W1048

My late friend, Don MacIntyre, would be proud of your hard work.
This was his 35 sqdn. kite which you fashioned your model from.
I last visited with “Mac” in Toronto shortly before his death, we had a small “Tirpitz” reunion with 3 survivors in attendance.
Cheers.
Paul G.

>>why did the wing break off.<<

A result of the starboard outer engine fire that brought W1048 down. I don’t think it was recovered.

`What next? How about a Stirling that’s just been dragged out of a Russian bog “in remakably preserved condition…..?” Now, have I got an unmade Airfix Stirling insulating my loft?` That would be nice Stendec7……….what about a diorama of one in bits in the corner of a Russian Hangar ?………Lovely work by the way!!!!!!!!!

Many thanks. A lot has been learned about aircraft preservation since ’73. If the Hally had been pounced on the moment she came out of the lake and doused with WD-40 into every nook and cranny, the onset of serious corrosion could have been considerably slowed down. I understand that Hendon actually kicked-off a fundraising scheme that reputedly raised over £100,000 towards the cost of restoring ’48. What happened to that cash, as it evidently wasn’t lavished on the old warrior. That being so, wasn’t this a case of raising money under false pretences? Is that legal.
Like the idea of the Russian Stirling in the hanger…..propped up on empty vodka boxes perhaps. What would I give to see a (largely) intact Stirling?

[QUOTE=David Burke;1162652]AS soon as you damage the protective oxidisation that Alclad provides you have an airframe that is effectively corroding away in front of your eyes. The
basis of painting airframes is a direct acknowledgement of the properties of aluminium and the effects that mixing it with other materials can have.
QUOTE]

Yes and no…. All materials will degrade over time, so what you are saying here is true. (David, I know and envy your track record and knowledge of aircraft preservation, so please on’t think I’m picking faults)…However, you cannot simply protect metal of any kind permanently… Aluminium will oxidise without the original alclad coating but only on the upper grain surafce, and will form its own ‘protective’ layer. Again, I agree that over a long period of time, it will deteriorate further. Of course, that only applies on aluminium which is not in contact with other metal types. Dissimilar metal corrosion will continue to spread until one of the metals has erroded away. In short, the Hali as it is could last permanently so long as it is MAINTAINED, which apparently it is Providing the effects of the many forms of corrosion are treated as soon as they appear. They cannot be prevented completely. Even a fully restored, ‘brand new’ aeroplane is actually corroding, since the corrosion process starts as soon as the metal is out of the furnace at the foundry….:eek:

Maintenence and corrosion treatment is the key. IMHO…..

w1048

having read all the many comments and ideas that have been out forward its interesting,the basic cocept of restoration is to put the item back into its originally produced form,this is acheived by replacing/repairing the damaged or corroded parts same principle as restoring any classic machine be it land ,sea or air based,if we didnt restore in this manner,nothing would be put back as it was or used to be,we,d end up with decrepit looking items which few could appreciate as they wouldnt be astheticly pleasing (very PC) to put in laymens terms there would be few classic cars ,trains,or aircraft if this “leave as it is” attitude prevailed,name any historic transport that hasnt been virtually rebuilt in the course of its life “flying scotsman”for instance or even better what about the “cutty Sark” how much of her will be totally original when rebuilt? or the famous no.1 Bentley i believe there were just a few pieces of metal and precious else!the facts are that she will stay as she is because halibags were considered “second best” and in this state she looks the part,its old money and all the trappings of same!:cool: 😎 😎

When she was recovered the aim was to restore her to the status of her last flight i.e intact – the decision
taken not to restore her whilst the fund was going was nothing to do with her integrity or historical merit .

Which means what exactly? – why was the decision taken then?

I do believe that much can be done to improve the display. I don’t believe that a full restoration is either viable or desirable in this case.

Bruce

AS soon as you damage the protective oxidisation that Alclad provides you have an airframe that is effectively corroding away in front of your eyes. The
basis of painting airframes is a direct acknowledgement of the properties of aluminium and the effects that mixing it with other materials can have.
By all means consider her ‘stable’ – but that is a stable deterioration over the years. What we effectively have is an airframe that is part restored – it’s fairly meaningless to future historians as it provides a dramatic illustration of one airframe but isn’t broadly representative. When she was recovered the aim was to restore her to the status of her last flight i.e intact – the decision
taken not to restore her whilst the fund was going was nothing to do with her integrity or historical merit .
If the RAFM wishes to continue with the status quo they need to look long and deep at how you access and even just stabilise a corroding airframe sat on a wooden sled. The way in which she is displayed owes nothing to 1943 and rather a lot more to the early 1970’s.

What I,d be doing….

Is taking my camera,about 100 batteries,twenty 512mbt picture cards,1000 sheets of paper,30 pencils and one foot long ruler,a 10 meter tape measure and a set of verniers..All the pizza,Coca Cola I can eat and drink and a stereo with Foo Fighters,Bon Jovi, playing full time…That way the Hali will be kept as original and you can have a full set of drawings to build a new one.

Bruce,

http://rides.webshots.com/album/143512123EeQsAN

Foto’s by Per Bjorkvist. There are a lot of photo’s on the web of the recovery.

Amazing to see those recovery photo’s. Pity that they didn’t put the recovery on film as done during the recovery of NA337. Magic.

Cheers

Cees

Incidentally, can anyone supply decent pics of the aircraft as she was immediately after recovery? I feel a letter coming on….!

Bruce

I wholeheartedly agree that she should be kept as is but have her missing parts,skinning,blisters,glass etc replaced and the entire airframe made”stable” as much as possible so that any corrosion concerns are taken care of. I am aware that she had that aweful looking red preservative applied awhile back but is this enough? Is she monitored for corrosion as from what the pics show she is anything but an airframe that is in a stable condition.

Yes, she is monitored on a regular basis, and work is done on her, in order to keep the aircraft as stable as possible.

Bruce

So my personal view is that the RAF Museum is failing – failing to explain to visitors why this gem is as she is.

Quite right, and on her first visit to Hendon, one of the biggest impressions made on my wife was the poorness of much of the information on show, about everything! :rolleyes:

I can see both sides of the argument re. the Hendon Hallybag, though to be pedantic I most certainly would not consider the Elvington replica to be an ‘airframe’!

restore or not

I wholeheartedly agree that she should be kept as is but have her missing parts,skinning,blisters,glass etc replaced and the entire airframe made”stable” as much as possible so that any corrosion concerns are taken care of. I am aware that she had that aweful looking red preservative applied awhile back but is this enough? Is she monitored for corrosion as from what the pics show she is anything but an airframe that is in a stable condition.

I wasn’t going to join in with this but felt I should add something. I agree with Bruce, V Force Kid and others but should say that I myself used to question why the Halifax wasn’t restored. That was before I started to work in museums and our curators taught me how much more information is often in an original object than one which is heavily restored, and their duty to preserve as much originality as possible for future generations.

So I would like to ask the simplest of all questions: Why?

Why restore it? to make it look better, would that make a better memorial?

Why leave it alone? As has been said above, wouldn’t a lot have to be replaced in a restoration and how long would it take before somebody questioned how much knowledge was thrown away in a restoration? What would be said in 50, 100 even 150 years?

The museum is, as many complain, dark. It is also cool and dry – deliberately to aid conservation and there is a conservation programme in place.

So my personal view is that the RAF Museum is failing – failing to explain to visitors why this gem is as she is. It should be left unrestored and I agree with Cees and others that missing items should be returned. But I want to see much better interpretation to explain why there is no restoration.

Oh, a final point. Thanks to another thread on here, I spent much of my lunch hour today looking at www.preservedaxisaircraft.com and noticed these two aircraft, both preserved and displayed as wrecks. I mention them for balance.

BV 138 at Danemarks Flyvemuseum, Helsingör

JU-87 at Auto und Technik Museum, Sinsheim

I suspect, as Bruce says, we will continue to disagree.

The decision not to restore her wasn’t made on the cost or indeed the itegrity of the airframe. I well believe if the late leading light of her appeal had been allowed to carry on we would have a pristine Halifax on display now at Hendon. The compromise we have whilst interesting doesn’t serve her well.
Clearly she will continue to deteriorate in the seams where preservative cannot reach and effectively the parts of the airframe fire damaged have different levels of corrosion resistance due to damage to the alclad outer layer .

Chris,

As I say, the views of the two sides of this debate are deeply entrenched. It doesn’t matter what I say, I wont change your mind. So I wont try.

I have, in my own words, put the case for the defence – I dont represent the RAF Museum in any way, but in this case, I do see their point.

How long will it last? I dont know, but with continued care and maintenance, which it does receive, it should last for a good while yet. Would it last any longer if it were restored? Who can tell…

As I say, I would like to see all the missing parts reunited with the aircraft. Careful presentation should make this quite possible.

Myself, I am wholly comfortable seeing a wholly original airframe on display, as opposed to an aircraft that is compromised with new structure and parts.

All the best

Bruce

Hello Bruce

Thank you for the welcome.

There are two questions here:

Firstly how long will the unrestored wreck last in its current condition? I remember it the first week it was installed and having seen it again I can say that it has deteriorated.

Secondly do not all the Halifax veterns, my father included, deserve to see a fully restored aircraft even if it did cost £20-25 million, a small price to pay IMHO, to do it? Sad that my father has to travel to Canada to see a fully restored example.

No, no, no, NO this is all about lacking the will to do it. The RAF have entrenched their position and are sticking to it. Back in 1973 there were scores of Hallifax veterns willing to give up their time to help, my father included, but sadly many of them are now too old or have passed on.

The fact it remains unrestored really is an insult to the crews that served, to those who perished and to those who survive.

My fathers comment sums it up: “If it was a Lancaster it would have done up years ago”

Thanks Bruce,

I couldn’t agree more. There were some decisions made after W1048 was recovered but some of these have been reversed again. What’s happened is happened and we should look to the future now. W1048 is now a centre piece at the Bomber Command museum and rightly so. The Halifax situation has changed since 1973 and from an sole survivor and one cockpit section we have now three airframes and a cockpit section and I feel that this will change in the near future. If LW170 is found an possibly brought up we will have another survivor and there are some more possible candidates for recovery. Who could have thought that in 1973.

Oh eh, Bruce, the Halifax Messier undercarriage was indeed made of magnesium which will not last long underwater. NA337 had the same problem and uses a steel fabricated structure with fibreglass covering that was taken from a mould using the only surviving undercarriage casting at the RAF Museum, the same solution they used on the YAM example.

Cheers

Cees

Chris,

Firstly, welcome to the forum – good to see some new blood coming in!

As you will see above, my position on the Halifax is somewhat different to yours, and I feel I should also comment on the aircraft you name in your post. I see no point in trying to change your mind – views on this subject are far too entrenched – but I would make the following comments:

Fw 200 from Trondhiem Fjiord for Deutsche Technical Museum,

This aircraft was in Bad, bad condition when raised. There wont be much of the original aircraft left when it is completed, but it will well represent this largest of the german fleet. It could not have easily been displayed as it was recovered, owing to the severe damage to the airframe.

Ar 96 from the sea for Deutsche Technical Museum,

The restored aircraft is largely new build, and that is not to take it away from Karl Heide and the team that restored it. It does look lovely. If you see the original fuselage as I have, you will understand why so little was used.

A number (three I think) of Ju 52s up from the bottom a Norwegian Fjiord,

Recovered many years ago, I believe one has been restored, but the others are still in Limbo.

Fw 190 from the seas around Norway,

I very much doubt that this will be restored. It is in bad condition – do a search for photos around the web. There would be little left if it were restored.

He 111 from Jonsvannet to Bodo,

This is at the DTM, Berlin. It is in absolutely amazing condition, and knocks the Halifax into a cocked hat. It is also in rather better shape than many of the surviving CASA 2-111 aircraft. An ideal candidate for restoration, just because it is so good.

Ju 88 from Jonsvannet bound I think for Germany,

The Ju88 is also at the DTM, Berlin. It is worth a note at this point on the production methods used by Junkers – everything was anodised. If you see this aircraft, you are immediately struck by the superb condition of much of the aluminium, purely as it has retained its anodised finish. Again, a worthy restoration candidate, bacause it has survived so well.

Halifax Series II up from Norway to canada

This aircraft was always in better shape than W1048, yet the restoration has still consumed a goodly pile of both new material, and recovered parts from other Halifaxes. I dont know the aircraft, but I do know it is not as original as W1048!

Now, I have to say that even in the case of the He111 and Ju88, if they were in my collection, I would wish to see them preserved as they are, and not restored. The problem is that as soon as you begin to restore something, other factors creep in. The major one is cost – you cant get away from it. I could easily see W1048 consuming £20-25 million pounds to get it back on its feet, and fully restored. However, as soon as you recognise that cost is an issue, you start to look at ways of saving money. OK, so lets have a Halifax that is externally complete, but is missing all the bits that make it tick. That will save some money…. and on it goes.

The next problem is one of interpretation. No matter how hard you try, it is very difficult to restore something without putting your own slant on it. Say there is a missing piece, or a part that is loose in the bottom. Where does it go? Not in the books; not in the photos. Well, it could go here… but you don’t really know do you?!

Lastly, for now, there is the point of loss of original material. Lets take W1048 as an example. Its fair to say that you would use much of the fuselage without any problem. Some new skins here and there, and a few repairs to the structure. Now, the main spar – well, it will need to be perfect if it is to bear its own weight again, so will need to be replaced – in the centre section, and the wings. Big job – inevitably more original material will be lost in the fitting of it. Landing gear. I dont know, but I am betting that that big old Messier Dowty landing gear was made of magnesium alloy. So that will have corroded away, along with the wheels! You’re gonna need a perfect pair of units for it to stand over the public. Engine bearers…. the list goes on.

All in all, it is my belief that the best future for W1048 is to be displayed in much the same manner as it is now, BUT that all the missing parts should be replaced, and there are a LOT of them!

All the best

Bruce

It is a shame few on this thread seem to really understand the difference between conservation and restoration. The RAFM are doing exactly what any good museum should do,preserving history. If this aircraft is restored it will no longer be an original,operational Halifax,it will be a replica.

Why do aircraft enthusiasts seem to want everything bright and shiney? the Halifax looks the way it does because it DID fly operations,it DID ditch and it DID spend 40+years underwater. Perhaps those who see it as “A pile of degererating wreckage” would rather see some god awful replica rather than an original aircraft?.

The only thing I would say is it could be better displayed/presented,without “restoring” the airframe.

Garry.