Just to the right of the image is the wing tip of the tandem-seat Fw-190 discussed previously.

The GI is still at the jeep, and we can see a little more of the observation plane inside hangar. (I have decided that it is most likely an American observation plane if not a mid-1930 German sport plane.)

At the far left side is another small US truck with lowered antenna.  I do not know my non-combat military ground vehicles, but a friend informs me that it is likely the woefully underpowered GMC (maybe Dodge) 5/4-ton truck.  This one most likely serves as a forward communication vehicle supporting the armored troops who came on this airfield.  This truck would have had a high frequency BC603/BC604 FM set to communicate with M4 Sherman tanks and M3 half-track vehicles.

The handle bars showing at the lower edge of the image is not a bicycle -- it is a funny-looking weldment with a fork going down to an "early industrial age" iron wheel. From the corners of the "handle bars" are two single, non-reinforced pipes going to the ground to steady this thing when not being pushed -- or pulled -- or whatever. I cannot figure out what its use was.

Also, between this unicycle and aircraft appears to be a hydraulic jack on its side. These things laying around fascinate me as much as this burned-out aircraft.

But what about the aircraft?

What can we learn?

One thing is that it was on its undercarriage when burned else the right wing would not be resting on the support trailer. It looks like there are long cylindrical bottles on the trailer -- oxygen bottles? -- compressed air?

The right wing had gotten hot enough to burn the fabric covering from the aileron.

Underneath the tail is an all-purpose, wheeled jack. With it, they loaded bombs, supported engines during removal and installation, supported aircraft during retractable undercarriage operations; most everything.

I do not think it was supporting the tail of the aircraft when it burned. I think the plane was still resting on it's tail wheel. It was a short wheel, but the horizontal tail has dihedral which would keep the lower part of the fins clear of the ground.

The elevator is in "up" position and the large static balancing top arm and counterweight is easily seen parallel to the stabilizer. The lower one can be seen as well. These made control surfaces easier to move and gave the surface more mass and this helped reduce flutter.

This mass, supported well out in front of the hinge line, would dampen tendencies of the control surface to flutter at high speeds.

The trim tab on that elevator is well down. This could have been an elevator servo-assist. Many larger aircraft had them.  They were hinged to the elevator but with a fixed rod between trim control horn and a fixed part of the stabilizer. The results were that if the elevator was being forced up, the servo-trim tab was being forced down by the upward motion of the elevator working with the fixed rod, and this downward tab movement in the air-stream would assist the elevator to go up. All this reverses for the opposite direction. (Stukas had these also.) It is aerodynamically assisted movement of a control surface. This is not at all the same as an aerodynamically balanced control surface as seen on the vertical tails.

There is a welded support "saw-horse" lying on the horizontal tail as well.

Various support boxes are near the fuselage/wing joint. These could have been test boxes for various aircraft systems or they could have been simply wooden boxes thrown there to help the plane burn.

There are a couple of fixtures to assist work on the aircraft; one to the right, one seen on the other side of the aircraft at the last burned part of the aft fuselage.

If we turn our attention to the aircraft-proper we see that it has twin-engines, a twin-tail with dihedral, split flats on wing, and not much else seen from this view.

What is it?

Are you ready for this?

It is a Siebel Si204.

(A what?)

While researching this one, I started getting worried because I had thought it a Dornier variant but it wasn't and I was getting to the end of my reference books.   Finally, in a good book, there it was, the last plane on the last page. The photo shows the tail very clearly and it is an exact match to the aft fuselage in this photo.

The Siebel company seemed to have designed only a couple of memorable aircraft.   One was  the Siebel Si201.  Some aviation fans might recognize it. It was a small observation plane with pilot well-forward in an all-glazed nose. It had a high, constant chord, swept-back wing, with the pusher engine mounted a little above the wing and the prop arc just clearing the lower, rolled corrugated boom which connected to a conventional empennage.

This aircraft in the photo was the leading light-twin executive and liaison aircraft. It was not a combat aircraft. The Si204A first flew in early 1941 and had a stepped airliner type nose. The subsequent main version, Si204D of 1942, had an all-glazed nose.

Like the Arado, the Si204 was built by several people -- occupied France built 21 in 1942 and 147 the next year; two Czech factories built 1,007 total. There was one 204D sub-variant that was used for every kind of training -- bombing, gunnery, radar, navigation, bomber flight crew training, towing, etc.

Principally, it was an eight-passenger executive/liaison aircraft. ("Liaison" is what the flight was called on "wine-runs." Sort of like modern day, political "fact-finding" junkets.)

Production of the Si204D continued after the war to produce the Czech C-103 and the French NC701 Martinet.

The aircraft had two, 600 hp inverted, air-cooled V-12 engines to give it a 226 mph speed and a range of 1120 miles. It had two-bladed wooden props and it could haul about two tons. The span  was 70'.)

It was considered to be sturdy and dependable.

Ken Cashion