Jump to content

German wreck identification please?


Rob de Bie

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Jochen Barett said:

Maybe the Hs 130A could be worth a second thought or at least a glimpse.

The photo in Wiki shows a totally different fin shape; and the Hs 130 was fairly huge with a quoted span off 33m and a length just under 20m. While not much remains to judge the size, I think the fin would be larger on the Hs than the one as it appears in Rob's photo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jochen Barett said:

Maybe the Hs 130A could be worth a second thought or at least a glimpse.

 

Yep! I did that, and it wasn't a good match. Also, I found a photo of the Hs 130 in question, and it showed very different damage. And now that think of it, that photo is posted on my Komet site:

 

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/wh05-23.htm

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just thrown off the 410-track by the squared off edge of the tailplane.

 

When doing a google search for HS 130A images it appears all six Hs 130 looked different from each other and had different engines and propellers but none really fits the wreak in question.

 

If that https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/wh05-23.htm is "the Brandis Hs 130A" (what else could it be?) I'll just get used to squared off Me 410 tailplanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep the comments coming! I'm an amateur on German aircraft, with the exception of the Me 163B. I rely on the expertise of you guys for this.

 

The caption of the photo says among others: 'Im Hintergrund ist das Heck einer Henschel Hs 130A zu sehen' - 'In the background, the rear of a Henschel Hs 130A can be seen'. Source is "Zwischen Leipzig und der Mulde; Flugplatz Brandis 1935-1945" by Stephen Ransom.

 

I agree with Tempestfan that the Hs130 looks too large in comparison with the wreck. Plus, the list only has one Hs-130, and it couldn't be in two very different places at the same time. Or the list was wrong?

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some way "a 410 with untusual squared off edges" looks more fitting than "a 130A" (check fuselage below tailplane).

 

On the other hand white 05 got dragged around a bit

from here

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/wh05-26.htm

to

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/wh05-22.htm

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/wh05-23.htm

 

and who knows how the Brandis 130 really looked like?

(it looks different than the 410-wreck-with squared-off-tailplane in question)

 

one 130:

1200px-Henschel_HS_130.jpg

 

the next one http://www.airwar.ru/enc/spyww2/hs130a.html

 

hs130a-4.jpg

 

hs130a-1.jpg

 

hs130a-2.jpg

 

and even better

hs130a-3.jpg

 

plus http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/flugzeuge/henschel/hs130.htm

 

hs130_3.jpg

 

 

my search for another 410 with squared off edges is still without any positive result. I didn't even find a Dienstvorschrift or Baubeschreibung stating the round edges should come off like a lizard's tail ... but I'm open to be convinced and look at pictures and talk about everything in a normal voice.

 

Yes, the 130 does (all do) look different from the wreck shown in the first place, so I do not believe it is a 130. Still I'm puzzled.

 

Regarding the quality of the list (one or two 130 at Brandis, the one "burned out", compare that claim to the remains in the background of white 05) we may just take a look at the first type listet (Ju 187 / 287 ???) and do a google search for images of Ju 187 and 287.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that it has been positively identified as an Me410, why are we still considering the completely different Hs130 that is presumed (on no evidence at all) to be maybe similar?  How about a hitherto un-heard-off Ar440 with a single tail?    Which would at least have solved some of that aircraft's problems.  How about...just about anything?

 

One of the "rules" that hold up well is to ask:  What is  the most likely identification - something fairly common or something truly exotic?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umwege erhöhen die Ortskenntnis. Roughly translated: "The unintended scenic route lets you know the area better."

(Who knew about the 6 rather different Hs 130 before? And who knew that one of them ended at Brandis?)

 

A "positive identification" of a 410 would include round tailplane edges (or a really good explanation) (to me) or a legible Werknummer or Stammkennzeichen, for a "rather likely identification" and for saying "it is not the Hs 130" everything is OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jochen Barett said:

Regarding the quality of the list (one or two 130 at Brandis, the one "burned out", compare that claim to the remains in the background of white 05) we may just take a look at the first type listet (Ju 187 / 287 ???) and do a google search for images of Ju 187 and 287.

The 287 had a very angular fin/rudder shape, a deep rear fuselage to accommodate a tail turret, and as such a high tailplane position. The wreck in question - unless it actually is a pile of several - is most probably an inline-engine aircraft with a spinner. Re the tailplanes, were the tips possibly made of wood? I assume if that had been the case and had burned away, one would see scorching of the areas next to it, but just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tempestfan said:

Re the tailplanes, were the tips possibly made of wood?

 

I wondered if the tips might be of a different material, but looking at this pic of the 410 as Cosford, there doesn't seem to be any obvious sign of that here...

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/ZG26-3U/pages/Messerschmitt-Me-410B-Hornisse-Stab-II.ZG26-(3U+CC)-RAF-Cosford-Museum-06.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Werdna said:

 

I wondered if the tips might be of a different material, but looking at this pic of the 410 as Cosford, there doesn't seem to be any obvious sign of that here...

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/ZG26-3U/pages/Messerschmitt-Me-410B-Hornisse-Stab-II.ZG26-(3U+CC)-RAF-Cosford-Museum-06.html

 

plus the elevators are continuing almost to the tip - puzzling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 1:23 PM, Jochen Barett said:

Regarding the quality of the list (one or two 130 at Brandis, the one "burned out", compare that claim to the remains in the background of white 05) we may just take a look at the first type listet (Ju 187 / 287 ???) and do a google search for images of Ju 187 and 287.

 

As it happens, one of the Ju 287s was photographed on the same occasion. Here's the photo and the caption that I composed, based on other books that contain information on the capture of Brandis.

 

"This is most likely Ju 287 V2 (RS+RB, V1 was RS+RA), of which the front fuselage was blown up. It appears to
have been split in right and left sides. First flight of V1 occured on 8 August 1944 at Brandis, and 17 flights
were made (presumably all at Brandis). It was then handed over to Rechlin, but probably at the same time the
work was ordered to be stopped, in September 1944. It seems likely both aircraft remained at Brandis until
the airfield was captured."

 

airfield36.jpg

 

Rob

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely an Me410.  The only reason that the tailplane looks 'squared' is that the elevators are either missing or fully pitched up.  If you look closely there is a considerable curve to the leading edge.  If the elevators were in a level position you would see the curved tips more clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tempestfan said:

The 287 had a very angular fin/rudder shape, a deep rear fuselage to accommodate a tail turret, and as such a high tailplane position. The wreck in question - unless it actually is a pile of several - is most probably an inline-engine aircraft with a spinner. Re the tailplanes, were the tips possibly made of wood? I assume if that had been the case and had burned away, one would see scorching of the areas next to it, but just an idea.

 

I did not intend to try to tell anybody that the wreck in question might be a Ju 187 or 287, I was trying to question the quality of the list or the sanity of the person(s) making the list.

 

Ju 187?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_187

Ju 287?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287

 

How damaged can an airplane wreck be, so that you "know" it is a Ju 187 or 287 but don't know which one of the two? Just a lot of burnt aluminunm and a manufactures plate telling "Junkers Werke Dessau Typ Ju x87 Werknummer xyzxyzxy"? (xyz = illegible)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mark Postlethwaite said:

This is definitely an Me410.  The only reason that the tailplane looks 'squared' is that the elevators are either missing or fully pitched up.  If you look closely there is a considerable curve to the leading edge.  If the elevators were in a level position you would see the curved tips more clearly.

 

I think I need more help to see that.

 

airfield35.jpg

 

Messerschmitt-Me-410B-Hornisse-Stab-II.Z

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Postlethwaite said:

This is definitely an Me410.  The only reason that the tailplane looks 'squared' is that the elevators are either missing or fully pitched up.  If you look closely there is a considerable curve to the leading edge.  If the elevators were in a level position you would see the curved tips more clearly.

I do interpret the picture that they are neither missing nor fully pitched up - if anything, I suggest they are pitched down. There is a spanwise "light" strip at the rear end, which I think is the large trim tab. Even with the rather drastic angle of the tail to the ground, that tab - if it's the tab - probably would not be seen with any significant "lift" applied.

Anyone around with a full scale 410? I think we are in dire need of doing some trials about the effects of fire and explosions to come to a satisfying conclusion - Aktenzeichen XY!

 

1 hour ago, Jochen Barett said:

 

I think I need more help to see that.

 

I keep seeing a lot of things, everyday, everywhere (I have vivid imagination ;-)), but - so do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...