dark light

Garry Owen

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 102 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Should crash sites be disturbed?? #1251739
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Hi Me-109E,welcome to the forum. IMO sites should not be disturbed and wreckage should be left in-situ unless there is a very good reason for a recovery to take place and if a recovery does take place it should be done properly,eg treated like any other important archaeological site.

    There are many “experts” out there who will claim they know better due to their years of experience digging sites and hording wreckage but when asked for specifics of what they removed from which sites they usually can’t or won’t say,yet they expect to be taken seriously!

    Garry.

    in reply to: USAAF camo/all metal finish #1257974
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Another reason,as related to me by members of the 357th FG,is during the winter of 1944 it was decided that bare metal was actually harder to spot,at least from above,against a snow covered europe.

    As others have mentioned an Olive Drab painted B-17 weighed around a quarter ton more than the same model in NMF.

    Garry.

    in reply to: W1048 #1259880
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: NX611 #1270638
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Personally I’d rather see the Hampden finished or a composite Wellington at East Kirkby before money was used to put NX611 in the air.

    As she is NX611 is a great memorial to the men of Bomber Command and East Kirkby is one of the few places the public can get up close to a “live” WW2 bomber,something which may not be so easy is she was back in the air.

    Garry.

    in reply to: North East Aircraft Museum…..updates #1252987
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    At the Museum we have a 1943 Mercury bomb tractor – again pretty common, used on RN carriers and lots by the Yanks – OW have a similar one and there is one on display at Cosford. The major problem with it is the diff is so low, we have to bunny hop her in and out of the museum to avoid scraping the concrete!

    TT

    I have never seen/heard anything showing American forces using the Mercury,are you sure you are not confusing it with a Clarktor?

    Garry.

    in reply to: Local Lancaster Veteran Discovered. #1257101
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    If I were you I’d tactfully suggest that his book would be well received by many people,and has he thought about a wider publication?.

    I’m in a similiar situation,although in this case it’s a book about one aircrew who died in a crash and I am the researcher-writer.At first I was writing it for the mens families and those locals who are interested,however the families have said they would like a wider publication if possible,so that is now my intention.

    I know of someone else who has already written a book on an aviation related topic,it took him years and he carried out a massive amount of research but after being told by one publisher there “wouldn’t be any interest” he put it away and left it,I have suggested that he should try other publishers.

    Garry.

    in reply to: Failed aircraft recoveries #1264768
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Pure speculation, but finance?

    I’m sure you are correct,but quite why a group who claimed they were going to rebuild a Boston would be so short of funds that they needed the £250 they got from scrapping the wing is beyond me. The question is why scrap it without first offering it to others?

    Garry.

    in reply to: Failed aircraft recoveries #1269717
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    My reason for asking is I wonder if it is still sitting in a scrapyard somewhere.

    Does anyone have any contact details for the people who recovered it? Perhaps it is still saveable….

    Cheers
    Elliott

    Hi Elliott,

    I did follow it up and unfortunatly it was melted down. Why the “Boston Havoc Trust”,as a preservation group and BAAC member scrapped the wing without offering to anyone is a question I would like an answer to myself.

    Garry.

    in reply to: Failed aircraft recoveries #1269839
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    I’ve seen a pic of the other wing, which was basically complete except for the nacelle – we didn’t see it, though the terrain is very ridged in the area, very easy to miss things lying between the ridges, so I don’t know whether it was still up there or not.

    Hi Adrian,

    The section you saw was the last one remaining,the other wing was removed the year before,Present whereabouts unknown….

    Garry.

    in reply to: Failed aircraft recoveries #1269884
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Hi Elliott,

    The Boston wing section was scrapped as soon as it was recovered,1994 if I remember correctly. It’s all in the BAAC magazine but I can’t remember which edition,I’ll have to find the copy I have.

    Parts of the Ventura are still around,although little remains on the crash site. The engines were removed in 1984 for the “Snowdonia Historic Aviation Group”,without the landowners permission. The last large-ish piece of skinning was removed in 1996 by a collector/wreckologist from Cheshire.

    Garry.

    in reply to: Is this off an assault glider? #1271904
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Tail skid from something perhaps?

    Would this be the scrapyard run by Don Matthews of the “Wartime Aircraft Recovery Group”.

    Garry.

    in reply to: derelict airbases #1276410
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Well said Chris,I agree completely. If you ask permission not only are you doing the right thing,but as you say you often hear a story or see a building/site which you otherwise wouldn’t have if tresspassing.

    Garry.

    in reply to: Failed aircraft recoveries #1279401
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    The recovery and subsequent scrapping/disposal of substantial parts of Douglas Boston Z2186 by the “Boston-Havoc Preservation Trust” here in the UK. This included selling one outer wing section for £250 to a local scrap yard,according to their article in the BAAC magazine.:mad:

    Garry.

    in reply to: derelict airbases #1281472
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    I agree it’s an interesting website,but like the UE people discussed in another thread it appears this chap doesn’t ask permission before going onto private land,for example on his “explore” of Rougham hall he “Went through the woods to aviod going past the grounds keepers cottage”. Why not just ask permission first? if the owners say no,which they have every right to do,just accept it.

    I have been to many WW2 airbases and always contact the owners in advance and because of this I have met many interesting people and seen things that I wouldn’t have if I had been tresspassing.

    Garry.

    in reply to: Cecil Lewis combat report on ebay? #1288478
    Garry Owen
    Participant

    Item number 130118435798.

    I wouldn’t like to say either way how genuine it is,I have seen fake combat reports,some good,some bad. As with everything the fakes are getting better all the time:mad:

    Garry.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 102 total)