DocStirlingI’m with JDK on this. I think it is arrogant and self-serving for any of us to decide that what is best for the historical aviation preservationist community, or for the overlapping but different historical aviation restorationist community, should take precedence over the wishes and perhaps the best interests of the local community. (I should point out that these are all, in a global sense, very small communities.) As to ownership, I believe that the people of PNG have at least as strong a claim on that as anyone else. And if lives were lost and remains unrecovered, the site should be considered a a gravesite until the remains have been repatriated. From my perspective, unless there has been some negotiated compensation, it sounds like the salvaging of this aircraft is something that was perpetrated upon the local community, and perhaps upon the families of the dead, by outside interests that simply had more power.
Now, I fully understand the rarity of the B-17E model and the value of having physical access to an example of one. Accordingly, I think it would be wrong to destroy its originality in order to make it fly. Relatively speaking, there are LOTS of B-17’s in the air today, and some of them are having trouble finding funding to keep them airborne. So what it boils down to is this:
1) The local community should be compensated, if that has not already been done, perhaps by returning the Boston to PNG, suitably housed, as Steve T suggests. Perhaps it is better done by cataloguing other wrecks and lending some marketing savvy to nurture a tourist economy. Maybe there is another way, but compensation there should be.
2) We as a community should preserve the B-17E, but not destroy its originality through restoration. If someone absolutely has to see a B-17E in the air, let it either be built new or wait until more wrecks have been found so the rarity is not as acute an issue.
3) We as a community should support the upkeep of the B-17’s that can still fly and fight for funds and for a social/political/economic climate that will allow them to survive (or even flourish?).Just my two cents worth…
Harald
I agree – but I think they would welcome some mosquito nets and anti-parasite medication over a preserved bomber 😉
DS
(Hope I don’t have to eat my words when the Chinese Stirling shows up….)
DocStirlingWar bird relics in the Pacific can, and do, create valuable tourist dollars for the community. I refer you here . However, the current situation on Guadalcanal would not make it a nice place to visit (unless you are an Aussie Peacekeeper 🙁 )
Do the locals have any real right to these relics? They are owned by the government, but when you have paid thousands for your holiday to PNG, you do not mind shelling out another couple of dollars to see what the locals only consider to be a pile of rust that earns them enough for a few beers. They honestly do not see what all the fuss is about.
As far as other reasons for tourism to the area, they have little in the way of the kind of culture that draws people to, say Italy. It is a very tough place to visit, but very rewarding. Anything they can offer in addition to Malaria is welcolmed 😀
DS
DS
DocStirlingI know this is going to sound a bit perverse – and goes contrary to what we all stand for when it comes to saving old aeroplanes and displaying them for our heritage etc. etc. – but I was actually a bit disappointed to hear they had ‘rescued’ the Swamp Ghost. There was something quite unique about this plane, not just which model it was, but its whole ‘environment’.
Imagine the effort it must have taken to get out to PNG, to travel into the jungle, then the thrill of coming across this old warbird, resting in the swamp where it has lain for 60 years? The originality of this as a ‘live exhibit – in the wild’ has now been lost.
She will be renovated and will act as a suitable memorial to those airmen who died in the Pacific, but I still feel saddened that no one will be able to make that trip out to her in the swamp again. I know there are many here who enjoy visiting a crash site, and I think this site was something special.
I was lucky enough to dive the B17 ‘Bessie the Jap Basher’ and the experience has never left me. With time, all that will remain of her will be collapsed and unrecognisable metal. But I would not have wanted to see her in a museum – even flying – if it had meant I could not have dived upon her. That may sound selfish, but plenty of others have seen her too. Is it an elitist experience? Maybe – there are other B17’s around. Not enough, I grant you. Some you can see in the air, but underwater……? In the jungle….?
DS
DocStirlingi believe there was an artical recently in one of the aircraft mags about the south african shack and the above was mentioned.
’twas in FP. It also said that one of the aircrew was about to undergo a medical, & that if he did n’t pass, it meant the a/c woudl be forever grounded as no-one else was able to fill his post. I think he was the flight engineer. Anyone know how he got on, and if the sad loss of this pilot is also curtains for flying the Shack again?
DS
DocStirlingI bet I am not alone in reading these arguement threads for their amusement value.
It sure as hell beats telling young people they are dying. 🙁
Perspective people.
DS
DocStirlingMay I link statement ‘a’ with statement ‘b’?
😀
No offence.
Somtimes it’s just fun to watch the aeryplane go by. Hey, it was an exclusive experience, that way! 😉
LOL – no offense taken! – the irony did not escape me 😀 Was certainly kicking myself black and blue.
The whole afternoon was a bit surreal, as there were only about a dozen people on the whole airfield – it all seemed like a private airshow for me 😎
DS (must remember camera…must remember camera…….)
DocStirling…….‘either you love Stirlings or you are gay’…….
TT
😀 😀 😀
Someone ’round here has the sig: ‘when a man is tired of Duxford he is tired of life’ or similar. Love it.
DS (no handlebar moustache in sight)
DocStirlingWhat to do with aeroplane crash artefacts
Out of interest, what do people do with these artefacts? I collect books, which sit on the shelf in my study. They are not unique, so are of little interest to anyone else. But an artefact like the escape hatch? I suspect it sits in the loft/garage most of the time. Why not donate it to a museum – it will have your name on it, so everyone who sees it will be gratefull to you. This is different to collecting pieces to rebuild say a cockpit section etc. You will do something with that – often display it, and maybe then donate it!
DS
DocStirlingAnd this large lump has also just appeared! It should all be donated to the Stirling Project.
DS
DocStirlingNope no sound sadly, doesn’t look like my camera does sound, first time i’ve tried video on it, i’ll probably start taking more videos like at Bruntingthorpe etc
TMN – does look like it’s a great experience i’ll have to try it sometime, was wondering if there was any forumites around that day!
The taxi experince was one of the best days of my life! Ever since I was a kid I’d wanted to take a trip in a Lanc, and I took my Dad for a treat. He’d been a radar engineer on Lincolns for his National Service and was thrilled.
DS
DocStirlingOops, hang on i’ll edit it in a sec – just uploaded a video I took on my camera, not exactly great quality and it shows the props moving a lot slower than they were, unfortunately. The link is http://media.putfile.com/Lancaster-84
Thanks for sharing that, but I had no sound? I really must get around to uploading my video files. I got some nice footage standing on the flight deck on my taxi run 2 years back.
DS
DocStirlingI heard it was based on a pre-war advert for beer with the slogan ‘Gone for a Burton’ – for example if a group of pilots used it, it was kind of avoiding the subject of death, with ‘gone for a burton’ meaning they’d gone into the drink (sea).
That is the explanation I had heard.
Other euphemisms included ‘Getting the chop’ and I think the Americans said, ‘buying a farm’ etc.
DS
DocStirlingWith the picture of the Scion Senior I was reminded of the story, perhaps inaccurate but a good one anyway, of the cheif test pilot flying the 1/2 scale Stirling. He would be trundling along Soutern England ans a fighter would practice attack approaches. He would loop the 1/2 scale Stirling and get on the tail of the fighter.
This would leave a severly disturbed fighter pilot. Can anyone confirm this or shed some light?
Perhaps the (one) redeaming feature of the Stirling was its manoeuverablility. It could out-manoeuvre tha Lanc and Halifax at low level, and unladen, it was said to be able to out-turn a fighter. The M4 was similarly capable – its short, broad-chord wings gave it a good rate of roll.
The M4’s wingspan was 49 ft 6.5in (Spitfire Wing Span 36 ft 10 in) and it was reported by a Capt E Brown serving at A&AEE to be ‘the only 4 engined aircraft he ever looped.’ Other quotes were that ‘it was as agile as a fighter’ . Proportionally it looked odd to the Hurricane pilots who interecepted it, thinking it was a full-sized bomber. They were then out-turned. This may be the origin of your story, but I have not read about them being overlooped.
DS
DocStirlingThat looks wonderfull…I bet the neighbours loved it!
Three more, plus some wood and a sandbag and you’d have the M4 1/2 scale prototype, and that was nearly a Stirling!
DS
DocStirlingSomething is worth only what a person is prepared to pay for it.
Decide how much *you* think it is worth, put that as your maximum bid (don’t forget the postage!) and leave it as that.
DS
Sign In
