You can upload the video to YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
You can upload the video to YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Looking for militaria from 38. Batterie, Heeres Küsten Artillerie Regiment 977, also from 31, 32 and 36. Batterie.
I'm no expert, but haven't seen it mentioned yet:
Could it be a Mosquito?
Two engines plus some versions had .303 machine guns?
Excellent video. Very interesting indeed. Can't help any further on the ID of the aircraft but those 303s look like they are still in what's left of a turret.
After watching the video it appears to me that the engines are indeed RR Merlins, I can see what looks like part of the supercharger housing and an entire carrburettor.
Reviewing the thread I got to looking at the grey painted plate stencilled 5B/1261 and wondered if the '5B' could stand for the Handley-Page (HP63) Halifax Mk VB.
The Halifax Mk V was virtually identical to the Mk II. The only difference was the use of the Dowty undercarriage in place of the Messier undercarriage used in the Mk II, which was in short supply. The Dowty undercarriage was used on the Avro Manchester and Lancaster bombers, but the version supplies for the Halifax used sub-standard castings, preventing the Mk V from being used with a full bomb load. This made the Mk V of limited use to Bomber Command, and so after it entered service in June 1943 most Mk Vs were transferred to other duties. In some ways the failure of the Mk V as a heavy bomber was fortunate. Many other RAF commands needed the capacity offered by the four engined heavies, but Bomber Command were very unwilling to release them for other duties.
Coastal Command benefited from the limits of the Mk V as a heavy bomber. The GR Mk V was used in greater numbers than any other maritime version. It was most often used in the anti-shipping role, but also served in the anti-submarine role.
The Mk V was the first Halifax to be converted for meteorological duties. Three Coastal Command squadrons (Nos. 517, 518 and 520) used the aircraft to fly long range missions over the Atlantic from bases in Britain and Gibraltar. The Merlin engines used in the Mk V were not well suited to this duty which required very long range operation. Engine failures were relatively common, and delayed the entry of the type into regular meteorological service – with the heavy fuel load needed for these long range missions three engines could not keep the Halifax at altitude and the extended fuel tanks on the standard Mk V could not be jettisoned.
This makes me think that, as Nick alluded to earlier in this thread, the aircraft may be a 'Hallibag'. BTW, for it to be a Short Stirling it would have to have twin tail wheels and radial engines.
Below is a pic of a Mk V, but it's for special op's (parachutists or troop carrier) as the front and dorsal turret has been faired over.
'I do not think we can hope for any better thing now.
We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker of course, and the end cannot be far.
It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more. R. SCOTT.
Last Entry - For God's sake look after our people.'
In memory of Capt. Robert Falcon Scott, Edward Wilson, Henry Bowers, Lawrence Oates and Edgar Evans. South Pole Expedition, 30th March 1912.
Judging by the tailwheel, I'd tentatively say Lancaster.
The gauge face you found is from a constant speed bombsight steering indicator - these were fitted to earlier bombers, Whitley, Wellington, Halifax, probably Lancasters but i've never seen any pictures of one in situ. Perhaps also OTU aircraft.
Obviously the date on the ammo is useful - 1943.
I can't place the film spool - it may be from an F24 camera - I have one in my study and the spool is marked 14A/777, yours could of course be an earlier model....
Last of all, the blades do appear wooden, for this reason I think it's unlikely to be a Lancaster. Lancasters I and III had metal blades - either duralium or 25-ST (hard aluminium alloy). Only the Lancaster II had wooden blades and these aircraft had Hercules engines, so on this basis Lanc would be is out.
Can you confirm exactly how many engines there are? If it's four engined than it's probably a Halifax, if two engined, well that's a bit more complicated.
If you could bring up the tailwheel, we may be able to ID the aircraft type from that as they were quite specific.
I just reviewed the video again - thanks for posting that. I can't be sure if I could make out a third prop hub buried in the sand or not? Can you confirm?
As Nick has already said, bringing up an intact bit of airframe with a part number would be helpful. Other useful items to look for would be exhaust stubs - again these do vary somewhat between aircraft types and the undercarriage units.
I agree that those .303 rounds seem to be related to a turret - there are lots of pipes in the vicinity. I still think getting the tailwheel would be a good way of getting an ID.
Regarding it being a Mossie, I think that's probably unlikely as they were also only ever fitted with metal blades.
We have found three engines so one is still missing. The strange thing is how the engines are lying upside down close together whitout any debrie between them and one probably missing.
Looking at pictures on internet ive found pics of Lanc tailwhell and they look exatly like the one we found even to the marks on the rubber (dont know the right English word for it but you are intelligent people, you can figure out what i mean) does anyone have a pic of a Halifax tailwheel, are they simular to a Lancaster ? By the way, The Brittish embassy have been notified.
I see what you mean about the groove in the tyre. Looking at my notes on wheels, the Halifax I, II, III, V, VI etc all used the AH 8013 tailwheel, so did the Lancaster II and VII however.
NA337 (the Halifax rebuilt by the Canadians) has a different looking tyre - it's smooth. I'm not sure if it's original though.
I wouldn't be too worried by the fact the engines are all sitting near each other. They probably broke free from the rest of the aircraft when it hit the water.