24 THE AVIATION HISTORIAN Issue No 22
Interpretation Report L.82 confirmed the
information in Report L.77. The PI observed
that “the fuselage is probably very deep...
(as in the Hampden)” with its tail on a boom
“raised high off the ground”, which probably
indicated a tricycle undercarriage. Working
from reconnaissance photographs, interpreters
could produce accurate figures for the wingspan,
length and number of engines.
Photo-reconnaissance sorties were planned to
make their runs over the target in the morning
or late afternoon so that shadows could reveal
further detail of the profile of the aircraft. Based
on shadows, Rechlin 104 was described as
having an “unusually deep nose”, while the
fuselage was “probably also very deep to a
point just aft of the trailing edge of the wing”.
Shadows also revealed that the outer portions
of the wing had slight dihedral. So, by August
1943, the Air Intelligence units had a pretty good
idea of the size and basic shape of Rechlin 104.
By August 10, 1943, Rechlin 104 had been
identified as the Arado Ar 232 transport by Flt
Lt Kent working with Constance Babington
Smith at the Central Interpretation Unit at RAF
Medmenham. Then, on November 7 that year,
Interpretation Report L.102 described “several
very large aircraft, closely resembling the new
Arado transport, but with four engines and
slightly increased wingspans” seen at the Arado
factory at Brandenburg, 18 miles (30km) west
of Berlin. This aircraft was provisionally named
“Brandenburg 110” as its span was assessed as
110ft (33·5m).
Interestingly, in October 1943, before this
identification of the Arado type, a sketch reached
the Air Ministry from Norway of an aircraft
seen at Værnes that summer. The sketch, by a
member of the Norwegian Resistance, showed
a twin-engined shoulder-winged aircraft with
two decks and a single tailboom that had a row
of five sliding panels along it, each fitted with a
machine-gun.
The most striking feature of the sketch was
a row of ten small wheels “with springs”,
arranged in a line under the fuselage. The lower
deck was shown with “large double doors”
at the rear, through which the witness said
two cars had been unloaded when the aircraft
had arrived. The brief note accompanying
the drawing stated that the aircraft was “shot
down north of Værnes” but offered no further
information. A further report dated October 30,
1943, states that the aircraft “has a caterpillar-ABOVE & RIGHT This rather naïve sketch This rather naïve sketch
was “made from memory” in July 1943 by was “made from memory” in July 1943 by
an eyewitness at Vienna’s Aspern airfield. an eyewitness at Vienna’s Aspern airfield.
The observer engaged the Germans on the The observer engaged the Germans on the
airfield and ascertained that the aircraft was airfield and ascertained that the aircraft was
powered by a pair of Gnome-Rhône engines.powered by a pair of Gnome-Rhône engines.
RIGHT A photo-reconnaissance picture of an example
of Rechlin 104 beside a Junkers Ju 88 at Trondheim-
Værnes, Norway, in July 1943. Note how the shadows
cast by the airframe show a deep forward fuselage
and a long thin tailboom raised high off the ground,
suggesting a tricycle undercarriage configuration.
The sketch shows The sketch shows
what looks like twin what looks like twin
booms trailing from booms trailing from
the engine nacelles, the engine nacelles,
suggesting the suggesting the
observer may have observer may have
also seen a Gnome-also seen a Gnome-
Rhône-engined Rhône-engined
twin-boomed Gotha twin-boomed Gotha
Go 244 transport Go 244 transport
aircraft and conflated aircraft and conflated
it with the BMW-it with the BMW-
powered Ar 232.powered Ar 232.THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES x 3