By: Mark12
- 13th November 2012 at 12:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Substantial distortion at the top of the aluminium seat noted.
Mark
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2012 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting to see those images. If I had seen them before (I am not sure???) then I had never noticed the cut harness, although you cannot see the fixings and harness straps at the seat end.
I agree that the item in your first picture, Mark, looks very much like the 'D' ring.
As Mark12 notes, the seat distortion would surely mean that whoever was sitting in it when it took a welt like that would, must likely, have had significant back and possibly pelvic injuries.
All the pictures were from JP initial set he posted way back when.
I had also assumed the parachute was used by Dennis copping for shade and warmth at night.
regards
MS
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2012 at 12:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just realised that the other end (where it has been cut) of the Sutton harness is sticking out of the sand in the seat. You can clearly see the metal strengthening plate.
The most significant thing would have been to see if the cross-pieces were still attached and, importantly, if they were still locked to the leg (or lower body) straps. However, it seems as if (possibly) one of the visitors has taken the bits of harness out of the cockpit at some point. I would also suggest that the fact that this much of the main harness strap is hanging over the seat top (the bit before it goes into the "Y" joint where it branches into the two shoulder straps) is perhaps significant, too. Ordinarily, the metal strengthening plate and the bit of dangling strap would have been further back behind the seat. The fact that it has pulled right forward might point to something having pulled it right forward 'to the stops' and over the seat back. That, in itself, might have caused the seat to buckle and I would have thought would do the wearer not a lot of good. The more I look at that seat damage, the more I am convinced that is what happened.
Very frustrating only to have bits of the picture and the puzzle.
Its a grim subject, but I rather think the staining on the parachute might well be significant, too. I wont elaborate, and sure I don't need to.
By: TonyT
- 13th November 2012 at 13:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would have thought the seat damage would not be the vertical impact but the pilot moving FW and his harness crumpling the seat back during deceleration, the pan seems straight as far as you can see.
But none of this gets round who fired the charges if not the pilot....
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2012 at 13:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: ...starfire
- 13th November 2012 at 13:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Additionally, I have heard from a couple of sources that the verey pistol was found in the cockpit during the recovery. Now if that was the case, I tend to believe he was seriously injured in the crash landing as it was extremely hard with a flash fire around the engine - hot oil/fuel after removing the sump.
This bit sounds to me as if the verey pistol found had (by accident?) been fired while inside the cockpit, although I cannot remember having read anything about a fire on board. Misunderstanding?
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2012 at 13:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure where the suggestion of the fired Verey pistol comes from?
By: shepsair
- 13th November 2012 at 14:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
You have to remember that nothing could be taken from the cockpit as it was only open 8" or so and the perspex was complete originally. No-one has managed to open the cockpit in the months between discovery and recovery though that does not necessarily mean it could not be opened in the past.
Whether bits of harness etc were pulled out after the perspex was broken, I don't know.
Shows how important undisturbed 'crime scene' photos are being everything gets disturbed!
Said nothing about the pistol being fired. It was just found! ?
The fuselage damage is still thought to be Flak damage from the recon on the morning of the 28th June 1942.
By: Peter
- 13th November 2012 at 14:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can clearly see the empty Very pistol holder in the one picture.. Would the explosive charges for the IFF be fired with an impact switch in a crash?? That seat damage is disturbing I sincerely hope after all the triumphs and mistakes that have followed this discovery, that the family does get some closure and Dennis is found!
By: Peter
- 13th November 2012 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Chaps, have a look at these pictures ..I have never seen them before and show great details.. In gallerie4, the last picture shows part of the harness out in the sand. Is this a shoulder strap or lap belt..?? Andy?? http://www.egipska-sahara.pl/index.php?id=132
By: charliehunt
- 13th November 2012 at 14:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Although wholly unqualified to contribute I am fascinated by the forensic detail knowledgable members are contributing to this thread. I can only hope that there will be an outcome for the family at the end of it all.
By: shepsair
- 13th November 2012 at 14:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Chris
At the point of impact, the sump, was removed along with oil and fuel feeds and no doubt with metal/stone impact and sparking caused a flash fire within the engine area (flash fire = high temperature/short duration fire). As the P40 is thought to have been very low or about out of fire (we assume the engine was still turning due to the damage of the propeller). might have been windmilling - it was not feathered which I assume would be possible).
I was under the impression the IFF was a small electrical charge - it would not have caused the sort of damage visible in the photos.
By: TonyT
- 13th November 2012 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can clearly see the empty Very pistol holder in the one picture.. Would the explosive charges for the IFF be fired with an impact switch in a crash??
Interesting thought, with the amount of forced landings with ruptured fuel tanks etc the last thing I'd imagine you would want is an explosive going off, if its not a walk away from crash one would surmise there wouldn't be a lot left, if it was a walk away then you could fire it.. Though open to be proved wrong.
Thing is when you look at that a lot has been moved about.
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2012 at 18:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As Knifedgeturn points out, the section of harness shown in the photo above (thanks for posting the link, Peter!) is one of the lap-straps. It would appear that this one has been unbolted from its fixing rather than cut, and I cannot imagine it has been torn from the mounting. That would have been pretty nigh on impossible and would probably show signs of distortion to the two black steel and square-ish mounting eyes at the end of the strap. Maybe, now, the balance of probability tilts back to the possibility that somebody started to remove this harness a long while ago thinking it might be useful, and not to get the pilot out. Seems unlikely (if not impossible) that anybody would be forraging around in the lower cockpit alongside a dead or disable pilot to undo the bolts!
I dont think there are clear photos of the other one to see if that is a lap strap or a chest strap, or to be able to see the method of its removal from the P40; ie cut, torn or deliberately unfastened.
All that is clear is that the main harness strap has seemingly been cut just behind the metal strengthening plate.
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 13th November 2012 at 12:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Substantial distortion at the top of the aluminium seat noted.
Mark
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2012 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting to see those images. If I had seen them before (I am not sure???) then I had never noticed the cut harness, although you cannot see the fixings and harness straps at the seat end.
I agree that the item in your first picture, Mark, looks very much like the 'D' ring.
As Mark12 notes, the seat distortion would surely mean that whoever was sitting in it when it took a welt like that would, must likely, have had significant back and possibly pelvic injuries.
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 13th November 2012 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Also noticed the damage.
See the harness was fitted to the tubular frame and not actually the seat which would make sense.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=P40+cockpit+seat&hl=en&biw=1898&bih=997&tbm=isch&tbnid=gc0h_lIArWheWM:&imgrefurl=http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-40/A29-150/A29-150_cockpit.html&docid=o2Jd5CDIBXvaNM&imgurl=http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-40/A29-150/A29-150_cockpit.jpg&w=400&h=256&ei=FEGiUOepGNC10QW7pYDwAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=229&sig=117804988925934821385&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=210&start=0&ndsp=50&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:20,i:153&tx=133&ty=55
All the pictures were from JP initial set he posted way back when.
I had also assumed the parachute was used by Dennis copping for shade and warmth at night.
regards
MS
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2012 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just realised that the other end (where it has been cut) of the Sutton harness is sticking out of the sand in the seat. You can clearly see the metal strengthening plate.
The most significant thing would have been to see if the cross-pieces were still attached and, importantly, if they were still locked to the leg (or lower body) straps. However, it seems as if (possibly) one of the visitors has taken the bits of harness out of the cockpit at some point. I would also suggest that the fact that this much of the main harness strap is hanging over the seat top (the bit before it goes into the "Y" joint where it branches into the two shoulder straps) is perhaps significant, too. Ordinarily, the metal strengthening plate and the bit of dangling strap would have been further back behind the seat. The fact that it has pulled right forward might point to something having pulled it right forward 'to the stops' and over the seat back. That, in itself, might have caused the seat to buckle and I would have thought would do the wearer not a lot of good. The more I look at that seat damage, the more I am convinced that is what happened.
Very frustrating only to have bits of the picture and the puzzle.
Its a grim subject, but I rather think the staining on the parachute might well be significant, too. I wont elaborate, and sure I don't need to.
Posts: 8,984
By: TonyT - 13th November 2012 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would have thought the seat damage would not be the vertical impact but the pilot moving FW and his harness crumpling the seat back during deceleration, the pan seems straight as far as you can see.
But none of this gets round who fired the charges if not the pilot....
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2012 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tony T
Yes....exactly my point re the seat damage.
What 'charges' are we talking about, though?
Posts: 447
By: ...starfire - 13th November 2012 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This bit sounds to me as if the verey pistol found had (by accident?) been fired while inside the cockpit, although I cannot remember having read anything about a fire on board. Misunderstanding?
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2012 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure where the suggestion of the fired Verey pistol comes from?
I don't think that is what Shepsair said.
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 13th November 2012 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
You have to remember that nothing could be taken from the cockpit as it was only open 8" or so and the perspex was complete originally. No-one has managed to open the cockpit in the months between discovery and recovery though that does not necessarily mean it could not be opened in the past.
Whether bits of harness etc were pulled out after the perspex was broken, I don't know.
Shows how important undisturbed 'crime scene' photos are being everything gets disturbed!
Said nothing about the pistol being fired. It was just found! ?
The fuselage damage is still thought to be Flak damage from the recon on the morning of the 28th June 1942.
regards
MS
Posts: 10,189
By: Peter - 13th November 2012 at 14:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can clearly see the empty Very pistol holder in the one picture.. Would the explosive charges for the IFF be fired with an impact switch in a crash?? That seat damage is disturbing I sincerely hope after all the triumphs and mistakes that have followed this discovery, that the family does get some closure and Dennis is found!
Posts: 447
By: ...starfire - 13th November 2012 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My mistake then. However, I still don't understand the bit about the "flash fire"...
Posts: 10,189
By: Peter - 13th November 2012 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Chaps, have a look at these pictures ..I have never seen them before and show great details.. In gallerie4, the last picture shows part of the harness out in the sand. Is this a shoulder strap or lap belt..?? Andy??
http://www.egipska-sahara.pl/index.php?id=132
Posts: 199
By: JollyGreenSlugg - 13th November 2012 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The damage seems to indicate that there was a fire which melted various parts of the engine.
Cheers,
Matt
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 13th November 2012 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Although wholly unqualified to contribute I am fascinated by the forensic detail knowledgable members are contributing to this thread. I can only hope that there will be an outcome for the family at the end of it all.
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 13th November 2012 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Chris
At the point of impact, the sump, was removed along with oil and fuel feeds and no doubt with metal/stone impact and sparking caused a flash fire within the engine area (flash fire = high temperature/short duration fire). As the P40 is thought to have been very low or about out of fire (we assume the engine was still turning due to the damage of the propeller). might have been windmilling - it was not feathered which I assume would be possible).
I was under the impression the IFF was a small electrical charge - it would not have caused the sort of damage visible in the photos.
regards
MS
Posts: 491
By: knifeedgeturn - 13th November 2012 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The last photo shows part of the lap strap, they are easily removable.
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 13th November 2012 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
previous post should say out of 'fuel'. Not fire.
MS
Posts: 8,984
By: TonyT - 13th November 2012 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting thought, with the amount of forced landings with ruptured fuel tanks etc the last thing I'd imagine you would want is an explosive going off, if its not a walk away from crash one would surmise there wouldn't be a lot left, if it was a walk away then you could fire it.. Though open to be proved wrong.
From the previously posted link
Posts: 8,984
By: TonyT - 13th November 2012 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RAF-kittyhawk.jpg
Thing is when you look at that a lot has been moved about.
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2012 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As Knifedgeturn points out, the section of harness shown in the photo above (thanks for posting the link, Peter!) is one of the lap-straps. It would appear that this one has been unbolted from its fixing rather than cut, and I cannot imagine it has been torn from the mounting. That would have been pretty nigh on impossible and would probably show signs of distortion to the two black steel and square-ish mounting eyes at the end of the strap. Maybe, now, the balance of probability tilts back to the possibility that somebody started to remove this harness a long while ago thinking it might be useful, and not to get the pilot out. Seems unlikely (if not impossible) that anybody would be forraging around in the lower cockpit alongside a dead or disable pilot to undo the bolts!
I dont think there are clear photos of the other one to see if that is a lap strap or a chest strap, or to be able to see the method of its removal from the P40; ie cut, torn or deliberately unfastened.
All that is clear is that the main harness strap has seemingly been cut just behind the metal strengthening plate.