RB-29 'over-exposed' crash site.

[dr_gn]

Ian D B said:

Yeah that's the bit I was looking at when you said it yesterday;




Admittedly memory is the least reliable source of information but detail like this (quoting a Glossop man in Cunningham here) "in 1957 or so that aft fuselage section, just before the tail, provided a good shelter from the rain, and would just hold three lads" and the 1945 photo in Collier are very strong.

But it is possible the records are wrong of course. Totally agree re; the wrong details being passed from one place to another, especially on websites when people copy n paste and create history.

But this bit of debris being a bit of wing has had me wondering if I am going mad. I am not yet convinced and won't be changing my write up on my pages (just yet) but if the records are wrong then they need to be put right.

Edited by Ian D B on Thursday 9th January 19:44

Yes, but don't forget on both the cutaway and your image above, we're not looking at the same thing as in the remains, we're looking towards the engine nacelle, the remains are looking at it from inboard, out towards the wing tip i.e. the part that mates with the cutaway view, so it will be slightly different.

The corrugations you reference in the b&w photo are much larger than those in the wreckage image, and might even be some form or roll-out mat to put on a ramp for loading.

Personally I would say that you would be 99% safe to edit your web pages; was "the Glossop man" at all familiar with aircraft construction methods I wonder?

[Ayahuasca]

They would have to have been three very undersized malnourished lads to shelter in that bit of wreckage. Maybe there was a larger section of fuselage in the gully years ago that has since vanished?

[Ian D B]

Ayahuasca said:

They would have to have been three very undersized malnourished lads to shelter in that bit of wreckage. Maybe there was a larger section of fuselage in the gully years ago that has since vanished?

dr_gn said:

Yes, but don't forget on both the cutaway and your image above, we're not looking at the same thing as in the remains, we're looking towards the engine nacelle, the remains are looking at it from inboard, out towards the wing tip i.e. the part that mates with the cutaway view, so it will be slightly different.

The corrugations you reference in the b&w photo are much larger than those in the wreckage image, and might even be some form or roll-out mat to put on a ramp for loading.

Personally I would say that you would be 99% safe to edit your web pages; was "the Glossop man" at all familiar with aircraft construction methods I wonder?

Lol, they'd certainly have to be a bit slim to seek shelter in this now, or to shelter in a bit of wing for that matter.

After 70 years of having ramblers using it as a shelter and certainly as somewhere to sit and have their butties it will have squashed it down. If it is a bit of wing then it looks to be of the same dimensions after 3 generations of abuse as it did then (and I suppose this bit of debris is different to other stuff because of where it is, on the way up a steep clough and not far from the top, a seat like this will attract ramblers' arses).

But it certainly does make me think twice. The idea that there was once a bit of fuselage is about the only one that makes sense. I should really scan and upload the photo of the tail from the man who was first on the scene but that of course doesn't prove anything. It's just very odd for so many sources say the same thing. I need to compare more photos of the leading edge with close-up topside views of Dakotas.

Here's another.

[richw_82]

Ian D B said:

Interesting as it means every book and website detailing the remains of Dakota 42-108982 has got it wrong.

Not really, the fuselage was further up then got buried by falling rocks. Just because the wing is the only bit you can see, doesn't mean it always was. Walk a little past the wing up the clough and stamp about. There's a lot of hollow spaces.

[Ian D B]

richw_82 said:

Not really, the fuselage was further up then got buried by falling rocks. Just because the wing is the only bit you can see, doesn't mean it always was. Walk a little past the wing up the clough and stamp about. There's a lot of hollow spaces.

Do you know that? I mean, have you seen the fuselage piece referred to and know it is not this bit and that over time people have thought this chunk is the fuselage which was actually covered by rockfall at some point? Be great if you could let me know where you last saw it, I will be back there this weekend!

This is the largest bit there now. That there was once a bit of fuselage and now there isn't is the best theory to account for it if the books and websites are wrong. And it's not me reading the books and misinterpreting what I see on the ground; Cunningham gives the 10 figure grid ref for "fuselage section" and it is this bit.

Also these websites and books. Likesay, not that they can't all be wrong but there is a lot to be disproven.


Peak Wreck Hunters
http://peakwreckhunters.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/c47...

http://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/pages/peak...
Peak District Air Crashes, with the comment 'part of the rear fuselage, now badly crushed, though once easily recognisable'

Aircraft Wrecks
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TnZP29EI0RIC&am...

[dr_gn]

...but people read those books, see it's described as "the fuselage" take their photos, post them on their own websites without ever knowing what they'd actually seen. It's easily done, after all unless you'd studied how aircraft are/were put together, and went to the trouble of identifying a seemingly random bit of wreckage, why would most people disbelive what they'd read in a supposedly authoritatve book?

[Ian D B]

dr_gn said:

...but people read those books, see it's described as "the fuselage" take their photos, post them on their own websites without ever knowing what they'd actually seen. It's easily done, after all unless you'd studied how aircraft are/were put together, and went to the trouble of identifying a seemingly random bit of wreckage, why would most people disbelive what they'd read in a supposedly authoritatve book?

That's where I am at now, questioning this for the first time.

I have been in contact with most of these authors, have even been out on the moors looking for wrecks with some them. They don't need me to defend them but they do know one bit of an aircraft from another and aren't casual bloggers... It is certainly food for thought however.

[dr_gn]

Ian D B said:

dr_gn said:

...but people read those books, see it's described as "the fuselage" take their photos, post them on their own websites without ever knowing what they'd actually seen. It's easily done, after all unless you'd studied how aircraft are/were put together, and went to the trouble of identifying a seemingly random bit of wreckage, why would most people disbelive what they'd read in a supposedly authoritatve book?

That's where I am at now, questioning this for the first time.

I have been in contact with most of these authors, have even been out on the moors looking for wrecks with some them. They don't need me to defend them but they do know one bit of an aircraft from another and aren't casual bloggers... It is certainly food for thought however.

That's a wing.

They were all wrong.

[richw_82]

Ian D B said:

Do you know that? I mean, have you seen the fuselage piece referred to and know it is not this bit and that over time people have thought this chunk is the fuselage which was actually covered by rockfall at some point? Be great if you could let me know where you last saw it, I will be back there this weekend!

Hi Ian,

No I haven't seen it, its just what was repeated to me. It semed to make sense as I have seen one of the engines get buried over the years.

Not that there was much fuselage anyway... take a look at the initial post crash photo's before it all got pushed into the clough and see how much fuselage was left. It burned when the wing centre section fuel tank went up. There's a little bit with the tail feathers on it - most of which is still up on the hillside in bits near the fence.

How am I sure what I'm looking at, against the guys who write the websites, blogs, etc?

Your link:

http://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/pages/peak...
Peak District Air Crashes, with the comment 'part of the rear fuselage, now badly crushed, though once easily recognisable'

See that wingtip intruding into the first photo at the top? I look after it, and what's attached to it. There's been three Dakota's around for the five years I've been working at Coventry, one of which has just recently had its wings off in the hangar, right along the joint to the centre section.

Your other link:



To identify it you need look no further on a Dakota than the joint flange for the wing - which is so prominent in this shot. There is nothing on the external surface of the fuselage of a Dakota resembling that joint. Looking at the leading edge of the wing will tell you nothing as the de-icing boot is rubber and long gone.

That it is fuselage is misinformation, and its perpetuated by people getting info from the same sources.

Regards,

Rich

Edited by richw_82 on Friday 10th January 08:59

[dr_gn]

richw_82 said:

Ian D B said:

Do you know that? I mean, have you seen the fuselage piece referred to and know it is not this bit and that over time people have thought this chunk is the fuselage which was actually covered by rockfall at some point? Be great if you could let me know where you last saw it, I will be back there this weekend!

To identify it you need look no further on a Dakota than the joint flange for the wing - which is so prominent in this shot. There is nothing on the external surface of the fuselage of a Dakota resembling that joint. Looking at the leading edge of the wing will tell you nothing as the de-icing boot is rubber and long gone.

That it is fuselage is misinformation, and its perpetuated by people getting info from the same sources.

In addition to that, many of the overlapping panel joints on the remains are in the wrong direction for a fuselage; the longitudinal splice lines would be 90 degrees to the airflow if that was a fuselage section...

I think the best (possibly only) thing to convince Ian that it's a wing, would be to take a photograph of an undamaged Dakota wing showing that rivet pattern and the circular panel visible in the last photo.

[richw_82]

I'll try and get a shot of the same portion on an intact Dakota wing tomorrow.

[Ian D B]

richw_82 said:

Hi Ian,

Not that there was much fuselage anyway... take a look at the initial post crash photo's before it all got pushed into the clough and see how much fuselage was left. It burned when the wing centre section fuel tank went up. There's a little bit with the tail feathers on it - most of which is still up on the hillside in bits near the fence.

Hi Rich,

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain all this.

This is a photo not on PDAAR but copied from Collier (1990) which shows the aft fuselage section at the time, this photo apparently taken by a Sgt Pridgeon and his girlfriend who were hill walking and stumbled across the crash.

richw_82 said:

To identify it you need look no further on a Dakota than the joint flange for the wing - which is so prominent in this shot. There is nothing on the external surface of the fuselage of a Dakota resembling that joint.

I was wondering if that would be helpful. I had no idea what it was.

richw_82 said:

Looking at the leading edge of the wing will tell you nothing as the de-icing boot is rubber and long gone.

and I would never have known that either. But something you mentioned earlier Rich about what we were looking at in my first photo - am I looking in the right place here?

dr_gn said:

In addition to that, many of the overlapping panel joints on the remains are in the wrong direction for a fuselage; the longitudinal splice lines would be 90 degrees to the airflow if that was a fuselage section...

I keep looking at the way the panels are joined and for the life of me cannot see how you can tell a difference. But then I am not an engineer. But the oval shaped thing is not evident on the top of the fuselage in the images of Dakotas I have looked at (since you first mentioned this) bit they are on the leading edges of wings...

dr_gn said:

I think the best (possibly only) thing to convince Ian that it's a wing, would be to take a photograph of an undamaged Dakota wing showing that rivet pattern and the circular panel visible in the last photo.

That is what I have been looking for myself, have been scouring every photo I have taken and loads more on the internet. I am getting there but after years of reading one thing with lots of stuff to back it up it takes a while. As I say, this is all news to me, am looking at this for the first time. And as with Rich, thanks for taking the time to explain it all.

I don't have my head stuck in the sand, am always willing to listen and learn. And it is very true, there have been several occasions where long held 'truths' have been disproved. For example, a crater on the moors which was always held to be a V1 site on the moors in the Peak District was later shown to have been created by a parachute mine and not a V1 at all (the V1 site was another crater). The chaps who worked that out are among the enthusiasts linked above.

So all this is fascinating stuff. I will add a link on my site back to this page!

Ian

[dr_gn]

I wouldn't be too surprised at mistakes in these books. Even Cunningham (ex. RAF and commercial pilot) who seems to research his stuff very well, missed the fact that the 'unidentified aircraft' in the Longendale picture I mentioned was in fact (pretty obviously IMO) an upside-down light glider. The DH.9 angle was hardly worth mentioning - no way it was ever a DH.9.

I hope we've not upset you too much , but at least you have the chance to put the records straight. I'm sure RichW_82's forthcoming photos will allow to sleep easy again

[Ian D B]

Not upset at all, intrigued is the word!

I need to go back and look at it again instead of looking at photos. The photo I really want to see would be one of the debris from the 1950s or 60s set against an identifiable bit of landscape.

But so it goes, it is what we all do. There is info, you research and record what info you have and then some new info comes to light and you change your records or at least record the other point of view, which is one of the aims of my site. Any resource can get it wrong and the more we cover the higher the probability of errors being present. My site will be littered with errors which at the moment I don't know about.

This fuselage/wing section of the crashed Dakota is just a part of one story. I once had the wrong nose art for Over Exposed on my site until I found the actual nose art buried in an e-mail thread whereupon I realised it was staring at me from the pages of a book I already had on my bookcase! It is not laziness or stubbornness and having a cherished, unshakable belief in something is not a good approach to history (in my opinion). On my 'about' page I note that corrections are always welcome - how else do we improve our knowledge?

Another time I was once convinced I had the right spot for a then and now photo about the damage done to a Moss Side street during the war till a person who lives there pointed out my error. I have had discussions with lots of people where we try to confirm certain details, nail things down as best we can. This is one of them!

[Ayahuasca]

Ian D B said:

a crater on the moors which was always held to be a V1 site on the moors in the Peak District was later shown to have been created by a parachute mine

I noticed a small, perfectly circular, lake just north of the Doctors Gate path and south of the stream, about 70 metres SW from the southern end of the Dakota gully that looks almost man-made. Could that be a crater?

[mybrainhurts]

Ayahuasca said:

Ian D B said:

a crater on the moors which was always held to be a V1 site on the moors in the Peak District was later shown to have been created by a parachute mine

I noticed a small, perfectly circular, lake just north of the Doctors Gate path and south of the stream, about 70 metres SW from the southern end of the Dakota gully that looks almost man-made. Could that be a crater?

I see them all over the place from the car in the Peak District, always made me curious.

[dr_gn]

mybrainhurts said:

Ayahuasca said:

Ian D B said:

a crater on the moors which was always held to be a V1 site on the moors in the Peak District was later shown to have been created by a parachute mine

I noticed a small, perfectly circular, lake just north of the Doctors Gate path and south of the stream, about 70 metres SW from the southern end of the Dakota gully that looks almost man-made. Could that be a crater?

I see them all over the place from the car in the Peak District, always made me curious.

I think they are called "flash ponds", according to one of my favourite books "The Old Straight Track" by Alfred Watkins. It's basically about Ley Lines and about how in the distant past people navigated and made primitive waypoints. The Ley Line stuff is a lovely bit of long since disproved theory, but the other stuff is genuinely interesting.

[richw_82]

Hi chaps,

I took a moment today to wander over to the Dakotas today and take a couple of shots of where on the airframe I think we're seeing in the remains of the crashed one.





I had slightly better luck on the other one as our safety raiser was nearby.





Regards,

Rich

[dr_gn]

You can clearly see on the second image, that double row of spanwise rivets - the rivet size and spacing changes at the same point, and the panel joints in that area are identical to those on the wreckage. The circular plate is also right there where it should be, although I assumed that the outer wing would have separated at the raised rib joint - a bit of a daft assumption thinking about it; and obviously it didn't.

[Ian D B]

richw_82 said:

dr_gn said:

Absolutely no question. Rich thanks for photos. You can identify every single rivet! Thank you very much. Over the past few days I have gone from saying "Balls" to "they have a point actually" to this morning I was texting a pal who's been watching this thread and we were both saying you probably have it right in spite of what everyone else has been saying. This removes any doubt. Amazing what you see when you look at something without prejudice.

I will get back up to Ashton Clough and take another look around!

Ian