By: shepsair
- 9th May 2012 at 20:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think with the broken canopy perspex, we can all assume there will be no main data plate. Also all of the ID tags to the scolloped perspex area have also gone. There some hope one or two may still remain in hidden locations which we know about.
Also it looks as though the story will hit the British press on Friday so will be interesting to see what will be reported. Sure it will then be in the Aus, NZ, Can and US press before you know it.
Not sure what is being written and what is being said, all I know is what has been said to me, in that you can probably read in Friday/this weekend.
By: Bmused55
- 9th May 2012 at 21:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The gradual destruction of this once "as abandoned" pristine relic is making my blood boil. To think the craft has survived everything the desert threw at it for 70 years, only to be vandalised by scumbags.
By: 43-2195
- 9th May 2012 at 21:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a "Radio Call" brass plate missing from roughly 2 inches behind the canopy crank instruction placard on the upper right longeron. The only unstealable Identity designator will be the Curtiss Constructors number stamped into the upper surface of the left lower longeron(between frames 3 and 4....I think).
Mark(Shepsair) any feedback from the latest visit?
New
By: Anonymous
- 9th May 2012 at 22:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was the engine number not stamped into those 'flats' on the front of each head? Or on the front cam shaft pedestal? If so, they should survive even if the main plate has gone.
However, the engine number alone is not going to be sufficient, is it?
Even if the AM 78 records the engine number then this is usually just the engine the airframe was delivered with and subsequent engine changes were not recorded.
By: Desoto
- 10th May 2012 at 00:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The E models did not have a Data/ Makers Plate mounted on the starboard longeron, this was introduced on later models. Not any originals I've seen to date. But always happy to be proven wrong.
Cheers,
Ashley.
By: H-87A-2CU
- 10th May 2012 at 08:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well that is encouraging! If the s/n is stamped into the longeron as well there is a fighting chance of identifying her!
Hi Pat1968/Tangmere/43-2195
Yes the number is hand stamped on the Left Lower longeron and will consist of the Ship Number (please note that this is not the Constructors number, but is something called the ship number which was used for tracking on the factory and against the required total of aircraft to be built under contract and of that type....hence these ship numbers are reused). This isn't the only place where the ID may be, there are other not so well know places to look (will not say where online to give a fighting chance that the plates will still be there when someone goes for the information).
The other issue will be making sense of that number, as not all things were built in Sequence with P-40's, I know of cases with C/N's being used twice, and Serial number and Ship number match ups not being in Sequence, and these cases actually happened quite a bit, on top of ship numbers being reused (as I said they are just a factory checking number).
When there is no C/N or serial number plates, the actual identification of the aircraft is going to be quite interesting, as Ship numbers are not on the Form AM78, 1180 nor on the USAAF IRC for the aircraft, or any shipping documentation I have seen. This leaves just the Curtiss Factory records as the only way to positively 100% identify the aircraft, however if trying to do that, you need to find the Model Number (luckily we have this), the Ship Number (fingers crossed they'll find a plate or take the Dyson out to go for the lower longeron), and finally the Actual Curtiss records (the factory records for the Buffalo line) must be found, then you have to find the actual aircraft you are after. This is not something that will happen 2 mins after the number is known, might take a bit longer for 100% confirmation to come through.
As to US serials on RAF aircraft etc. Only the P-40E-1CU and onward have both a RAF serial and a USAAF serial. Before that all aircraft had an RAF serial only for RAF aircraft, and a USAAC serial for USAAC aircraft.
Tangmere - The engine number may be stamped into the engine heads, but this is not something I have seen before (but am no expert on the Allision), and additionally you have the problem with Allision engines of having both an Allision number and a FY number just to really confuse the matter, plate wise. However in the case of ET574 one of the actual engine numbers is on the Loss card which will be of great assistance should it come down to a Engine match only for ID.
Buz
New
By: Anonymous
- 10th May 2012 at 08:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: David Burke
- 10th May 2012 at 10:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bmused -my friend's P-2 survived a few hours in a field near Grantham before British scumbags got to it! I think if the P-40 had been in a field in the U.K we wouldn't be looking at anything after 70 years!
By: TonyT
- 10th May 2012 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what is in the bottom of the cockpit, if he was intending to walk out, a possible note may have been left with direction, heading etc, possibly under the sand.
New
By: Anonymous
- 10th May 2012 at 12:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Buz!
I did wonder if that is what you meant.
Good news, then, if the engine number is on the 1180. Unless the souvenir hunters manage to get away the engine then that, at least, should be there somewhere - although I don't know what the numbering arrangements were on Allison engines. Merlins had the RR number and and "A" number and only one was listed on the 78 or 1180.
By: shepsair
- 10th May 2012 at 13:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Hi all
I have read a draft press release (not RAFM) - but the UK press who are breaking the news.
You'll be glad to know there is no mention of ejecting or jets though this is still dependent on what the newspapers own editors write.
Made a few comments which hopefully will be taken on board if not too late. Otherwise, it is your normal press story you would expect.
I am sure the papers may include incorrect wartime photos (probably showing a Spitfire¬), but the news item is going out with some of the recovery photos from Jakub.
(Simon - just seen your post so obviously too late! "front landing gear", "Kittyhawk P40", "Belly flop". Oh well.)
hopefully the British PM can now be prompted by the press to get involved in this find and increase the diplomatic activity with Egypt, and a recovery actually commence.
By: shepsair
- 10th May 2012 at 13:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Paul,
Need to speak to Buz.
Mark P
Diplomatic talks are going on. Suppose bring it to the press allows for it to be more 'up front' though they are not generally sitting back and waiting for things to happen. They are being proactive - as proactive as you can be in a county in flux at the moment.
Posts: 258
By: pat1968 - 9th May 2012 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe all US aircraft supplied to the UK had USAAC numbers?
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J - 9th May 2012 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not those supplied by Curtiss under direct purchase (rather than Lend Lease) AFAIK
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 9th May 2012 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think with the broken canopy perspex, we can all assume there will be no main data plate. Also all of the ID tags to the scolloped perspex area have also gone. There some hope one or two may still remain in hidden locations which we know about.
Also it looks as though the story will hit the British press on Friday so will be interesting to see what will be reported. Sure it will then be in the Aus, NZ, Can and US press before you know it.
Not sure what is being written and what is being said, all I know is what has been said to me, in that you can probably read in Friday/this weekend.
As for confirmation of ID - still waiting!
regards
Mark
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 9th May 2012 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The gradual destruction of this once "as abandoned" pristine relic is making my blood boil. To think the craft has survived everything the desert threw at it for 70 years, only to be vandalised by scumbags.
Posts: 231
By: 43-2195 - 9th May 2012 at 21:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a "Radio Call" brass plate missing from roughly 2 inches behind the canopy crank instruction placard on the upper right longeron. The only unstealable Identity designator will be the Curtiss Constructors number stamped into the upper surface of the left lower longeron(between frames 3 and 4....I think).
Mark(Shepsair) any feedback from the latest visit?
By: Anonymous - 9th May 2012 at 22:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was the engine number not stamped into those 'flats' on the front of each head? Or on the front cam shaft pedestal? If so, they should survive even if the main plate has gone.
However, the engine number alone is not going to be sufficient, is it?
Even if the AM 78 records the engine number then this is usually just the engine the airframe was delivered with and subsequent engine changes were not recorded.
Posts: 31
By: Desoto - 10th May 2012 at 00:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The E models did not have a Data/ Makers Plate mounted on the starboard longeron, this was introduced on later models. Not any originals I've seen to date. But always happy to be proven wrong.
Cheers,
Ashley.
Posts: 258
By: pat1968 - 10th May 2012 at 00:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well that is encouraging! If the s/n is stamped into the longeron as well there is a fighting chance of identifying her!
Posts: 17
By: H-87A-2CU - 10th May 2012 at 08:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Pat1968/Tangmere/43-2195
Yes the number is hand stamped on the Left Lower longeron and will consist of the Ship Number (please note that this is not the Constructors number, but is something called the ship number which was used for tracking on the factory and against the required total of aircraft to be built under contract and of that type....hence these ship numbers are reused). This isn't the only place where the ID may be, there are other not so well know places to look (will not say where online to give a fighting chance that the plates will still be there when someone goes for the information).
The other issue will be making sense of that number, as not all things were built in Sequence with P-40's, I know of cases with C/N's being used twice, and Serial number and Ship number match ups not being in Sequence, and these cases actually happened quite a bit, on top of ship numbers being reused (as I said they are just a factory checking number).
When there is no C/N or serial number plates, the actual identification of the aircraft is going to be quite interesting, as Ship numbers are not on the Form AM78, 1180 nor on the USAAF IRC for the aircraft, or any shipping documentation I have seen. This leaves just the Curtiss Factory records as the only way to positively 100% identify the aircraft, however if trying to do that, you need to find the Model Number (luckily we have this), the Ship Number (fingers crossed they'll find a plate or take the Dyson out to go for the lower longeron), and finally the Actual Curtiss records (the factory records for the Buffalo line) must be found, then you have to find the actual aircraft you are after. This is not something that will happen 2 mins after the number is known, might take a bit longer for 100% confirmation to come through.
As to US serials on RAF aircraft etc. Only the P-40E-1CU and onward have both a RAF serial and a USAAF serial. Before that all aircraft had an RAF serial only for RAF aircraft, and a USAAC serial for USAAC aircraft.
Tangmere - The engine number may be stamped into the engine heads, but this is not something I have seen before (but am no expert on the Allision), and additionally you have the problem with Allision engines of having both an Allision number and a FY number just to really confuse the matter, plate wise. However in the case of ET574 one of the actual engine numbers is on the Loss card which will be of great assistance should it come down to a Engine match only for ID.
Buz
By: Anonymous - 10th May 2012 at 08:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Buz!
What do you mean by the "loss card" exactly?
Is this the AM1180?
And what is a form 1178?
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 10th May 2012 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bmused -my friend's P-2 survived a few hours in a field near Grantham before British scumbags got to it! I think if the P-40 had been in a field in the U.K we wouldn't be looking at anything after 70 years!
Posts: 17
By: H-87A-2CU - 10th May 2012 at 10:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry
typo in the form number it's the AM1180 (corrected above), and in the case of ET574 it has one of the engine numbers on it.
buz
Posts: 8,957
By: TonyT - 10th May 2012 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what is in the bottom of the cockpit, if he was intending to walk out, a possible note may have been left with direction, heading etc, possibly under the sand.
By: Anonymous - 10th May 2012 at 12:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Buz!
I did wonder if that is what you meant.
Good news, then, if the engine number is on the 1180. Unless the souvenir hunters manage to get away the engine then that, at least, should be there somewhere - although I don't know what the numbering arrangements were on Allison engines. Merlins had the RR number and and "A" number and only one was listed on the 78 or 1180.
Posts: 150
By: SimonDav - 10th May 2012 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its in the torygraph now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9256879/WWII-fighter-plane-hailed-the-aviation-equivalent-of-Tutankhamuns-Tomb-found-preserved-in-the-Sahara.html
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 10th May 2012 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Hi all
I have read a draft press release (not RAFM) - but the UK press who are breaking the news.
You'll be glad to know there is no mention of ejecting or jets though this is still dependent on what the newspapers own editors write.
Made a few comments which hopefully will be taken on board if not too late. Otherwise, it is your normal press story you would expect.
I am sure the papers may include incorrect wartime photos (probably showing a Spitfire¬), but the news item is going out with some of the recovery photos from Jakub.
(Simon - just seen your post so obviously too late! "front landing gear", "Kittyhawk P40", "Belly flop". Oh well.)
regards
Mark
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 10th May 2012 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142300/Crashed-plane-Second-World-War-pilot-Dennis-Copping-discovered-Sahara-desert.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Posts: 1,822
By: mark_pilkington - 10th May 2012 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well done!
hopefully the British PM can now be prompted by the press to get involved in this find and increase the diplomatic activity with Egypt, and a recovery actually commence.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Posts: 2,597
By: paulmcmillan - 10th May 2012 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the subject of Curtiss Build Numbers/Shop Numbers does anyone have a list or approx or at least 1 for any aircraft in the ET520 to EV699 range?
Thanks
paul
Posts: 282
By: shepsair - 10th May 2012 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
P40
Paul,
Need to speak to Buz.
Mark P
Diplomatic talks are going on. Suppose bring it to the press allows for it to be more 'up front' though they are not generally sitting back and waiting for things to happen. They are being proactive - as proactive as you can be in a county in flux at the moment.
Mark