Do you think this aircraft would have been seen on Google Earth, before it was found by ground teams?

Fw 189 recovered by Jim Pearce 1990.

Better add that this is NOT the pacific and the vegatation is different, before people start pointing that out.
Not all areas of the pacific is jungle either.

Perhaps then this is the real value that GE could be put to, rather than endlessly searching the wider pacific landscape, undertake a project to establish a website of GE images of Japanese and Allied airfields, with natural and “enhanced” images, and other support data as an online resource and historical record.

The “Enhanced” image could overlay the original layout of taxiways / revetments, runways, buildings, workshops, fuel dumps, repair yards. This would require a bit of work to use the GPS co-ords on the the GE images against accurate wartime scale maps, but the outcome would be of great use in a number of ways:

1. anomolies at the site could be interpreted relative to the historical land use, ie is it a building remains or possible aircraft part – your intended purpose.

2. Tourist or other visitors could orientate the current landscape against the historical landscape, adding to the interest etc of a visit, regardless of the purpose.

3. Forms an historical/ heritage study resource in its own right, ie understand where the historical boundaries of Clark Field in the Philippines, or Jacksons Field in Port Morseby PNG were, regadless of current redevelopment etc, even though there is no “warbird” recovery aspects to such information it is a valuable historical tool.

4. Provides an online historical and tourism resource for the Pacific Islands involved, who might then become a bit more actively involved in preserving some of the remaining relics? – perhaps even providing images of relics still remaining, (and helping to identify the anomolies found??)

The GE images, together with the mapped overlays could then be supported with historical photos of the base during the war and a short history of operations, creating an online resource for all of the above outcomes, and still creating the opportunity to trip over something of interest in the process?

Such a project may enlist far more helpers willing to take on research and publishing of individual “airfields” as their own projects, all on the one website.

I do agree with other comments that the existing “Wreckologists” have a fair idea what is out there, and know the hot spots to still look in, historically know where the dumps were, or where the scrappers didnt get to, I dont see GE being of much interest to them as they have access to local resources to undertake on the ground or in the air investigations.

But GE can be used to provide more information on the web on these battlegrounds, and to encourage further presevation of what is left.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Google earth already have this facility, so just get cracking 😉

Ground searching and Google earth don’t differ too much regarding a possible endless search. I’m currently following a “live” ground earch and hope they will find something. I will post the link when i get home, if anyone wants to follow them.

i have used GE in the past, to look ‘over walls’, to see things in places i have always know have hidden stuff- the fire dump at Manston and Gun towers in the thames estuary. If fact went out for a few weeks with a back problem last year i spent a couple of weeks looking at pretty much every airbase in the UK. But ever knowing the geographical positions of these places it still took quite some searching, so to look for a tiny object in such massive amounts of space must be overwhelming. So unless you know a position it would be more or less useless!

Its called searching.

The search areas would be chosen by resolution. There are already databases with allied air losses and it would be a relativly simple matter to map them, even if all don’t have an area location. High density areas would be searched first, then down the list.

I could easily find a few missing planes (in the loss database) and start by using their last known position. These things are already known (for some anyway).

Thats how ground searching is done.

How long do you think it would have taken to find Swamp Ghost by ground search?

They would still be searching. In some of those swamps a mile is a days march.

The airfield on the Google image is located on a smaller atoll north of Tarawa. I’m not really sure if its the one called Tarawa air field, or if it had another name.

My google earth locations list call it tarawa air field, but there is a bigger atoll south of it, with a bigger airfield (still in use).

I will look for the guns when i have a bit of time.

Hi Mark,

I’m aware of the difficulty in spotting an AC part from Google earth.

As i keep mentioning, this database could be an aid for people who search by ground. They can look at the images and decide if they are going to look closer on a location.

During the Fossett search we saw plenty caravans, mine shafts, aircraft in flight and other things that might look like AC parts, but we also learned some lessons about telling the difference.

A relic like “Swamp Ghost” would be the holy grail of a Google Earth search, but i would settle for a number of anomalies that needs to be checked out from ground level.

BTW on the PBY picture, you would ask yourself: what can it be?

Had i seen that, I would flag it as a possible. Things don’t just arrive in a desert.

Here is “Swamp Ghost”, found by chance by RAAF in 1974 (New Guinea).

Regarding the jungle.

If there are aircraft in the jungle, they will only be found by locals. There is no way a search team can stumble across a wreck. The place is simply too big.
They don’t do random searches of the jungle, but search where locals has some knowledge.

Even the places that look open are often covered in 2 meter high grass, which makes ground search pretty hard, but gives Google search an edge.

During the Fossett search, a guy from the “Fossett search forum” found a crashed aircraft less than a mile from a buzy highway. Although he did not find it on Google earth, but by scanning from a highway rest stop, it shows how easy something can be overlooked. We agreed that that wreck would have been spotted from Google earth (but it was outside the search box, and thus old images).

Even if a ground team, or locals, pass these pacific wrecks (in jungle or grass) they might not spot them. Looking from the air (in grassland more than jungle) something might be seen.