“Ant, forgive me for being slightly pedantic on this, but I wouldn’t leave it as it is as that would cause deterioration over time. I’d preserve it in ‘as found’ condition instead, carrying out whatever work is necessary to ensure the aircraft’s survival for future generations to appreciate.”

I’m in full agreement with you on that Steve, I meant that a wreck should be left ‘as found’ as you put it rather than left to rot.
As for the point about the 109 on it’s belly at Duxford,I think it looks pretty good,although I may be alone on that one! It brings the aircraft down to eye level so you get a much better view of the aircraft.As for whether it should’ve been restored,then yes I think it should’ve been.What arrived at IWM wasn’t really much to look at,and I applaud the IWM’s efforts to conserve the original paintwork.ARCo are doing a great on-going restoration job on her at the moment,those cowlings look none too easy to fabricate!

Hi Flood,
Yeah I know alot of mud can be a bit of a bummer,I was just thinking/hoping out loud that there might be summat worth recovering.
I remember seeing something on Discovery channel about an RAAF recovery team trying to raise the wreck of a Spit Mk.V which had ditched in a Croc-infested river in NW Australia in 1943/44. Even though half the Spit was above the surface,they still couldn’t get it out of the mud and ended up having to cut it into sections to raise it 🙁 . Couldn’t help thinking it would’ve been better off left where it was in hindsight.

“When I was in the Navy we had to watch crash and burn movies of mechaincs and pilots who had their head where it did not belong and usualy resulted in someone dead or handicapped.”

I agree it can be useful to see these things and that it is right to show them for thier educational value.It seems the key question that we come back to is whether Aeroplane is the right place to publish the picture and what thier motives were for doing so.It’s largely a magazine for enthusiasts rather than pilots or engineers,so to my mind the educational point is largely invalid.I still think that it was published for the sake of ‘gaup factor’ rather than educational value,and I don’t think it should’ve been done.
To go back to my original post,it wasn’t my intention to start up a debate on whether it was right or not,but to ask people who thought it was wrong to write to them about it so that they didn’t go unnoticed.