BobKatLaurent has been at his detective work again. He has found a picture of NX664 with a virtually identical joint to ours. It has the second of the six forward rivets seemingly flattened and either replaced or supplemented with a smaller rivet in exactly the same place as ours. There is also a small hole in the flat area to the right, again as is present in ours.
Although somewhat academic in the sense that we now know where our piece comes from, it does pose an interesting question. The Lancaster photographed at Hendon (with the conventional six/five rivet arrangement) is a Mk.I version built by Metropolitan-Vickers. NX664 is a Mk.VII version built by Austin Motors. FM104 is a Mk.X version built by Victory Aircraft in Ontario. ED908 was a Mk.III version built by Avro. So we have four different manufacturers of four different versions. Does all this mean that there were minor variations in the later versions built in England? If so, this could also explain why our rib no.17 was numbered 3/F.4537 and not 1/F.4537 as in Air Ministry’s list. It may be impossible to find out, but if we could establish a later numbering from a parts listing, this could provide conclusive proof that we have (or do not have) the port wing!
The variation of our piece from ‘standard’ does not seem to be accidental – why was there a small hole to the right-hand side of the fitting – this must have had a purpose. And why the extra small rivet? Was this a case of minor metal fatigue being corrected in a standard way? It seems odd to think that the standard six/five rivet arrangement was deliberately altered at the manufacturing stage in this curious manner. However, all this is really beyond the scope of this thread which is only seeking to identify the wreckage found.
Anyone interested in pursuing this can find a picture at the link below:
BobKatPeter, the position as best we can judge is that the starboard wing (still attached to the fuselage) landed along the northern edge of the forest. At the start, we had no idea at all where the port wing had fallen. First, it was the tentative identification of rib no.17 by Air Ministry as being from the port wing, followed by Laurent’s discovery of a matching pair of brake shoe linings at location 12 at the corner of the forest (with a different wear pattern from those discovered along the northern edge), that began to lend credence to the fact that the port wing had fallen along the eastern edge of the forest. This seems to have been confirmed by the undercarriage and engine parts recently discovered about 300 to 400 yards from where the main fuselage came down. So, all these recent finds seem likely to be from the port wing.
BobKatPeter, once again you have put me on the right path for some more research – thank you – this time by providing the link to the picture in your last post. This triggered the blindingly obvious thought that the fixing plates for the engine ribs with the spar would be visible from inside the wheel well.
When I visited Hendon at the end of last month with some friends, as I have previously mentioned, two of us were allowed to take some pictures of the Lancaster (under close supervision!). My fellow photographer had just acquired a new camera and took a few shots inside the wheel well with a view to getting a closer look at the undercarriage locking frame (item 47). In this he was extremely successful and I congratulate him on the clarity of the view! The by-product was that (unintentionally) we also got a close up of the rib fixing plates for the upper spar joint!
I cannot reproduce the whole picture as it would be too large to upload, but there is a reduced-size cropped version to give an impression of the overall view followed by two enlarged pictures of the fixing plates. The picture was taken from ground-level under the starboard undercarriage and so the ribs appear at an oblique angle: on the left is the inside fixing plate of the inboard rib (is this no.26?), and on the right is the inside fixing plate for the outboard rib (no.23). As can be clearly seen these are (as would be expected) mirror images of each other with six rivets forward and five aft. These will be replicated on the outer edges. In other words I have now managed to convince myself that on each wing (port and starboard) there would be four fixing plates in two identical mirror-imaged pairs. If I am right, the piece found (49) could therefore have come from either wing – but my money is on it being the outer fitting on port wing rib no.23 as originally pictured. This would be the weak point where the outer wing was connected to the main plane. Interestingly item 35 appears to be from the upper inboard edge of rib no.22 on the outer wing – again at the same weak point, but from the opposite side of it. If this was from the starboard wing, as was originally presumed by its proximity to the main fuselage, the latest find over 300 yards distant must surely be from the port?
ED908 came off the production line in April 1943 and had flown 32 operational missions with 83 Sqn before being transferred to the PFF NTU in November 1943, where it was no doubt in regular demand. It would not be surprising if, after over 12 months’ heavy use, there was not the odd loose rivet needing repair. This would be my explanation for the extra rivet in our piece. On a close inspection, it has a slightly smaller diameter than the others, as does the one next to it – the second from the top in the line of six. My guess would be that the first rivet was replaced and another one added as a precaution. Rivet counting clearly needs to be treated with a degree of caution!
Peter, it seems that we may now be of like mind and that we probably have the fixing plate from rib no.23 (most likely to be from the port wing) – I rest my case!
………………
P.S. I forgot to thank you for your eagled-eyed spotting of our piece 57A – excellent that we have now solved so many of the latest batch!
BobKatPeter, got it – I can see the extra rivet (like ours). So we don’t have the outer rib joint, but one on the far (inner) engine rib (No.26?). I assume it may be that this extra rivet is repeated at the top of the spar as the general shape looks more like the upper than the lower joint? Again, I presume, we have the question as to whether this configuration would be mirrored and duplicated on port and starboard? But what we do seem to have is an inner engine rib joint. Very many thanks.
……………………….
However, a problem. Our piece has six rivets on the forward side and five on the rearward side – exactly as in the original suggestion. The fitting further in has six rivets on both sides. Perhaps our extra rivet is a repair? On further reflection, I think we may be back where we started with rib no.23!!
BobKatMany thanks, Peter. But what is it that distinguishes it from ours and the picture of the inboard engine rib on the port wing?
BobKatItems 49 and 58
Just as I was thinking that the identification of our last batch of items had come to a halt, Laurent has identified a piece from amongst those in the picture of items 49 in post #458 (reproduced again here for ease of reference). It is without doubt a corner joint plate from the inboard engine rib (see below). The question is – which wing? The photo (with acknowledgements) is of the front spar joint on the port wing of FM104. It seems to be identical with what we have. However, presumably, this plate would be mirrored on the opposite side of the rib, and possibly also on the opposite side of the undercarriage well, and both would be mirrored on the starboard side. So I assume that all that we can conclude is that we have a piece from one of the engine mounting ribs. Item 35 (post #319) which was thought to be a similar piece was found over 300 yards away near the point where the main fuselage came to rest. The not unreasonable assumption is that the latest find is from the port wing, and the earlier one was from the starboard wing.
There has been yet another small find, item 58. Another Avro marked piece – R3 360 / 7R 2060. Does anyone recognise this piece or its numbering (or any of the other numbers in post #566 with which we continue to struggle)?
BobKatThanks very much, Peter. The outer one wasn’t shown on the Access Panel diagram. So we can’t draw any firm conclusions – we could be looking at either the inner or outer wing.
BobKatItems 49 and 57 (again)
After more scrutiny of AP2062A I have investigated Laurent’s thought that the top item in the uncleaned version of items 49, might have been part of the engine cradle. Laurent has pointed out that, in addition to its ‘collared’ end on the left, the right-hand end looks like a fractured welded joint. I think it must be part of the engine sub-frame as shown in the attached picture. Both the inboard and outboard frames are shown with diagonal struts supporting the upper horizontal strut, but only the inboard frame has a similar arrangement at the bottom. As far as I can tell from looking at photos, the rivet arrangements suggest that it is a fractured half of the lower piece of the inboard engine sub-frame.
If I am right, this may indicate that I/we have been looking in the wrong place for the cleaned-up parts of item 49. If all the pieces came from forward of the fireproof bulkhead, perhaps they are, after all, two of the many bolt fittings in the engine assembly and nothing to do with the undercarriage.
Peter, I have a question, for you. Could you please confirm that the fuel tank sump pump (from which the locking plates SS 3704 have been identified) is fitted in the area under the fuel tank between the main fuselage and the inboard engine? If so, we seem to have more identified pieces from the inboard engine area than from the outboard in the area searched so far.
I am still hopeful that somebody will come to my aid with details of the numbered parts in item 57.
BobKatI can see what you mean about 57C, Peter. But it is the red paint that is confusing – either an instructional marking or part of the roundel??? Or identification lettering???
Looking closely at the top picture of the two, I think that our piece may originally have been flat, with the apparent ‘lip’ being created by damage. The edges seem mostly to be smooth with rivets along one side and an additional one inset on the red corner. It seems to have a blue/black painted edging, over which red has been applied. All very curious.
………………….
Laurent has just e-mailed to say that I am right about the edges being untorn. The piece must originally have been flat and it is 2.30mm thick – quite solid.
BobKatThanks for trying, Peter. You have been ploughing a bit of a lone furrow on the last few items! Let us hope that someone may recognise something, perhaps from the paint colouring on 57B and 57C.
Maybe there are grounds for a little more hope on the numbered items in 57A. I wonder whether anyone can enlighten me on the use of the Avro “R3” markings? Are these identification marks applied to parts manufactured by Avro, or are they inspection marks applied to components made by both Avro and others?
So far we have a few such markings on AGS pipe connections including R3 827 combined with 2SS 3549 on a 3-way union, R3 138 combined with 11Q 589 on a pipe connection, the number 3SS 2046 on a fuel pipe union, and then the number SS 3704 on the fuel tank sump pump locking plates. Now we have three pieces, one with its numbers obscured (but seeming to include an ‘SS’ reference) and the other with R3 10F / 18F / 1SS 348B and R3 7M / 10F 359. The lettering ‘SS’ is a recurring feature – this is presumably an Avro part number reference? The common theme, if there is one and it is not purely coincidental, seems to be a connection with the Merlin engine fuel supply. If so, are these latest pieces from location 57 also engine related? Can anyone help, please?
BobKatHere are the latest of Laurent’s discoveries – items 57. I should first say that these were found in a new area, not far from the perplexing item 31 (post #196). And Laurent thinks that there may be more pieces to come from this spot.
Moving southwards along the eastern slope of the forest, pieces found have started with the brake shoes (at location 12), via the unidentified pieces (49), the piece of rib no.17 by the outboard engine (11), past the propeller pitch gear (M5), on to the undercarriage locking frame (47), the mechanic’s undercarriage step (45), then a number of engine pieces (M6A and M6B), the 3-way fuel pipe union 3SS 2046 (46), and the fuel priming pump (56), to what has now been found at location 57. In other words the pattern is broadly moving from the undercarriage and inboard engine towards the outboard engine and perhaps, now, to the outer wing?
It makes me wonder whether item 31, at one time thought to be turret related, could in fact be for something on the underside of the port wing – such as the frame for the landing lights or an inspection panel?
But on to the latest finds. First there is a picture of everything discovered with a piece of fuselage to which a small rectangular bolted plate is affixed (at the bottom right). Then there are more detailed pictures of three of the items:
57A: some pieces with the markings R3 10F, 18F, and 1SS 348B, and then R3 7M, 10F 359. Not large pieces in themselves, but perhaps with a significant story to tell if they can be identified;
57B: an unusually shaped piece with dark grey paint;
57C: a piece with tan, red and what Laurent says is black paint (although it looks bluish in the photo) – the blue/black paint appears to be along a straight edge which has been bent. The tan camouflage (?) colour would suggest this fragment could be from the top of the wing rather than the underside, but what is the red on the opposite side of the piece – from a roundel or some other wing marking – such as the dinghy storage point?? My research on The Lancaster Explored CD has been inconclusive.
Lots to ponder over! As always, any comments or thoughts will be welcome.
BobKatYes, that would seem likely. The Rib 20 mark is between the two engines and the other on the outer part of the wing, so under the roundel.
BobKatHennie, there is a single red line with the marking “Rib 20” and a double line (which seems to be yours) marked “Trestle here”. Someone else with more knowledge than me might be better able to explain precisely what this means!
BobKatLaurent and I have been exchanging a few e-mails regarding the attachments to item 47. He confirms that the diameters of the pieces of the turnbuckle struts on the piece he found (arrowed in the diagram my previous post) are 7mm at the thinner top end, and 10mm at the lower end where the turnbuckle adjuster is fitted. Looking at the diagram, this means that the horizontal locking bar must be somewhere in the region of 25 to 30mm in diameter. This is the approximate size of our pieces in 49 and he wonders whether this could be the answer to the piece with the threaded ends? This will probably have to remain a matter of speculation, but it is difficult to see what else something of that size could be if it is part of the undercarriage assembly. Probably enough said on this one.
In the meantime Laurent has been carrying out a little detective work of his own, and he has established that the grey cylindrical piece in M6A is a diffuser cup from the Bendix-Stromberg carburettor. So we have more confirmation of engine parts at location M6A. A clear pattern is emerging – the port wing seems to have spiralled to earth and, by chance, ended up facing back in the direction from which it came along the eastern edge of the forest slopes, in the same way as the main fuselage came to earth along the northern edge.
There have been some more interesting finds and, after a little research, I will try to post these later today.
BobKatHennie, another useful addition to your library might be The Lancaster Explored CD. This contains numerous pictures (copyrighted) and also amongst other things details of the markings on the top and the underside of the wing, where red delineation markings do indeed appear. Has your Lancaster Manual arrived yet?
Sign In
