Hi Flying Pencil,

This panel and the data plate were collected by the doners father directly from the crash site in August 1940. His route to work (by Bicycle) took him directly past the crash site. Both items came from the same location and the donors father had no other aircraft parts (or they would have been passed to me). The donor was of course aware of these parts and the location they were recovered from. Unless another German aircraft came down in exactly the same spot later on in the war, i’m afraid you are incorrect and both relics relate to the same aircraft.

It has never been repainted. Perhaps the photo does not show how original it is, but you can clearly see this. It has probably lost it’s original patina, not surprising after 60+ years in storage?? The panel is also very dirty! I could clean a section of it….but i’m not going too! The oversparay on the plate is totally original.

Interestingly, i found a good B/W photo of a Do17 on the website suggested by Thorgil, which shows a hatch in this position WITH what looks like a large rectangular plate attached.

I have no doubt that this is what it is and did not start this post as a debate to its authenticity!

Richard

Unfortunately, LW206, a blurry picture that suggests a hatch, or line drawings, are far from proof of your items authenticity, and verbal history are not legitimate in proving provenience.

Right now that panel is still an unknown item.

So what can we do to verify its authenticity?

1. Can you please post dimensions on the panel and both placards in centimeters?
2. The paint, does it feel oily or dry? Do a test of a few drops of water on the surface and see what happens.
3. Examine other German bombers. I have some excellent books on the Ju88 and He111 as well and will look over them next. Eliminating other aircraft makes it likely it is the 17.

Joe

Oh, and could you post a picture of the edge of the panel? I want to study its curve.
Thanks

That is NOT a Do-17z hatch.

I am not even sure it is used anywhere on any Do-17.

I do agree with posters (and Snautzer), it would be close to the engine, but it was very challenging to find proof, or disprove, it being a Do-17z hatch.

What is wrong:
In the 2 images I do have (1 of which is also linked above) that clearly show the area suggested, I see:
1. The 17z hatch is almost certainly square, while the unknown one in topic is rectangular
2. No placards on 17z hatch, well one image shows none, another shows one placard, but not both as seen on this mystery panel.
3. Do-17’s did not use many quick open hatches in general. This is not the first time I was shown a hatch claimed from a 17, but could not find anything that matched.
4. The 17P used a BMW 132 engine, not the Bramo Fafnir 232, and each engine had different cowlings arrangements (mostly same but not identical).

the most telling clue:
5. It is painted green (at least looks green, not the very light color used). The location pointed out would always be painted RLM65 Hellblau.

So what is it?
It might just as easily be a Do-217, and images look about right except, again, the color would be wrong.
It might be to a Do-215. Pictures of those are especially rare, but I saw something that could be it in a likely location and correct color (side of cowling).
Of course, the Ju-88 is often mistaken for a Do-17 due to the similar beetle eye nose.

I have two questions before I can really be certain:
1. Has the part ever been painted post crash? I see some green on the placard.
2. Is their any doubt this part came from another airplane? That is, did the collector collect other aircraft parts?

It might be a good idea to start again, with something more interesting to whet the appetites of the many resident experts here?

Despite what some people have posted, all of it a still perpetuating hoax by the German Propaganda machine, 70 years later (shows how good they were!)

It’s the Messerspit!
Top secret project organized by Galland and funded by Milch to make a fighter “anyone could fly”!
Goering found out and canned it, destroying all evidence (like the Avro Arrow), but a few very rare photos did survive.

Now, I have a special on a bridge in Brooklyn is anyone is interested! 🙂

WUNDEBAR!!

I have some of the big red beacons you find on radio towers. 😉

Centrifugal force has nothing to do with the cup of iced tea remaining stationary on Hoover’s glare shield.

O’rly?? (Oh, really?)
Something about that cup of tea we do not know about?

BTW, Hoover must be a loopy fella (pun). To be able to control an airplane and pour tea at the same time!
I hope the airlines don’t take that idea and in cut backs force pilots to serve drinks to passengers and fly at the same time. 😉

The one and only B-16 Albamitch. I’ll take two.:)

Suggests Albatross used as a stand-in for B-25 in a really awful movie. 😉

Does it seem like everyone is fixated on “1G” or “0G”??

It takes only a slight positive G (>0G) to keep all systems in any vehicle in proper fluid flow.

Since normal level flight usually is 1G, that is from normal gravity, any kind of pull up will increase the G’s.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in doing a level barrel roll (not descending) one must encounter >1G (does not have to be much more) when starting and finishing the roll. I think if descending trajectory when starting then it is possible to maintain around 1G in the roll.