The thing with spraying is that unless you get 100% coverage of all the parts it will continue to corrode no matter what ! Whilst its possibly more time consuming to break it down into smaller components and physically clean and treat each item by hand would probably be quicker in the long term and more cost effective. There are going to areas in the airframe where to stand a chance of stopping the corrosion it will need derivetting.

If it makes you feel better, I will gladly get a garden hose and spend hours on end making sure each crevices is properly washed, every day.

😀

First, the data plate in question came, I think, from the wing/fuselage fillet section and is sub-assembly plate from a section of the airframe manufactured under licence from Henschel AG.

It shows us the drawing number (Zeichnung Nummer) and order number (Bestellen Nummer) for this part and that it is for a Dornier 17-Z. I do not believe that this data plate has any relevance to the supposed identity W.Nr 1160. I have three identitcal data plates from Do 17Z aircraft lost over Britain in 1940. None of them bear any number or inscription that relates to the identity of the aircraft.

I agree that the article for which Xtangomike supplies a link tells us that a data plate confirming 1160 has been found on the fuselage. The associated photograph rather implies that the data plate illustrated is the data plate that confirms the identity. I do not think this can possibly be the case, and if a data plate has been found that confirms 1160 then we have not yet seen an image of it.

I would also add that Chris Goss, who has been acting as historical adviser to RAFM posted on Friday:

“Latest update: Most of the dismantling is complete and it will be moved to Cosford soon. Still no positive proof but they are still hunting for the evidence that this was 5K+AR so whatever you read in the Press in the coming days:
1. It is still not definitely 5K+AR
2. It was not definitely shot down by Desmond Hughes of 264 Sqn
3. It was not attacking Debden but Manston.
4. There is no evidence that they got lost in cloud as if you stand in the harbour at Ramsgate, the target is behind you and you could see where the planed ended up! The captured crew probably spun a yarn to their interrogators (who wouldn’t!)
5. Any photo showing 3 crewmen (one has an eye patch) in front of a Do 17’s nose does not show Effmert on the left but Willi Lüder who transferred to KG 28 and then 4/LG 1 and was taken POW 15 Aug 40 (one of the perils of illegally lifting photos from one of my books!)
6. There is no evidence that any of the crew baled out but what we can say is the pilot was still on board when it landed on the sea.
7. Correct me if I am wrong but Ste Trond was not changed to Ste Truiden after the war-it has always had the French and Flemmish names?

More to come!”
…

GREAT job keeping the facts in order, Andy!

Cant wait to see that “more”!

No word.

The picture on this site is amazing!
New desktop!

In case people didn’t catch it, yes I AM happy it is recovered.

I had high hopes looking at the Plan A cage the recovery would be more successful.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217529[/ATTACH]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339105/Back-deep–600-000-rescue-operation-lifts-German-bomber-Channel-bed.html

YE GADS!

No wonder the tail was broken like it was!
It is an after the fact image, but I am pretty sure anyone seeing the setup would say the rear needed better support.

If you visited sites that deal with crew training, that is one way you would receive such advertising.

Difficult to remove watermarks will make it hard to steal the image, and you can also sue the one using it, although it may be hard in this global world.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in any Air Intelligence ‘K’ Report relating to the two POWs taken from what isBut reasonable supposition would surely support the suggestion that it entered the water in level flight, perhaps slightly tail-down, and then sank before settling onto the sea bed on its back.

I agree with you Andy.

2 other sunken LW bombers ended up on their back despite entering the water level.

Many films of ditching aircraft show a nose-low, tail high attitude, eventually sinking straight down, hit the floor, and then pushed over by currents. The sonar images show clearly defined wingtips, which would be unlikely if the tip hit and then flipped over.

Will see more clues when it is pulled out.

In the absence of anything being suggested otherwise then I am quite sure it wasn’t a bomb – else we would doubtless have heard by now!

However, I am unclear and somewhat curious as to how you have ‘scaled’ this object to determine it is not the correct size?? Having seen and handled a good few 50kg bombs (including on recovery operations) I can only say that it looked extraordinarily like one when it popped into view, and others agreed. You seem to be suggesting its size must be only about 30cm long?

I have studied the 17’s bombbay much over the years, and the mystery object you pointed out simply does not come close to the size of a 50Kg, although it is obscured and covered in sand.
I also viewed the full length copies of the dive video and the diver did not find anything like a bomb in his rummaging abound the bay.

I also saw and photoed 50kg bombs in person and I can definitely see the similarities, but the scale simply did not match some technical drawings I had. I could say it should be 2x larger, but it is simply too small IMHO.