As we are talking labels – here is one of my favourites 🙂

[ATTACH]190431[/ATTACH]

Defiant N1694

Yes there were a lot of restrictions, including who was allowed on site to do any work, so it was down to the contractors only – I live less than two miles away & have helped deconstruct one of these beasts before, but it was a no go when I volunteered. Also time was a critical factor and the contractors involved were, to my knowledge, certainly not experienced in this kind of work.

Despite this knowledge, I confess to still being shocked at the result and think that anyone with any thoughts re trying to preserve this hulk needs to be realistic – Nice cockpit for someone and perhaps some parts needed for other projects.

Another problem with the list is also related to its accuracy – there is no mention of completeness or otherwise of exhibits, their condition or their originality – Also Scott this is by no means a list of all the exhibits that were in the museum – so don’t get too excited! Many of the items left seem not to have found homes due to their condition or doubts concerning age or originality – (IMO!) – Remember two other museums have already had their pick of much of the collection – Much material has already been returned to its original owners / donators and some has simply “disappeared”!

On the subject of condition and noting mention of the Prospector – this also suffered at the hands of the un-named dismantler! Also much of the frame has been heavily daubed with silver paint and there may very well be even more parts missing than when Millom got hold of it! It is nowhere near as complete as depicted in the image in the thread XM692 links to – However, we still think it is worth preserving / restoring despite this and really should return to Lancashire – We have been talking with the liquidators about it since day 1 but it has been a difficult process – you seem to find you are speaking / emailing a different person each time you make contact and keep having to start from the beginning every time – very frustrating!

As already pointed out on here, these errors may well be due to the person compiling the list not being familiar with the material being catalogued – though when it was my job to compile auction catalogues in the past, I spent time ensuring accuracy (often of very unfamiliar to me agricultural equipment) before sending them out! Personally I would not set any store by this list -I can’t comment on how many of the items listed are actually there, but skimming through the books listing I can tell you many of them were not there when I last looked – I donated many of them and had the option to reclaim – but it was obvious someone had beaten me to it!

The only way to really have any idea what you might be buying is to see it – it’s a nice long drive to Millom – See you there!

The various models of Foerster / Ferex are indeed useful tools – However I always bear in mind what they were designed to find! 😮 i.e. a single very solid lump of metal all on its own not a mass of smaller items shed on the way down to a (hopefully) larger lump – therefore I could never see how the various tables and calculations in the manuals could ever be accurately applied to a crash site.

I too have been misled by readings – fortunately not with any great financial loss. A solitary Spitfire ammeter magnet about 2’ down once looked very promising – fortunately a trail trench soon exposed it. On another occasion a collection of numerous mass balance weights and a solitary 20mm Hispano looked like a very promising and apparently intact site – Actually I was quite happy with the Hispano, but we could have extracted it with a lot less fuss had we been able to accurately predict what we were dealing with.

I have been asked many times to go over sites for other groups and have to say I am reluctant to do this – I do not proclaim myself to be any sort of expert and feel that other (often less experienced in this hobby) people’s expectations of what they are going to find can lead to misunderstandings.

For my own sites I tend to use a combination of deep-seeking detectors – a Whites TM808, A Fisher Gemini III and two different models of Foerster – all tend to have their own characteristics and despite not being an expert I feel through experience I can build up a fair idea of what I am dealing with – our last dig – Mustang KH838 it was very important to reassure the landowner exactly where the aircraft lay, at what depth and that what we were going to find would justify disturbing their front garden! It all worked out perfectly – phew!

Finally – a good example was a site where several groups believed one of the four engines still lay buried and certainly a quick pass with the Fisher did indeed indicate a “large object” was apparently present – however the Foerster though giving a good readings did not seem quite right, there appeared to be more than one target, but very close together and at a fairly shallow depth. Finally the Whites showed a much smaller target than we would expect from an engine – Permission for a limited trial trench was negotiated and showed that whilst the engine cowlings and sections of the engine bearers were present, the engine had clearly been recovered. Obviously the Fisher picked up the large surface area of the cowlings, the Foerster, the steel engine bearers, but the Whites seemed to be indicating the actual volume of metal? Crude and unscientific maybe? But I am simply going off observations made at the time.

Most people either use commercial two box or similar metal detectors designed primarily for mineral prospecting – most will have a depth range of up to around 20 feet for a reasonable (engine) size target. Or a Magnetometer (a la Geophys!) usually a Forster (various models and ages and due to costing several grand new, almost certainly ex MOD) – these will locate a reasonable (bomb 😮 – that’s what they were designed for!) size object at around 30 feet depth or probably deeper for an engine or multiple engines.

However even when engines have penetrated to such depth the rest of the aircraft is usually shed along the way so there will be shallower targets – such as the 20mm that led Steve to believe the rest had gone deeper!

Oh! and there are two undug WW2 crash sites within a four mile radius of where I am sitting!

Remember that too – also recall it took TV journalism to a whole new low! 🙁

Watching that certainly brought back some memories! This program was my first ever contact with the hobby of Aviation Archaeology & recall how I was desperate to get involved, but groups in those days seemed to be very secretive and I was only young, so despite my best efforts, I was unable to make any contacts – I lived in Hampshire at the time and did hear of digs taking place locally, including another pilot being found near our village? – Liss – anyone know anything? as I never did find out.

I also remember being horrified that the pilot was still in the plane and had just been left there – At that age, I still naively thought that this never happened. Also one or two questions I had then still come to mind after all these years – why open the parachute at the site and risk damaging it –was just for effect for the cameras? Far more importantly though, surely knowing that a pilot was likely to be recovered, I always felt that they should have been better prepared, rather than only having a couple of bin bags to put him in?

That image haunted me for years after! Don’t get me wrong, I am a realist and not over sensitive towards human remains – I have now been involved in the hobby for some 30 years, as well as having explored just about every corner of the Western front for a similar period, so have seen far more than most – It is just an unfortunate image that has stuck with me.