Yes, seen from a distance….the TFC pen…just saw the tail rise and a shower of grass and dirt. Very sad for the pilot/owners, must be a galling thing to happen. Hope the crankshaft is OK.

It’s due home today, so probably not that bad.

There’s also a lot of smaller items (engines, props, parts, etc) extant at the museum in Broome, recovered from the bay where the Dutch flying boat fleet took a beating from Japanese strafing. Poignant reminders such as paperwork, which highlights the human toll (dozend of servicemen and civilian evacuees includign children were killed on the morning of March 3rd, 1942 when their flying boats caught fire during strafing and sank).

This beauty is very much still flying, based at Eindhoven (Netherlands) with Southern Cross Aviation. Lovely ship, that has just emerged from a couple of years of restoration and a full rebuild of the wooden bits. It is in immaculate condition and very well looked after by its owner. It could very well turn up at Duxford one of these days 😉

Next.

Very likely to have been Wellington X HE228 of 192 Squadron that came down there on May 26th, 1943. Pilot missing in action, rest of the crew captured.

Reminds me very much of that series of ” restoration” programs on Discovery chanel, hosted by Mark(I’m a vet really )Evans, where he takes a vehicle (which is not actually that bad) and replaces everything with new build panels, wheels, interior trim,etc; clearly there is more skill required to straighten and rework old metal, as opposed to replacing it wholesale and it will more time consuming, with a financial cost attached.

I think you’ll find that with a lot of owners: time, skills or even a reasonably higher cost is not an issue. As several people pointed out here (repeatedly), it is often necessary to replace parts and structure in order to ensure the safe continuing operation of the aircraft. An avoided funeral beats originality any time.

Museum aircraft are, as has been pointed out, a different story.

any original structure

Again: what is original structure? Most aircraft (especially the wooden ones) have had major parts of their structure replaced in the course of their service.

A current workshop case: a wooden aircraft from 1947. Badly damaged in 1956 (complete nose and both wings replaced by the manufacturer), 1967 (complete nose, both wings and stabilizer replaced by manufacturer), 1969 (aft fuselage newly built, struts replaced and major wing repairs, rebuilt by owner), 1986 (major repairs to front and underside of fuselage, repaired by owner). It is now being restored replacing major structural parts once more.

The aircraft would not be here today if originality was a criterium (most of the original structure was destroyed in the 1956, 1967 and 1969 accidents). Let alone flying. Total originality – or for that matter a majority of originality – is simply not feasible in safe, airworthy machines. Especially when made of wood. Static display machines can be a whole different matter, but to criticize flyers for being not 100 percent original (or even 50 percent original, or 30 percent) is utter nonsense IMHO. Just appreciate the enormous amount of money, time and effort that was often spent in getting them airborne in the first place, I would say.

Over to you.