fishplanebeer Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 That's a very good point as the report doesn't specify where exactly the yellow M was located so it could well have been on the wing and not the fuselage. Another element to try and build into the project! Regards Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen Barett Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 I'd rather accept the code of the Heinkel pictured was G1+EM (with G1E in white and M in yellow) really fast and use all the time saved for pondering and arguing (or even fighting) what the upper camo color below the distemper black was. It does not look like the officially prescribed 70/71 to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Except it is the E in the photo that is clearly a light colour, either yellow or toned down white, so where the yellow M may have been is still a mystery to me unless the crash report confused the letters E and M given that an M was there (the last code letter) and may have just been visible? In the recent Wingleader book on the early He111's it's suggested that the aircraft received a special lacquer before being painted lamp black so this may explain why there is no evidence of the standard splinter camouflage? Until I can find a pic of the port side of the aircraft this enigma is likely to endure. Regards Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 On 5/5/2022 at 10:00 AM, Jochen Barett said: I'd rather accept the code of the Heinkel pictured was G1+EM (with G1E in white and M in yellow) Hi Could well be as the crash report mentioned yellow spinners and underside of aircraft painted lamp black, swastikas and letters obliterated cheers jerry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted May 7, 2022 Author Share Posted May 7, 2022 The other possibility given that the codes were G1+EM and the E would have been the coloured letter is that another part of the wreckage with the letter on it was twisted through 90 degrees so that E appeared to be M? Doesn't explain whey the code letter was yellow unless of course the codes were changed by 9 staffel for its transfer in which case they could have used their own staffel colour and not that of 4 staffel. Without a clear photo of more of the wreckage I think this is the best explanation I can think of that ties everything together. Regards Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mycapt65 Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 https://flic.kr/p/2niXCsXCould this be the plane in the picture? Perhaps the code letter is a B and not an E and the photo mislabeled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen Barett Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 (edited) On 02/05/2022 at 23:47, fishplanebeer said: I've included one of the pics that have been published so would welcome people's thoughts on it. The confusion is whether the aircraft was G1+MT from 9/KG55, as shown in Luftwaffe loss records, or G1+EM from 4/KG55 as found on the compass card at the crash site. The identification letter to the right of the guard (around his elbow and hand area) to me suggest the letter E but its colour appears to be yellow and not white. +++ It is May, the grass is green, it is an overcast day (no shadows) and the top side camo is lighter than the khaki of the guys standing around like the grey of the elephant in the room. The distemper black is nicely dark, so we are not talking about the reflection of a wet surface or a plane covered in white aluminum ashes like a modern burnt out T-72/BMP/BTR or thrown up dust. Luftwaffe in those days had a fight going on, struggling to get planes in the air. British intelligence had all the time in the world to write the report on a downed enemy plane. We are speculating about M or E because an elephant is standing right in front of the code letter and white or yellow (or the first sighting of RLM 77?) Is the inside of the plane (fuselage and elevator in the other pic) painted RLM 02 or RLM 66? Thank god the uppersides look a bit darker in the other pic and the search light battery folks may have cleaned up some of the distemper black on the vertical stabilizer and rudder. My thoughts? I would like to see a pic of Ockhams shaving brush. Edited May 7, 2022 by Jochen Barett typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 Picking at a minor point here, I thought that there was a Stuka Unit in the BoF with codes described as RLM77? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Venables Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 On 5/4/2022 at 1:11 PM, AndyL said: The MoD have a strict non interference policy... If anyone asks, just feign ignorance and say you had no idea it was an old crash site. If it isn't marked as such, how is anyone to know? Just say you're looking for truffles! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted May 7, 2022 Author Share Posted May 7, 2022 I've spoken to the museum and they have confirmed that the site is not owned by the MOD so I am free to have a root around if I so wish although there would be little point I suspect as they have collected probably all the artefacts during the past 80 years. The only issue is the land owner who apparently is not very cooperative and has previously refused permission for a small plaque or memorial to be placed at the site. As such it is unlikely I'll be able to gain permission to even walk onto the field unless I'm willing to offer him a fee of some description! Planning permission has also been granted to build on the field so at some future point it will no longer be visible and all traces of the incident will be lost, including the gap and missing trees in the hedge row which were taken out by the Heinkel as it crashed. Regards Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyL Posted May 7, 2022 Share Posted May 7, 2022 3 hours ago, fishplanebeer said: I've spoken to the museum and they have confirmed that the site is not owned by the MOD so I am free to have a root around if I so wish although there would be little point I suspect as they have collected probably all the artefacts during the past 80 years. The only issue is the land owner who apparently is not very cooperative and has previously refused permission for a small plaque or memorial to be placed at the site. As such it is unlikely I'll be able to gain permission to even walk onto the field unless I'm willing to offer him a fee of some description! Planning permission has also been granted to build on the field so at some future point it will no longer be visible and all traces of the incident will be lost, including the gap and missing trees in the hedge row which were taken out by the Heinkel as it crashed. Regards Colin. What you’re missing is interfering with a site without a licence is illegal under the Protection of Military Remains Act. Though this actually doesn’t stop people to be fair. The MoD don’t own the site, they own what’s left of the aircraft. RAF are Crown Property. German crash remains are captured war property, and the MoD act as agents for the American Government when it comes to their crash sites. When we used to use the licence system, an application was submitted with all the aircraft and crew details, and later added to the form was the permission box from the landowner. Also a OS map reference which covered you for a 100m radius of that map ref. What was recovered had to be listed on a returns form, and you would then get a legal transfer of ownership of the items recovered. I’ve recently been involved in a proposed surface sweep on a Wellington crash site, which got an immediate refusal as five crew members were killed. As I mentioned in an earlier post they took the line of stopping licences after legally issued ones ended up with substantial remains being found. It only needed about 8lbs of human body weight to be recovered for it it be deemed the full recovery of the body during wartime. I really don’t want to come across as a downer, but these are the facts we are up against now as the MoD are taking things to the extreme. Even recovery licences I have held before where there have been fatalities are a no no. I was recently refused a re visit on a Spitfire site where I’ve held the licence since the late 90s. That said, I’ve really enjoyed your post and your keenness and I wish you all the best with your project. Andy 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted May 12, 2022 Author Share Posted May 12, 2022 I've just received the following montage from FAST (the old RAE) which shows the official photos they took for investigative purposes. I've never seen these before so it's pretty new stuff as far as I can gather but sadly they don't resolve the enigma. None the less I'm not sure these pics have seen light of day since 1941 so I'm quite pleased to have uncovered them. Regards Colin. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen Barett Posted May 12, 2022 Share Posted May 12, 2022 It seems they were more interested in the construction of the Ballonabweiser than in documenting tactical markings and camouflage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishplanebeer Posted May 12, 2022 Author Share Posted May 12, 2022 Sadly I think you are right but at the time this was far more important as the codes and information on the compass card revealed the aircraft's identity, or so they thought! I'm not sure if these have ever seen light of day before as I've never seem them published so makes me wonder what else might still be out there just waiting to be uncovered. It may be that the IWM, RAF Museum, RAF AHB and the local newspaper archive will also come back to me in time with even more, fingers crossed. Regards Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now