WASHED UP WRECKAGE - Northern Scotland

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GIBBSY

Recruit
5
9
Mar 27, 2023
Hello All,
Greetings from a newbie to the forum.
Some wreckage was washed up yesterday, close to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. I took them home for cleaning and
ID. I have found a part number and stamp, quite clearly visible. Would someone kindly help with ID please?
Numbers 92105 and a circular stamp with P, ABP and C.
Many thanks in advance.
Paul.
 

Attachments

  • 4AFDEA62-8D5C-425F-8972-AAA1E20000E8.jpeg
    4AFDEA62-8D5C-425F-8972-AAA1E20000E8.jpeg
    626.2 KB · Views: 36
  • FF6DDEC4-5322-4EEB-9314-AB05F3B11421.jpeg
    FF6DDEC4-5322-4EEB-9314-AB05F3B11421.jpeg
    474.4 KB · Views: 37
  • A66246CB-9C98-4901-8D80-BC59172149AD.jpeg
    A66246CB-9C98-4901-8D80-BC59172149AD.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 37
G'day GIBBSY and welcome from that land down south, way down south. Could be a bit of a hard call identing these scraps but then again there is a whole bunch of clued up boffins on the forum, so fingers crossed for you. :D
 
Last edited:
Hello All,
Greetings from a newbie to the forum.
Some wreckage was washed up yesterday, close to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. I took them home for cleaning and
ID. I have found a part number and stamp, quite clearly visible. Would someone kindly help with ID please?
Numbers 92105 and a circular stamp with P, ABP and C.
Many thanks in advance.
Paul.
So, just spit-balling here, but the "finished edge" area I've circled looks like a cut-out where a gun might have protruded. Could it possibly be a turret cover of some sort? USAAF perhaps from the zinc chromate/OD paint? Hopefully someone can figure it out - Good luck.
 

Attachments

  • 07C06F71-2867-4051-8025-75D48C9CD572.jpeg
    07C06F71-2867-4051-8025-75D48C9CD572.jpeg
    441.3 KB · Views: 25
Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated all. We still don't have confirmation based on part numbers or stamps, but it has been suggested by two independent individuals that the parts look to be from an Airspeed Oxford.
I did some research based on this and discovered a mid air collision within a few hundred metres of the find spot! So I think we are onto something now.
But I'd really like to be 100% sure with the part numbers etc.

 
Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated all. We still don't have confirmation based on part numbers or stamps, but it has been suggested by two independent individuals that the parts look to be from an Airspeed Oxford.
I did some research based on this and discovered a mid air collision within a few hundred metres of the find spot! So I think we are onto something now.
But I'd really like to be 100% sure with the part numbers etc.

Could it be from a Defiant? may be the manufacturer mark/stamp is for the Boulton Paul Aircraft Company? Can someone verify the company's logo?

 
Hello again,
we seem to have a positive ID now, and it comes back as A.W Whitley. This comes thanks to the Midland Aircraft Recovery Group, who have some Whitley drawings with part numbers just a few digits away from this one. So we have a type, but not yet a confirmed part ID.
Thanks again for the messages,
Paul.
 
Glad you were able to solve it and thanks for reporting back. Is there a commonality to the part numbers that make it Whitley specific? For example all Mosquito parts start with a 98.
 
Well it seems these things are never straightforward. I have had comms with two knowledgeable parties, both involved in separate Whitley restoration projects. One is quite sure it is Whitley, the part number being almost exactly that of some other parts and drawings he had. The other is adamant it is not Whitley at all, and the stamps are wrong and the parts unrecognisable as Whitley…
it is getting quite frustrating. I thought the part number would lead to quick ID, but seems not so in this case!
Where to go from here?
 
Yes plenty of them lost up here, but without confirmation of part number being Whitley I just can't be sure..
sadly. Personally I think it is highly probable.
 
Problem is that sub assemblies were made by a variety of contractors who all had each an AID inspector attached to them and stamped according to the contractor. Each contractor could be working on sub assemblies for a variety of aircraft so it is not straight as straight forward as an early Spitfire with the stamp "VACB " Vickers Armstorg Castle Bromwich. When production was dispersed the number of AID inspection stamps increased. The part no "92105" should be moe traceable if someone has the Whitley parts catalogue. Dead easy for spitfires as the Part number starts "300"
 
As AL90 says there were hundreds of subcontractors who each had their own stamp so the stamps may, or may not, be a help.

I have just posted an Oxford Vol 1 that may help at Airspeed Oxford documents. though to me nothing fits the bill

Going back to the post by Aeronca 46 - what size is that cutout they circled? It could be around a gun which would be reasonably large, or around a control pushrod and therefore quite small. Dimensions would enable a mental picture of the size of item.

Likewise you refer to similar part numbers on the Whitley - can you give half a dozen examples so I can see if I tend to agree with the yes or no Whitley people.

These people have a couple Whitley manuals that may help - I have never dealt with them so cannot advise if their manual are good quality
 
Problem is that sub assemblies were made by a variety of contractors who all had each an AID inspector attached to them and stamped according to the contractor. Each contractor could be working on sub assemblies for a variety of aircraft so it is not straight as straight forward as an early Spitfire with the stamp "VACB " Vickers Armstorg Castle Bromwich. When production was dispersed the number of AID inspection stamps increased. The part no "92105" should be moe traceable if someone has the Whitley parts catalogue. Dead easy for spitfires as the Part number starts "300"

Not so.

Every new part fitted to the Mk I had the 300 prefix but each subsequent model has its own prefix,

If part 300nn-nnn is modified, or additional, and introduced on the Mk II it will have a 329nn-nnn part number but all the parts carried over from the Mk I have 300 numbers. New parts introduced on the Mk V are prefixed 349, Mk VII new parts are prefixed 359 etc. New parts for the universal wing have a separate prefix as do Vokes filter, floats, drop tanks and numerous other parts. Therefore a Mk IX for example can have an assortment of parts with all those, and other, prefixes.

Add to that, just to keep you on your toes, parts carried over from earlier aircraft still have the part prefix relevant to that aircraft.
 
Not so.

Every new part fitted to the Mk I had the 300 prefix but each subsequent model has its own prefix,

If part 300nn-nnn is modified, or additional, and introduced on the Mk II it will have a 329nn-nnn part number but all the parts carried over from the Mk I have 300 numbers. New parts introduced on the Mk V are prefixed 349, Mk VII new parts are prefixed 359 etc. New parts for the universal wing have a separate prefix as do Vokes filter, floats, drop tanks and numerous other parts. Therefore a Mk IX for example can have an assortment of parts with all those, and other, prefixes.

Add to that, just to keep you on your toes, parts carried over from earlier aircraft still have the part prefix relevant to that aircraft.
Absolutely correct, easy when you have a list of prefixes for each Mark. What I should have said is that Supermarine prefixes in the 300 series relate to different Marks of Spitfire. I agree, there is the further complication where aircraft were modified on repair so may have more than one different prefix depending on the modification e.g wing conversions.
One think strikes me as odd about the photos, I have never seen an aircraft part come out of the sea in Scotland (there's been quite a few) which hasn't been heavily corroded and tried to revert to Aluminium powder on exposure to air. It also looks like there is clay stuck to the parts which is strange as the beaches around Lossiemouth are sand.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back