Seeking ID of this crashed French a/c.

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

Can anybody ID a/c type, place or details about this crash?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/130776818160...160%26_rdc%3D1

Thanx,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[Buffnut453]

Hi Larry,

Are you sure it's a French aircraft? The markings look more RAF than French - dark undersides with roundels. Am I seeing a tail turret and low-mounted tailplane? If so, maybe it's a Whitley?

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

Yes, I think that this is British. The caption even says so. Can anybody confirm that this is Whitley, and perhaps recognize this particular crash?

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[Buffnut453]

Unfortunately, there's not much to go on by way of recognition features. Looking at it again, I could be totally wrong. The fuselage may be upside down (which would make sense given the alignment of the wings, which would make it a high-mounted tailplane.

I'm still struggling with this one - it looks too small to be a heavy bomber of the Whitley/Manchester class but I can't come up with a better alternative for the 1939-1940 period. Given that we can only see the underside of the port wing, I suppose it could be a fighter rather than a bomber (wearing the black/white recognition markings).

Sheesh...you know how to pick 'em, Larry!!!

[G-ASEA]

To me it looks more like a Bombay or Harrow?

Dave

[Graham Boak]

If it is single-engined then it isn't British, though I'm not sure what it could be. Look at the underside of the wing. It has flaps, making it a modern design. In front of the flaps is some sort of structure. For a single-engined aircraft this would have to be a rearward-retracting undercarriage. However, the wing and tail are not those of an LN140 variant. The fuselage is too big for a Battle.

For a twin, the the outerwing with flaps and ailerons looks like a Blenheim. The rear fuselage could be that of a Blenheim upside down, although it is not clear why the rudder should be so light, unless we are simply seeing the framework and the field beyond. The overall length of the fuselage looks appropriate for a light twin or single-engined aircraft, not a large heavy. The fuselage is too big for a Potez 63 series and the Bloch 174 has dihedral on the tail. It also looks too big for a Breguet 693.

I'm not sure that Blenheims would be carrying roundels on a dark underside, but maybe. There's an outside chance of it being a Glenn (Maryland) but on balance I have to come down (if a little reluctantly) on it being a Blenheim.

Perhaps a poring over plans might come up with other evidence on the precise wing tip/aileron shape or nacelle structure?

[Buffnut453]

Could be a Blenheim, Graham, but where's the rudder? If the fuselage is upside down (which makes sense given the geometry of the wings) then the fin and rudder would be smashed under the fuselage.

I count 7 spars in the upper wing structure for the flap area but can't find any decent pics of that area in a Blenheim for comparison.

[bn785371]

Trying to help,could it be that these photos belong to the same crash aswell?

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Orig-Foto-abg...item20cbf31df1
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Orig-Foto-abg...item20cbf31df1

[Graham Boak]

That is a Blenheim - single row radial, metal prop without spinner, and the turret is distinctive. If that's the same crash, then it is identified.

In the original photo, I do think the wingtip fairly distinctive, but that structure at the back of the nacelle certainly should be, if anyone can identify it. Perhaps a question for the Key Publishing site, where the Duxford people visit. Re rudder, I think we have just a few ribs left at the bottom, or it has been ripped off completely along with the fin.