aircraft wrecks in Scotland

RE: Thanks for the great comments….!!!!!!! (*long post sry..)

Peter I was the one who mentioned he pick pocketing because I know it has allegedly taking place and this is what the person was charged for.
So this action has already been reported and laid to rest.

***
The only exception would be in the case of an mod approved recovery that includes the remains of the crew and the return of these remains to the families
***

I am unsure if any group would be allowed to do this Peter I rather think if a group discovered a substantial body that either the police or MOD would dig it up due to forensics. Also you still have to prove it was indeed the pilot as it would not be the first time a body was put in an old wreck and passed of as the Driver/Pilot or whatever.

If there are any people on this forum who are part of a recovery team I would very much like to hear your comments on projects you have done / are doing.

Please post here on the forum / Email me or private message me.

Regards Merlin

Thanks for the great comments….!!!!!!! (*long post sry..)

Hey Chaps..
Thanks for the good comments all of you have great points here on this topic(didnt think it would get much attention..!)
I do not agree with the so called salvagers who come across a wreck and axe it to bits to them i say take up jigsaw puzzles if you want to play with bits..! If there is a part of a wreck that will help a project as in the Whitley reconstruction then by all means go through the right channels and gain permission to recover it I tip my hat to you Elliot for your efforts a bobmer command veeteran friend is chomping at the bit to see a complete whitley again. I think the remains of the fairey battle should be recovered, kept together as an airframe if you will and preserved not in the sense of renewing wing spars skins etc but maintaining its currect condition but protecting it against corrosion as is so to speak. Then the parts should be carefully and thoughtfully laid out as a “mock” wreck site as a fitting memorial to all the brave young lads that met untimely deaths on the high ground of Scotland.

If anyone pics up air space magazine, there is also an article in there about wrecks in the Southern Arizona desert. A chap is doing an interview on a team that finds these wrecks and watchs in horror as one of the team members removes an engine data plate with a rock..! that kind of thing sickens me to no end. What does it leave.. a hunk of metal that noone can identify..!

Sorry i know I am rambling a bit here but someone also commented about wreck hunters digging up an aircraft and going through the pockets of the pilots remains. If anyone hears of or can prove someone did such a thing please please PLEASE! do something about it..! call the police detain them anything.. as this is nothing short of grave robbing.! The only exception would be in the case of an mod approved recovery that includes the remains of the crew and the return of these remains to the families. For those out there that are part of the groups that return the remains to the families.. Bless you for your actions. It means so much to have some closure after all these years.

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-10-02 AT 09:29 AM (GMT)]”Sorry Moggy I did it again. I have always been told that any kind of shell was dangerous and correct me if Im wrong but if the conditions are right couldnt a machine gun shell blow up too??
Of course you are right with the Cannon Shell.

But really if unsure about anything to come out of your dig then you should leave well alone.”

* * * * * * * *

As I said Merlin an excellent post, and really I should ask you to forgive me for nit-picking.

The difference between a machine gun round, say 303 or 50 cal, and a cannon shell is as follows.

The machine gun round consists of a bullet, the lead, pointy bit at the front, which being made from solid lead is only harmful if projected at speed into your body, or ground to a dust and consumed in a nice hot cup of tea. As anyone here is unlikely to do the latter lets just concern ourselves with the former.

The back end of the round is where all the nasties reside. Inside the brass case is a propellant, My industry experience only dates from the seventies so I’m not certain what exactly a wartime example contains. Cordite is often mentioned, but that could be just a convenient catch-all term from the era. The job of the propellant is just that, to propel the inert lead bullet down the barrel of the weapon by expanding violently. But that is all it does. It is perfectly possible (PLEASE, PLEASE don’t try this at home) to heap the propellant from a rifle calibre round on a saucer and apply a match to it. All you get if a big puff of smoke, from which you might expect a panto genie to appear. No bang. This is because the burn of the propellant was not restricted as it would be were the round assembled and confined within the breech of a gun.

(For comparison think of a spoonful of petrol on a saucer, compared to the same spoonful of petrol restricted within the cylinder of your car engine.)

Right at the back is the primer. This is almost like a small cap as used in children’s cowboy guns (Do these still exist) and it contains a pressure sensitive explosive, fulminate of mercury, or somesuch. The firing pin of the weapon strikes this, which promptly ignites and expands as a flaming mass through a small hole thoughtfully provided at the opposite side of the primer, inside the brass, and leading directly to the propellant.

The quantity of explosive in the primer is tiny, so is not in itself dangerous. The propellant is in larger quantity, but is merely a VERY fast burning substance. Even if the primer of an intact round were to be fired, outside a barrel all that would happen would be for the bullet to detach itself from the case, allowing the propellant to expand harmlessly in the open air. It could be conjectured that the foolhardy could sustain burns at this point, but certainly not a blown-off hand / arm. In the absence of a barrel, the bullet would just drop to the floor under gravity.

A cannon shell though is not an inert lead bullet. It is in effect a bomb, designed to be projected at high speed. So whilst the brass end is much as described above for an m/g round, but writ larger, the pointy end has a quantity of explosive AND a primer of its own. And being that the explosive is securely contained/restricted within the body of the shell it will, if ignited – explode. This is the point at which your only option for the next fancy dress party is to go as Admiral Horatio Nelson.

But – treat all ordnance as dangerous and you can’t go too far wrong.

And remember, in post-Hungerford, post-Dunblane, post-Duggie Herd Britain, the possession of even one live 303 round opens you to the possibility of a luxury break at HM Government’s expense and a close and intimate friendship with big-Mike the hairy ex-wrestler who shares your cell.

You have been warned.

Moggy

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

Please ageorge dont do this as it probably get you into more trouble thean them in the end. If you see people doing this contact the police with a description and their car reg. Tell them what you though they were doing and why. Also I carry a note pad and pen with me while wreck hunting. You may want to take down some aircraft part number and scetch the site (Roughly in my case, VERY roughly) or you might indeed want to take down a car number. If they get caught they will be in for a shock. If the Police dont want to listen then tell them of the Protection of Military Remains Act. They should find out about it and act. If this still gets no joy contact the RAF or MOD they should get something happening.

If you do damage their car the you will be commiting the crime and what they were doing may be innocent. At least if you take a reg then they will be checked out and nothing will happen if they are innocent.

not in the same story line but disturbing all the same. I visited the museum at Crail a while back to learn more of the Navy station HMS Jackdaw (an air station at Crail)

The curator was very helpful and told me how there were some photos she could no longer show me. I asked why. Her reply was that they had been stolen from the album on display. I think they were stolen to order as they were of crashes aboard aircraft carriers mainly but a few more of Crail. Idiots or what!!!! If they asked like I did they would have got copies for next to nothing as there is a copy next door (nearly) and they hold a load of photos too. Silly people. I am also working on getting a memorial up at a crash site and as the Aircrfat came form Crail I asked for help and the curator was once again most helpful. Isnt it nice when people actually want to help you.

Merlin

RE: aircraft ordnance

Sorry Moggy I did it again. I have always been told that any kind of shell was dangerous and correct me if Im wrong but if the conditions are right couldnt a machine gun shell blow up too??

Of course you are right with the Cannon Shell.

But really if unsure about anything to come out of your dig then you should leave well alone.

Merlin

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

Thats right Der I was in the MOF forum.

Dont know why they stopped that really I asked them why but they seem to be struck dumb and ignorant to boot. Dont like the new curator (yet) still has to prove herself.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

On the case of the Undersea project.

I got permission from Berlin and then a diving team got interested and we had a full team ready to go by December last year. Some permission had to be sought and details checked before any dive.

I found out the area had a rip tide and also two tides either side of the rip. Also it was one of the main shipping channels and it was under 20 ft of silt with the visability down to less than a meter so I decided to sit tight and wait to see what would happen with the permissions etc. No word came back and in the end I decided due to the above facts it made it far too dangerous to even attempt a dive so we will leave it for someone else better qualified or see if a more professional team want to attempt the dive.

Merlin

RE: aircraft ordnance

Just a small correction to Merlin’s generally excellent post.

A machine gun bullet is unlikely to explode and do you any damage. This of course does NOT mean that you should experiment by clamping one in a vice and hitting the primer (small indentation at the base) with a nail punch.

A cannon shell is a completely different kettle of fish.

But the story is put around by the authorities who doubt the layman’s ability to tell the difference.

Moggy

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

Merlin, I recognise you fron the old M.O.F. forum. How did you get on with your undersea project?

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-10-02 AT 06:57 PM (GMT)]I agree completely Merlin , ANY dig should be licenced through the appropriate channel AND should have a home to go to , around 1985 there was a dig to try and recover the remnants of a Mk1 Spitfire from RAF Grangemouth OTU , it crashed about 2 miles from my house and was supposed to have formed a display in our local library , I’ve tried to enquire what happened to the remains and the answer I got that they were kept in a shed by a local individual and given to the scrapman when he moved house .If there are to be digs I would like to see some type of end user form to be filled in to confirm the dig remnants are to be collected and kept safely.

Alastair

Also if I catch anybody with tinsnips and hacksaws at crash sites , I rip the reg plates from their car and cut off all the badges.

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

Firstly I would like to point out that under no circumstances should you remove any part of a wreck or anything related to the wreck. This can result in prosecution from the authorites. This is only if you are caught but is it worth running the risk.

If you go to a site and find wreckage by all means pick it up and try an id it but DO NOT take it home with you. If it is that important that it shouldnt be left there for anyone else to remove then hide it somewhere at the wreck so you know where to find it. Then the next step is to write to the MOD at Innsworth if I remember correctly for a copy of a licence application form which has all the details on it.

You will need the following to be able to fill in the form. The landowners permission, The Serial number and aircraft type you are wanting to dig and a few other details that I dont have of hand.

You may then be granted a licence or indeed you may be refused.

Only after that can you remove any effects from the site.

Then you will have to obide by the Protection of Military Remains Act.

Which tells you all you need to know about wreckology and the law.

If there are Graves on site then it is very very unlikely that you would get any licence as these are actual grave sites. Places that only have memorials are another matter as they might still be active sites but at some point someone has seen fit to place a memorial. Although it is more than likely that the person who put the memorial there has already dug the site so there may be no point ot digging it again.

A word to the wise. There has been a case recently that saw the prosecution of an idividual for disturbing remains of a pilot. They alegedly dug around the pilot remove items from his pockets etc etc. I dont know what the final result was but I would like to give this as a warning for any would be wreck hunters but aimed more to the tresure hunters among us. I have discussed this issue with the idividual and was warned what to do and what not to do to avoid legal action as the clearly admitted their mistake and were unsure of the law. This is how I remember the discussion with the person. If they happen to be on the forum and dont remember it this way then please correct me. I do not wish any misunderstandings between us and meant no harm. I am only trying to warn others.

Wreck hunting is a great sport and very rewarding if you like that kind of thing. But you should really know what you are doing before going of to dig. Find out as much as you can about the wreck before you go digging. If the aircraft crashed and got buried the there is a possibility that there may be ordanance on board and you should proceed with caution if anything comes up that you cant id as a piece of aircraft IT MIGHT BE EXPLOSIVE. Also more often than not you will find machine gun shells be very cautious with these also they might still be able to blow a hand or arm off.

All said and done enjoy your sport and have a good time. Also if we can try and remove more important bits for safe keeping but try and find a musuem that will take them rather than keeping them yourself.

If you go to the North East of England Air Crash Research www.neeacr.co.uk and follow thew links for the Hunter dig you will find a complete report on the crash and dig from 2000 also updated to include the 2001 dig aswell. I was involved with the dig and enjoyed it. I would like to see these sites cleaned up of all the “useable” bits of wreckage so to help preserve our flying warbirds but some sites should be left well alone. Some sites also need protection from tresure hunters. Did you know it is illegal for you to dig a piece of aircraft from your own back garden if you dont have a licence.

Merlin

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

To be honest, a lot of the sites which had sizeable amounts of wreckage have already been picked clean. Additionally, there are certain parts of the UK where the authorities have (scandalously, in my view) removed and scrapped significant pieces of wreckage over the years.

I think the issue of high ground wrecks covers two areas; the wreckage itself and whether or not it should be recovered, and the question of memorials to those aircrews who lost their lives at these places. Probably the most fitting example I can think of, off the top of my head as I don’t have the book to hand, is the memorial cairn somewhere up in the very north of Scotland which incorporates the turret of an Anson and commemorates the crew. I believe the pilot is still buried there.

In cases such as that, where the crash site is a person’s grave, it should not be disturbed under any circumstances. I feel very strongly about that.

Indeed, ALL crash sites should be treated with reverence, regardless of whether they were fatal or not, however I do believe that, if properly licenced and authorised, it is acceptable to recover the remains of these aircraft – even fatals – as long as there are no human remains on site and that they are to be either incorporated into a non-flying restoration or preserved in some other way by an organisation which has demonstrated it’s sincerity to the task, ie, the Whitley Project.

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

I agree totally , I first visited the Lancaster on Beinn Eighe around 1988 10 years later there was a lot less there , the fact that there was loss of life involved makes me think all the remaining wreckage should be brought down nearer the Youth Hostel and used as a memorial to the lost crew , I spoke to someone else recently and he told me there was only one prop blade left.
It would be nice to think that some of our museums could stage proper recoveries of the most intact crash sites so future generations can learn from them before they are all hacksawn and axed to bits.

Alastair

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

It would be better that a coordinated approach to the recovery of some of these significant aircraft be carried out or else they will be slowly robbed of all valuable parts. I would assume that technically the wrecks are still the property of the MOD, so a lot of paperwork will be required before any recovery could be planned. Once recovered I would hope that the parts could become the center piece of a museum dedicated to those airmen that loss their lives in all high ground accidents.

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

I’ve been watching this website for a while and have been in contact with Tom Buchan several times , Tommy and Flash make a point of not recovering any parts from the sites – especially where there has been loss of life , Tom is very approachable although he can take a while to respond to Emails as he works offshore .
It would be a shame if individuals used this site as a map for trinket hunting , although I do think that bigger parts shoulb recovered for museum use , the Firefly and Hudson epecially , I think the Whitley group have already removed parts to use in their rebuild.

Alastair

RE: aircraft wrecks in Scotland

i saw this site a while ago and im glad you reminded me of it peter. The firefly remains are aazing, the yellow paint work hasnt faded in the least.

Surely the wings would be of use to someone in a restoration, or should they be left as they are?

-an open minded steve 🙂