Warbird Information Exchange

I bought this panel in 2011 as an unknown from a chap in Hungary. I picked it up from him at Speyer in late 2011 and it has been the only panel I have not been able to identify.

It has no markings except for the number shown in the thrid picture and similar on other parts. The section with the three cicle reinforcing band has what looks like a number 33 on the inside- more like metal manufacture ink than aircraft manufacture.

The blister is very reminiscent of Italian aircraft and the Hunagrians flew several types and built their own variant of the Re2000 - the Mavag Heja. They also flew the CR42 etc.

The remains of steel along the inset top edge suggest it was from a nose cowl - beside a gun or an engine cowl near an exhaust.

The interior construction is different to the Luftwaffe/USAAF/RAF aircraft that i have handled. If anythiing the blakc paint and construction have more in common to a T33 than anything else I have handled.

It is flimsy compared to Russian wartime and post war aircraft I have seen.

Can anyone help me resolve this old problem with a suggestion of identity ?

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Just got it out from the store and gave it a clean.

Firstly it is not a whole panel.

It extended to one side - this is broken off.

Secondly there is a pivit hinge at the edge furtherst away from the blister. The metal above this hinge point is a skirt edge to tuck under another panel.

The edge nearest the blister had a further overlapped panel that is no longer present.

The blister area was painted black!.

The area beyond the blister was painted green.

There are absoloutely no inspectors stamps on any piece. There are two parst stamped with numbers - 60 and 88.

There is some bakelite/pressed wood material that the front edge bolted into/onto.

Finally the blister has been extended at some time for a larger/longer weapon.

As you can see with the meter stick it is a big panel.

Thanks.

Brian

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Eastern European bomber? Could it be engine cover?

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

Fouga it is tapering quite a lot for it to be engine cowl unless it was an inline ?

The rivets are simialr to US and Gemran parts.

I measured a bolt but the 8mm dimension also translates to 5/16th!

The anodised parts do suggest post war .

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Anyway that could be a landing gear door?

John I dont think it is an undercarriage door as there are bolts at the front edge where it was held onto a frame/structure.

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Well how much money do you have to spend?

Ideas;

1) Do analysis of paint and then track down if it's American, Brit, or other.

2) Track down rivet sizes and manufacturing style. Each manufacturer had their own construction techniques.

3) do an analysis of the aluminum and then see if it matches what was being used by each country. Much of U.S. production was by ALCOA and they had a specific formula. As did other nation's suppliers.

4) Research what aircraft would've been in the area from say, 1935- 1965.

5) Last, have an aeronautical engineer look at it and determine what speeds and G forces it may have been designed to withstand. ie, a Cub flying a 70 mph or a NATO F-86 at 500 knots. The design strength will hint at what it came from.

Marine air - thank you for the comments and taking the time to reply.

You make an interesting point wrt the paint analysis - my degree and Ph.D. is in organic pigment synthesis and I doubt that paint analysis will throw up much- the black paint is the only one present in any quantity and black pigments are usually just carbon black ( soot) the analysis of the binder could confirm a few trace signatures by FTIR - but without a database this will be very difficult to progress. Especially given the variation and ad hoc use of various local ingredients in factory and airbase paint.

I was discussing a Ph.D. that was on offer recently looking at dental amalgams and trying to build up a database of local dental amalgam metal contents and then cross referencing against known war dead to assign a geographical origin- a similar problem.

The blind rivets used - I have seen in both German and US manufacture. I have measured multiple holes for dimensions and I feel that it is metric. But after a decade of handling aircraft panels I know that crashed aircraft tend to have distorted and oversize dimensions.

I am an organic chemist and anything metallurgical or inorganic is like asking me to walk barefoot on coals and just about as much witchcraft.

I had hoped by posting here it would ring a few bells with someone and Bingo - but it would appear that it is as frustrating to others as it is to me - to date.

Despite working in analytical sciences I prefer a peripatetic approach to a purely analytical methodology - I have spent many hours yesterday looking at aircraft construction and the blisters in most aircraft are formed in the metal - only a few manufacturers ( e.g. Yak) use these formed and screwed on blisters.

The closest I can come in style and location is something akin to the pe2 port side nose gun and the Yak 2 nose - but it is not this one - so I am looking at other aircraft and their multitudinous variations.

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Sorry duplicated

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

Wild guess...... lower front engine cowl from BF 109-E3???

I have had many bits of 109 and a few Spitfire cowls but not 109 cowls so I cannot say definitevly.

But from the pictures I have in reference books the 109 lower cowl was very well made and structured for easy access.

The Spit cowls were dural - so I would hazard a guess that this is too flimsy for a 109 cowl.

I did look at the Eastern Eu variant of the 109 with the Jumo engine but its lower cowl look just like a Ju88 upper cowl.

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian

What about Russian aircraft?

The way the rivets are installed (rounded on the back) and the double-beaded stiffeners make me think these parts are not of US manufacture. What other aircraft used double-beaded stiffeners like that? The manufacturer likely used that feature all over the aircraft, not just in one place.

In a somewhat Sherlock Holmes approach.....

I circled 3 things of interest. They may stir up some ideas.

1. What is the object on the left edge? (circled)

2. You can see something was attached to the panel (circled) using a 3-point mount. What is mounted using a 3-point mount? I recall some of our H-52's had a round fire bottle attached with a 3-point mount. Not saying a fire bottle was attached there, but something circular requiring power as evidenced by the wire support clamp.

3. A wire support/standoff (circled). What aircraft used wire supports and standoffs like that? That maybe a clue as to the aircraft or country of origin.

4. There are 3 flared lightening holes in the panel (not circled). When did the different countries start using them in their sheet metal? That may rule out a country/aircraft of origin.

Thank you for replying.

I was starting to assume it was Russian. I do not think it was Italian - too crude/no style. I had looked at the Mavag Heja but there is no fit!

The use of these bolted blisters on Yak fighters had me looking at other Yak aircraft such as Yak 2 and 4 but the nose cone is a bolt on pod with forward facing guns and I cannot find a picture of the yak 4 twin gun nose.

I had looked at the port side nose of the Pe2 as a suggestion - but although close - the curve on the panel is insufficient. So that would apply also to the Pe3. No sign of the double beaded stiffeners in the Pe type.

The Pe 2 cockpit project in Finland uses the flared lightening holes which suggests it was a technique used around then.

The assumption of a nose cone assumes that the edge furthest away from the blister had some structural element which is no longer present. Which may be flawed.

I cannot see any cowl or undercarriage door that fits - so far.

Best Wishes
Brian

_________________
Kind Regards,

Brian