I think its time I shut up about hats and vests as I seem to be digging a bigger hole for myself, yes I will wear a hat and vest when I am in the bottom of it.
Well im a bit diss after tt tonite as tony didn"t seem too enthuess,also what about the guns? was there any ammo in them? also we wer told at the end what they thought at the begining. hope it gets better im still a big fan.
Finally got to watch the programme. The dig deserved a lot more than the usual 'three days'. It seemed rushed and more incomplete than usual! Although I found it interesting, the format has been done a number of times before, even by TT themselves!
Looking at humus's photos of the dig I wondered how Phil H. had got so mucky. Jet washing the inside of a WWII plane explains it all
quote:Originally posted by WW2Digger: Nick, Of course I was only joking! What sort of state did you find the second A26 in?
Originally we were going to try to recover some artefacts from Hubbards palne, but after a discussion, we used the machinery available to excavate the second aircraft the day after filming - we knew that it was already in bits and one set of u/c legs etc is all that most visitors to the museum would want to see - it also seemed disrespectful to break Hubbards plane up just for a truck load of relics - As I have said, It now has a specially created lagoon for the wading birds on top of it - which seems more appropriate (IMO).
The second aircraft did indeed prove to be burned and broken up - the wings were reduced to a couple of 20 foot sections of the two main spars - the rest was powder. But it yielded many artefacts including the predicted u/c legs - complete nose wheel with tyre still in its wheel well with cockpit floor attached, the control column, a few instruments (most had also been removed at the time of the crash), radios, a massive battery, both rudder pedals an intact pilots seat and an astrocompass etc.
quote:Originally posted by Anne B: And which theory, if any, did it appear to bear out?
As we excavated the second A-26, we did sketch a diagram to record where all the parts were in relation to each other - it was interesting to note that it had broken at the same point as the first on impact ie across the gunners position. One thing that did surprise us was that it was in fact facing the first aircraft nose to nose and only 80 feet away - I can't understand how this happened if the collision had been the glancing blow from a faster aircraft coming from behind
I think one of the main problems with the TT investigation was that they compromised too much on what they were prepared to recover - all four props needed to be seen - we had given them the locations for the other two engines & they were not difficult to get at & could have been uncovered easily.
The theory seems to hinge on the engine from Zubers plane being the port one, which we have no evidence to support & as I have already said there was similar collision damage on Hubbard's starboard prop - as Steve said in his post - what has not been hit is as important as what has & no collision damage was found on Hubbards ventral turret (or I admit the dorsal one Steve) or a bombay door recovered from Hubbard's plane - all very puzzling.
Finally the reason that the engines all seem to have become detached & scattered is that the A-26 had a unique cast alloy engine bearer frame, which shattered under excessive load - I'm not convinced that the engines were knocked off by the collision, but by the violent centrifugal forces they came under as the panes tumbled out of the sky- Still that just my theory
Sorry, I slipped into jargonese and forgot not everybody is familiar with it (now where have i heard that before?)... Its members of the public as earlier guessed.
quote:Originally posted by Nick_Wotherspoon: ...it also seemed disrespectful to break Hubbards plane up just for a truck load of relics - As I have said, It now has a specially created lagoon for the wading birds on top of it - which seems more appropriate (IMO).
quote:Originally posted by Nick_Wotherspoon: One thing that did surprise us was that it was in fact facing the first aircraft nose to nose and only 80 feet away - I can't understand how this happened if the collision had been the glancing blow from a faster aircraft coming from behind )
Why is that then, do aircraft fall in a regular way after they have been hit at an unknow height and unknown speed after they have been hit in a relatively unkown way?
quote:Originally posted by D: Why is that then, do aircraft fall in a regular way after they have been hit at an unknow height and unknown speed after they have been hit in a relatively unkown way?
Height was around 1000 feet, speed would have been low as were still forming up - if one plane collided from the rear whilst travelling faster, I would expect the momentum to carry it well beyond the plane it hit especially if the airframe survived relatively intact, albeit on fire. The first aircraft, having lost the major part of one wing & the tail would fall immediatly - so I would have expected a much greater scatter of wreckage - however they both obviously fell with a similar trajectory - Down
quote:Originally posted by manoamica: Do you still they were flying west, or south, and crashed coincidentally in line with the runway?
My recollection is that they were silver, not black like the models in the C4 prog.
One of the few statements in the crash report that is consistent is that the planes were circling whilst they formed up into a standard formation for the flight to France - we have no idea at which point of the arc of this circle the two planes collided and the actual direction would have been dependant on this. Yes I do think it coincidental that the planes fell at a position that is approximately in line with the main runway.
You are quite right re the colour of th planes - all those in the sky that day would have been in natural metal (silver) finish - the black model was bought as a prop for the show & was the only colour available I believe.
Finally in responce to "D" Yes the planes may well have "spun-in" and the way they face now has no relation to their position relative to each other when they collided - though they would still tend to continue in the direction they were flying at the time of impact - it is however very unusual for two planes to have come down so close - I have investigated collision incidents before, but never seen anything like this - which is the point I was trying to make - also I feel that, like the planes 60 years ago, this discussion is also going around in circles - everything is down to personal opinion and theory - even getting in a reknown expert didnt really help as not enough of the wreckage was examined during the programme to make a conclusive appraisal + perhaps trying to apportion blame for an incident 60 years ago in which 3 brave and experience aircrew were all killed does not really serve any purpose & should TT decide to cover another aircraft project, then a different angle should be taken when looking for the "mystery" to be solved?
Hello Nick, Thanks for all the info regarding this programme and the recovery of the bits. A pity the weaponry wasn't saved but one MG is very much like another I suppose they'd say!
The problem that the programmes producers appear to have is that they have to justify digging such a site as a means of "solving a mystery", when there isn't really one to solve. It would be a different kettle of fish if they were digging a site where the identity of the a/c or crew was in dispute - but fatal crash sites are not as easy to investigate as you'll be only too well aware!
quote:Originally posted by Nick_Wotherspoon: Finally in responce to "_D_" Yes the planes may well have "spun-in" and the way they face now has no relation to their position relative to each other when they collided
quote:Originally posted by Nick_Wotherspoon:
One thing that did surprise us was that it was in fact facing the first aircraft nose to nose and only 80 feet away - I can't understand how this happened if the collision had been the glancing blow from a faster aircraft coming from behind
I must have mistaken what you were saying, thanks for the info, knock yourself out!
quote:Originally posted by D: I must have mistaken what you were saying, thanks for the info, knock yourself out!
Not quite sure what you are getting at here D but perhaps I did not make myself clear enough for you So I'll try again
We are talking about two quite different things here - the attitude of the aircraft remains as they came to rest and the position of the two aircraft (in relation to each other) - the former is unlikely to have any relation to the attitude of the aircraft several seconds earlier and 1000 feet above in the collision. However the position of the scatter of wreckage is likely to have some relation to the collision - the stalling speed of the A-26 was if I recall corectly around 115mph and top speed up to 300mph - we can only say for sure that the two aircraft were travelling at speeds between the two! In the thoeretical TT scenario Hubbard has formed up so would be at cruising speed of say 160mph and Zuber is catching up so speeds up to say 200mph - the increased momentum of his plane would surely carry it further following the collision? A recent investigation I did into two hurricanes that collided whilst in formation at the same speed, still came down nearly half a mile apart and two P-38s which did the same impacted well over half a mile apart.
I am not attempting to give a definite explanation of how the aircraft came to earth as they did - I do have my theory - what I am saying is that it does not seem to fit into the theory given.
One thing that is certain is both aircraft hit at fairly level attitudes. After the collision Hubbard's a/c (43-22298) would have pitched up and to rolled over to port entering a corkscrewing motion (having lost the rear fuselage and port wing) losing forward speed very quickly. That is shown by the stb engine only being a few feet ahead of its mountings. After going through at least one rotation the aircraft seems to have impacted the ground flat, the completeness of the aircraft and the slapying of the sidewalls of the cockpit do seem to show this.
It is possible that Zuber's (43-22336) entered a montion reminicent of a flat spin, hence its final position facing 43-22298. As Nick has pointed out its higher initial forward speed should have carried it ahead.
it looks as if the archeology this time didnt answer any questions but was a excercise in recovering bits of plane for a museum. artifact collecting if you like. a waste of three days
<manoamica>
Posted
I have thought long and hard about this
The more times I replay my memory, the less sure it becomes.
I remain convinced :-
They were flying, approx south at the time of the collision. One aircraft was in trouble, engine fire.
( at the time us boys thought that it was because they were returning from a mission) They were silver and clealy visible There was a mid air collision, but how we knew that I don't know.
They were not all that high, If I had to put a number on that I would say 1500ft.
(note, many years later I was glider pilot)
This brings me to say that pilot error ought to be disregarded, taling into account all the known A26 issues.
I now think that archaelologists will always get conclusions wrong.
Cranfield Man.
You guys have not heard?
Cranfield Mn was the result of the ergonomics dept of Cranfield deciding what the operator of a 20th century lathe was like, from the perspective of an archealolgist he was 5'6" tall strong, had three arms. one of which was 6' long etc,etc.
If Tony Robinson digs up a 1990 rowboat he must decide that 1990 Man was just like us , but had his head the other way round.
TT stick to digging up relics, stay off accident forensics
Well im a bit diss after tt tonite as tony didn"t seem too enthuess,also what about the guns? was there any ammo in them? also we wer told at the end what they thought at the begining. hope it gets better im still a big fan.
