thing to fuel consumption and nowhere near as easily predictable, either before or after the event.

If you’re of a mind for conspiracy theory (let me say I’m not), doesn’t the blocking of an oil line with a brass nut suggest more that someone was trying nefarious means to stop him, not help him?

Article makes absolutely no sense. Half the time they are referring to an oil line & the other half they call it a fuel line. If they can’t even get that part of the story squared away the rest of the theory is a very **** poor waste of effort.

I’m no expert but having read this it doesn’t scream conspiracy! Surely if the deputy fuhrer lands and requests fuel no right minded person in Germany at that time would refuse or even be likely to question him.