Thanks, Peter. I have carried on my sleuthing, trying to identify some of the old items in the area where the fuselage came to rest.

I decided to have another look at the Lancaster Explored CD, and I started at the front with the bomb aimer’s position. Almost immediately I was lucky. I recognised a piece found amongst others at location 15, next to our new location 111 and close to location 1. It is the suction connection for the Mk.XIV Bomb Sight, details of which are in AP1730A. It is illustrated below at the bottom right of the first picture, next to some unexploded ammunition which is almost certainly from the front gun turret.

Once again, this throws a new light on the wreckage. We have recently concluded that the starboard wing seems to have separated from the rest of the fuselage shortly before it came to earth as the aircraft started to disintegrate, and that the remaining fuselage may have split behind the wing spar.

We now have a piece of the bomb aimer’s blister with one of the circular frames for the “Z” infra-red signal equipment found at location 20, and this newly identified piece, also from the nose section of the aircraft at location 15. The position of the bomb aimer’s blister was another of those curiosities, not quite making sense. What now appears possible is that the front canopy fragmented as the aircraft broke up, and this is why an airman, either the flight engineer or the second pilot, was found fallen at location A3, thrown through the open canopy. Perhaps one of them had tried to open the forward escape hatch as they prepared to bail out?

If this is right, then maybe our mysterious piece at location 111 was from the front of the aircraft after all. I’ll give this some further thought.

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

Peter, that’s brilliant, very many thanks.

I hope you don’t mind, but I have taken a couple of extracts from the diagrams of the FN20 tail gun turret and marked on them in red what appears to be the position of our piece. The diagrams show that the outer-side end of the fitting is wider than the inner-side end and the dimensions seem to fit. I think, therefore, that we have identified item 29 some six years after it was found! It could come from either side of the turret depending upon which way up it is viewed! The turret itself was presumably dislodged from the tail as it neared the ground.

It is remarkable how the re-attribution of the position of the pressure relief valve on the aircraft from the bomb bay to its alternative place in the undercarriage has opened the way to a complete re-appraisal of the way in the aircraft broke up as it fell. It has resolved several previously unexplained anomalies. My acquisition of a copy of AP2062 A&C enabling that discovery has been amply rewarded!

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

A short while ago I acquired from RAF Hendon a digital copy of AP 2062 A&C, Volume III, Part I, the Schedule of Spare Parts for the Lancaster Mk.III. The copy is the second edition dated March 1944 and incorporates modifications to the original aircraft specification, with subsequent changes pasted in or shown in manuscript. The Lancaster Manual states that modifications up to No.805 had been approved by January 1943. ED908 was delivered for service in April 1943 and would presumably have incorporated all modifications up to this number.

Item 2 was identified a long time ago as the hydraulic balancer from the bomb bay. Modification No.584 to the Parts List was the introduction of a pressure relief valve in the undercarriage flap and bomb door hydraulic circuits. This Dowty valve was therefore also present in the two undercarriages as well as the bomb bay. This removes an anomaly from the location plan of wreckage found, as the piece found at location 2 must clearly be from the starboard undercarriage, not the bomb bay, pieces from which were located some distance away. The corrected plan is now in the photo-gallery.

For some time, I have been struggling to understand how two airmen came to fall in the field to the east of the forest. I had originally thought that the fuselage of the aircraft (minus the port wing) remained intact until it hit the ground. There were no eye-witness reports to the contrary. However, I now believe that it is possible that the starboard wing might have separated from the fuselage as the aircraft disintegrated under the stress of uncontrolled gyrations shortly before it came to earth. This makes sense of the pattern of scattered wreckage. The remaining fuselage may well have split apart behind the wing spar.

What remains as an apparent anomaly is the pieces of the tail plane which were found amongst the engine and undercarriage parts along the northern edge of the forest. Laurent’s recent discoveries have confirmed that the rear fuselage was scattered over a wide area adjacent to the forward fuselage. It now seems probable that our mystery item 111 came from the rear fuselage and my suggestion that it was a repaired part of the glycol system is therefore unlikely. Your doubts about this, Peter, appear to be right. So, we are left with a mystery. More thought required!

I believe that there may be an explanation for what happened to the tail plane.

Pieces of the tail fin were found some distance from the other wreckage. I had assumed that it was just the port tail fin, weakened by the flames from the port wing that had become detached from the tail plane and that air resistance may well have slowed its descent causing it to fall some distance short of the rest of the fuselage.

However, perhaps it was the entire tail plane that separated from the fuselage, not just the tail fin? This would then explain why pieces of the tail plane were found separate from the rest of the rear fuselage. The tail would presumably have closely followed the path of the rest of the falling aircraft, aside from the detached port wing which was following its own spiralling descent. Pieces from the Monica radar installation under the rear gun turret seem to have broken away to fall separately.

The tail parts found along the northern edge of the forest were:
3. Rudder control inspection panel from the underside of the tail plane;
4. Elevator balance tab rod and bar from the tail plane;
4. Bolt fitting for the rear gun turret doors; and
26. Ammunition feed ducting for the rear gun turret.

This is highly suggestive of the whole of the tail having broken away at the tail-plane front spar.

This may also explain why the two airmen fell in the field to the east of the forest. A gaping hole would have been created at the rear of the aircraft. This could have resulted in the two air gunners and any loose equipment being thrown from the aircraft. It is to be noted that the path from the pieces of the tail fin to the parts from the tail plane continues in an almost straight line to where the two airmen were found. This certainly seems to be a plausible explanation as to how they fell where they did. The possible path of the tail plane is now reflected in the wreckage location plan, a copy of which is attached below. A higher resolution copy is in the photo-gallery.

If anyone has any thoughts or alternative ideas, I should be glad to hear.

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

Laurent has confirmed that the lipped aperture on the small hexagonal nut is indeed 3/8 inches. So a little larger than the 1/4 inch diameter of the normal glycol tubes. If the identification of this improvised piece is correct, it is a fascinating insight into the ingenuity of the ground crews in keeping their aircraft aloft!

The absence of any responses to my suggested identification of the L-shaped connector (111) as part of the glycol window de-icing system may indicate that information on the subject is a little hard to find.

All I can trace is a paragraph in AP2062A, Vol I, Section 11, which states that standard de-icing fluid (DTD.406A) is used with delivery by small diameter delivery pipes (as illustrated in the diagram attached to my post #1199). However, I note that the website facility to enlarge the photo attached to that post does not seem to be functioning at present. [Edit: now restored]

Laurent’s first reaction when he examined the piece was that it was part of the hydraulic system. However, as is evident from the pieces found, the hydraulic fluid was circulated using metal alloy pipes, not encased rubber tubing. Nevertheless, the function of our piece seems to be to circulate a fluid.

I was probably mistaken in thinking in my last post that the thicker part of the piece was broken away from the pilot’s hand-pump. I think we may well have the piece connecting with the bottom of the hand pump (the pipe and nut look virtually identical to the diagram) with an encased rubber pipe fitted in place of the previous small diameter pipe.

t appears that motor car anti-freeze systems used rubber pipes during the World War Two era, so presumably a similar arrangement could have been used in an aircraft? A cross-section of a modern equivalent of a glycol pipe is very similar to the piece found – a rubber tube surrounded by a flexible casing and an outer cover.

Although uncorroborated, everything seems to point towards this as being a probable identification. If anyone can comment or add anything further, I would be glad to hear.

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

Many thanks Terry. So you are saying that ‘our’ cover is not that illustrated in the Mk.X parts list. Do you know if there would there have been anything similar in that position in the Mk.III? I say this because this new piece was found very close to where the formation-keeping lamp fairing was found and therefore almost certainly came from the outer wing. It is interesting that one surface is painted black, suggesting it was on the underside of the wing, but the shape does not fit with any of the inspection panels illustrated, which are all round. Maybe the shape changed? It does seem to be an electrical cover of some sort.

Many thanks Peter. I assume the static port you are referring to is the piece with two holes with the Air Ministry marking? I have had a look a a few pictures of the exterior of the aircraft. There appears to be a similar shaped piece on both sides of the fuselage in the positions you state, but in each case (as far as I can tell) with just one central hole rather than two. Is our piece fitted on the inside of the aircraft. Do you have any close-up pictures? The piece is about 12cm (a little less than 5 inches) long – would this be right?

You are right to suggest that the piece in picture 110 may be plexiglas. Are you thinking that it might be part of the H2S blister? This would make sense from where it was found. I have asked Laurent to confirm.

……………………….

Laurent has just e-mailed to say that item 110 is indeed plexiglass, so it would appear that we do have part of the H2S blister. It looks a remarkably ‘clean’ fracture, but I suppose this may be expected?