Aircraft Videos and Images

[taildraggernut]

I think mazex is prob right with the ID letters it really does look like HSB, theres a pic of a battery label with a date of 1941, could this be an HSB from before the referenced picture dated 1943?

[Sternjaeger II]

it's a bit of a long shot, they should have taken pics of data plates in the cockpit really.

[DroopSnoot]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

I think mazex is prob right with the ID letters it really does look like HSB, theres a pic of a battery label with a date of 1941, could this be an HSB from before the referenced picture dated 1943?

That would make it a Tomahawk not a Kittyhawk then surely, As far as i know there were later versions of the IIb that had no nose mounted mgs which would correspond to that line of thought.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by DroopSnoot

That would make it a Tomahawk not a Kittyhawk then surely, As far as i know there were later versions of the IIb that had no nose mounted mgs which would correspond to that line of thought.

No.

An 87A series is a P-40E, which makes it a Kittyhawk. Just look at the thing. It's not a Hawk 81. The spinner, engine cowling, and wing gun locations are all totally wrong for a Tomahawk.

No Hawk 81s (Tomahawks in RAF service) were delivered with the nose guns deleted. What happend was that the RAF was having troubles with the change to the Colt manufactured .50 syncronised nose guns, so the training units that had the aircraft at the time often did not use them.

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

No.

An 87A series is a P-40E, which makes it a Kittyhawk. Just look at the thing. It's not a Hawk 81. The spinner, engine cowling, and wing gun locations are all totally wrong for a Tomahawk.

No Hawk 81s (Tomahawks in RAF service) were delivered with the nose guns deleted. What happend was that the RAF was having troubles with the change to the Colt manufactured .50 syncronised nose guns, so the training units that had the aircraft at the time often did not use them.

[Thee_oddball]

there's a chance(if that plane is from the 260th) that that plane we are looking at might have been shot down by a legend... Hans-Joachim Marseille

Opponents were Kittyhawks I from No. 260 Squadron RAF and Tomahawks IIB from No. 2 Squadron SAAF and No. 4 Squadron SAAF. These units had the following losses in this engagement: three Tomahawks and one Kittyhawk missing (one pilot later returned wounded), two Kittyhawks and two Tomahawks crash landed after aerial combat, and one heavily damaged and one lightly damaged Kittyhawk. On the German side I.JG 27 reported five P-40s, II./JG 27 three P-40s shot down. The combat reports indicate that Marseille's opponents were Kittyhawks from No. 260 Squadron RAF. His opponents were Squadron Leader Hanbury who crash landed and Sergeant Wareham who was killed in action.[

there are more 260th pilots listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Marseille

[BadAim]

I only would argue that this aircraft has no apparent battle damage whatsoever, and also that it was found some 200 miles from any known action. (I have a friend in the area) I'd rather suspect that the bloke got lost and ran out of fuel. Of course I admit that I'm only speculating and that the only way we will ever learn the true story is to identify the particular craft.

That said, you definitely have a sharp eye Oddball, I never saw that now quite obvious B on the fuselage.

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by BadAim

I only would argue that this aircraft has no apparent battle damage whatsoever, and also that it was found some 200 miles from any known action. (I have a friend in the area) I'd rather suspect that the bloke got lost and ran out of fuel. Of course I admit that I'm only speculating and that the only way we will ever learn the true story is to identify the particular craft.

That said, you definitely have a sharp eye Oddball, I never saw that now quite obvious B on the fuselage.

not me sir, Mazex saw it

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Thee_oddball

not me sir, Mazex saw it

LOL! I apparently do not have such a sharp eye.

[BadAim]

I went through every photo, but I didn't see anything useful. Of course I don't have a very good track record in this department, so........

Granted, the type is definitely identified, this is for sure a Kittyhawk IA. I've been doing some research, and we can narrow things down a bit, but even if we had a tail number there is no 100% guarantee of the full story