The bombers in the marsh Time Team, 16 January 2005, 5pm
The bombers in the marsh
On 29 November 1944, two Douglas A-26 Invader US bomber planes crashed into Warton Marsh, eight miles from Preston, in Lancashire. All the crew died. Their bodies were recovered from the planes, but an investigation into the causes of the crash was inconclusive. Time Team worked with local enthusiasts and experts to recover these planes and determine the causes of the crash.
The web pages to accompany this programme are now live at:
It’ll be interesting to see what theory/explanation they come up with. Collisions happened all the time during the war, one of the unfortunate results of formation flying, with inexperienced pilots.
It would only need an engine failure on one aircraft, to distract the attention of the pilot for a few seconds, especially if they were in cloud.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
Well that a bit dull. Loads of mud and bent metal that they already had photographs of. They did of course contrive to end up with the conclusion which proved the initial hypothesis and I am at a loss to justify the efforts of all involved to produce either a good programme or archaeological enlightenment. I can't help fearing taht a certain road tunnel in Paris might be on next year's list.
You couldn't have been watching the same episode as me then.Sound digging and logistical skills(and a hell of a lot of research)are needed whether your target is one from 1944 or 1444,all were demonstrated tonight.A fine effort by all concerned,well done.Nice to see the chap who studied this place from his youth get 'what he deserved'.
Must admit they left a lot out - and not having any say in how they actually put it together I was a little dissapointed. The actual theory they came up with was actually quite different from the long held beliefs as to how it happened and perhaps if they had said this it would have seemed more credible that something was achieved - as the wrecks both lie in line with the runway it had been thought that they collided as they took off - one gaining speed too quickly and running into the back of the other. Our research had already put together a similar series of events to the one they came up with - not that we got much credit!
God but this website is damnably slow tonight. Niggle over.
As Kenny Rogers sang, "I've just dropped in to see what condition my condition is in"
Have been watching the series which I consider to be excellent apart from the glaring absence of you-know-who [and I don't mean Lord Voldemort ] in the first 2 progs.
Not so happy with tonight's. Had I been aware of the hypothesis sooner I would have paid more attention to prop. damage. However, I swear that there was only the tip of 1 blade broken in those recovered. Considering the colossal damage done to the plane they found I would have thought that there would have been little or no prop left. Or am I missing something
A few of my colleagues were involved in the recovery of the aircraft in this programme. It was good to see the crash and smash boys get some recognition for what is usually a mundane and dirty job.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy this one.The two previous TT WWII aerial archaeological programs seemed to be more dynamic, this program was awfully flat and one dimensional. I have more of an interest in this "new" archaeological period than I did have with the periods featured in the first two programs of this series yet they seemed more "alive", and I thoroughly enjoyed them. I was disappointed with this effort and there were rather a lot of notable absences.
However, I swear that there was only the tip of 1 blade broken in those recovered. Considering the colossal damage done to the plane they found I would have thought that there would have been little or no prop left. Or am I missing something [/QUOTE]
The plane that was excavated is the one that was lacerated bt the other ones prop. Or so the received wisdom suggests.
Being into ww2 aircraft for longer than i can remember, i paid alot of attention to this one, looking at the crash through the tv screen this is my option, firstly the A26 that came up was in quite a complete airframe for a crash to which i must asume that firstly it was not at a great hight and a little over stalling speed, aircraft are not made like tanks and are therefore quite fragile on the hardness side, the belly of the A26 could easily has been torn off if the plane attempted to belly flop [as quoted on programme 'the wheel strut has been pushed up through '],it did loose an engine but i dont think that it was chewed off by another prop on the other plane , more likey the engine mounting frame was dameged in the collsion and the engine under throttle tore itself off the wing, my guess is that it was a low speed low altitude collision, well thats my theory, and on the lighter side, thou not phil's subject he gave 100 and 10% in this programme, well done phil
i missed this probably deliberately. where was guy?i went to the computer fair this morning and forgot about after going to morrisons when i arrived back it was half over!
Saffron - Guy did appear: I guess it must have been in the half you missed!
Ian/Ronny - the separate engine found was the one which was said to have hit the other plane so, like Ian, I'd have thought the damage would have been to more than one blade.
I guess we’ll never know exactly what happened, it would have been difficult enough at the time of the crash, but virtually impossible to determine the actual cause now. It wasn’t a bad programme, but I’ve seen this type of investigation done before, and done a lot better. Although to be fair, they didn’t have the constraints of a three day time limit.
I just found this all a rather pointless exercise.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
"Is an angle grinder a despoke piece of archaeological equipment?" and "has Phil got one in his belt?". If so he'd be a dead cert for the next Batman movie.
But, joking aside, it was a pity they had to chop it up. I couldn't fathom the wheel strut being forced up. It looked as though it was still retracted into the wing? But perhaps I missed something.
Thanks for leaving the other a/c in situ for us to recovery later!!
I have to say that the programmes interpretation didnt fit in with my assessment of the wreckage uncovered (then I have only been doing this for 25+ years )- for a start the point of impact on Hubbard's plane was from above - there is a clear substantial dent/gouge in the top of the tail section that would match nicely with the curvature of an engine nacelle - this puts the prop slicing into the glazed cover of the gunners compartment - one of the weakest areas of the airframe. The large missing area of floor under the tail is where the lower turret would have been - I suspect this was ripped out by its own weight as the a/c broke up, as it was found approx half way between the two sections. The prop then continued across the top of the fuselage, ripping it open and shredding the central fuel cell there - this proved a real pain as we couldnt get access to the bomb bay - the spades just bounced of all the rubber ribbons. It then next made contact with the port wing shearing this off & leaving the stubs of the spars protruding - the back one bent forward - so no chance of wing being lost on impact with the ground. The two aircraft then seem to have spiralled down with very little forward momentum & actually ended up facing each other - nose to nose, only some 80 feet or so apart - Most sad of all though was the fact that they were too low for any attempt to escape.
Which aircraft hit which is of course impossible to tell & really serves no purpose - both pilots were very competent and experienced, but new to the type. The visibility problem had already been identified and delayed introduction of the A-26 - a new canopy had been designed but this only partially solved the problem (strange TT didnt use any of this - they had all our notes and research - which is what you saw them holding!) Some A-26s had been modified with a hand built new design canopy - including Zuber's but this would have made little difference as there was still the blindspot below. Hubbard's had the early canopy according to our research & confirmed by the dig (again not used) perhaps this is why he was accompanied by a crew chief?
Finally re the props - the engine from Zubers plane was identified by the differing ignition system we had discovered was fitted - two prop blades had lost tips and had several gouges indicating high speed rotation at the time th damage occured - however only the lower blades (as they landed) had been bent by impact with the ground indicating no rotation at that point. Prop blades are by nature very durable and would have sliced through another aircraft no problem - unless perhaps they hit a gun or u/c leg - of which there was no evidence. However Hubbards engine recovered on the show also had collision damage (not mentioned) indicating that the collision had not been a glancing blow but a major contact - probably with the airframes even locked together for a short time - hence the lack of evidence of forward momentum on impact?
Oh and just a quick note WW2digger - the TT were kind enough to lend us all their nice toys the day after filming so we excavated the second aircraft then
I'm no expert, but given the visibility problems with the type, it seemed more likely to me for one plane to fly down and into the other than for it to fly up and into the other.
Again, the programme went off on the hypothesis trail, saying "We know this" and "We can say that..", leading my gf (yet again!) to sit there saying "But they DON'T know! How can they?"...and again, I had no answers that were convincing, or even adequate.
I, too, thought that I would enjoy this programme more than I did, being interested in WWII aircraft, but after watching I felt like I had learned very little or nothing. It was too similar to the excavation carried out on the B-17s (or was it B-29s?) a few years back. Again, there was a marsh; again, one aircraft flew into another...
If that's what the evidence says, then OK. But there didn't seem to be a lot of concrete evidence in this case.
Basically, I was left feeling a little like I did following five's Fighter Plane Live! dig...
Hi, The recovered parts of the A26B Invader are now at the RAF Millom Museum in Cumbria. Some are now on display and some are still in the process of being cleaned for permanent display, which can be watched by visitors as we are very much a 'working' museum (staffed entirely by volunteers) For all this and more, come and pay us a visit. We are one of the best hidden gems in the North West
Well spotted mate. I missed this as well. I know that in quite a few American aircraft the gear revolved through 90 degrees as it retracted. In the wreck this is just how the wheel was lying. They retracted into the engine nacelle but it was only the engines that were found. No mention nor trace of the nacelle remains.
The Time team programme clearly is biased to trying to find explanations from archaeology.
The conclusions reached are, in my view, wrong.
The collision occured when the flight was in formation heading more or less south, close to the shoreline, over Lytham, some three miles from Warton
If the collision was immediatly after takeoff they would have been heading approximatly west, in line with the longest Warton runway.
As I see it what happened was that one of the two that crashed, I do not know which, was in trouble before the collision, with one engine, I think the port one, on fire. It was loosing altitude, and its heading was not in line with the formation. The visibilty was clear, at least at the altitude that they were at, which would be below 2000ft. They were not flying all that quickly, and none had undercarriages down.
How do I come to this?
It may have been sixty years ago, and I may have been only nine, but it left a vivid memory.
I was with some other boys on the recreation ground (the rec) which is in Park View Road, Lytham. The formation appeared a little towards the east, i.e. not directly overhead.
I do not recall seeing the actual collision. and assume that this was hidden by the trees at the southern end of the rec.
We all then ran up to the promenade and could see two fires out on the mud flats. The ground there would be mud rather than sand, and, due to it's dangerous nature was strictly off limits.
I can give a rough direction of the fires from the beach, and have prepared a sketch map.
The tide was out atb the time, and I have made an enquiry with UKHO to see if times and heights that day are available.
If anyone would like tha sketch map or further information email fdmarsden@aol.com
(I cannot explain why we were not in school on a Wednesday.)
)- for a start the point of impact on Hubbard's plane was from above - there is a clear substantial dent/gouge in the top of the tail section that would match nicely with the curvature of an engine nacelle - this puts the prop slicing into the glazed cover of the gunners compartment - one of the weakest areas of the airframe. The large missing area of floor under the tail is where the lower turret would have been - I suspect this was ripped out by its own weight as the a/c broke up, as it was found approx half way between the two sections. The prop then continued across the top of the fuselage, ripping it open and shredding the central fuel cell there - this proved a real pain as we couldnt get access to the bomb bay - the spades just bounced of all the rubber ribbons. It then next made contact with the port wing shearing this off & leaving the stubs of the spars protruding - the back one bent forward - so no chance of wing being lost on impact with the ground. The two aircraft then seem to have spiralled down with very little forward momentum & actually ended up facing each other - nose to nose, only some 80 feet or so apart - Most sad of all though was the fact that they were too low for any attempt to escape.
