Thursday, 4 December 2008

Blenheim V6099: Elidirs

Blenheim V6099: Elidirs
Blenheim: Elidirs
Originally uploaded by wreckhunter

We didn't manage to get out again this week, but "Rob the Tog" did, and he reports as follows on the Elidir Fawr sites mixup issue:

"I've just managed my first trip in quite a long time. It was up the Blenheim/Skua sites on Elidir Fawr. I just though I'd run my thoughts past you to see what you think.

Firstly, I've got to agree with you the mystery Beaufighter doesn't exist, just a simple mix up in identification on the 'scrap dealers' list.

If that is the case, then I think all three areas of wreckage on this side of the hill are from Blenheim V6099, I'll explain why.

If you are discounting the Beaufighter then the undercarriage and oleo comes from the Blenheim as the as the Skua has a totally different u/c set up.That must make the high site with the small cairn and burnt area the actual crash site of the Beaufighter and the u/c is on the direct fall line from this site.

In all the sites I've been to, even with people moving things, the heavy items always end up down the slope. This only becomes important to rule out the pile of aluminium skin as a crash site.

I know this pile matches the 'High Ground Wrecks & Relics' co-ords. But something doesn't feel right, as there is no evidence of anything else, no burning, no little scraps etc, at that site.

My theory is that these pieces of skin have blown down the face then someone has collected them and cached them there for what ever reason (probably quite a long time ago). Then 'High Ground Wrecks' has mistakenly called this the crash site.

This has then cased a second mistake in 'High Ground Wrecks'. With the Beaufighter crash supposedly accounted for, they have called the high site the Skua crash. So making one crash into two, I know it might sound a bit far fetched but, 'High Ground Wrek' is riddled with mistakes when you start going though it in detail.

I know what you're thinking, 'in that case where is the Skua?'. The short answer is on the other side of the mountain. I haven't got any grid refs, but I found threes small pieces of info that back my hunch up.

Firstly, page 91, 'No landing place' ... Skua, "Flew into the east face of Elidir Fawr.

Secondly, comment 8 on the scrap dealers list (I don't know who they are but they do seem to know what they are talking about) ... "No 28, marks the summit of the mountain (I've checked it does) half-way between the Blenheim and Skua". That says to me, if it's half way between and the Blenheim is on one side then the Skua is on the other.

Thirdly (and by far the most tenuous). If you google L3054, about the fourth hit down is a .pdf called 'A cultural guide to a low level route ......' but the point is the bit mentioning the crash also mentions the aircraft flying into the east face.

So that's it, in short to try to clear things up we need to have a look see if there is crash in the east face of Elidir Fawr."

Seems a convincing argument for further investigation to us, though it'll be best done without snow on the ground judging from his pic.

We'll also visit the summit sometime to look for the Cessna and any evidence of the other crashes. Unless someone else wants to report on the foot of the east face, and the summit for us?

Hopefully we won't turn into another couple of armchair wreckhunters. Or worse yet, self-important no-life anoraks, like certain of our more unbalanced correspondents.


Mick said...

Well thought out and reasonably argued case. I'm prepared to accept this. Nice to get some rational argument rather than the usual anorak ranting...?

Anonymous said...

Who are these unbalanced correspondents as there have been very few comments posted or are you having to block them?

Sean said...

We only publish comments which we feel advance the discussion.

Hysterical rants, threats of reporting to landowners, or the authorities, or insistence that we bow down to some self-appointed authority do not advance things. They detract and distract.

Anonymous said...

Googled Skua L3054 as suggested by Rob & found the article - well written if a little light on the research - but then aircraft are not the main topic. Followed another link the search threw up and thought it a bit strange that someone had applied under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the crash in 2006! Careful or you may find yourself dealing with conspiracy theories next Sean!

Sean said...

Following a number of unhelpful anonymous comments, we are disallowing further anonymous comments. If you have something to say, you'll have to let us know that you are not just a sock-puppet.

Sean said...

Conspiracy theories, ghost planes, we've heard it all...