Preservation views now and fifty years from now

Garry you are not correct. Exposed high ground wrecks have mostly reduced in size of remains over the last 50 years.Not just the few that have had official recoveries carried out. The mid Wales P 38 is one example, Great Carrs Halifax another, Lanc in the Monadliths.

What ever I write, you will still stick to your own view. And I will continue to say that as much as possible needs to be recovered and put into safe keeping, yielding parts for rebuilds, static or flying and display cases. Recover, conserve and display, tell the story of the crew,, the parts bring the story to greater life.

How do we define an “official recovery”? I do not question that wreckage has gone from high ground sites,and it will no doubt continue to do so,but the vast majority of parts removed during the last thirty years have been due to wreckologists(however we define them:rolleyes: ),so unless the methods and atitudes have changed what would be the point in clearing more sites in the name of preservation? the chances are history will repeat itself and the vast majority of wreckage,however historically important,will disappear just as that already recovered has done.

If your plan was put into action,where would all the wreckage go? Who would fund the recovery,conservation and storage?. What course of action would you suggest if a landowner wants the wreckage to stay where it is? also I might be wrong but I can’t see any funding being forthcoming for such a project.

Garry.

I think I would rather ‘loose’ these crash sites (that will eventually dissappear anyway) to have a solitary complete example of a reasonably important aeroplane.

Roger Smith.

I agree Roger,but where would the Whitley project be if all the high ground Whitley sites had already been cleared? It is the very fact that wreckage remains which allows such projects to exist in the first place,had the Whitley project been started in the 1970’s I’m sure the job would be much “easier” than it is now,or to put it another way if wreckologists of the past had not removed wreckage from the sites it would,in many cases,still be there when someone comes along who is willing to invest the time and effort into something like the Whitley project.

Garry.

Garry you are not correct. Exposed high ground wrecks have mostly reduced in size of remains over the last 50 years.Not just the few that have had official recoveries carried out. The mid Wales P 38 is one example, Great Carrs Halifax another, Lanc in the Monadliths.

What ever I write, you will still stick to your own view. And I will continue to say that as much as possible needs to be recovered and put into safe keeping, yielding parts for rebuilds, static or flying and display cases. Recover, conserve and display, tell the story of the crew,, the parts bring the story to greater life.

Interesting debate.
One point I would throw in is salvaging from wreck sites to recreate a complete example of an otherwise extinct aircraft – the example I have in mind is the AW Whitley.
Although I am not associated with the team who are working on rebuilding a Whitley I would imagine that visits to several crash sites has meant removal of as much material as possible to ease what is already a difficult task.
I think I would rather ‘loose’ these crash sites (that will eventually dissappear anyway) to have a solitary complete example of a reasonably important aeroplane.

Roger Smith.

Hi Andy,

I agree with some of the points you raise. Yes corrosion will without doubt continue on wreckage left on high ground sites,but as Cees says it also continues after recovery,but at least left on the site it is within it’s historical context,there is no doubt that it is from a particular aircraft and the finish which remains is original. I am not against all recovery,but unless there is a museum which is capable of and willing to ensure that wreckage is conserved and recorded why remove it?. Most museums have enough to do with complete airframes without having tons of crash damaged wreckage to cope with as well.

I’m surprised that you feel nothing can be learnt from wreckage on a site,such details as modifications to the airframe,paint finish and in some cases individual markings have all been recorded from sites in Snowdonia alone,and all this without having to remove anything.

I agree it is impossible to ensure that someone will not go and remove parts from a site,but it is just as impossible to ensure their preservation in a museum or collection,in fact if we take the past thirty years and look at how much material from recoveries during that time has actually survived it clearly shows that if left in situ the wreckage has a greater chance of surviving,and in a few cases at least there would have been enough left of specific aircraft to warrant a full rebuild,had it not been recovered in the past and later destroyed. You suggest that I paint every wreckologist with the same brush,not so,but as I have said before how do we define who is a wreckologist as opposed to a casual souvenir hunter? The odd walker may take something he can carry but I have yet to see a walker with a 100+lb lump of armour plating or an engine stuffed in his rucksack! and how often do walkers go equipped with hacksaws?.

I’m not saying we can preserve all high ground sites,but unless there is a viable way of ensuring that recovery does not actually deminish the surviving wreckage then yes,they should be recorded and left where they are as a poor recovery can cause more damage than several decades of corrosion.

Garry.

Good points,

Andy and others, this is also part of the preservation topic as started, so there is no hijacking as far as I’m concerned:rolleyes:

Over the past seventeen years I have been active in recoveries and the same goes for these items as well. Will they be still present on display in a few decades time. It seem that items just after recovery are in pristine condition other than crashed, but over the years deterioration sets in and everytime you try to stop it, some more originality is sacrificed etc.

Keep it up chaps

Cees

I have no problem with answering the question here. IMO crash sites are a valuable source of information both on the aircraft type and the history of the crash itself within the context of both local and national history,however as soon as a site is dug(or in the case of high ground sites wreckage is removed) the information contained at the site is put at risk to some degree. Look at the methods used by SOME wreckologists,a complete lack of proper recording at the time the recovery is carried out and poor/total lack of conservation of the material recovered ensures that in many cases any information that could come from the site is lost.

I know there are those who claim it is not possible to preserve everything recovered from a “dig”,but why not? and if wreckage is considered to be of no interest then why remove it in the first place?.

Andy I don’t know if you have ever visited any high ground sites,but surely you will admit the merit of being able to study parts of a specific type of aircraft within the context of the crash site? a good example being the B-26G Marauder on Y Garn,most of the armour plating remains on the site and it still has 40 to 80% of the original paint finish remaining,contrast this with the pieces of armour from the site which found their way into the hands of a wreckologist which got covered in a nice coat of Woolworths finest gloss:(. No doubt over time the parts on the site will corrode and the paint will fade,but not as quickly as parts which are removed and end up either on the scrap heap,rotting in someones shed or garden or being coated in gloss or varnish.

So IMO crash sites are under threat from poor recovery techniques and a lack of post recovery recording and conservation. I feel it is valid to include crash sites alongside other historic aviation related sites as being of importance in a discussion such as this.

Garry.

Garry – it is certainly true that in the 1970’s and early 80’s a great deal of wreck recovery went on and in a manner that has not always left us any the richer for historical information or artefacts resulting from those recoveries and I am afraid that even national collections have been guilty in that respect.

Personally, I do not see what can be “learnt” from the scatter of armour plating from a crashed B-26 on a mountainside and, whatever your viewpoint, it is impossible to ensure these items will not be removed or lost to either planned recovery (legal or otherwise) and subsequent loss or scrapping, or even their loss to casual hill walking souvenir hunters (you can’t stop it!) and eventual corrosion to nothing or loss through subsidence, rock falls etc etc.

My last two visits to high ground wrecks since I began my interest in the subject in 1969 was just a couple of years ago to recover two Gloster Gladiator wrecks from mountains in Norway. I am sorry, Garry, but I just cannot – however hard I try – see why it would be preferable to leave those wrecks there to eventually be lost forever. Both now have an assured future.

I am afraid you paint a hugely generalised picture of aviation “wreckologists” in a negative way and tar all with the same brush. Yes, much went on in the past that was, perhaps, unfortunate in terms of motivation and methodology. I genuininely believe much is different now, but the perfection you strive for, Garry, will never be found. As for keeping every last rivet and shard of alloy recovered; why? It just is impossible anyway.

Cees’ main point was about preservation of artefacts. With the best will the in world, all of those high ground wrecks that I think you want left in situ will be lost to corrosion, removal (authorised or not) or geological events. I find any effort to record them as they are now to be entirely laudable, but insisiting they stay put as entirely risible. Better by far that these wrecks are recoved, somehow and someway, for preservation. Some may be “lost” to eventual scrapping or whatever – you CANNOT prevent that – but the alternative is that they will all be lost, eventually, in any case.
Andy Saunders

Thing is with the Air Cadets are they still as air minded as say 5-10 years ago?
My last squadron certainly aren’t The new boss wanted nothing to do with them…

As an Adult Instructor in the Air Cadet movement I thnk that the young people we get throught the door are just as air minded as they always were and those who werent when they started are easily converted when placed ‘up close and personal’ with aviation. The airmindedness of Squadrons unfortunately varies from unit to unit. The Air Cadets do still have a policy of ‘Flying always takes precedent over all other activities’.

The problem is that some well-meaning soul in the MoD probably did a “risk assessment” – and came to the conclusion that flying is dangerous. Therefore they have a “duty of care” to keep Air Cadets away from aeroplanes! :diablo:

I have been in the Air Cadets for 24 years on both sides of the fence, I think the biggest problem is the government bean counters who have cut the Royal Air Force down so much, added to its operational commitments, cadets are now being deprived of the opportunity of witnessing aviation first hand as much as they did 5, 10, 15, and even 20 years ago. When I started as a cadet the whole squadron could go away on the annual summer camp with the opportunity to go on a choice of overseas camps in Germany, Gibraltar and Cyprus but now with most Royal Air Force stations now long gone and personnel on those that are left committed on overseas ops we are lucky if we get a handful away. The Air Experience Flying cadets get has also been cut over the years since it got sold off to civilian contactors. 20 odd years ago cadets got four 30-40 minute flights a year in historic aircraft ( Chipmunks) now are lucky to get two 20 min flights per year.
I think those that are genuinely intersted in aviation should get the opportunity embrace it especially in preservation movements even if it is just polishing the canopy otherwise we will lose that asset and the preserving of our aviation heritage will only be left to a handful of museums like IWM and RAFM.

Martin

Preservation is not the problem…

Recently attended a NASM confrence and had the opportunity to speak to a number of world renown experts in the field.

The long and the short is if you have the money, it’s not a problem.

If you are like our museum and don’t have massive resources….it’s an on going problem.

The bigger issue among all museums is keeping the interest and the memories alive….from a Canadian Perspective:

1) History is taught badly and very slanted through out the school systems
from elementary through university. When taught at all it is generally
taught as a snippet and out of context. Example: Hiroshima.

2) As a result the public has little knowledge OR interest.

3) No one cares why should any level of government fund it?

4) Corporations “for the most part” go with the flow of public interest

5) The popular game of tearing apart our heros…revisionist history is rampant
as it is guarenteed to generate press and notriety. I am disgusted at what
passes as historical accuracy with popular academics. Little wonder
polititions are destined to make the same mistakes over and over.

What kind of society tears apart it’s heros of the past and promotes
sports figures and movie stars as replacements?

Vicous cirlce…..as a museum we fight it by telling the story in ways that make it relavent and interesting….and operating speakers nights and education programming to try and overcome the flow of mis information.

But if we do not make people care, become interested, we lose.

What can you do…take (1) person that has never been to an aviation museum to an aviation museum (1) time per year…it will make a difference.

The second battle is the lack of interest in aviation…..

The airlines have eliminated the romance of aviation…I don’t blame them, as a business they simply wish to fill seats and try to make a profit. But it has turned flying from a romantic adventure to transport by people tube.

Add in the cost of being active, which as an active pilot I can attest it’s stupid, and the average unknowing person figures it’s just a rich mans sport.

Kids have no idea and figure it’s just like a computer flight simulator.

If the aviation community does not find ways to work together to reverse the trend before long there will simply be no aviation community.

Combine the two and you see why we are in a real risk of having our aviation heritage disappear.

Now of course this is just my opinion and many may not like it, but I’ve spent most of my life watching this unfold.

Tom H

I have no problem with answering the question here. IMO crash sites are a valuable source of information both on the aircraft type and the history of the crash itself within the context of both local and national history,however as soon as a site is dug(or in the case of high ground sites wreckage is removed) the information contained at the site is put at risk to some degree. Look at the methods used by SOME wreckologists,a complete lack of proper recording at the time the recovery is carried out and poor/total lack of conservation of the material recovered ensures that in many cases any information that could come from the site is lost.

I know there are those who claim it is not possible to preserve everything recovered from a “dig”,but why not? and if wreckage is considered to be of no interest then why remove it in the first place?.

Andy I don’t know if you have ever visited any high ground sites,but surely you will admit the merit of being able to study parts of a specific type of aircraft within the context of the crash site? a good example being the B-26G Marauder on Y Garn,most of the armour plating remains on the site and it still has 40 to 80% of the original paint finish remaining,contrast this with the pieces of armour from the site which found their way into the hands of a wreckologist which got covered in a nice coat of Woolworths finest gloss:(. No doubt over time the parts on the site will corrode and the paint will fade,but not as quickly as parts which are removed and end up either on the scrap heap,rotting in someones shed or garden or being coated in gloss or varnish.

So IMO crash sites are under threat from poor recovery techniques and a lack of post recovery recording and conservation. I feel it is valid to include crash sites alongside other historic aviation related sites as being of importance in a discussion such as this.

Garry.

Rather than hijack this thread would you prefer I reply via PM? or do others feel it is a relevant question to answer here?

Garry.

Well, Cees started the thread…your points were in answer to his comments…my question was a straightforward one, really, in response to your comments and, as Junkcollector says, why not answer it here? If it is not a “relevant question to answer here” then making the point in this thread could not have been relevant in the first place! If the theme is not off topic then I am sure Cees will hardly take you to task for hijacking his thread. Andy Saunders

The Question was asked here why not answer it here ?

In what respect do you think crash sites are “under threat now”? Under threat from what or whom?

Rather than hijack this thread would you prefer I reply via PM? or do others feel it is a relevant question to answer here?

Garry.

A very interesting thread with some good points being made. I would tend to suggest that conservation/preservation rather than restoration really depends on each airframe,so in my view it should be considered on a case by case basis. IMO is is vitally important that there are aircraft such as the Halifax at Hendon and the 109 at Duxford preserved in original condition,they are an historical document which go beyond being “just” another Halifax or 109(or whatever the type in question). It is true that to some extent corrosion will continue,but are conserved airframes really under any greater risk in the long term than restored examples?.

To look at at another way,how much have conservation techniques moved forward in the last thirty years? and can we expect further advances in the next thirty?. Perhaps as has already been said the biggest threat is not from corrosion but from the general attitude towards such things as military history,taking it to extremes we could end up in a situation fifty years from now where we have a government which will not fund such national museums(some would say the present one isn’t far off,and I would tend to agree:mad: ) or we could see history twisted by a government of the future who may prefer to preserve only WW2 airframes from,for instance,Germany.

I agree that we should all be looking towards the future,but lets not loose sight of those airframes,buildings,airfields and,dare I say it,crash sites which are under threat now. Before it can be preserved in the future it needs to survive in the present;) .

Garry.

In what respect do you think crash sites are “under threat now”? Under threat from what or whom?

A very interesting thread with some good points being made. I would tend to suggest that conservation/preservation rather than restoration really depends on each airframe,so in my view it should be considered on a case by case basis. IMO is is vitally important that there are aircraft such as the Halifax at Hendon and the 109 at Duxford preserved in original condition,they are an historical document which go beyond being “just” another Halifax or 109(or whatever the type in question). It is true that to some extent corrosion will continue,but are conserved airframes really under any greater risk in the long term than restored examples?.

To look at at another way,how much have conservation techniques moved forward in the last thirty years? and can we expect further advances in the next thirty?. Perhaps as has already been said the biggest threat is not from corrosion but from the general attitude towards such things as military history,taking it to extremes we could end up in a situation fifty years from now where we have a government which will not fund such national museums(some would say the present one isn’t far off,and I would tend to agree:mad: ) or we could see history twisted by a government of the future who may prefer to preserve only WW2 airframes from,for instance,Germany.

I agree that we should all be looking towards the future,but lets not loose sight of those airframes,buildings,airfields and,dare I say it,crash sites which are under threat now. Before it can be preserved in the future it needs to survive in the present;) .

Garry.

I know we were very surprised at the amount of corrosion apparent in Hurricane 5447 when we dismantled it at Vintage Wings. It had been restored over a twenty year period. At least the aircraft can be reproduced if the werewithall exists to keep them around. The ME262 project a case in point.
Here in Canada there is a debate going on about the effect of allied bombing in World II brought on by revisionist attitudes among the staff at the Canadian War Museum. Much to the distaste of vetrans and their supporters. I know that we all would like to see the aircraft perserved but the memory of those who flew them and why is perhaps more important.

Some interesting thoughts here, sadly more than one airframe or part their off has gone to the great bone yard in the sky through lack of interest / care. I remember coming across a T11 Vampire Cockpit section in an army camp some years ago, it had sadly fallen victim to an ATC unit who had been responsible for it being vandalised, sad really because the reduction to cockpit section had been beautifully done.

In the current environment how do we preserve what’s left, we have property developers and lets be honest elements of the government who seem intent on turning the country into one big building development (I wonder how those who wish to see flying stop at Kemble would like it if they find the airfield replaced by a damn great shopping development or worse still housing estates. The narrow minded pigmies who campaign against Kemble and the like never seem to realise that the alternative may be a lot worse. —- Ha, ha, ha!)

Sorry folks getting a bit off track there, but then aviation preservation is more than just keeping airframes in one piece.

Preserving our aviation heritage, how do we do it?

1> Have a government that is concerned in something more than the bottom line.
2> Make it a bit easier for the smaller museums to preserve the current crop of airframes that are getting to the end of their service life. Privately funded museums in general cannot afford to get into bidding wars. At the moment examples of the newer aircraft will go to the national museums, probably for free or at worst for £1, everyone else will be left out in the cold!
3> Revitalize organisations like the ‘BAPC’ and help shape the educational process to get the young interested in aviation, in all its forms!
4> Use the best technologies we have, to help preserve what we have, for as long as we can! We can do no more.

Here ends the lesson!

WF

Aside from conservation efforts of museum-bound aircraft, at some point the NMUSAF has to wake up and take steps to preserve the WWII aircraft (primarily B-17s and C-47s but a few fighters too) still displayed outdoors at air base museums under its control.

In a few years these AC will be three-quarters of a century old (that’s enogh to make anyone feel old) and the benign US climate has allowed the planes to be left out in the weather, but that has got to change.
My prediction on this topic is anything from WWII (planes, uniforms, vehicles) will start to get very valuable as the years progress and the attitude of “there’s a lot of stuff out there, therefore we don’t need to take exceptional care of it” ends.

What about the one in Canada ?

Quite right – I was being a bit too parochial in making my point by comparing the two UK aircraft.

Of course if there is no agreement on whether restoring or preserving “as is” is best for a lake recovered warbird, in 50 years time a study of the Trenton example and the RAFM machine might give us the answer.

Thing is with the Air Cadets are they still as air minded as say 5-10 years ago?
My last squadron certainly aren’t The new boss wanted nothing to do with them…

The problem is that some well-meaning soul in the MoD probably did a “risk assessment” – and came to the conclusion that flying is dangerous. Therefore they have a “duty of care” to keep Air Cadets away from aeroplanes! :diablo: