P40 Dennis Copping

I suppose i’m a bit of a cynic Bruce 🙂

Don’t forget there is evidence this wreck was visited some time before recent events. I think it is highly likely it was interfered with previously and would interpret it’s current status carefully.

Lady be Good was remote and heavily souvenired – magpies are everywhere…

It was in the middle of the middle of nowhere – incredibly remote.

I doubt that Souvenirs were on many minds!

It would seem to be the case that at least some items have been taken from the crash site, albeit that this could have been at any time in the past seventy years – including more recently.

But I don’t think anybody has suggested there was / has been a large scale pilfering of the wreck. My suggestion about the possible attempted removal of the seat was born out of a mis-reading of #81, which I presumed to have come with some insider knowledge, and my attempt to make sense of an alternative reason for the buckled seat.

As I say, a shame that information gleaned during the recovery is still not being shared in the UK.

A pity, too, that the ‘third party’ embargo still seems to be preventing the re-instatement of the original thread.

It was in the middle of the middle of nowhere – incredibly remote.

I doubt that Souvenirs were on many minds!

Thank you for that clarification which presumably originates from the recovery team.

What a pity that information is currently only being shared in presentations outside of the UK and, apparently, not even being shared with the family.

As to the buckled seat, the cause being the seat harness pulling down on the seat top did indeed seem to be the most logical cause and was much discussed here, previously. I had misunderstood your #81 which, I thought, was offering some different explanation that I imagined had again originated with the salvage crew.

So why isn’t this detailed knowledge of the crash circumstances being communicated to the family? Or with anyone else for that matter? Unless you happen to live outside of the UK, that is.

The logical scenario is that someone has tried to have the seat away as a souvenir, not that it buckled in the landing

And they logically shut the canopy after their failed attempt?

You will have noted that the seat belt is directly in line with the depression on the seat back?

I would suggest that it is the belt that has deformed the seat.

Mark

The logical scenario is that someone has tried to have the seat away as a souvenir, not that it buckled in the landing

I did say logical scenario.

Mark

I think that I am correct in saying that the evidence from the crash site indicated that, in fact, Flt Sgt Copping’s P40 had landed wheels-up.

The P-40 was being ferried wheels down and landed wheels down, ripping one wheel off in the process.

The undercarriage retracted during the crash landing.

Mark

Not claiming to be an expert of any sort at all, but I have had a (rare) thought with regards to the gear being up or down when the aircraft came down. Being as the under carriage fold backwards up into the underside of the wings on a P40, is there no way the impact of the wheels in the soft sand at a higher speed could have folded the gear back up into the retracted position? Not being a real nut in the field, I guess there is some sort of locking mechanism which would prevent this? Think I have just answered my own query! what a doughnut…

I think this is a possible scenario, although like you I am no expert. If i remember correctly the aircraft had a damaged undercarriage as the result of a heavy landing into the sun the previous evening. For the ferry flight the undercarriage was left down. I do not know if this was a precaution or necessity. I suspect a precaution as I doubt the aircraft was jacked up in the field. From memory one of the gear legs was detached and was lying some distance behind the aircraft one of the wheels having been broken in half. The other undercarriage leg was still in it’s well. I doubt that the gear leg would have been ripped out of its well, although this is possible. Another scenario is that when a forced landing became inevitable or as a means of preserving fuel, the gear was selected up. Possibly due to the damage sustained in the heavy landing one gear retracted and one stayed extended. I am not an expert on the P40 hydraulics but i believe it is open circuit so this should be possible? That would mean on landing the extended gear would be ripped off also i would imagine tipping the aircraft onto its nose hence the loss of the sump and subsequent fire, although this could have occurred in flight and caused the fire. No fuel no fire! The retracted leg would be relatively undamaged as found.
The seat distortion if caused by the seat strap would have excerpted a very large downward force on the shoulder potentially causing quite serious injury in that area. Also if the straps detached the risk of serious head injury is increased significantly.
I think what this debate highlights is that much information on the possible whereabouts of Dennis Copping could and should have been gleaned from the crash sight. This in turn could make a very real difference in the search for his remains. If this has been done then who has this information? No one seems to be forthcoming with any information in the UK all seemingly being lost in a fog of misinformation. In the meantime apparently Mr Manna is giving public speeches on the subject to audiences in USA. All very unsatisfactory!

Not claiming to be an expert of any sort at all, but I have had a (rare) thought with regards to the gear being up or down when the aircraft came down. Being as the under carriage fold backwards up into the underside of the wings on a P40, is there no way the impact of the wheels in the soft sand at a higher speed could have folded the gear back up into the retracted position? Not being a real nut in the field, I guess there is some sort of locking mechanism which would prevent this? Think I have just answered my own query! what a doughnut…

Is the armour missing from behind the seat ? I can see two holes which I have not seen on other P-40 cockpit shots.

I did say logical scenario.

Mark

We are all theorising, here. Well, I suppose it is all we have. However, I’m not convinced that somebody standing on the seat back would have caused that sort of distortion, David, but you could be correct. My thoughts were that, maybe, somebody had tried to crudely lever the seat out with some kind of metal bar or jemmy – but that would presumably have left witness marks on the seat and the frame or whatever it was levered against? Truth is, we don’t know. But if it was damage sustained in the crash landing then it surely would have had potential to cause significant back, spinal or maybe pelvic injuries. Certainly, the damage to the front underside and ripped off prop assembly shows that this was no gentle landing on the sand. It was quite a violent and graunching impact across rock.

Or it could be that the canopy was slid back and someone stood on the top part of the seat in order to lift her pilot out .I am guessing that the seat is pressed aluminium.

Comparing the cockpit shot to other P-40 pictures – is the desert P-40 missing what I guess is seat armour from behind the seat?

Regards the seat -we are looking at a seat design from long before the notion of seat design being used to help in crash survival. So whilst the damage does indicate maybe a very hard pull on the belts – are we looking at a 5G stop or even something more severe ?. We do know that the human body can withstand very high G .

If, as I believe, the shoulder straps feed over the lateral tube rather then directly over the back of the seat, the loading to have distorted the seat in the manner shown in the image would have been enormous.

Mark

It was certainly reported that he flew this sortie with the undercarriage down, but I believe the evidence points to it being ‘up’ at the point of landing.

As you say, a lot of the detail was in the original thread. Maybe it will be reinstated when ‘the third party’ lifts the requested embargo.

Perhaps your right, I’m trying to remember details from the original thread which was pulled over a year ago.

I think that I am correct in saying that the evidence from the crash site indicated that, in fact, Flt Sgt Copping’s P40 had landed wheels-up.

I believe the U/C was fixed down, that being the reason for the ferry flight.

Regards the seat -we are looking at a seat design from long before the notion of seat design being used to help in crash survival. So whilst the damage does indicate maybe a very hard pull on the belts – are we looking at a 5G stop or even something more severe ?. We do know that the human body can withstand very high G . As to the canopy -we are looking at a very long time in the desert and the high accumulation of sand isn’t that telling.

What I would find more interesting is prop analysis to see what its rpm was on impact – the position of the undercarriage and what the cockpit instrumentation was set to. Are we looking at an aircraft out of fuel carrying out a gliding landing or are we looking at a precautionary landing? It would be interesting to know what the aircraft’s expected range was from take off.

I am quoting from a very recent official communication which state 5kms.