RAF 'Bomber' found off coast of Cornwall

Leaving the Daily Mail garbage aside it set me thinking. Could a Sunderland have been built as an amphibian?

BBC Inside Out

Divers have found the remains of flight W3998 that crashed during take off in 1941

From Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429243/Diving-past-Doomed-Second-World-War-RAF-bomber-discovered-the-sea–70-years-crashed.html

For those not in the South West area – the report on the discovery can be viewed via the I-player – Inside Out South West-23 Sep for the next week or so. (First 10 min’s of programme)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bq4n4/Inside_Out_South_West_23_09_2013/

What annoys me about this kind of lazy journalism is that they seem to take liberties with aviation stories that they wouldn’t dare to take with other subjects.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily true, we know this story stinks because of our interest but might not be able to do the same when they pontificate on other issues without that specialist knowledge. During GW II I was working int and knew just how bad the general standard of reporting was, even with open and honest press briefings. I guess either they haven’t got the time or inclination to do accurate reporting, or possibly worse were too busy following their own agendas. Long and the short of it is – journalists (with a few honorable exceptions) are clueless sensationalists with no consequences or responsibility for accuracy or the effects of their shoddy work.

Three Sunderland crashes within a mile and a half of the Breakwater.

I would be wary of using a bit of crockery alone to say it was W3998 and then adding that it was not in the recorded position.

Given that of all the places in the UK that multiple bearings could be taken at the time of loss this is probably the best supported.

The F1180 (copyright RAF Museum) states that it caught fire on crashing. Of note is the extensive hrs on type of the captain.

Regards
Ross

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221145[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]221146[/ATTACH]

what they call an engine, is that the remains of a nose turret?

What annoys me about this kind of lazy journalism is that they seem to take liberties with aviation stories that they wouldn’t dare to take with other subjects. They wouldn’t dare (for example) refer to HMS Ark Royal as a submarine, or call a Challenger tank an Armoured Personnel Carrier, but it seems when it comes to aviation stories they can’t be bothered with a little basic research and think any old rubbish will do.

The Daily mail is terrible. They admit that a lot of their articles are written in the office without even interviewing.

Still, I would rate the FW200 as one of my dream a/c to see recovered and restored, 2nd only to a Stirling…

Interesting piece from one of the survivors at the end. Run over by the rescue vessel, teeth knocked out and skull fractured. Odd kind of lucky.

Your second sentence is the key. It applies as much to 21 year olds as to 50 year olds but sloppy unresearched journalism is so often the norm these days. And the sub-editors are probably little better.

Well, yes. Basic research should be expected of a journalist writing for a national newspaper. It is depressing that we expect it not to have happened. Being 21 is not an excuse for making stuff up – at least not in print, as a reporter, trainee or otherwise.

It must have been a b*gger painting a different flight number on the fuselage each time.

This is the writer of the report in the Mail.

Sophie Jane Evans
Trainee Reporter at Daily Mail and General Trust plc

…having left University last year aged, 20/21, I suppose, so should we be surprised….?

Were Sunderlands that terrorised by Condors? I’d have thought it was more likely the other way around.

I’d agree. The Condor is often remembered for being fragile and unreliable. The Sunderlands nickname was ‘the flying porcupine’. I’d also much rather ditch in a Sunderland than an FW200!

They would be carrying anti-submarine bombs rather than depth charges, but either way, it isn’t a fighter, is it? It’s for dropping high explosive devices, that makes it a bomber. QED.

It’s just too easy to pick holes in any Daily Mail story.
As far as being a bomber is concerned, I suppose you could refer to a depth charge as being a bomb ?

I bet Dailymail sales went sky high after the article and the website crashed as well. WOW! The only thing that seemed to be right were the photos. Was it Devon or Cornwall or a bit of both?

Apparently it was an ‘airplane’, whatever one of those is…..:confused:
The whole thing reads like it was written for a school rag….not that unusual for any of the tabloids.

But be fair, at least we now know the cause of the mystery accident

As the heavily-laden warplane thundered along its flare-lit runway

the bomber’s engines – unable to cope with its extra payload – suddenly stalled

I can imagine the pilot sitting there going “B****r! Done it again! When will I ever remember that we take off from water in this crate?”

There is so much wrong with that article as usual.

Were Sunderlands that terrorised by Condors? I’d have thought it was more likely the other way around.

Did the RAF really send crews to Gibraltar for a Christmas break, providing air transport for the purpose?

Etc Etc

Moggy

It is from the Daily Fail so you can expect lots of errors!

And it goes without saying that Sunderland ‘bombers’ were also nicknamed ‘air-craft’ because of the large wings that allowed them to stay up in the air.