Just a naive question by myself for those in the know. Would those prop blades be bent further back if the aircraft did crash land on a sand bar, or vice versa for a water ditching?

The engine must have been idling for that sort of damage, and I think that is water damage. If it had struck the sand I think the tips would have had a greater and sharper back turn on them.
However, who am I to oppose the official version from the RAFM and http://www.warbirdsnews.com/avaition-museum-news/dornier-17-retrieved-goodwin-sands-arrives-raf-museum-cosford.html…show, quite definate opinion.

So if the surviving crew of 5K+AR state they (belly) landed on the dry sand of Goodwin Sands and the recovered Dornier doesn’t exhibit the sort of damage we’d expect to see from that (and was located inverted)…

…then the recovered Dornier isn’t 5K+AR?

It is my opinion that the recovered Dornier did NOT belly land on the Goodwin sand, and then invert itself. The bottom surfaces do not show the sort of expected damage it would receive flattening down on sand at between 90 & 120kts, or more perhaps.

Which one is that Andy?

Did you put in one to many words there Clint : “Which one is Andy?”😀

[QUOTE=DaveM2;2033613]

Tony, can you produce from this thread, any quotes that said specifically ‘it can’t be done’, or ‘it shouldn’t be done’, or ‘it’s a waste of time’?. I think Andy is right when he quotes ‘such nay-sayers will probably be along soon, and almost bemoaning the fact they haven’t been. Perhaps they are disappointed that they haven’t been’?
QUOTE]

Try post #259, 260,268,and in particular 285 for starters. I too had several mildly interested people in the office today and they also commented on the underlying negativity and cynicism. This has prevailed on many threads here over the past year or so, as mentioned by several, even on this particular thread. Perhaps we are now so used to it on this forum it isn’t as noticable to those who are regulars, as it is to ‘newbies’. My colleagues put it down to ‘Whinging Pom’ syndrome and asked me to direct them to another forum:p.
Anyway, on with the champagne celebrations:)

You collected 4 posts..or maybe you missed one …say five posts out of 500 + posts, on this thread, that could be classed as negative……..not quite the numbers your ‘colleagues ‘ could direct their ‘whinging poms’ syndrome to. I doubt if they could even have found the famous 4, unless you directed them. 5 out of 500 makes …er..1%. Not bad I would say for an open forum.
So tell me where are all the other ‘doom merchants’ and ‘nay sayers’.

Actually, to be fair Tony, I don’t think there ever were an awful lot of detractors and nay-sayers to this project on this thread. Were there? Seems to me there are more complaining about the possibility that such nay-sayers will probably be along soon, and almost bemoaning the fact they haven’t been. Perhaps they are disappointed that they haven’t been?

As you say, a very exciting project that was ambitious from the outset and looked hugely precarious as of a couple of weeks ago and I don’t think there are many of us who are not amazed they did as well as they did. I think they also had quite a bit of luck!!

Definitely champagne time, but also time to find any items that others may have from this wreck – if, indeed, they do!

Tony, can you produce from this thread, any quotes that said specifically ‘it can’t be done’, or ‘it shouldn’t be done’, or ‘it’s a waste of time’?. I think Andy is right when he quotes ‘such nay-sayers will probably be along soon, and almost bemoaning the fact they haven’t been. Perhaps they are disappointed that they haven’t been’?

What I saw a few times, were differing views as to how the lift could be achieved under diminishing scales of time and money. Everyone I know wished for the best in this endeavour, and let’s not forget that the recovery team did have many moments of anguish, and did change it’s best and expensive ideas about the original lifting frame. They were forced down the very dangerous route of depending on the aircraft’s metal integrity, which could have ended in disaster, but thankfully didn’t. It was touch and go, and comments to that effect were posted. However, not the ‘many people here (who frequent the historic aviation forum) are so negative, glass half empty and criticise the doers and dreamers. It is almost that they want every aviation heritage venture to fail so they can go ‘told you so’ or ‘ha ha’. As a ‘community’, it does us no credit at all.’ That comment is OTT and does your writings no credit, unless you can offer enough written evidence to justify your criticism.

Aganst the odds, the RAFM have completed a very expensive recovery, and well done to them, for that.
Now comes the time to see whether the final result will be achieved i.e. a museum artefact that will be recognised as a Dornier 17Z, and will stand the test of time.

As long as the money doesn’t run out…those barges and crew are costing big money..daily…!!!