The Eagles Over Europe Project

[taitbb]

I dont think the bump on the spinner was removed per se. It has merely been made less visible because of the brighter contrast between the two photos.

here i have darkened it, and you can see the bump reemerge.

[Sergio Luis dos Santos]

Originally Posted by taitbb

I dont think the bump on the spinner was removed per se. It has merely been made less visible because of the brighter contrast between the two photos.

here i have darkened it, and you can see the bump reemerge.

Yes, I agree the bump is there. Lighting effect.

[obdl3945]

I'm confused... !

Attached below is the version I've got, with the dent on the upper spinner evident, but the one on the underside invisible/missing. I think this is the same one as the first photo Rudi posted.

I thought maybe the photo was taken closer to the aircraft, but can't quite get my head around the lower dent not being seen as I think it should be, given it is rather noticeable on post #4 by Larry. Apologies if I'm making you as confused as myself!

Paul

[Pieter H]

Larry,

In earlier discussions on LEMB you yourself identified the pictures of the L2+AC in this thread.
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16856
Is that no longer true?

Regards, Pieter

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

RudiS - how can you be sure that this is the way this happened? Do you know that the buyer of the first photograph is the seller of the second one?

ouidjat - he/she/it doesn't need to have the original negative - you can make a 'new' negative by photographing a print - and then work on this before you make a new set - hence 'repro' - reproduction.

I am still not convinced - I can not see how you can get so much new detail out of the obviously much darker print which RudiS present as the 'original' the person has been working from.

As I know how many different or nearly similar copies/prints/versions exist of photos in my main area of interest, I believe we are looking at different wartime versions.

I guess we will have to wait and see - and as the seller seems to have made a modern repro/copy we will probably never really know... if he/seh is not willing to share either the negative or the print he has copied for analysis.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Col Bruggy]

Hello,

And, of course, Major Spielvogel was killed in September 1939, Not 1940.

Col.

[RudiS]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

RudiS - how can you be sure that this is the way this happened? Do you know that the buyer of the first photograph is the seller of the second one?
Andreas B

I don't know if the buyer of the first photo is the seller of the second one. But I am sure that the skull emblem wasn't on the original photo.

Let’s look at the facts:
1). The aircraft coded 5J+CH belonged to KG4, not to KG54.
2). Larry has about 20 photos in the EOE DB on which the skull emblem of KG54 is NOT on this aircraft.
3). The aircraft coded 5J+CH was lost in Poland in september 1939. By that time I./KG54 didn't use this version of the skull emblem, but a smaller version in white. This version of the skull emblem came in use after the invasion of Poland and before the beginning of the Norwegian campaign.

So what are the possiblities:
A). Someone put a new, non-existing version of the skull emblem of KG54 on a KG4 aircraft before or during the Poland campaign. The emblem looked so good that KG54 decided to replace all of its skull emblems on its aircraft by this one.
B). Someone put the KG54 skull emblem on this photo later during the war.
C). Someone put the KG54 skull emblem on this photo well after the war.

My opinion:
Possibility A is far fetched to say the least.
Possibility B is possible but unlikely. As far as I know censors would remove codes and emblems, not add them. And even if there was a reason for disguising this KG4 aircraft as a KG54 one, why leave the tactical code of KG4 on it?
So for me Possibility C is the only logical one.

Regards,
Rudi.

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

Here are the images of the two 5.(S)/LG2 Hs123s that may be the two a/c that I'm looking for additional information or images relating to losses on May 14, 1940.

http://ihra.smugmug.com/photos/i-rj7...-rj7PqTv-L.jpg

The first is clearly L2+BN.

http://ihra.smugmug.com/photos/i-F86...-F867Tg2-L.jpg

The second could be L2+DN or L2+ON,

Who can help?

Regards,

[Merlin]

Larry,

the visible "O" below the upper wing is the last letter of the Stammkennzeichen. I have seven different aircraft in my list ending with an "O", but none related to II./LG 2.

The aircraft letter of the unit code was usually painted below the lower wing within II./LG 2.

[Larry Hickey]

Gerhard,

Thanx for the note. I'd noticed the underwing a/c lettering on the excellent photos we have that show the crash of L2+BM on 05.06.40, and have presumed that that was the pattern that was being followed--the individual letters in black below the lower wingtip, just inboard of the lower-wing cross.

Thanx to Göran, off board we've now picked up another photo of L2+BN for the front half of the starboard side. Unfortunately, we can't see if the 5 Staffel insignia was used on that side as two people are blocking the view. I'm thinking that L2+BN was more likely the a/c of Lt Georg Ritter, but there is almost no why to prove it. I'm thinking that the officer might have likely been flying the "B" aircraft rather than one of the later letters. That's what happened with Lt. Panten with L2+BM in 4 Staffel. Pure speculation, however. Both will be profiles representing their respective Staffeln.

There are absolutely no useful landmarks from either direction of the photos of L2+BN that would help us confirm the "Gembloux" Belgium location. Don't know how we're going to "confirm" that location, unless we find other photos with the same location listing.