TIGHAR found that the aircraft is intact in that no major structural components are missing. The doped cotton covering of the control surfaces is gone, as are all traces of paint or markings on the aircraft.

There is a large growth of Pocillopora Sp. coral on top of the fuselage in front of the pilot’s cockpit, and smaller coral lumps and sheets elsewhere, but the condition of the aircraft’s aluminum skin appears to be remarkably free of corrosion. Rivet heads look tight and sound. The bare metal corrugated aluminum surface of the wings is shiny. As noted, the engine is separated from the airframe and lies just forward of the port wing. The propeller hub is 13. 5 feet from the center of the fuselage nose section.

The engine appears to have been knocked off when the nose struck a coral ledge just before the airplane came to rest. As the fuselage settled onto an underwater hillside it slid backward a short distance until the port wing wedged against and somewhat under a large coral outcropping and the starboard wingtip jammed against a smaller coral boulder. The aircraft now lies in roughly a 30° bank, starboard wing low and nose high, on the reef slope (see illustration).

There is minor structural damage to the wingtips and underside of the fuselage caused by the short rearward slide. Nothing in the suggested scenario explains the broken windshield.

Photos courtesy T. Praster.

It appears that the pilot’s Mark III Model 2 telescopic gun sight and Mark XXIV, Model 3 torpedo director have been removed. Photographs taken during the 1997 survey reveal that these items were missing at that time. The gun sight and torpedo director were incorporated in a single unit – a tube roughly 2.5 feet long and 3 inches in diameter – that was mounted on the centerline of the aircraft on top of the instrument panel in front of the pilot and projecting out through the windshield. The loss of these items is almost certainly associated with the broken windshield.

Right, broken windshield and missing gunsight. Photo courtesy T. Praster.

Right, installed gunsight. U.S. Navy photo.

According to the 1997 report:

There was no sign of any weapons – these may already have been removed. The plane was in such a position that it was impossible to see if a torpedo was still present.

Above, rear gun installation. U.S. Navy photo.

Standard armament for the Douglas torpedo bomber was a fixed, forward-firing Browning M2 .30 caliber (in some cases .50 caliber) machine gun mounted in the starboard side of the forward fuselage and firing through the propeller arc; and for rear defense, another M2 .30 caliber machine gun on a flexible mount aft of the radioman/gunner's position. Contrary to the 1997 report, the forward-firing .30 caliber machine gun on this aircraft is, in fact, present (left). Several panels on the starboard side of the nose are missing, possibly blown off by water pressure during the ditching.

Above, nose gun on shallow airplane. Photo courtesy T. Praster.

Right, nose gun installation. U.S. Navy Photo.

The rear gunner’s weapon is missing (left) but Mr. James Dalzell, who was the radioman and rear gunner on Bu. No. 0298, has told us that after the aircraft landed in the lagoon he dismounted the machine gun thinking to take it ashore for defense against the Japanese but, upon realizing that the crew of the other TBD had accidentally punctured their inflatable rubber boat and that his plane’s boat would have to accommodate the crews of both aircraft, he dropped the gun over the side. If his recollections are accurate, the gun should be on the lagoon bottom somewhere between the two aircraft.

Left, missing rear gun. Photo courtesy T. Praster.

U.S. Navy records indicate that for the February 1, 1942 raid all of USS Yorktown’s TBDs were armed with 500 pound bombs, not torpedos. In the case of Bu. Nos. 0298 and 1515, due to low cloud and poor visibility the target was never located and the bombs were reportedly (and sensibly) jettisoned prior to ditching in the lagoon.³ A limited visual inspection of the underside of the aircraft revealed no sign of ordnance.

The tail wheel is missing but this is believed to be damage that occurred during the ditching rather than due to theft. The deep airplane, which exhibits no sign of looting, is also missing its tail wheel.

In accordance with recommended procedure, both aircraft apparently touched down nose high with wing flaps extended (observable on both wrecks) and carrying little or no power, as evidenced by a lack of any bending of the propeller blades on either aircraft (photo at left).

In such a landing the tail wheel is the first component of the aircraft to make contact with the water and, naturally, does so at a higher speed than any other surface. Because the structure was designed to absorb compression rather than tension, separation of the wheel assembly from the spindle due to failure of the attaching pin (Douglas Part No. AC386-4-21) seems probable (see illustration below). This hypothesis is supported by the appearance of the remaining portion of the strut (photo below left) but confirmation would involve removal of the coral that presently covers the spindle.

Left, photo courtesy T. Praster.

TIGHAR photo by R. Barrel.

On both TBDs, the panels that covered the wing bays in which the flotation airbags were housed are missing. This is consistent with the bags having been inflated after the ditching to keep the aircraft afloat while the crews deployed their rubber boats. According to Mr. Dalzell the bags were then shot with sidearms and slashed with a knife blade to prevent the aircraft being retrieved by the Japanese.

Flotation bags inflated on TBD. U.S. Navy photo.

The 1997 survey reported that “coral-encrusted dials,” the pilot’s “joystick” [sic], and “foot peddles” [sic] were still in place. Given our commitment not to disturb the wreck, subsequent increased coral growth made it impossible for us to confirm whether instruments, control stick or rudder pedals are still present. We were similarly unable to ascertain whether or not the Norden bombsight is still mounted in the belly compartment, but it would be surprising if the device is in the aircraft.

Mr. Charles Fosha, the bombardier on Bu. No. 0298, has said that the then-Top Secret bombsight was thrown over the side while the aircraft was still in flight. Mr. Dalzell, who was sitting behind Fosha, independently corroborates that recollection and adds that the bombsight was actually passed aft to him so that he could throw it clear of the wing.

The empty bays where the flotation bags were housed on #0298. TIGHAR photo by R. Barrel.

Another item of equipment that remains in question is the direction-finding loop antenna for the Bendix RDF-1 radio receiver that was normally mounted inside the canopy between the center and rear cockpits (illustration at left).

Below, possible radio on seat. Photo courtesy T. Praster.

No loop antenna is present on the aircraft now and photos taken in 1997 indicate that no antenna was present at that time either. However, historical photos suggest that not all TBDs carried this equipment and, according to Radioman Dalzell, by 1942 new technology had made the RDF obsolete. It is possible that the aircraft never had a loop antenna but there is an object laying in the pan of the rear gunner’s seat which looks very much like a broken radio. If so, it could be debris left behind when someone forcibly removed the loop antenna.