An Australian warplane disappeared 82 years ago. Now, it's been found (3 Viewers)

[GTX]

An Australian warplane disappeared 82 years ago. Now, it's been found

After more than eight decades, James Burrowes had just about given up hope of ever knowing what truly happened to his uncle Tom, an Air Force crew member who disappeared in World War II.

www.abc.net.au

 

[fubar57]

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

 

[Wildcat]

Great news!

 

[Wayne Little]

 

[Wurger]

 

[GTX]

A component modification plate from Beaufort A9-211, indicating manufacture serial number 211.

 

[GTX]

The manufacturer's compliance plate from the starboard aileron of Beaufort A9-211, indicating manufacture serial number 211.

 

[KLS&C 85]

An Australian warplane disappeared 82 years ago. Now, it's been found

After more than eight decades, James Burrowes had just about given up hope of ever knowing what truly happened to his uncle Tom, an Air Force crew member who disappeared in World War II.

www.abc.net.au

So many that have died since the beginning of WWI and have not been identified. Many rests in graves only bearing the word, UNKNOWN. Many, many more rest in locations that are still unknown. It is amazing the work that is going on around the world to find and identify the remains.
All friend and enemy alike have earned a small plot of ground with a marker bearing their name where they can rest in eternal peace.

 

[Gnomey]

 

[Airframes]

 

[Warspite63]

 

[MiTasol]

There is another write up at Huge mystery solved after shock find

Like in the above links to news items on 211 there is no mention of the many other people involved. Just like the Beaufort wrecks at Gasmata that Twiggy Forrest spent millions of dollars finding and he was not acknowledged by the RAAF on one and barely acknowledged on the other.

It is normal to identify a wreck using not less than three positive items and there are four missing Beaufort aircraft in that area - three lost on the one day. The aileron is a possible item (for example the wreck of A9-350 had flight controls which did not have the serial 350). That is not unusual as 211 had been through a 240 hour inspection which requires that the ailerons are overhauled. Naturally if the component is not completed in time another serviceable interchangeable unit is fitted. Likewise if one is damaged on a raid it is replaced with a spare, often off a damaged (Xmas tree) aircraft and sent back to a depot for repair. To keep the aircraft grounded for weeks while a component is sent to a depot for repair, and then returned was not done as every possible aircraft was needed to be serviceable. Components such as flight controls and landing gears, wheels, brakes, etc, are all Line Replaceable Units (LRUs - also called Rotables) so are indicative, not positive, identification unless multiple plates are found that relate to the same aircraft.

A second item in the Bainings wreckage is the tail strut which is the wrong manufacturer and wrong part number for 211. This tail strut was originally fitted to serials 1 thru 158. That is not necessarily a negative as the tail struts were a high failure item so often changed and the several part number units were 100% interchangeable. This strut could have come from stores or from a xmas tree aircraft. Failed units were sent to a depot for repair and reuse. Usually the unit was upgraded to the latest configuration if the parts were available. This is a clear example of why LRU's are not reliable indicators of which aircraft that a wreck is.

This plate is not among the photos at Defence Imagery: Defence

The Yahoo article is taken straight from the RAAF press release and is full of errors which I will discuss at a later date. Two of the errors are marked with a red border.

Below is the press release.

The RAAF unit involved in this investigation has a history of misidentification of wrecks such as identifying one aircraft as x when the RAAF's own court of enquiry into the accident of serial y clearly includes a large scale map that shows it crashed at that exact location. The HUWC-AF said it could not be y because y had Cyclone engines and the wreck had Pratt engines. The RAAF history card for y shows that it did have Pratts - and worse still one of the components recovered had a serial plate that showed it had the same manufacturers serial as the status card listed for y. Obviously their investigators did not even consider opening the publicly available RAAF files on aircraft x and y.

In another "investigation" the investigator initially claimed that a

engine had floated some 400km. They could not even spell Griffon correctly. They misidentified another wreck which was full of inspection stamps that did not come from the correct factory for the aircraft they claim it was. And those are just three of their less than perfect investigations.

 

[KLS&C 85]

There is another write up at Huge mystery solved after shock find

Like in the above links to news items on 211 there is no mention of the many other people involved. Just like the Beaufort wrecks at Gasmata that Twiggy Forrest spent millions of dollars finding and he was not acknowledged by the RAAF on one and barely acknowledged on the other.

It is normal to identify a wreck using not less than three positive items and there are four missing Beaufort aircraft in that area - three lost on the one day. The aileron is a possible item (for example the wreck of A9-350 had flight controls which did not have the serial 350). That is not unusual as 211 had been through a 240 hour inspection which requires that the ailerons are overhauled. Naturally if the component is not completed in time another serviceable interchangeable unit is fitted. Likewise if one is damaged on a raid it is replaced with a spare, often off a damaged (Xmas tree) aircraft and sent back to a depot for repair. To keep the aircraft grounded for weeks while a component is sent to a depot for repair, and then returned was not done as every possible aircraft was needed to be serviceable. Components such as flight controls and landing gears, wheels, brakes, etc, are all Line Replaceable Units (LRUs - also called Rotables) so are indicative, not positive, identification unless multiple plates are found that relate to the same aircraft.

A second item in the Bainings wreckage is the tail strut which is the wrong manufacturer and wrong part number for 211. This tail strut was originally fitted to serials 1 thru 158. That is not necessarily a negative as the tail struts were a high failure item so often changed and the several part number units were 100% interchangeable. This strut could have come from stores or from a xmas tree aircraft. Failed units were sent to a depot for repair and reuse. Usually the unit was upgraded to the latest configuration if the parts were available. This is a clear example of why LRU's are not reliable indicators of which aircraft that a wreck is.

This plate is not among the photos at Defence Imagery: Defence
View attachment 860559

The Yahoo article is taken straight from the RAAF press release and is full of errors which I will discuss at a later date. Two of the errors are marked with a red border.

Below is the press release.

View attachment 860557
View attachment 860558

The RAAF unit involved in this investigation has a history of misidentification of wrecks such as identifying one aircraft as x when the RAAF's own court of enquiry into the accident of serial y clearly includes a large scale map that shows it crashed at that exact location. The HUWC-AF said it could not be y because y had Cyclone engines and the wreck had Pratt engines. The RAAF history card for y shows that it did have Pratts - and worse still one of the components recovered had a serial plate that showed it had the same manufacturers serial as the status card listed for y. Obviously their investigators did not even consider opening the publicly available RAAF files on aircraft x and y.

In another "investigation" the investigator initially claimed that a View attachment 860560 engine had floated some 400km. They could not even spell Griffon correctly. They misidentified another wreck which was full of inspection stamps that did not come from the correct factory for the aircraft they claim it was. And those are just three of their less than perfect investigations.

I look forward to your next post on this.
It sure sounds to me you should be heading up this team.

 

[Wildcat]

So, is someone correcting these mistakes?

 

[MiTasol]

So, is someone correcting these mistakes?

One group tried on one specific "1942" wreck where HUWC-AF said the pilot was identified by three items.

• A watch engraved with the pilots name and a rank he was not officially promoted to until well after his death. The watch manufacturer said the watch was made between 1950 and 1952, and
• A set of pilot wings that they claimed were engraved with his name. The wings were theoretically in the ground for nearly 60 years, were not tarnished, the steel pins had not rusted and there is no evidence of them being engraved. The wings were recovered from virtually the dead centre of the crash site impact zone which is on a 38% slope with very thin topsoil which is regularly turned over by large birds. Most, if not all, of the other small items have been found as far as 200 metres down slope. There is video of the wings being found which shows soil being scooped and discarded without being sieved and then, magically, in one scoop, the shovel operator finds the wings. And
• DNA. It took about 5 years to get the autopsy results that said no DNA was found and the the bones suggested a female pilot. The autopsy result was a process of elimination identification because no other airmen were missing in that area.

Among other items the wreckage contained engine parts which first entered production in 1943, a year after the claimed aircraft crashed. The wreckage includes British (not US) radio and seat belt parts and other parts consistent with a later export model. The autopsy report also had other material that conflicted with the HUWC narrative. On the day the aircraft disappeared smoke was sighted from one direction from a town in an area. The claimed wreckage is from a totally different direction and far too far away for smoke to have been seen from the town when it is cloudy and raining.

HUWC refused to acknowledge any of these items and straight out lied (see below) in their response to the groups documentation.

One member of the group is going to launch a blog site next year covering the multiple misidentified aircraft, a wreck inside Australia where family members of the deceased have spent years trying to get HUWC to recover their family members remains without result, a crash site from a mid air collision where human remains were evident some ten years ago when the group went as far as getting newspapers to do a big story on the crash. Since that story major sections of the aircraft have been salvaged and the nearest RAAF base has parts from the two wrecks on display. There is no evidence that any of the human remains have been recovered and the Commonwealth War Graves still list the two crews as MIA.

The member who is preparing the blog site has permitted me to post this extract from his draft blog pages.

 

[MiTasol]

I look forward to your next post on this.
It sure sounds to me you should be heading up this team.

I am too old for that and there are others who could do much better.

 

[KLS&C 85]

I am too old for that and there are others who could do much better.

Respectfully, I disagree. You are not too old to review paperwork. You have the knowledge and experience. That comes with age and all the learning you have done on your own. You have a dedication to look at the facts and go with just the facts. You are not interested in going along to get along. The others that could do better don't seem to be interested in doing the job for various reasons.
I say apply and shake things up where it is needed!

 

[MiTasol]

You have to be an officer in the RAAF Reserve to be in the HUWC-AF. Interestingly you do not need to have any technical qualifications.

 

[KLS&C 85]

You have to be an officer in the RAAF Reserve to be in the HUWC-AF. Interestingly you do not need to have any technical qualifications.

I would find out who is Commander of HUWC-AF and if possible, meet with him and share your concerns. You never know, he might just be able to make a spot for you reviewing their field findings. The military tends to be like a battleship being steered with a canoe paddle when it comes to change. In the Active USAF, I was able to make some needed changes. Once was just by being able to talk with the right person.