[rlmorel]

Maybe this will help us...

Here is another view of one, it could be the same plane (because the photos are from Palau also, but...it was a major seaplane base IIRC, and while this looks similar, there are marked differences in the wreckage, but there are very similar things in structure, so I thought this might help us. This one is "known" to be a Aichi E13A by the photographer.

For comparison, here is the one from the article. From the wreckage patterns, I think they are different:

[Bonemaker]

1st 2 photos aren’t same wreck as subject...I don’t think. Source article in Daily Mail identifies it as an Japanese Aichi E13A “Jake”.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thanks!!

The box section in the fuselage goes much more forward, past the leading edge of the wings in the original photo.

Much smaller in the new photos.

I will ask around. I’m sitting at the FBO of I69 this very minute!

[Phlyer]

My primary reasons for assessing the unknown plane as right side up are the flap position and the wing incidence.

The flap position is clearly 'down' relative to the wing (not stowed in a streamlined position as shown by the root fairing). It is at a 'normal' down position, which the hinges should allow. Very few flaps can go to a position nearly perpendicular to the wing chord plane and above it. The hinge mechanisms don't allow it. I'm not aware of any WWII era plane that could. And of course if the hinges just broke, the flap should be lying below the plane rather than still hanging on it. This is apparently what happened on the Aichi.

The wing incidence is not about whether the overall wing is near the top or bottom of the fuselage (as shown in your sketches), but whether the leading edge of the wing is higher or lower than the trailing edge. In the unknown plane, the leading edge is clearly nearer the 'corner' of the fuselage (therefore higher in this orientation) than the trailing edge. The leading edge is always higher than the trailing edge relative to the fuselage, if there is any visible incidence at all. So the wing must be right side up in the photo.

In addition, the camber on the top surface is always greater (more curvature) than the bottom surface. If you look at your pictures of the inverted Aichi (in particular, the dark line running right at the root of the right wing you can see that it nearly straight. In contrast, the ribs in the unknown plane show significant curvature.

The issue making identification difficult is that the wing is mounted near the top of the fuselage. Most WWII aircraft had low-mounted wings (to make landing gear shorter, etc.) The exceptions were aircraft where the landing gear mounted in the fuselage (e.g. Wildcat, and a mid-wing), or where the 'landing gear' was not arranged in a conventional way - such as on float planes. On a single-float plane with outriggers (like the OS2U), the wing is mounted higher than normal (at about the midpoint of the fuselage) to make the strut to the centerline float shorter while still keeping the wing well clear of waves. One additional factor making it possible this is an OS2U is that the Kingfisher had an unusually low canopy rail - not much higher than the wing - to allow better observation. Other mid-wing planes such as the TBF and SB2C are essentially low-wing planes with a bomb-bay stuck on the bottom of the wing.

I would have identified the Aichi as inverted without hesitation. It has a straighter lower wing contour and the leading edge is lower than the trailing edge in this photo - meaning the wing/fuselage incidence line is upside down.

None of which is proof on the unknown plane. Just observation and interpretation. It is important to remember that the fuselage may be distorted (making the incidence of wing to fuselage look different than it really was) or parts (like the canopy if it's right side up, or bomb bay doors if it's inverted) may be missing. I won't insist on anything. But I'm confident that the observable data - incomplete though they are - support an upright orientation.