Your son is correct that the winged prop was used as AAC/AAF cadet cap insignia,BUT it was also widely used by the AAF,not just aviation cadets. You will see it as collar insignia on both officers and enlisted uniforms for example.

These belt buckles are more likely private purchase as offered through PX’s and military outfitters and would have been bought by AAF officers(and possibly enlisted men too). They would not be issued to air cadets as a part of their uniform.

Garry.

Most likely mid 1970’s to mid 80’s going by the ribbons. The same style of jacket was used from the late 40’s to the present. Value is not huge,it would help if it is named to the original wearer.

Garry.

Pete that is absolutely outstanding! Congrats to Terry.

Which events will it be appearing at?

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.

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.

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.

This is sad news indeed,but the problem is the USAF museum are not at all keen on airframes such as these going into private hands,I tried to save the T-33 at the Wales Aircraft Museum a few years back,but the USAFM insisted that it be scrapped:mad: . Even if only the cockpit from the Sabre was saved it would be something.

I wonder if it would be worth contacting the USAFM direct to see if they would consider allowing the Sabre,either whole or as a cockpit,to be preserved/restored in the UK?

Garry.