H87A-2Hi Matt
Thanks for the reminder, I’ll have to get back into contact with him.
Buz
H87A-2Matt
No worries, the identification was taken off line for a couple of reasons these being:-
1. Aircraft sub model – many couldn’t tell the subtype of the P-40, which was clouding the identification, so every suggested ID had to be chased and dis-proven (until the Plate shot was taken).
2. Still lots of discussion if the photos were fake or not
3. There were approx 35 aircraft unaccounted for, more than 1 of which was either ex 260SQN or serving with 260SQN at time of loss. A couple of suggestions were given on a few forums however everyone seemed to go off half cocked without doing the research.
4. Once an Id was confirmed there was more pressing issues to worry about that being a keyboard warrior and trumpeting the identification (mind you there was plenty of that going on once the idea of the id was out there). However with all the trumpeting there was no actual proof of how they got the serial number.
5. The number of abusive PM’s I got (along the lines of you’re wrong, what would you know, I’m an expert on P-40’s because I have three Osprey books etc – one of the reasons I left the board for a long time).
As much as I don’t like the finish of the aircraft now, at least its still in existence. The biggest worry I have is the weakness in the rear fuselage (that fuselage is not straight visually to my eyes), so I hope that it wont cause further damage to something that really needed repairing properly.
The only disappointing thing is the loss of the original paintwork, which I hope was adequately covered with photos during the recovery. One day hopefully these photos will be made available to the masses. At least the answers to the paintwork questions can be seen on the videos still out there (and the fact it looks like Mediterranean Blue not Azure blue unders)
Buz
H87A-2Matt Poole in reply to your #2441
The Plate was not recovered, it remained where it was on the air frame (thus keeping the identity attached to the aircraft). However a request was made for a photo of a plate in a certain position on the aircraft which would confirm the identity, this picture was supplied by way of a video. The data-plate details were cross referenced to Primary source documents which confirmed the identity (since then another video of the aircraft has provided further details confirming the initial identity). This primary source document gave the USAAF serial as well as a fair amount of other data, with further documents cross referenced which gave further information.
The serial number was confirmed properly against primary source docs not a guess/hunch or even a enhanced photo confirmation. However it was not something that was freely thrown around at the time.
Buz
H87A-2Sopwith
There are a number of books out on the P-40, depends on what you are looking for, on the aircraft, variants, or Sqn histories. The more recent releases are better removing some P-40 Myths, but also cost a bit more.
Best books I have seen are Squadron Signals (released in the last couple of years not the early 1990’s one) which gives a basic overview, the best possibly is Curtiss Fighter aircraft by Dean and Hagedorn (however doesn’t go to much into the use on Squadron’s etc all that much), and a couple of the Osprey books on the Snub nosed and long nosed P-40’s by Carl Molesworth.
Buz
H87A-22 questions, if it had been a choice of recovering remains, or the a/c( which is close in this case.) what should have been the priority?
and another scenario if the pilots remains had been found with his parachute as of a bail out, knowing he was from a P-40 would a search for the a/c have been made?
Thats an easy one Jack – If pilot located, pilot first, airframe second…….or both at the same time to keep costs down (if the airframe is to be recovered).
The other scenario – Pilots remains found with parachute – if you can id the pilot, then the airframe is something that can be looked for through other technical means should the want exist. If you can’t ID the pilot the airframe may help identify him and therefore looked for (within reasons to assist in the identification).
I have quite a number of missing P-40 pilots within my records, would love to see them recovered in time, but alas that is just a dream. Same for airframes, I know of a number that could be possibilities for recovery, but time, Political climate and other factors will mean that they will forever remain where they are.
Buz
H87A-2Firstly I will say that I don’t know Tim, PAT1968 or many of you, so I have absolutely no axe to grind, those of you that know me are likely to agree with that.
Honestly I think if FSGT Copping could read some of the carry on here that he might wonder why he gave his total measure. Between the axes to grind and people basically demanding viability of something that was a commercial contract between two entities this thread seems to have lost its way in regard to the aircraft and missing.
To me it sounds like the contract for the recovery of the airframe was undertaken very successfully, a minor search was undertaken for the missing pilot within the equipment of the recovery team which sounds like it was not set up to undertake a major search/recovery operation in a hostile (the desert hates everyone equally) environment. As for the costings of such a contract, a price was given, agreed to and paid. Doesn’t matter what we think of the overall cost Tim really shouldn’t be the target of your frustrations or somewhere to bury your axe.
As PAT1968 puts it “I have made my personal axe grinding issues quite clear, if you genuinely want the bickering to cease as you see it release the information that was obtained at the crash site and give a full account of your activity and the costs.” – Nice mate – there some words for that sort of rubbish here down under but Moggy will likely rearrange my pixels if I say it, so will just say Tim has no requirement to do so. If you want it maybe grab a six pack, head over to Tim’s, share a beer and ask nicely, you might get it.
How about the axes get put back up on the wall, and we get back to discussing the airframe, where it is, who has it, what the future holds for it, and the pilot, whilst hoping for someday a recovery and closure for his family.
Buz
H87A-2Hi Tim
Thanks for the information you posted. I know much has been said about the background to this recovery (sorry I don’t do politics well so will leave that to the rest of you), but at the end of the day she has been recovered thus has a chance to survive much longer than she may have done otherwise. Within time/area and security situation a search was undertaken for the pilot to at least discount close in areas, and that all involved in the recovery got home safely.
Maybe given time she may end up on UK shores with the RAFM or otherwise, but what ever happens she will always be a memorial to the pilot, be it as she was recovered, or in flight, I think all agree that this would be far fitting than ending up as a collection of parts as shown in Mark12’s photos of the Spitfire, as seems to happen quite often (just look at the damage done within only a few months of being found). In the end the story isn’t over yet, the fat lady is only warming up, so hopefully FSGT Copping can be located, and the final page turned in this saga.
Tim PM sent
Regards all
Buz
H87A-2Had a quick look at the info I have for this aircraft and it shows the flight to be the 2nd Aug 1944. Unit was 73OTU aircraft a Kittyhawk Ia (P-40E-1).
His death certificate would have been produced before the aircraft (maybe – looking into this now) and pilot where found and therefore will have been dated on the presumed death date of the 2nd Aug 1944. If after the fact someone requested a new Death Certificate then the date would have been amended.
Buz
H87A-2OTU Tomahawks
Dvas
mmmm 41OTU Tomahawks, as pictures go a very rare beasty. Very few exist, and I’m afraid that the ones I have don’t cover these two aircraft
Buz
H87A-2I apologize because my English is bad, and then I come often misunderstood.
remarks made by the landing gear was retracted SURELY, also switches on board indicate that the landing gear was inside, also the lever on the side of the seat is in the retracted position.
Hi Qattara
Just a quick one for you, the undercarriage doesn’t indicate if it was up or down from the position of the lever in the cockpit. The lever is in the neutral position. The method to drop or raise the U/C on a Kittyhawk is the following.
Safety latch forward (bolt on top of lever)
Lower handle to down/lift to up position
Press the Hydraulic control switch on control stick and hold for a couple of secs after the indicator shows the gear down and locked.
Final check use the hand pump, if high pressure is required to move then gear is down.
Return the control lever to neutral and safety re-engages.
(The emergency method is similar but using the Aux hand pump or Emergency pump (instead of the Hydraulic control) by moving the pump handle from one to the other).
I had a current Kittyhawk pilot look at the photos (one of the earlier ones before the sand filled up the cockpit) and he confirmed that the U/C lever was in neutral. If the u/c was damaged the only way to lower would have been either by the hand pump or the emergency pump. Only way to tell where the pumphandle is would be to remove the sand from the cockpit.
Buz
H87A-2I read that buzz some years ago wrote something on this story:
you can have the text?
many thanks
Hi
The Document you refer to is actually a database of every P-40 built split into 12 segmants, complete with C/N, serial number, ship number, where the aircraft was delievered, as much squadron service as could be found, pictures, and final fates (as can be found), as well as other remarks.
As you can gather I’m pretty much against giving out copies of the complete file, mainly due to the size, the amount of hard work and in the case of photos/Microfilms the amount of money I have paid out to put this file together. On top of that it is still a work in progress as I am always finding out more information (although information is drying up somewhat these days).
With what has been written on this board, the story as far as I have it has already been covered. Hope you can understand my not wanting to publish the complete file (in fact Terry has a very old copy of the file, about 5 years out of date).
I have no issue in providing information from the file at any time.
Buz
H87A-2ET574 the missing serial
Gents
Could anyone that can make out part of or the whole serial on the aircraft side please assist me with where I might find them as my old eyes have given up the ghost and I jusy can’t make them out.
Regards
Buz
H87A-2Bruce
With help from Buz, we knew the location of all of the component tags knowing the main plate was probably missing. The fuselage tag in the scolloped area behind the perspex was the main area we were looking at but there was a number of others which could have been looked at once either someone from the survey team or British Embassy got to site.
Starboard side scolloped perspex was already broken when the team arrived and the tag could be seen.
Now that 1035 has been reported and with the link, it is safe to report that the P40E Kittyhawk in the desert is now confirmed as Curtiss P40E-1-CU Curtiss number 1035, construction number 19761, US serial 41-35928 and British serial ET574.
The Copping family were made aware of the confirmation early last week.
regards
Mark
Ok now the cats out the bag so to speak, let me point out some minor points.
1035 – This number is not a shorten C/N, it is actually a Factory tracking number called a ship number. These don’t always run in Sequence so can stuff you up if you think they do (leads to many a case of aircraft being mis-ID’d), but if you have the records to refer to, are a great way to identify an aircraft when all other information is missing, however (and a big one), is that these numbers are reused, its one of the reasons you have to know the model of P-40 you are looking at (as far as I can tell there is at least 4 aircraft marked as 1035).
Buz
H87A-2P-40 Sahara desert
Hi Shay
According to the Pilot that flew with him the total flight time was supposed to be 35-40 mins so I suggest from LG009 in Egypt is more likely the departure point (remember both aircraft were damaged so normal cruise speed is extremely unlikely to be flown).
As stated earlier this pilot stayed with Coppings aircraft for a fair period of time before breaking away and making his way to LG100 on his own. He arrived after 1:30mins.
Hoping Washlee has the final bit of the story after the wingman broke away.
Roll on a serial number, so we can finally either relate the two stories we have at the moment together (Copping’s Flight and an Unidentified P-40 found in the desert), or we can put a different name to the pilot, and maybe have some fun discussing a new scenario.
Buz
H87A-2Gents,
Myself and another researcher here in Canada can nearly confirm that this is F/Sgt. Dennis C. Copping’s (RAFVR) aircraft with the the airframe serial no. unknown as of yet. It did crash with in a “wheels down” landing as the gear was locked down. We can’t disclose the events on that day or any other information until RAF/MOD or the RAFM release information from there investigation with respects to the pilot’s demise and accident that resulted in this No. 260 Kittyhawk being where it is.
Perhaps someone with access to No. 260’s ORB can review the entries for June 1942 and help ID the serial number of the airframe.
Just wanted to clear the air a bit.
L.W.
CAHS – Toronto
Washlee
Its great you can almost confirm that this is Copping’s aircraft, I can also help you out and almost confirm that it’s a P-40E-1CU modified at 107MU with the baggage hatch door lock. Bit of a throw away statement for both of us and really not much help. The belief is there is a very strong possibility that this is Copping’s aircraft but there are still a number of Kittyhawk’s missing that were never seen to go down, they just ceased to exist along with their pilots, so must be discounted. The only way to discount them is get a serial number.
Why must these aircraft be discounted?, well they were either from 260SQDN or ex 260SQDN aircraft….so once again back to that serial number.
What happened on that day is actually fairly well know as well, Copping took off as part of a small flight of at least two aircraft, possibly a third (third is unknown and can’t be confirmed, in either 260ORB or 53RSU records), to ferry back damaged aircraft back to LG100 (home of 53RSU) (serial number of both aircraft known, and if there was a third it is also known).
It’s known that the pilot of the second aircraft saw him set the wrong course and actually stayed with him for a while, and saw things that the Ground crew and Aircrew would not have seen (and wrote them down). As for the First hand eye witness, I’ll assume that the person is an LRDG member as these were about the only people who would have been this far out in the desert (and even a bit far for them). If a ground unit, then why is Copping still missing? I believe that what you have is someone that maybe saw the aircraft take off (certainly a probability if a Pilot of 260SQDN or Ground crew, or the other Units which where there at the time (don’t need to tell you which ones because you have researched this so already know), maybe even heard the story of what happened (but that would make it second hand info only), but I’m afraid none of that that makes a firsthand eye witness (unless LRDG, then please shake the man’s hand for me, buy him a beer and let me know the cost).
Statements such as you have made are not helpful in any form, the only way we can CONFIRM this is Copping’s Aircraft is to get that serial number, everything else is speculation only until then. Now by the look of things all the normal ways to id the aircraft are missing, which leaves Factory records. So I hope you have a set handy when the number is obtained.
Regards
Buz
Sign In
