Dornier 17 – RAF Museum Recovery From Goodwin Sands

Closing this thread down as it is older and no sense having two threads running with folks posting the same messages in both..
Peter,
Moderator

Apart from some sheds and mention of 2013, nothing to talk about. 🙁

Good questions, Dave

Given all that is being said here about what will happen and what they will end up with and how much it will cost in the long term, it makes me wonder why on earth the RAF Museum is even bothering with the project.

It is, IMHO, one of the most important potential historic aircraft recoveries in the world at the moment – and because of its importance, it’s attracting interest worldwide.

There are surely much more worthy causes that the money could be spent on than something that will end up as a pile of corrosion.

Not really. The Stirling options are not even this good (excepting the remarkable work by several great volunteer groups as seen here) and the Do 17, excepting this example is ‘extinct’ and a rare member of an important set of early war medium bombers. This example is a relic from an important day in history – not, like many other museum other machines, a training example only representing more historic sisters.

If properly recovered, corrosion will be stabilised and slowed to effectively the level of decay all artefacts face in museum hands (very, very slow), so it won’t change – not only will it not be restored to pre-take-off standards, it should not degrade further if properly conserved, something we can rely on the RAFM to do.

If it is left where it is, we will have let the last Do 17 slip through our hands to extinction.

Given the ongoing discussions that continue to this day about their Halifax, which was lifted from fresh water, surely a salt water recovery will be even worse off. People are critical enough of the Halifax being conserved in its current state.

Salt water is worse, certainly. However I’m afraid I don’t agree with the commonly-advanced view that the Halifax should be restored. I think presented as it is, it makes a powerful statement of the effects of war that many aviation enthusiasts are not interested in. Beyond that, I don’t think we should go into the pros and cons of the Halifax in this thread, however important.

Wouldn’t they be better off lifting something from a fresh water lake, and perhaps something actually more relevant to their collection (ie RAF, like a Stirling), or just pouring those massive amount of funds into other existing projects like their Hampden? Are there no Dornier 17’s in fresh water for that matter?

There are no more Do 17s of any kind anywhere as far as we know.

There’s nothing of equivalent rarity or importance in the RAFM’s ‘scope’ – again, as far as we know.

There is a Dornier Do 217 in shallows in a European nature conservation area, but that’s not a British recovery option.

The salt-water Stirling wreck I don’t think is as viable a recovery and is far less ‘complete’ in the structural sections.

The Hampden is funded and under restoration – Generally organisations like the RAFM don’t accelerate restorations or conservation if funding can be increased. The fund raising here is for this task, and is therefore – by definition – not a diversion from existing funding for possible other tasks.

Regards,

Good questions, Dave

Given all that is being said here about what will happen and what they will end up with and how much it will cost in the long term, it makes me wonder why on earth the RAF Museum is even bothering with the project.

It is, IMHO, one of the most important potential historic aircraft recoveries in the world at the moment – and because of its importance, it’s attracting interest worldwide.

There are surely much more worthy causes that the money could be spent on than something that will end up as a pile of corrosion.

Not really. The Stirling options are not even this good (excepting the remarkable work by several great volunteer groups as seen here) and the Do 17, excepting this example is ‘extinct’ and a rare member of an important set of early war medium bombers. This example is a relic from an important day in history – not, like many other museum other machines, a training example only representing more historic sisters.

If properly recovered, corrosion will be stabilised and slowed to effectively the level of decay all artefacts face in museum hands (very, very slow), so it won’t change – not only will it not be restored to pre-take-off standards, it should not degrade further if properly conserved, something we can rely on the RAFM to do.

If it is left where it is, we will have let the last Do 17 slip through our hands to extinction.

Given the ongoing discussions that continue to this day about their Halifax, which was lifted from fresh water, surely a salt water recovery will be even worse off. People are critical enough of the Halifax being conserved in its current state.

Salt water is worse, certainly. However I’m afraid I don’t agree with the commonly-advanced view that the Halifax should be restored. I think presented as it is, it makes a powerful statement of the effects of war that many aviation enthusiasts are not interested in. Beyond that, I don’t think we should go into the pros and cons of the Halifax in this thread, however important.

Wouldn’t they be better off lifting something from a fresh water lake, and perhaps something actually more relevant to their collection (ie RAF, like a Stirling), or just pouring those massive amount of funds into other existing projects like their Hampden? Are there no Dornier 17’s in fresh water for that matter?

There are no more Do 17s of any kind anywhere as far as we know.

There’s nothing of equivalent rarity or importance in the RAFM’s ‘scope’ – again, as far as we know.

There is a Dornier Do 217 in shallows in a European nature conservation area, but that’s not a British recovery option.

The salt-water Stirling wreck I don’t think is as viable a recovery and is far less ‘complete’ in the structural sections.

The Hampden is funded and under restoration – Generally organisations like the RAFM don’t accelerate restorations or conservation if funding can be increased. The fund raising here is for this task, and is therefore – by definition – not a diversion from existing funding for possible other tasks.

Regards,

http://www.justgiving.com/Dornier17

Over 50% raised

http://www.justgiving.com/Dornier17

Over 50% raised

Given all that is being said here about what will happen and what they will end up with and how much it will cost in the long term, it makes me wonder why on earth the RAF Museum is even bothering with the project. There are surely much more worthy causes that the money could be spent on than something that will end up as a pile of corrosion. Given the ongoing discussions that continue to this day about their Halifax, which was lifted from fresh water, surely a salt water recovery will be even worse off. People are critical enough of the Halifax being conserved in its current state.

Wouldn’t they be better off lifting something from a fresh water lake, and perhaps something actually more relevant to their collection (ie RAF, like a Stirling), or just pouring those massive amount of funds into other existing projects like their Hampden? Are there no Dornier 17’s in fresh water for that matter?

Given all that is being said here about what will happen and what they will end up with and how much it will cost in the long term, it makes me wonder why on earth the RAF Museum is even bothering with the project. There are surely much more worthy causes that the money could be spent on than something that will end up as a pile of corrosion. Given the ongoing discussions that continue to this day about their Halifax, which was lifted from fresh water, surely a salt water recovery will be even worse off. People are critical enough of the Halifax being conserved in its current state.

Wouldn’t they be better off lifting something from a fresh water lake, and perhaps something actually more relevant to their collection (ie RAF, like a Stirling), or just pouring those massive amount of funds into other existing projects like their Hampden? Are there no Dornier 17’s in fresh water for that matter?

How much were thoses 262’s they were making recently surely could not be much more difficult than that ?

Huge difference between building new and restoring a salty bird.

This is typical of what you can expect:

With the 262, they had access to a potentially airworthy one.
No such luck with the 17.

How much were thoses 262’s they were making recently surely could not be much more difficult than that ?

Huge difference between building new and restoring a salty bird.

This is typical of what you can expect:

With the 262, they had access to a potentially airworthy one.
No such luck with the 17.

That seems to me to be a good comparison. The materials are different, of course, but we remember how long it took for the Mary Rose to be brought to a displayable condition. And I suppose it would have more effect if ultimately it was the centre of a specific display within the RAFM.

That seems to me to be a good comparison. The materials are different, of course, but we remember how long it took for the Mary Rose to be brought to a displayable condition. And I suppose it would have more effect if ultimately it was the centre of a specific display within the RAFM.

Interesting that they use the words “restoration” and “preserve”. I wonder which it is.

It will actually be ‘conserved’. It will not be ‘restored’ to a recognisable Do 17 as it was last seen before take-off. What we will get to see after some years of intensive granular level metal work will be a very historic wreck.

The terms used in the press release are general, for basic understanding, rather than the precise ones for what will happen.

How much were thoses 262’s they were making recently surely could not be much more difficult than that ?

The 262 lookalikes were, essentially, an ‘easier’ task. Conservation of salt-water wrecks is very, very expensive and time consuming (and not glamorous or even shows much ‘visual progress’ – a wreck you’ve prevented from fizzing away looks basically the same as one that you won’t have in a few years because it’ll have dissolved.) – lifting them first almost always is more tricky than the best plans anticipate, and also requires expensive specialised equipment, and sometimes one-off specials, such as lifting frames and the like.

The best comparison (which I was recently given by a museum curator) on the Dornier is to The Mary Rose, and specifically in as much as what you see is not going to be reconstructed to a ship (in the case of the Rose) or an aircraft in the case of the Dornier.

Regards,

Interesting that they use the words “restoration” and “preserve”. I wonder which it is.

It will actually be ‘conserved’. It will not be ‘restored’ to a recognisable Do 17 as it was last seen before take-off. What we will get to see after some years of intensive granular level metal work will be a very historic wreck.

The terms used in the press release are general, for basic understanding, rather than the precise ones for what will happen.

How much were thoses 262’s they were making recently surely could not be much more difficult than that ?

The 262 lookalikes were, essentially, an ‘easier’ task. Conservation of salt-water wrecks is very, very expensive and time consuming (and not glamorous or even shows much ‘visual progress’ – a wreck you’ve prevented from fizzing away looks basically the same as one that you won’t have in a few years because it’ll have dissolved.) – lifting them first almost always is more tricky than the best plans anticipate, and also requires expensive specialised equipment, and sometimes one-off specials, such as lifting frames and the like.

The best comparison (which I was recently given by a museum curator) on the Dornier is to The Mary Rose, and specifically in as much as what you see is not going to be reconstructed to a ship (in the case of the Rose) or an aircraft in the case of the Dornier.

Regards,

I can confirm the Dornier also landed with gear up. Although I appreciate that it can be sensitive to discuss such things.

Hope you are working on the Do 17 paint scheme, Roobarb? Get in a bit of practice on some Swiss cheese.

I can confirm the Dornier also landed with gear up. Although I appreciate that it can be sensitive to discuss such things.

Hope you are working on the Do 17 paint scheme, Roobarb? Get in a bit of practice on some Swiss cheese.

In the recent Warbird Radio interview the guys from the Vulcan team including the team leader stated the Vulcan will be grounded next year or the year after regardless of funding as the airframe is life expired.

I wonder how “expired” the DC-3 is?

Yes, my point is as long as the maintenance is diligent and complete their is no reason an aircraft will fly forever (of course it will likely be completely replaced a couple of times over due to parts replacment)

In the recent Warbird Radio interview the guys from the Vulcan team including the team leader stated the Vulcan will be grounded next year or the year after regardless of funding as the airframe is life expired.

I wonder how “expired” the DC-3 is?

Yes, my point is as long as the maintenance is diligent and complete their is no reason an aircraft will fly forever (of course it will likely be completely replaced a couple of times over due to parts replacment)

That’s surprising because they have made great play of the celebrations in 2012 for its 60th anniversary as well as the 60th year of the Queens’ reign, Olympic year etc etc. Now 2013 is another matter, of course.

That’s surprising because they have made great play of the celebrations in 2012 for its 60th anniversary as well as the 60th year of the Queens’ reign, Olympic year etc etc. Now 2013 is another matter, of course.