Some may find this odd from someone who visits crash sites and takes part in recoveries.

I’d rather it remains where it is.

There are still Lancasters flying, and museum examples, add to that the number of large sections which have already been recovered from crash sites and are on display and I have to say why bother add to that collection? There is nothing new to learn from it.

The aircraft in Sweden is only of interest because of the squadron the a/c was assigned, had it been 83 Sqn for example would we even be hearing about it? There was a site in the UK which was just as good, and it was the subject of a large recovery, and for what? Closed away in an air station heritage centre which is only by appointment and the odd airshow day, at least on a Scottish mountain you didn’t need an appointment, just commitment.

richw_82 referred to a couple of the reconstructed wrecks at East Kirkby, but they were buried remains which no one could see without first digging them up and massively disturbing the remains in the process before rebuilding them. That’s the kind of recovery I see the sense in, we at least get to see what is left even though ultimately we don’t get to learn anything from the recovery itself.