A bit of a puzzle?

[rof120]

Quote Chris: "Both aircraft have the KG 76 fuselage band behind the trailing edge of the wing."

All right (I had no idea about that ol' band) but I think it's the first time I see a photograph of Do 17(s) not sporting some STAFFEL-insignia on their nose, like the well-known singing bird ("alouette" - Lerche) or the big bomb, falling obliquely. I feel this could be a pointer to replacement aircraft in any case, either having just arrived in their Staffel or too busy for the artists to bother, for German aircrew and ground crew seem to have been really keen to proudly have their Staffel-insignia on their aircraft.

French fighter pilots really could aptly sing "Alouette, gentille alouette, alouette, je te plumerai…" (Nice skylark, I'll pluck you…)

[Chris Goss]

There are quite a number of unbadged Do 17s in my forthcoming book

[Graham Boak]

Propeller tips are often bent forward when the engine(s) turning at impact. Remember that it is the rear of the blade that meets the air first (if this seems odd remember that the prop is seeing the sum of the forward and rotational velocities).

[schwarze-man]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Propeller tips are often bent forward when the engine(s) turning at impact. Remember that it is the rear of the blade that meets the air first (if this seems odd remember that the prop is seeing the sum of the forward and rotational velocities).

Hi Graham. Yes, the bent forward tips from contact with turf, soil or water occur where the prop is turning under power and the blade tip chord line has a positive angle of attack to the material it is passing through. In this state, the length of blade passing through the turf, soil or water under power is usually quite short and so the deflection of the blade tip is relatively small. Usually, this is the result of a slight prop strike under power on a T/O or run-up that does not involve full or further contact. In the case of blade tips contacting when turning not under power, such as landing with reduced throttle, if the angle of attack is negative relative to the turf, soil or water they pass through, the tips will be deflected back. In both cases, if the contact develops into gross contact the blades are likely to be grossly deformed, usually ending-up bent backwards if the aircraft continues traveling forwards as the engine slows and stops.

In the case of the aircraft coded K, here fully on its belly, you can see that the left engine propeller sticking uppermost has a near 90 degree sharp bend of the last 30cm or so. Additionally, the lower blade partly visible on that engine in the first photo, looks distinctly bent forward over its length. The right engine on K, that has had a heavy impact and lost a blade, has a slightly forward bent blade. I would judge that the left engine blades were bent forwards as the aircraft finished its movement backwards with the U/C collapsing and the engine stopping in a single turn. The right engine has undergone such a heavy and complicated impact that, it is impossible to be certain from these photos exactly how that upper blade bend occurred. Cheers

SM

[robert]

Hi,

I have two other photos of these wrecks and I`m almost sure that they were both from 3./KG76. In one of the photo I can seen some Ju 52s parked in the background so it was an airfield. The area is quite hilly so it must be very odd airfield. Basing on other photos I think that also II./KG76 was stationed at this airfield. The problem is that I./KG76 used many forwarded airstrips and airfields. When I will find some time I will list all of these locations.
BTW it seems that F1+LL was rammed by a vehicle on the ground and its loss was rather not linked with loss of F1+KL.

Robert

[schwarze-man]

Originally Posted by robert

Hi,

I have two other photos of these wrecks and I`m almost sure that they were both from 3./KG76. In one of the photo I can seen some Ju 52s parked in the background so it was an airfield. The area is quite hilly so it must be very odd airfield. Basing on other photos I think that also II./KG76 was stationed at this airfield. The problem is that I./KG76 used many forwarded airstrips and airfields. When I will find some time I will list all of these locations.
BTW it seems that F1+LL was rammed by a vehicle on the ground and its loss was rather not linked with loss of F1+KL.

Robert

Hey, don't mess about put those other photo's up! Far better than us wondering. Please give the details about the vehicle damage to LL. That was some considerable ramming by a vehicle to break the wing off and collapse the left undercarriage! One thing I find surprising is that these two are in such close position if they were unrelated incidents. Both would be very difficult to move, esp in a forward field. Cheers

SM

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by schwarze-man

Both would be very difficult to move, esp in a forward field. Cheers

SM

That's true, but if they were obstructing the landing area then you'd make a lot of effort to get them out of the way.

[schwarze-man]

I agree Nick, they might have been dragged off. However, that would still be difficult and probably show more damage where steel cables would be used? Also, considering the difficulty in moving them, esp by dragging, it seems unlikely that they would end up positioned so close nose to nose? The tall grass or crop also seems relatively unflattened around the wrecks, I would expect to see considerable evidence of surface disruption from the dragging and towing activity. Cheers

SM

[rof120]

Originally Posted by Chris Goss

There are quite a number of unbadged Do 17s in my forthcoming book

Interesting! It could be worthwile to try to know why they didn't sport any badges/insignia (on their nose), which I feel is rather unusual for German combat AC. No time to paint them on replacement AC? People too busy? Aircraft too busy?

According to Paul Martin in the 1991 book "Invisibles vainqueurs" French fighter pilots alone claimed exactly 90 Do 17s shot down (there were, it seems, quite a few misidentifications with Me 110s, Do 215s and Ju 86s, but conversely too so let us stick to 90 claims for the moment). Dozens more were shot down by British fighters and by various AAAs and other ground fire (machine-guns etc.). I guess these were very heavy combat losses (add accidents) for Do 17s were not so terribly numerous in May-June 1940. He 111s were more numerous and French f. pilots claimed "only" 124, possibly they were harder nuts to crack (in particular with more effective armour).

Sorry but a large part of my books etc. is buried in some boxes so I don't know exactly how many He 111s and Do 17s the Luftwaffe used in combat in May-June 1940. Most probably you know. I suspect that Do 17 losses were much heavier - in percentage - than He 111 losses. As you know only a few dozen (new) Ju 88s were deployed then.

[edwest2]

If one aircraft was rammed by a ground vehicle, it may explain the tank in the photo. One further thought: one aircraft may have been blocking the road.


Ed