BobKatHennie, I’ve cracked it! By rotating your latest photo by 90 degrees and reversing the image of the outboard engine cowling (to produce a mirror-image of what I assume to be the opposite side), we seem to have a perfect match for the Dzus fasteners as shown in the attached diagram. I think that the small rectangular plate would have been absent from the opposite side. So you have part of the cowling for an outboard engine. I wonder whether “P” represents the Port outboard?
BobKatHennie, it certainly appears to be part of an engine cowling. I attach a diagram where you can see the Dzus fasteners, but I can’t work out which part it is!! The configuration may be different on the opposite side from that shown by the diagram.
BobKatHennie,
I think your first item may be a piece of engine cowling. I’ll see if I can find any pictures.
BobKatIt is interesting to note that some of the recent pictures uploaded on this thread have received over 200 views and a few, including the wreckage location plan, more than 300. New pieces are becoming more difficult to find. Over 200 identified pieces have been found at more than 100 locations, and we are now often in position to determine the approximate likely position on the aircraft that a new find comes from, which helps considerably in narrowing down its potential identification.
The final piece capable of identification in location 111 appears to be the drain plug from the pitot-static system.
Laurent has confirmed that it has been split in half lengthways (not immediately apparent in the earlier photograph) and has an open aperture at the bottom end with a solid end at the top as seen in the picture below.
If the 18-pin connector also found at location 111 is from the H2S scanner electrical circuit, as seems likely, then this would suggest that it, the pitot-static port and the drain plug are all from the port side of the aircraft. Fragments from the master compass casing, from further aft on the starboard side of the aircraft were found at location 20. The position of these pieces seems to provide further evidence that the fuselage split in two, possibly behind the main spar as the aircraft disintegrated, leaving the forward fuselage largely intact in the area around location 1, and the rear fuselage scattered over a wider area between locations 110 and 21 as shown on the wreckage location plan (post #1208 and the photo-gallery).
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatHennie,
Yes, it could well be what you suggest. I assume there is no trace of a part number or you would have said.
No.12: Housing and Oil Suction Pipe Assembly – Lower oil filter front
No.18: Pipe Assembly – Lower oil suction with Pipe and Flange.
Glad to hear you are following the ED908 thread. Laurent is still finding more pieces from the aircraft.. As you will have seen from the thread, we now have a fairly good idea of how the aircraft disintegrated and fell to earth.
BobKatHennie,
The item numbered 601510 is the cap and studs assembly from the oil filter. See item 32 in the diagram below.
The other item looks like the piece numbered 48 which is described as ‘Gasket – Scavenger pump outlet elbow’.
BobKatI hope the photo of the Z fitting was of some use, Peter.
I attach another new picture of the Dowty pressure relief valve (item 2 mentioned in post #1208) on which Laurent has noted the markings. This clearly indicates Type 8486 as used in the undercarriage hydraulic system along with the adaptor numbered 71111.
Both this and the picture in my previous post have been added to the photo-gallery.
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatPeter,
Laurent has managed to find some time to take a few photos. Here is the reverse of the Z equipment circle on the bomb aimer’s blister that you were wanting.
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatThanks, Peter. Good to hear that the static port fitting seems right.
I have been researching the H2S electrical circuitry and have now established that items of equipment using the 18-pin connector were the power unit, the receiver, the waveform generator and the indicator, all of which were connected via a junction box as shown in the diagram attached. There were four 18-pin, three 12-pin, one 6-pin and one 2-pin connectors at the junction box.
Gee circuitry appears to have used connectors with with 4 or 6 pins, with no separate junction box. I have little information on Oboe, which replaced H2S on the aircraft, but there seems to have been no junction box. It must be assumed that all H2S movable equipment was removed when Oboe was installed, but the junction box was apparently permanently installed and would have remained.
The junction box (and units) were located on the port side of the rear centre section of the aircraft, so It seems highly likely that the connector found at location 111, and probably those found nearby at location 1, were all from this source.
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatIt seems that no-one is able to help any further with the last two items. While I am waiting for Laurent to provide some more information about some specific items, I have managed to find out a little more about the electrical connector found with other items at location 111.
This is an 18-way connector (pictured from the top and side on the left below) such as used in the H2S scanner system with an Air Ministry reference 10H/396. It is found on the ARI 5153 Waveform Generator Type 26 (pictured in situ on the right below) and also on the ARI 5590 Tuning Unit Type 207 and presumably on the junction boxes. If this was not used on any other radar systems on the aircraft, it would suggest that, although Oboe had replaced H2S on ED908, much of the electrical circuitry for H2S may have remained on board.
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatIt seems that nobody is able to satisfy my curiosity as to why some fuselage formers have small holes in addition to the larger lightening holes.
Laurent’s new finds in January have certainly stimulated me to look afresh at some of the older unidentified pieces. Here is another, found at location 95 not far from the edge of the forest. There was a suggestion that it was a flexible rubber pipe connector which transmitted either air or oil (post #1010).
The photograph I recently found of the pitot-static port (post #1222) shows two connectors to the interior of the aircraft (see attachment below). The one nearer the front of the picture seems to be the connector for the ASI system static pipe and drain. I am having considerable difficulty in finding any information about the second connector behind the first. Later examples of the static port seem to have only one opening. Perhaps the early versions of the port had dual-purpose outlets for use with either metal or flexible rubber pipes, as required? The illustration (below) from the Mk.X Lancaster parts list shows an empty aperture, apparently unused.
It seems likely that metal pipework for the ASI system would have been fitted aboard ED908, but our piece 95 could well be the second connector in the photograph, left in situ, albeit not in operational use.
Does anyone have any thoughts or information which might throw further light on this, please?
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatYou are right, Peter. We haven’t discussed this piece before. It is one of several items of fuselage found, most of which are unidentifiable lumps or fragments. At first sight, it certainly looks like a piece of fuselage attached to a stringer.
However, on closer inspection, the angle piece appears not to be a stringer. There are two features which lead me to this conclusion: first, there is a smooth hole in the fragmented aluminium similar to those found in some formers, and there would not be a hole of this sort in the fuselage skin. Secondly, the angle stiffener appears intact, not broken into a short length from a longer stringer, and the aluminium is bent around it. This would indicate that it was most likely to be a stiffener inserted inside the inner edge of a former, not a stringer which would be at right angles to the skin.
The diagrams attached below attempt to illustrate what I mean, both viewed from the rear of the aircraft on the port and starboard sides respectively and showing the shape of our piece shaded, the aluminium in blue and the angle stiffener in brown. My thought is that this is from a former without the large circular holes, but with some small ones, such as No.29 forward of the entrance door and supporting the DR compass cradle on the starboard side. This suggested identification cannot be certain but, in principle, seems probable, particularly as AP2062A&C refers to a stiffening angle present on formers 29, 30, 32 and 33. We seem to have one of these.
Can anyone please explain the purpose of the small holes (as distinct from the larger ones) on the formers?
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi…t=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi…t=folder%2cjpg
BobKatLooking further at piece 21, there is a ragged hole to the right of the first rivet position on the left and a smoother hole to the left of the fifth rivet position, both arrowed in the first picture attached. Neither are visible from the other side of the piece. This is suggestive of a repair or an earlier attempt to strengthen the former at this point, which was superseded by the attachment of the stiffening angle.
Former No.29 has two of the attachment points for the compass cradle and a shaped angled stiffener running from the compass cradle to the floor on the starboard side, but no larger holes. It does have some smaller holes (like the one in our piece) as seen in the right-hand view in the second picture attached below. Unlike the same former in the two detailed pictures on the left, the version on the right has a strengthening plate across its whole width.
It is possible that the piece found could be from this part of Former No.29 and that the stiffener has been added to strengthen the former, but not in the same way as shown in the photograph.
I understand that the large holes in the formers were to help keep the weight down, but does anyone know why some formers had these smaller holes? They have no obvious purpose in the pictures I have seen.
By chance, the left-hand view of the second picture attached shows the interior side of the pitot-static port (see post #1188).
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatNo further news from France yet.
Continuing the review of old finds not previously identified, I attach pictures of item 21 and of the interior of the rear fuselage.
Pieces of rear fuselage former No.32 (marked on the photo) were found nearby along with part of the casing of the DR Compass. It seems likely that this piece was also from the rear fuselage. It appears to comprise a fragment of a fuselage former with a small hole clearly visible, and maybe others along the line of the fracture. This is attached to what seems to be an intact angle stiffener with six rivets, more clearly seen in the lower picture. Pictures of the rear fuselage show a number of formers with both the large and smaller holes, but none appear to match this piece with the stiffener. The strengthening appears to be on the inside edge. It is possible that it may be from beneath the floor and this is why I cannot find a matching picture. AP2062A&C refers to stiffening angles for formers, 29, 30, 32 and 33.
Does anyone recognise this? A blueprint of the rear fuselage formers might reveal more, but this is probably too much to hope for.
Photo-gallery:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BCF75E8AD40ADF0D!164&authkey=!AJrxfdmdr6MXSdw&ithint=folder%2cjpg
Index to parts found and annotated illustrations:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=bcf75e8ad40adf0d!1426&authkey=!AAJOZyTYrN-x0CQ&ithint=folder%2cjpg
BobKatPeter, I have asked Laurent if he can provide any pictures of the reverse side of the Z ring. We may have to wait for a while if he needs to retrieve the piece from his neighbour.
Glad that you think that my latest thought on piece 111 is a possibility. I’ve looked at the Lancaster Explored CD for pictures of the nose blister and the bomb aimer’s window. There are a few, but the best one I have found is the picture attached to my previous post. The problem is that, if we have an improvised repair which seems probable, nothing we see will match exactly. All that can really be said is that the shape seems right. It is the material used that it would be good to find out more about. The pictures I have found of the perforated pipe round the upper part of the window are not all the same. The one I have posted seems to be shiny aluminium, as does the connection through the blister. Others show the pipe painted black, which is no doubt how it would have been in wartime. It is difficult to judge the diameter of the pipe and to compare it with our piece, but if it is an improvised repair then it may not match precisely in any event!
Sign In
