WIX Archives
Hi Russ
Posted by Dave on Mon Apr 12, 2004 03:29:18 AM
In reply top Re: Me262 corrections posted by Russ Snadden on Thu Apr 08, 2004 04:49:05 AM
Thanks for your extensive reply , also very interesting ! Just arrived back from Warbirds over Wanaka , so sorry for the lateness of the post. Gordon Permann is a member of the mailing list I mentioned . I think it would be an idea to take this further with the rest of the members , so will contact you off the forum in the near future...
regards
Dave
: Hello Dave!
:
: I was unaware of this website until I received a recent mi
: ssive from Paul Coggan. (An e-mail to Paul/Mick Oakey/Aero
: plane Monthly would have found me, though.)I seemed to hav
: e caused quite a stir with my attempts at research.
:
: I found your submission very interesting, I have to say, a
: nd anything that can be trawled from the past will help ar
: rive at the true history of 112 372. So, perhaps I should
: refer to your msg as I reply...
:
: Firstly, I am quite prepared to accept that Gelbe 5 as cap
: tured at Fassberg was W.Nr. 111 007. The only photograph I
: have of it showing the number, published by the late Jet
: & Prop mag., displays a very blurred third digit. In commo
: n with the publisher, I took this to be a '0'. Sorry!
:
: Secondly, you are quite right that in my article I have of
: fered no conclusive proof that the Hendon aircraft is 112
: 372. I think this will only be discovered as and when (if?
: ) the aircraft is given a Smithsonian-type overhaul which
: it badly needs. I did say in my piece that, by a process o
: f elimination, I conclude it to be '372. In my opinion, th
: e only other aircraft it could have been was 500 210. If y
: ou accept that this aircraft became Air Min 52/VH509, Dave
: , there is no doubt that it was sent to, and scrapped in,
: Canada.
:
: I notice that you put parenthesis around new shot when ref
: erring to the photographs I submitted to Aeroplane Monthly
: , by the way. It may clarify the matter if I tell you that
: the article was written some eighteen months ago and at t
: hat time I was trying like hell to find the truth in order
: that it could be included in Vol. 4 of Richard Smith/Eddi
: e Creeks magnificent opus. Having told you this, can you n
: ow guess where the photograph used in the book came from?!
:
:
: Now to the major points. When working on the aircraft some
: 35 years ago, I discovered, under doped fabric patches, t
: he three attachment points (x2)for an ETC bomb rack. Also,
: in central channelling there was/is release mechanism, bu
: t there is no sign of any plumbing for fuel. This may simp
: ly mean, of course, that the latter wasn't fitted.I apprec
: iate that, towards the end of the War, there was little, i
: f any, difference between the A-1a and A-2a, but as it sta
: nds, the nose of that aircraft is A-2a and is built to the
: same standard as 500 200/Schwarze X of KG 51 presently in
: Canberra. If someone has found paperwork which declares t
: hat 112 372 was built as an A-1a, I would love to see it,
: therefore. All I seek, and have been seeking, is the truth
: ,after all!
:
: I had already been informed that '372 was captured in Schl
: eswig, and that there was a possibility that it had belong
: ed to NJG 11. I had not considered that the Red figure 2 o
: n the shield may have been a Staffel Nummer rather than a
: unit mark, I have to say, but it is a very interesting lea
: d for which I have to thank Gordon Permann of Stormbirds.
: It is also mooted that the aircraft may have been discover
: ed in unserviceable condition at L?beck and flown to Schle
: swig after servicing. Given the quality of the painting of
: the figures 2, I very much doubt that these were painted
: in a hurry and who, in his right mind, would take time to
: do such work amidst the chaos and when it was obvious to a
: ll, not least the personnel of NJG 11, that the War was al
: l but over. If the Shield 2 indicates service with that un
: it, I submit that it had been in there hands before the mo
: ve to Schleswig. Given that all information points to a '2
: 62 having been discovered at L?beck and 'stolen' by person
: nel of NJG 11, might I suggest, rather, that the aircraft
: MAY have been 500 443 which is also in the Schleswig line-
: up and is totally anonymous (no unit marks) other than a y
: ellow Staffel Nummer 6 which has been altered to 5? I have
: absolutely no proof, but I think this to be the aircraft
: which more fits the bill. Over to you dedicated researcher
: s!
:
: I hope the above offers some food for thought. If anyone c
: an come up with CONCLUSIVE evidence on 112 372, no-one wil
: l be more grateful than myself! I think I am safe in sayin
: g that I have been searching for the facts on this beautif
: ul aircraft fro more years than most!
:
:
: