Whitley back from extinction?

Elliot’s keeping an extremely low profile. Is it something we’ve said?

Have there been any cases of buried complete aircraft being dug up (on land not on sea/river beds) and restored?
I have assumed the weight of soil on top would have crushed them beyond use. Engines would be strong enough to withstand the pressure maybe but airframes???
Roger Smith.

Glacier Girl, for one.

Several aircraft have reportedly been recovered from the Phillipinesk (I’m thinking it was reported by Setter on WIX), a P-47 now under restoration with HARS, and two P-61s (also reported by Setter)

On the topic of underwater aircraft…there’s a B-29 in Lake Meade in Nevada. I know a lot of people don’t really like the B-29, but having worked on one (and seen one today–the Enola Gay), I love them. If I remember right, it *could* be restored to fly, but it’s missing part of the horizontal stabilizer and has a huge hole in the side. (the stabilizer could easily be borrowed from the half-dozen that Doc has)

But this thread isn’t about B-29s, or even underwater aircraft (which I’d really like to see a thread on but If I started it, it wouldn’t become a popular thread with a lot of worthwile posts to read) …it’s about a Whitley Recovery.

I wish them the best of luck.

EDIT: sorry for the double post and I haven’t read every post in this thread…yet…

Two Hampdens in the UK, one’s at Lincolnshire (might have got that wrong).

Cees- In all fairness it would be good to check out the Halifax rumour and there is a group on site who could do it it quite easily. However I cannot see why anyone would go to the bother of burying a Halifax at Hooton Park when they could just call in a scrap man from Birkenhead.

Just saw your post David,

My point exactly.

Cees

Exactly, why bury it? The local group don’t seem to want to know …

Cees- In all fairness it would be good to check out the Halifax rumour and there is a group on site who could do it it quite easily. However I cannot see why anyone would go to the bother of burying a Halifax at Hooton Park when they could just call in a scrap man from Birkenhead.

Are we talking about the alleged buried Halifax at the former RAF Hooton Park, Wirral? There are several independent eyewitness reports of this one being buried and I know the spot where it is supposed to be. The aircraft details are known, too. The site is neither marsh nor flood-prone but it is quite close to the Manchester Ship Canal. I consider it very unlikely that it was buried, despite these reports to the contrary. But …..!

…….. noboby seems to bother trying to have look?

These stories are always told by third parties and nobody seems to know where they originated from. Eye witnesses should be a starting point. Phil, have you looked around Driffield if there are still aircraft parts lying around there? Must be a good starting point to find something instead of hearing stories but doing nothing about them. Tony Agar did what you can do best, go and have a look and finding a lot of Mossie bits at Litte Snoring. But he must be one of a few. Most other people are good at circulating stories but never bother to undertake some action.

Must be the difference between the armchair historian and the hardened aviation buff. Ian Foster is another good example of someone we can be proud of for having rescued a lot of stuff that would otherwise have rotted away or scrapped.

Think about it.

Cees

Are we talking about the alleged buried Halifax at the former RAF Hooton Park, Wirral? There are several independent eyewitness reports of this one being buried and I know the spot where it is supposed to be. The aircraft details are known, too. The site is neither marsh nor flood-prone but it is quite close to the Manchester Ship Canal. I consider it very unlikely that it was buried, despite these reports to the contrary. But …..!

Regarding the buried MkV Halifax, the information was passed on by a leading member of a Halifax appreciation / action group – someone whose helped so many organisations regarding this aircraft type. I doubt he would tell a porky. He did tell me the site was difficult to access due to the owners (possibly foreign). There may also be toxic waste buried on the site. Also, the site flooded a few years ago. That’s all I know. I guess someone could find out which MkVs were written off on take off from a factory site or such other.

Phillip,

What a lot of bad luck to happen on the same site where a priceless Halifax is buried :rolleyes:

I talked to you-know-who last evening and he laughed his head off when I told him your story 😉

Cheers

Cees

Regarding the buried MkV Halifax, the information was passed on by a leading member of a Halifax appreciation / action group – someone whose helped so many organisations regarding this aircraft type. I doubt he would tell a porky. He did tell me the site was difficult to access due to the owners (possibly foreign). There may also be toxic waste buried on the site. Also, the site flooded a few years ago. That’s all I know. I guess someone could find out which MkVs were written off on take off from a factory site or such other.

Hi Jeepman,
Indeed, we are in broad agreement; how could I disagree, as an ex-Nottinghamite?

It’s an interesting point regarding the Corsair and Martlet – you are right, the majority won’t notice anything much; but we decry the ‘dumbing down’ of so much done these days. In this case, a new standard, IMHO higher than any comparative effort in the UK, has been set. We can hardly complain that something’s been ‘un-dumbed-up!’ (!?!)

The proof of the achievement is the availability of an entirely uncompromised and fully documented historical artefact. I’m interested in how we think about historic aircraft – many of us can be romantic about what ‘should be’ and the museum’s job isn’t to pander to our immediate desires, but to preserve, interpret and then to entertain.

With the Hampden, specifically, I would agree with you – it’s a lot of holes with a little aircraft around it.

Regarding aircraft from the sea – again, I’d agree, I was highlighting the massive cost vs difficult return in almost all cases. There simply aren’t and aircraft under the sea awaiting a recovery, wash and show. What you’ll get is a self destructive metal origami doily. If you want to make something out of it, good luck, great, but don’t be surprised when you have a pile of white dust and a lot less cash! If you can measure it to replicate before it dissolves , that’s a success, but a small one against other routes, I’d submit. Let’s see a Whitley, but it’s still going to be easier for Eliott’s team to do it than haul a wreck up and preserve it.

Some have achieved a lot in sea recoveries – but they will be out numbered 10 – 1 by those whose enthusiasm outstrips their realism.

Cheers!

James- thank you for your considered response

To some extent i think we sing from the same hymn sheet.
However i do feel that the Hampden was so compromised as a complete airframe that full restoration – in that particular instance – was more appropriate.By all means use the legacy type of sympathetic restoration for a more complete airframe – i worry that this approach, in this instance, is purely driven by funding.

Whilst I laud the Corsair and now Martlet work – I still think that it will not be appreciated by the bulk of punters.

Whilst the retrieval of decaying airframes from the bottom of the sea might be self defeating – it might at least address some of the construction and pattern “gaps” so clearly highlighted by, for instance, the lack of documentation on the So’ton, prior to terminal decay.

Very interesting thread. If I may add a bit, as I’m reasonably well informed on some of the general aspects and several of the specific cases with a few comments?

There must be enough material around to inititiate comprehensive rebuilds either in house or through third parties of both the Skua and Barracuda but neither has progressed. Whilst the careful derestoration of Corsair and now Martlet are valuable exercises what will Joe Public think of the result (“Mum – it needs painting…”) and could not the resources have been used to better effect.

Fair comment on the Skua and Barra. (Although the Barracuda nose is better than an unrestored set of bits.) But, just looking at the FAAM, we do have (restored, in the exact process you outline) the Albacore and a Sea Gladiator (underway now), plus items like the rebuild of their Walrus – there is a finite amount of time, people and resources, and much as we might not like it, there’s a queue, and our favourites are often not at the top. (All the a/c I mention have been rebuilt for the FAAM by a mix of internal and external labour. And, as well, the Friends of the FAAM completed an excellent static restoration of a set of parts of a Sea Gladiator loaned to them from the Shuttleworth Collection. No doubt to the chagrin of the Friends, this completed restoration was sold to The Fighter Collection, who’ve had to redo the whole job as they are doing an airworthy restoration. Heartbreaking? Daft? Maybe, but that’s what REALLY happens over a period of decades, not what we’d like to hope.)

That work on the Corsair (and now underway on the Wildcat) at the FAAM isn’t just for a casual glance from Joe Public, and the relatively little cash spent on the two projects wouldn’t tot up to much on other ideas. The Corsair project has resulted in the most original, authentic and valuable W.W.II FAA aircraft in the world. It is, unarguably, as a historical artefact, and as a research tool, one of the most valuable aircraft around, of any kind. We have learned an amazing amount from this process, and there is more to learn – be that as it may, it is a documented original artefact, not a rebuild and thus invaluable to our great-great-great-grandchildren. No other Corsair extant can provide the data that the FAAM example now can; again, to our descendants as well. (For authoritative info on this ground-breaking achievement, see http://www.fleetairarm.com/index2.htm and go to ‘Corsair Project’)

“Extinct” RAF aircraft have fared little better, with the funding stringencies of the RAFM plain for all to see. Swaps for spare ex gate guardian Spits represent one opportunity as do the Projects initiated by commited private individuals such as the Stirling, Whitley and Assault Glider groups – but how keen will such groups be to lodge their carefully restored/recreated airframes with the RAFM when they see the way in which they treat the Valiant?

Good points as well; but it’s a two way street. Unless the restorations are carried out to the required standard, they should not be lodged with national level collections. The RAFM’s been erratic in this arena, unlike, say the Smithsonian or IWM in the past, and has some disgracefully bad restorations on show as well as stunners. There are obvious “fits” of types to museums which will never happen, because the job wasn’t documented or completed to a required standard. On the other hand, the RAFM has loaned aircraft for show to other, checked, collections. The glass is as half full as it’s empty.

In terms of recent restorations, the Bulldog stands out as a shining beacon, but were others such as the Wallace and Southampton (and perhaps the curious half and half restoration of the Hampden) compromised by the need to be careful with funds?

The Southampton is as complete as accurate documentation allowed. There simply isn’t enough data to build the wings, strange though it may seem. Pre-W.W.II aircraft simply didn’t have the documentation that we expect, and what there was is often gone. In this case I’ve talked to the RAFM, looked through their archives, plus the RAAF museum’s archives (in Australia) and the man (John Chapman, OBE) who rebuilt most of that aircraft. Again, it’s only due to John’s perseverance, skill and abilities that the Southampton has tail-feathers – knowing what I’ve learned, I miss the wings, but I’m grateful we have as much as we do.

The Wallace and Bulldog were both rebuilt by Tim Moore’s Skysport. I’m not at liberty to give out chapter and verse, but Tim put a lot more money and work into both of those than he should. One day I’m sure we’ll see wings on the Wallace, in the meantime those hands are working on other projects (flying Demon anyone?)

The Half Hampden idea is a fashion in the museum world, and addresses a hot issue we often simply overlook as regards keeping original material and showing it as it is, versus making it look original by replacing original material. It might seem pointless and trivial to us, but in a properly run museum it’s a tough choice without an ultimately right answer. The 109E at IWM Duxford is an example where the idea has been done, IMHO, well.

Another factor is Father Time – as Cees has said – if we don’t recover some of these airframes shortly – they will be gone for ever. Whilst purists might question the extent of new material in NA337, the simple fact is that established museum practice of conserving as much as possible may be stacking up problems for the future – viz W1048 and the Battle. Having said that the RAFM have lots of nicely (and not so nicely) painted stripped out empty shells which require considerable work to bring them up to proper display standard. They have probably got enough to cope with with what they already have let alone initiate further searches and rebuilds. I advised them of the Vengeance projects formerly available in Oz – as this was apparently on the list of wants – they didn’t even acknowledge my communication.

Hmm. a number of different factors here. Conservation, if properly carried out won’t ‘stack up problems for the future’ as in the case of NA337 being OK, and the Battle was rebuilt at RAF St Athan, using some unusual volunteer labour – it apears it wasn’t done properly, which is sad, but does not have anything to do with conservation.

As regarding bringing aircraft from salt water – no thanks. What hasn’t been mentioned here yet is the huge number of recovered aircraft and parts that have been brought out from the seas all over the world in the last 60 years. Where are they? In the vast majority of cases, they are dissolved – gone. Unless you have a lot of money, and the treatment to leach the salt from the metals over a long period (let’s say a decade…) in a bath solution, leave ’em alone. Yes, one of the most viable methods for keeping what you’ve got up from the sea is to leave it in a bath for years while it gets de-salted. Not exactly a major museum attraction while that’s going on, but for an exception, see the Mary Rose – Henry VIII’s flagship.

Yes it can be done, but aircraft are about the worst artefacts to try and preserve from such environments, and it’s a lot of money for very little return.

A basic, primary principle in archaeology is to leave some undisturbed parts of any dig field for future archaeologists to have a go at. It is certain that they will have different tools, skills and, most importantly, attitudes to us and will not thank us for messing it all up before they get there.

As regards the gutted painted hulks in Hendon, hear hear.

As regards the lack of a reply, that’s really unacceptable, but I’m afraid what I’ve come to expect from the appallingly managed RAFM. Oh, and ‘we’ are hanging onto the Vengances down under, and may see some fliers one day from them.

Have there been any cases of buried complete aircraft being dug up (on land not on sea/river beds) and restored?

Yes. There’s at least one Curtiss P-40 which was recovered from being part of a dam in-fill in Canada rebuilt to fly in Australia. Also ‘Glacier Girl’ the P-38 flying rebuild came from being partly crushed under ice and pulled out. See ‘The Lost Squadron’. Note both were in contact with fresh, not salt water. The recovery of the Loch Ness Wellington illustrates the problems a ‘relatively simple’ (compared to a sea) recovery and what they can and cannot do with the recovered aircraft is a microcosm of the massive problems facing any saline open sea recovery team. I wish them the best of luck, but I’d not put my money towards it.

Try googling Archerfield Quarry. This was a “hole” in Aus that got filled up with a/c trash and was partly drained in 1992. Things were just getting interesting when the powers that be stopped it. Some people in power just don’t want you to get your hands on some of the stuff.

Hmm. The live, unstable 50 year old munitions didn’t bother you? Not exactly a conspiracy, it was keen amateurs (i.e. not bomb disposal crews) having a go with some very dangerous risks. “No, you can’t risk your life and those around you” is a more accurate summary. 😀

Cheers!

I’m sure most of these stories are just stories, but what is “dangerous” soil? Would this be a marshy area or something?

Yest, it is.

But sticking to the topic, there must be more substantial Whitley remains on high ground sites. Elliott, care to enlighten us?

Cheers

Cees

Philip,

There is NO Mk V Halifax buried lying there to be recovered. If so it would have been recovered decades ago. There is a Halifax wreck that went into soft ground but the soil is too dangerous to get near.

Oh, and of course the chap doesn’t want to tell you where it is, because it’s just not there.

Cheers

Cees

I’m sure most of these stories are just stories, but what is “dangerous” soil? Would this be a marshy area or something?

Try googling Archerfield Quarry. This was a “hole” in Aus that got filled up with a/c trash and was partly drained in 1992. Things were just getting interesting when the powers that be stopped it. Some people in power just don’t want you to get your hands on some of the stuff.

Lottery winners spending their cash on old planes? Historic avaition isnt high on everyones agenda I guess.

The aircraft that lie in deep fresh water lakes, are they in a state of preservation where they are? Is it worth leaving them there rather risk smashing them to bits while trying to recover them?

Ive heard lots of stories about buried aircraft. Buried spitfires in quarries, lancasters flown to an airfiled and bulldozed into a large ditch and buried. JU88s and FW180s buried in sand pits in germany, even spitfires in secret bunkers under the bullring, Birmingham. They are all fantastic stories to listen to… surely some must be true… wishful thinking?

Tim

Have there been any cases of buried complete aircraft being dug up (on land not on sea/river beds) and restored?
I have assumed the weight of soil on top would have crushed them beyond use. Engines would be strong enough to withstand the pressure maybe but airframes???
Roger Smith.

There’s a Halifax in a lake near Berlin – complete with bomb load and the crew survived. There is also a MkV Halifax buried in the UK. The pilot retracted the U/C too soon and he skidded along the runway before ending up in a field. The aircraft had just been serviced. I understand they stripped it clean then dumped it into a pit (made when they were filling sandbags). It was later buried. Now the chap who told me this is well known to a lot of people and he isn’t the kind of person who would I believe spread such rumours (I Hope). He won’t tell me where the aircraft is buried, but the site has not been built upon and during the war the airfield was used to refurbish Halifax aircraft.

Regarding those aircraft which ditched. We know roughly where hundreds ditch (through ORBs). We also know which areas are more likely to keep an aircraft intact. Survey work is expensive, but if you just sonar scan, you’d know through searching this way, which sites were prime for further investigating (ROV or divers). The problem is in securing a really good scanner.

You know, what really pisses me off. Assholes who win the lottery (or those who don’t claim their winnings). Not one lottery winner I know has a keen interest in our aerodrome or aviation heritage. As some of you know I’m keen to see former RAF Driffield preserved and guest who won £18m last year on the lottery – some TESCO workers from Driffield. I bought my last lottery ticket on New Year’s Eve. You can tell I’m bitter.

AND ANOTHER THING…

Oh, I got distracted – where was I????

Philip,

There is NO Mk V Halifax buried lying there to be recovered. If so it would have been recovered decades ago. There is a Halifax wreck that went into soft ground but the soil is too dangerous to get near.

Oh, and of course the chap doesn’t want to tell you where it is, because it’s just not there.

Cheers

Cees

Check Out http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/sidescan.htm and http://www.marinesonic.com/SonarImages/pb4y.html