Looking at the photographs of this aircraft, it is clear that there is a lot of sound structural material to base a highly original restoration upon. The fuselage looks straight, and absent serious corrosion. The center section is excellent as well. You just have to look at the wing joints to see how fine a condition the metal is in considering where it’s been, and for how long. Corrosion-wise, the Stuka looks in far better condition than the recent -190 recovered from Norway.

The items which need replacing on the aircraft constitute a fairly small percentage of overall structure. There are plenty of engines out there which could be restored to static condition for the project. The only complex parts to fabricate would be the engine cowlings, and wheel spats. I’ve worked on several restoration projects myself, and honestly, this aircraft represents a much better starting point than many I have seen. If it is restored to static, I would be surprised if less than 70% of it remains original. I honestly don’t understand why you don’t see it as a worthwhile endeavor, considering how many museum aircraft out there have started from the same beginnings, or worse. Even if they simply preserve what remains without refabricating anything it would serve as a fascinating and useful exhibit.

With regards to it being a wargrave; well, at the risk of stirring up another debate, I think it serves as a better memorial to the crew as a museum exhibit to be honest. There are many cases of aircraft being recovered where crew members died in the original accident. I personally don’t feel this is a dishonorable thing, provided that any remains are treated with respect and given proper burial should they be found. In this particular case, I doubt seriously if any remains were in the aircraft. I know if I had lost a relative in such a crash, and I have, I would be much happier seeing an exhibit than having no tangible link left at all. In any event, many world-class museums display the items, and even bodies, from ancient tombs and battlefields. What is so different between souls lost in the distant past, and those from 60 years ago?

I guess we should just agree to disagree on this.

Richard

Waste of time….., bad condition?!!! Are you guys just being ironic, or just mean spirited? This aircraft is in a lot better condition than any of the other Stuka recoveries I’ve seen previously. It stands to make an excellent restored exhibit if treated properly. Judging from how good the Greek Ju-52 recovery looks several years later, I’d say they know what they are doing. Honestly, there seems to be no pleasing some people.

Richard

Saw, and heard, a UH-60 Blackhawk, and a CH-53 Jolly Green thunder down the Ellett Valley, outside my front door this morning… The echoing rumble of their rotor blades on the mountains was really quite something!

Cheers. Richard

I’ve not heard any updates on the Kermit Weeks one since the hangar shewas in was demolished by a tornado/hurricane causing major damage to the main spar.

I don’t believe that this aircraft was involved in Hurricane Andrew. As far as I know she was in Oshkosh, Wisconsin during the time of that storm (as was the Mosquito). I know for a fact that she flew several times at Kermit’s Polk City place, which wasn’t built until after the storm. The reason she isn’t airworthy at present is that, like most of Kermit’s planes, they tend to sit for a while once he’s flown them for a bit, and don’t get much work on them in the interim… consequently they lose their airworthiness. Sad but true, but when you consider how many aircraft would need to be worked on to maintain them all in airworthy trim, it’s quite understandable. I just wish they’d keep her indoors more.

Cheers,
Richard

You’re very welcome Cliff. I am glad that I could give some advice that you found useful. If those were your first attempts at panning for the ground-to-air, I’d say you are doing very well… you should see my first attempts!

One thing I think you will find, at least as far as shots of aircraft in the air go, is that shutter priority is usually the best option. For high performance propeller aircraft, you shouldn’t use a shutter speed higher than 1/350th (1/250th is preferable though), otherwise you will freeze the propeller, and it will look like you’ve photographed a model. With the lower performance aircraft, like the T-6, you should use slightly higher shutter speeds, as the props seem to turn faster and completely disappear otherwise. With jets, the maximum shutter speed isn’t really relevent (ie. use a higher speed setting), unless you are trying to get a nicely blurred background (for a good take-off shot perhaps), and in those cases 1/250th is usually fine. Another rule of thumb, which you perhaps already know, is that your shutter speed should be roughly 1/(effective focal length) to get a sharp image without camera shake. This becomes less relevent when you are panning of course, and also if you are using an IS lens (ie. you can use lower shutter speeds). Don’t forget that the effective focal length will be 1.6xactual focal length of your lens if you are using the 350D, due to the smaller size of the image sensor. Anyway, shutter priority is almost always the best setting to use with aviation shots. Don’t be intimidated by it… it really isn’t any more complicated than what you’ve been using already, and the earlier you start to use it, the more comfortable you’ll be with it. Use your biggest aperture with the close-up cockpit shots if you have the time to think of it. You will be amazed at how the image pops off the page!

By the way, press passes are not usually that hard to come by if you ask around a bit. It’s not as difficult as you might think. Air shows are not Formula 1 events, or world cup games.

All the best, R.

PS. Don’t limit your photography to air shows… your progress will be much faster if you start working every day on whatever environment you surround yourself with. Also, look through magazines to see which images stand out most, and ask yourself why? Once you start figuring out the “why” you’ll start improving your ability to get the better shots.

Hi there… I would beg to differ on a few points.

a: There aren’t more good photographers out there today than there were back in the days of pure film photography. People just have more ability to share their images now, which is why it seems that there are more photographers out there. I see dozens of people post on this forum, and, to be brutally honest, only a handful have any real talent. The rest are just happy amateurs, enjoying their love of aviation, which is a great thing in and of itself, but would never put food on the table.

b: Marketing is important, but it won’t make any difference if you don’t have the talent or skills. Access, alongside talent and skill, is perhaps the most important aspect of getting great aviation shots. Without access to air-to-air opportunities, or to good photography locations you won’t get marketable shots in most cases. I’ve been to a number of shows, good shows, where the crowd side only offered backlit images of the aircraft flying by. This doesn’t spoil the show if you are just watching, but it makes for mostly awful photographs. You need to have worked with the airshow staff before-hand to get permission to get to more advantageous photo-locations. Even if you do, ground-to-air shots rarely sell by themselves… you usually need air-to-air as well.

I am still a little perplexed as to what sort of market you think there is for selling your images. The average joe on the street is not even going to pay 50p for a digital image of an aircraft, or even a print, unless there is something truly remarkable about it. The only real market for selling your aviation shots is to the magazines, books, calendars and manufacturers (if you are really really lucky, and talented!). Magazines will pay for images, but rarely enough to cover your expenses. Books and calendars will only really pay if you can fill one with your own images…. and how many of these sell in large numbers (ie. 25,000 plus units)? I see remaindered books of aircraft photography and calendars all the time. With respect to books, aviation authors who might want one of your images for their book won’t be able to afford to pay you… they rarely break even themselves. Only a handful of aviation authors actually make money from their books, and even then it’s usually only pennies per hour of labour. There are a handful, at best, who make a living from this. Most do it for the pure love of aviation.

With respect to camera gear, the lens is the most important thing. If you have to decide whether to get a EOS 5D or a couple of decent L series lenses, get the L series lenses, and a 30D. Of course, a 1Ds Mk.II or 1D Mk.II are what you should aim for if you want to get serious about photography (plus the L lenses of course). Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about. I don’t know what the equivalent is for Nikon cameras, but since they are still a generation behind Canon in both lens and body technology there really isn’t too much to say there.

Honestly, the best thing you can do is to come up with a story proposal and write a query letter to a magazine editor. Offer a small sampling of your very best photographs to show your capabilities (be brutal with editing out the less than perfect ones though… your portfolio is only as good as the worst photo in it, and that’s a fact!). You will most likely not hear a whisper in return, as most magazine staffs are so small, and so desperately busy they will only have time to respond to people they have real need to reply to. Once you have established a relationship with an editor, it gets better. Once they trust you, you get more opportunities. With these opportunities, you can then get access as a press-photographer to various events, and with this access come more opportunities to take the more interesting and unusual photographs that people actually want to see… and maybe even pay for. This is how just about all of the aviation photographers in the business got started. You should also try to generate relationships with museums and aircraft owners. Once they see the quality of your work (and it had better be great by that point) you might get the opportunity to do some air-to-air photography. Great air-to-air photography is really what will set you apart and give you the chance at a career. That is a very long winded way of saying that it will be a long, and difficult process to negotiate, and that there are no guarantees to success.

Don’t give up the dream, but don’t be under any illusions either!

Cheers,
Richard

PS. John Dibbs is about as good an aviation photographer as they come… he has a terrific eye for detail, and we could all learn from that!

This is essentially a data-plate restoration based upon a few bits of bent and corroded aluminium pulled out of a lake in Florida. It will be a beautiful aeroplane when it’s done though.

Cheers,
Richard

I seem to remember reading about a chap who recovered several aircraft from Lake Constance, in Switzerland. The aircraft included at B-17 and a Lancaster. They went on display for some time, but I believe the Lancaster was scrapped in the late 50’s/early sixties. The B-17 was scrapped in the early 70’s. Some parts from the aircraft do remain at various museums in Switzerland, including at least one of the lancasters turrets. I would imagine that the lancaster in your photo is the one from Lake Constance, as I have not heard of any others so recovered.

Cheers. Richard