Copper pipe

Thanks for your comments, Peter. Looking at a number of photographs of different variants of the Merlin engine in various states of working order, it is clear that most of the pipework is, as you say, not of the type in photo 13.

Although some pictures do show copper-coloured pipes which could match our item (see where arrowed in attached picture), this is far from certain. So we are left with my question as to where copper piping (which appears to be what we have) might be located on the aircraft? For example, what would be used for the glycol window de-icing system? The diagram in AP2062A certainly indicates numerous bends in the pipework which might be better suited to more malleable copper than aluminium alloy. Is this a possibility?

Surviving Merlin Engine?

I had hoped that somebody might have had some knowledge about other bomber aircraft crash sites and have been able to respond about the likelihood (or otherwise) of a surviving Merlin engine being buried somewhere with the starboard undercarriage. The violence of the impact of the wing would be different to that experienced for a single-engine aircraft plunging to earth, which may well reduce the chances of this having happened. Added to which it is difficult to know which part of the gyrating aircraft would have struck the ground first, thereby taking the brunt of the impact. The starboard wing may already have been disintegrating when the aircraft came to earth amongst the trees of the forest.

With the remnants of the fuselage having long since been removed from the site, it may well be impossible to make any reasonable judgement. But even if someone had a view on that, it would be of help to Laurent before he embarks on a search. Does he have a realistic chance of finding something, or is he more likely to suffer the disappointment of a wild-goose chase?

Items 6 and 13: enlarged pictures

Peter, I attach enlarged details of item 6 and 13.
……….

That seems to have done the trick!

Unidentified items: 6 and 13

Now that we have identified about 80 items of wreckage, I have been looking at Laurent’s plan of the search area to see if any pattern is emerging as to where individual pieces have been found. Laurent is convinced that there should be some more evidence of a Merlin engine. So far we have two propeller pitch gears, a segment of an anti-vibration mount, two cam followers, the tip of a propeller blade, an exhaust stub, some small engine parts including a magneto casing sprung strap and a valve split cotter, and pieces from close to the fireproof bulkhead – a fuel pump suppressor casing and a number of items connected with an oil tank and the fuel system. These could all be from a single engine, but they are scattered over quite a wide area – so maybe not.

The aircraft fell from about 16,000 feet. The port wing “spiralled down to land some distance away”, so what would be expected to happen to the engines on the surviving starboard wing? The aircraft was reported to have been in a “crazy downward gyration”. One engine is said to have fallen in the lane near the edge of the forest and to have been removed along with the main fuselage during the war. Assuming it was not from the port wing lost in mid-air, and that it was one of the starboard engines, then what about the other? Would this be likely to be buried, mangled on impact, or would it have shattered or exploded and scattered its constituent parts over a wide area? And what about the undercarriage – would it be possible for the inboard engine and undercarriage to be buried together somewhere, or is it more likely that everything would have broken up on impact?

These are likely to be impossible questions to answer, but maybe there is someone with some experience of crash site investigation who could share their thoughts on the balance of probabilities? We seem to have some evidence of parts spread over some distance, but as yet no substantial heavy metal pieces from an engine which might have been expected, such as the reduction gear, for example. I understand that there are no wartime reports from the local residents of a second engine being removed from the site, but I suppose it must be possible that any readily visible large fragments amongst the trees of the forest would have been collected at that time and taken away without any specific comment.

I am posting the attached pictures more in hope than expectation, but they are of some interest in their own right. On the left is shown one view of some pieces which are also shown in photograph 6. The second and third photographs both show pieces of narrow gauge pipework – as these have a rusty appearance, based on some of our other finds, I would assume they are most likely to be pieces of fuel pipe, but their dimensions are not easily judged, and I am not too sure about the coiled piece in picture 13 – it looks a little thin.

In the picture on the right (13) there are two pieces of green painted piping: the piece on the left seems to have a hexagonal nut at the bottom end – a fractured joint? These have a somewhat different appearance to the pieces which have been identified as hydraulic/pneumatic piping – they have more of a rusty, rather than silvery, look, and the metal seems to be thinner. One piece is flattened and the other appears to be twisted.

In the picture in the middle (6) there is a piece of very rusty hollow metal piping on the right, again with what appears to be a hexagonal fitting at the bottom end. The definition of the photographs is not as sharp as might be desirable, but it is interesting to see how the different metals in the two pictures have coped with nearly seventy years under the ground. But what about the big rusty bolt under the number ‘6’ – could this be associated with an engine? I do not have its dimensions, but these can be reasonably judged by reference to the pipework and also by reference to the pitot head and right-angled joint already identified as an ignition coil connector in the first picture. Then again, maybe bolts like this are situated all over the aircraft? It is, however, as far as I am aware, the only one to have been found.

Any thoughts please, anyone?

Peter, many thanks – much appreciated. The diagrams look a little different to AP 2062A, so I will have a good look at them.

It’s obviously a bit more complicated than I thought, Peter! The pipes I have seen coming from the hydraulic reservoir in photographs also look to have a large diameter. I will look forward to hearing anything further you can add.

Pipework: items 24, 37 and 39

I have recently looked again at some old photos of Lancaster FM212 undergoing restoration (with acknowledgements to Windsor (CH2A) Lancaster Restoration).

There is a picture (a detail from which is attached beneath items 24 and 37) looking upwards through the removed floor at the flying control sprocket boxes with their chains and rods next to the front spar.

First, an unexpected bonus – in the background at the top of the picture are four of the 3-way unions with smaller bore aluminium piping – our item 39 – with one joint of each disconnected. According to Air Ministry’s earlier response (post #304) there were four such joints on the fuel system in the fuselage centre section, although the diagram in AP 2062A does not make it clear exactly where these are located. There were also four for the hydraulic system along the front spar (presumably for the main wheels and air intakes which I can see on the AP 2062A diagrams?); two for the radiator flaps pneumatic pipes; and another one for the oxygen system. Now that we can see them in situ, could anyone please confirm what these are? The choice seems to be between fuel pipes and hydraulics. Based on Air Ministry’s description, my guess would be the latter.

In the foreground there are a number of silvery green-painted pipes which appear to be exactly what we have in picture 37. There are several pipes which extend along the wings, and these are presumably amongst them. Can somebody please confirm what these are? They seem to be the same as the pipes protruding from the end of the outer wing at rib 22 in the photo attached in the discussion on item 11 (post #318). They also seem to match the diameter of the pipes leading from the hydraulic reservoir.

Presumably this larger diameter green piping must therefore be for the hydraulic system – perhaps the feed and return pipes? In turn, this could mean that the hydraulic system used pipework of two different sizes. Any help to unravel the profusion of pipes would be much appreciated!

Picture 24 (which I have previously posted, but which is included again here for ease of reference) shows what I had at one time thought to be a green-painted strut with a flattened end, but perhaps it is simply another piece of what we have in picture 37? With it would seem to be some of the smaller bore silvery piping such as is connected by the 3-way union as seen in the photograph.

Many thanks, Peter, that’s very helpful. Looking again at AP 2062A and the photos of FM104, I can see rib 23 and another at the other side of the inboard engine position (rib 26?) with the diagonal stiffening struts, as you describe. There seems to be another (rib 22) at the inboard end of the outer wing as in the photo posted and in Air Ministry’s diagram (post #309). So it seems that there are just three places for the gusset plates in each wing.

Looking at the rivet patterns, our shattered piece, if we have identified it correctly, seems marginally more likely to come from the smaller fittings on rib 22, on the outer wing, than from the larger fittings on the main plane section, but it is difficult to be certain.