The big unanswered question I'd thought of was "Weren't there any eyewitnesses?" - and you've just answered that.
Given all the disagreement with TT's conclusions expressed here (which in my total ignorance make sense to me) - how much can we trust all their other reconstructions?!
quote:Originally posted by Anne B: The big unanswered question I'd thought of was "Weren't there any eyewitnesses?" - and you've just answered that.
I thought Stewart said that there were eyewitness statements (which at one time were shown in his hand) but they were contradictory. So I think that they were looked at.
WWII never been my scene and one of my prime niggles is that UK History seems to be obsessed with it, generally ignoring the previous 2000 years!
That said, I'm in no position to comment on the technicalities of this prog, save to say that I found it generally interesting, but not so much as the preceding progs.
Did anyone else notice that half those in the final trench had safety helmets whilst the other half didn't?
quote:Originally posted by Prasutagus: Did anyone else notice that half those in the final trench had safety helmets whilst the other half didn't?
The ones with helmets would probably be the LAIT & RAF Millom Museum members - we were told we wouldnt be allowed in without them I'm the one in the grey T-shirt by the way - they had run out yellow vests by the time I got in the queue!
I enjoyed the programe for what it was but this is not my ideal TT. Layers were uncovered and items were found but, I may be mistaken, those who have an interest in TT has an interest in the far past. Whether it be anglo saxon (my fav) or whatever, 2 planes colliding, during many of our own life times, is not bst material.
Anyway it is done and it has been shown. Perhaps no more?
I quite liked the programme and contrary to the previous e mail, some of us who watch tt avidly prefer WW2 to mud huts, but each to their own. TT makes all ages/periods interesting to the average joe soap, thats one of the things that make it so good.
The important thing to note for me, was that yet again TT has invoked much debate, both here and elsewhere. Programmes such as this one do increase the general interest in archi what not and removes the old stuffy, talky in riddles and language that no-one understands.
Thnks for the map at the beginning of the programme, by the way. Without it, the programme could have been from outer Mongolia for all I knew.
Can MOP's fly into that museum?
<manoamica>
Posted
I miised the first five minutes of the programme.
I would be interested to know if the charted crash site ties in with my recollections of the position of the fires,
Interesting to have an almost-eye witness account of the crash (thank you manoamica). I noticed that Phil was all gung-ho and up for starting the dig with the JCB. Wasn't there a lot of criticism of him a few years ago because he wanted to dig out the big bomber using only his trowel?
Call me an old sensationalist ("Callan, you're an old sensationalist!") but I prefer TT when they are breaking new old ground rather than getting involved in an already half-completed job. I know that role has an important place in piecing together a story, but...
quote:Originally posted by Anne B: The big unanswered question I'd thought of was "Weren't there _any_ eyewitnesses?" - and you've just answered that.
I thought Stewart said that there _were_ eyewitness statements (which at one time were shown in his hand) but they were contradictory. So I think that they were looked at.
1. Yes, we are becoming pre-occupied with WWI and WWII. Whether deliberate or unconcious I do not know but it certainly "gears up" the populace at a time when world affairs are turning to the military and aggressive. What upsets me about this is the lead being taken by American 'historians' .The ease with which they "ignore" or "forget" the British and her pre-American allies and the immeasurablecontribution we made to strategy and technology is scandelous, much more so if it is deliberate.
2. I have made no secret of the fact that I am against this type of 'dig'. O.K. there were no human remains in the plane but what have we learned? and how does it add to the sum of human knowledge. There are thousands of sites in Britain having a greater priority in excavation than this one. And the hypothesis was not confirmed, not even maintained. If ALL the remains were from the a/c which sustained the prop damage then surely it was imperative that the prop. which did the damage had to be found. It was not, so there is no way this hypothesis could be sustained. A previous prog. on this theme [ Romney Marshes?] was much more professional in its approach, diagnosis and findings.
So! Let's get back to the mists of antiquity where we archaeologists belong
Nick, I, too have ben investigating aircraft accidents for 23 years but as a career. I do not subscribe to your theory about Zuber being above Hubbard and massive damage to Hubbard's aircraft being caused by Zuber's left prop for several reasons: 1) I saw no signs of prop slashes on any of the upper surfaces of Hubbard's aircraft and such things are very distinctive 2) There would have been much more damage to Zuber's left prop, yes even if only slicing through alloy skin 3) Why wasn't Hubbard's fin badly damaged if there was an aircraft above him? Remember, what is not hit in a collision is as important as what is hit 4) There were signs of much of the gunner's compartment canopy frame in the main wreckage - this would have been scattered if a prop had sliced through it.
Just looking at the wreckage, all the signs were of an impact from below and the forward bend on the aft spar of Hubbard's left wing pointed to an impact from behind as well by an aircraft travelling faster. The geometry is such that it could really only have been Zuber's left wing banked at about 45 degrees to the right relative to him. Since eyewitnesses report seeing one aircraft slide over to the left and collide, I concluded that Zuber saw Hubbard at the last second and banked violently right to try and avoid him - too late. This was not really used by the programme. Let's face it, Hubbard was already airborne and was presumably orbitting and forming-up when Zuber took off, therefore it is most likely that Zuber came from underneath. I think it was suicidal to attempt to try and put that many aircraft into close formation with such a low cloudbase.
Like you, I noticed the structurally weak area of the gunner's compartment. That is why I went for the theory that a fairly small amount of damage could cause the rear fuselage and empennage to break at this point and a prop seemed the most likely culprit. I did arrive at a geaometry where Zuber's left engine cowling inboard could have caused that puzzling dent in the rear fuselage but, without 2 three-dimensional mathematical models, could not verify this. Hubbard's left engine again did not need a prop to 'chop' it off the wing - a hefty clout anywhere along the length of the nacelle could have levered it off since the nacelle in this aircraft is structural.
None of the above would stand up in court, but I really saw no evidence at all for your theory. I would, however agree that your group did not get the acknowledgement it deserved. It was not my choice, for example, to credit me with the crucial research concerning the different magnetoes fitted to the two aircraft. That's TV for you!
I quite enjoyed this programme (less than the previous two though). The one thing that does often annoy me which has been previously commented on is the conclusions at the end being given as fact. I am a great believer in the words 'probable', 'possible' and 'unlikely' and of similar words. We are intelligent viewers so therefore words like that will not detract from their conclusions. In fact, if anything, I will be happier at the end of the day because I won't be thinking 'but they don't appear to be able to prove that'.
Thanks to all the debate on this thread about the reasons for the planes crashing. I find all your ideas so interesting and the explanations have really helped to augment Sunday's programme.
quote:Originally posted by Steve Moss: Nick, I, too have ben investigating aircraft accidents for 23 years but as a career. I do not subscribe to your theory about Zuber being above Hubbard and massive damage to Hubbard's aircraft being caused by Zuber's left prop
Hi Steve
Ah well - at least we agree on from behind and from the left - two out of three is'nt too bad for an amateur!
quote:Originally posted by KDR: Oops! Didn't mean to hurt any feelings there! And I did say 'a little like' how the Fighter Plane dig made me feel.
Hi KDR
Thanks for that - No problem really, But to those involved in Aviation Archaeology "Fighter Dig Live" is probably considered the worst ever TV show connected with our hobby - just to think of it makes me cringe - and Guy as well I should think!
quote:Originally posted by Nick_Wotherspoon: 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
Nick, Of course I was only joking! What sort of state did you find the second A26 in?
quote:Originally posted by Prasutagus: Did anyone else notice that half those in the final trench had safety helmets whilst the other half didn't?
The ones with helmets would probably be the LAIT & RAF Millom Museum members - we were told we wouldnt be allowed in without them I'm the one in the grey T-shirt by the way - they had run out yellow vests by the time I got in the queue!
If there was sufficient hazard present for ANYONE to be told not go in without the safety helmet, then anyone without a helmet should not have been allowed in. TT are normally very good with their h&s, but even if time is short and they want 'all hands to the pump', as it were, that's no excuse for taking chances - that tends to be when things happen!
I shall have to have a re-run of the video and see if I can pick you out!
quote: Originally posted by Prasutagus: Did anyone else notice that half those in the final trench had safety helmets whilst the other half didn't?
Dont forget Nick it had just started to rain at that point so a most of the helmets were worn for protection from the elements.
H&S was very strict as we had to wear hi viz vests and helmets when working with the excavators etc, only when they were shut down could you remove them, Kerry was responsible for H&S and was on the ball.
You'd fail a plant operators test instantly if you were not wearing one,and thats just stepping into the cab let alone working around an excavator.Written warning first time without one,out of work the next time you got caught without one on my old site.
I enjoyed this prog more than I thought I would as I don't really like this type of archaeology. It has also been great to see so many involved on with the prog posting on here. Well done guys
I'm the one in the grey T-shirt by the way - they had run out yellow vests by the time I got in the queue!
