Short Sunderland found … well maybe
 

This came up on the news last night and on a few other sites I’ve seen, I haven’t noticed it being mentioned here yet so here goes. It would seem that a group of divers are claiming to have located a Sunderland in Windermere lake. It is alleged to have been scuttled in the lake after the war. Here is a link to the picture of the sonar image they claim to have found.

http://www.divetheworld.com/images/sonar%20contact.jpg

They are keeping very quite about it all, and are refusing to give out any location details. You can make up your own mind as to its authenticity, or not. At the moment I along with seemingly most other people are more than a little bit sceptical about this. The news people also interviewed a local who has carried out numerous sonar studies of the lake and he seemed to doubt that anything like that could be there. For two main reasons, firstly he had never found anything in all his work and secondly the image was almost too good. Oh, and lets not forget it’s that time of year again (give or take a day or two). :suspect: ;)

Computers are a wonderful thing for cheating........ answers on Flypast historic forum!:E

There are solid reasons to suggest that it is a fake. Just my suggestion, but I would take some swaying to think otherwise, that after some 60 odd years the form it takes would not be like that.

When they found Bismark, a steely image appeared but a wreck nonetheless.

April 1st tomorrow of course! Don't matter much it being a day early! :E ;)

No idea about the authenticity of the story, but...

(1) There was a satellite factory, building Sunderlands, on the shore of Windermere during the war.

(2) It's very deep.

(3) I think at-least one Sunderland was damaged on the lake during the war or shortly afterwards.

Presumably there's a local history society up there somewhere who may have published something on the history of the Windermere factory - anybody got anything? There is a chapter in the book "Corresairreville" (Sp?).

Having said that, the picture looks thoroughly bogus. No engines, little damage, no apparent widescale damage (after 60 odd years) and nothing else on the bottom. Looks a trifle dodgy to me.

G

The one thing that I think might be in its favour of it being genuine is the website that is hosting the picture (assuming they are the people who claim to have found it). They seem to be pretty serious divers with lots of experience of locating underwater wrecks. If it turns out to be a fake it would seem a pretty underhanded method of getting a bit extra publicity, especially if the other projects they are working on are real. Hmm, maybe I’m just in trusting mood today … still sceptical, but would love to be proven wrong.

I would also like to be proven wrong, but it looks like a picture of an uncompleted airfix kit which has been run through a fax machine.

no panels missing and the tailfin looks as if it has snapped off like brittle plastic as opposed to ductile metal.

The nose looks quite convincing though.

The Sunderland factory was at Whitecross Bay, on the northern shore of Windermere, which is where this relic is supposed to be. The factory built 35 Sunderland IIIs and overhauled or repaired many more. Anyone with access to Sunderland serial number records ought to be able to determine whether any were shown as sunk or scuttled on Windermere. I believe the factory closed in May 1944 and was later dismantled, though the site remains as a caravan park and sailing centre. If May 44 closure is right, post-war scuttling seems unlikely as — emergencies apart — there'd have been no reason for a Sunderland to have been there. I know nothing of sonar images and cast no slur on the diving group, but there's a 'tool' on Adobe Photoshop that would enable you to manipulate a photo of a Sunderland, or of a model of one, to appear not dissimilar to this.

The constructors numbers of the aircraft built at the Windermere factory were DP176-200 and EJ149-158. However, as Aerohack says, the factory was mainly used as an overhaul facility so many of the 749 Sunderlands that were built would have visited Windermere at some time.

Airclues

Mmmm.

Just to point out this appeared about a week ago in The Times - the UK Broadsheet daily. Not my favoured reading matter, but if they've been had, Mr Murdoch isn't going to be pleased. Which, for me, is a good reason to smile! I'd even swap another Sunderland recovered to achieve the Thunderer caught, trousers down.

Cheers

James K

I think it could be genuine
 

I had a look on thier site and there is a similar sonar picture of a B17 off the Swedish coast I think. Also thier site describes this picture as a side sonar view taken at an oblique angle.

There is also some other very good stuff covering a number of other aircraft wrecks.

There was once a picture of a whole B17 in a crater on the moon - courtesy of the Daily Sport! There is also a bridge in the IOM where the fairies play at night!

I guess you believe you want to believe. I don't buy this at all. It has hoax written all over it.

www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/news/lakes/.

The floats appear to be broken off, but very close to the mainplanes even after 60 years.

The last time I was up at Ambleside, a couple of years back, the subject of Sunderlands at Ambleside came up with the hotelier, he informed me that some local female historian was writing the history of the 'building' of Sunderlands here. He did mention that slipways were still evident, those I did not see apart from landing stages and small craft slipways.

And you don't believe that - I've driven over it:ooh:

Hi Camelpilot,
You really ought to know better. Any fule kno it was a B-52 on the moon. B-17s haven't the range!:p
Cheers

foxmoth


Yeah, and the taxi driver I was with asked me if I would like to stop and wait for them. And you know what? He actually meant it! But the crew would have been annoyed if I had. ;) :rolleyes:


JDK

Love it!

Let us see what to-morrow brings! (1/4/04)

Camelpilot
Ah, but if you HAD waited, especially if you happened to have a wee bit off the good stuff................

Well it's the 1st and the host "diving" website is down ..... awaiting the update.

Edit: Ah well it's back up now with no changes. Note to self, must stop being so twitchy on April fools day ;)

The lack of engines fits in with the scuttling theory but surely that would have thrown the CofG rearward resulting in a tail down descent to the bottom. The tail section would have been a tad crumpled upon arrival at the bottom. The wings would also be a little bit bent(!). The nose turret appears to have been wound back but the tail turret (with guns) appears to be there. Surely that would ahve been removed prior to scuttling?

I say tis a fake.

I don't know if it's real. It's too neat is my major concern.

However, to 'answer' LowNslow's point, even a taildown arrival of the Sunderland will crumple the end of the planning hull, and probably not affect the bit we can see in the 'scan'.

JDK I think the arrival would have crumpled more than the planing hull as Windermere is up to 500' deep in places which would allow sufficient speed to build up to bend quite a bit of metal. Did Sunderlands have fabric covered ailerons as well? Surely the covering wouldn't have survived 60 years in the water.

Having the facilities of an offshore exploration department available to me I whizzed a copy of the pic over to our sub-sea survey department. The comments were:

a) The starboard wing should have a 'shadow' at the trailing edge not both leading and trailing edges.

b) The texture of the picture on the aircraft would be different to that of the seabed regardless of how long it has been down there. There isn't the level of marine growth in Windermere necessary to blend a structure into the seabed.

c) The line going from top to bottom to the right of the aeroplane would need to be about 12" in diameter to cast the sonar shadow shown. Its straightness would suggest a pipeline and, as far as we know, there are no pipelines like this running along the bottom of Lake Windermere.

So, again, tis a fake sir!

PS On zooming in, I can see that the tail turret is in fact missing.