Shame, there used to be plenty around – I enquired after the Midland Air Museum example some number of years ago, but felt it was a bit far gone for me at the time. Nowadays, I think I’d know what to do with it!

I also enquired after the Norwich example just after it had been scrapped. Typical!

Bruce

I did the same, in pursuit of late model metal Anson wings to support a long term / future static mark 1 Anson restoration here in Australia.

(The RNZAF Museum has a mark 1 on display on late model metal wings and of course the widely acclaimed airworthy Anson mark 1 in New Zealand flies on late model metal wings and did so for many years with Terry Brain in Australia, hence its as valid a compromise as Hasting wings on a Halifax reproduction or T6G wings on a Harvard II.)

I am the person who acquired the “cut” and badly corroded wings from the C19 prototype from Richard at Retro, I did this following advice from a fellow Anson collector in the UK that they were likely to be scrapped and may be available.

They are stored privately and undercover, here in Australia.

This aircraft floated around a number of private owners before being “parts recovered” and the comments above about it being deserving of preservation in the UK may be correct, but clearly no public or volunteer collection ever thought it deserving “enough” to acquire it on the many times it was openly advertised for sale.

Various private owners attempted to preserve it before exiting it off to someone else.

The same situation largely applied to the former Napier Avro Lincoln.

Both have been pursued and acquired into Australia, in the hope they will survive into preservation in some useful role here in Australia.

Clearly they therefore currently still survive for bonefide serious research of their own unique histories, ( and hopefully will do so ongoing) but beyond that, are duplicated by far better examples on public display in the UK for public examination and enjoyment of the type.

I am quite convinced the “cut” and corroded Anson wings would not still survive in the UK, had they not been exported from the UK, and past track record doesnt suggest the Lincoln faced a rosy future either.

Museums cannot “save” everything, and it seems clear that they all had ample opportunity to do so with the prototype Anson, – and did not.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Of course, the fact that there is more than one Dornier 17 in the Goodwin Sands area must mean that the items MRP refers to above might be difficult to positively link to the RAFM recovered aircraft. However, it was widely discussed at the time of the recovery of those items that they were removed from a pretty much complete Dornier 17 on its back at the Goodwins. Since these items are not extant in the RAFM recovery (and one would expect they should have been!) then it would be nice to see them reunited with the aircraft from which they were possibly removed.

Of course we shouldnt jump to any conclusions in regards to the identity of the RAFM wreck, or the wreck which yielded the parts at Kent.

As there is the possibility of two or more Do-17s putting down on the Goodwin Sands and therefore clouding the identity of the RAFM wreck , so too does the Kent collection deserve the benefit of the doubt that these parts have come off a second submerged upside down Do-17 wreck, totally unrelated to the one recovered by the RAFM.

Hence the quicker they identify where the second wreck is, the quicker it is located and recovered, and the quicker we can avoid alleging which wreck might be which identity, and from which wreck, certain parts might be from?

smiles
Mark Pilkington

Thank you Mark for your excellent post.
The Wellington clearly fits into Cat III however, could it not also fit into Cat II because of its geotetic construction? Whilst it was not the first aircraft to use this construction would I be correct in thinking it is the only examples we have left? Of course. the Brooklands machine covers this aspect perfectly and possibly this is a good argument as to why it should stay uncovered. If not too much of an imposition perhaps you would outline what is “under” category II in the book. it would certainly be of great interest to me and very pertinent to N2980, R Robert and the debate regarding cover or not to cover.
Regards Paul

I would agree that the Wellington’s geodesic construction would be considered a technology advancement, even though as you say the Wellesley was the first and only other type to use it, and obviously the RAFM’s example and R for Robert are the only two surviving complete aircraft exampling this technology (and therefore an obvious justification for R for Robert’s partial naked display).

The Wellington used a geodesic construction method, which had been devised by Barnes Wallis inspired by his work on airships, and had previously been used to build the single-engine Wellesley light bomber. The fuselage was built up from 1650 elements, consisting of aluminium alloy (duralumin) W-beams that were formed into a large framework. Wooden battens were screwed onto the aluminium, and these were covered with Irish linen, which, once treated with many layers of dope, formed the outer skin of the aircraft. The metal lattice gave the structure tremendous strength, because any one of the stringers could support some of the weight from even the opposite side of the aircraft. Blowing out one side’s beams would still leave the aircraft as a whole intact; as a result, Wellingtons with huge areas of framework missing continued to return home when other types would not have survived; the dramatic effect was enhanced by the doped fabric skin burning off, leaving the naked frames exposed (see photo).

In one incident, a German Bf 110 night-fighter attacked a Wellington returning from an attack on Münster, Germany, causing a fire at the rear of the starboard engine. Co-pilot Sergeant James Allen Ward climbed out of the fuselage in flight, kicked holes in the doped fabric of the wing for foot and hand holds to reach the starboard engine and smothered the burning upper wing covering. He and the aircraft returned home safely, and Ward was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions.[2]

The geodesic structure was strong and light for its size, which gave the Wellington a load and range to power ratio advantage over similar aircraft, without sacrificing robustness or the protection of armour plate or self-sealing fuel tanks.[citation needed] The construction had the disadvantage of taking considerably longer to build than other designs using monocoque construction techniques. It was difficult to cut holes into the fuselage to provide access or equipment fixtures.

(from the Wiki page)

My reading of Mikesh and his definition of Category II is that it primary relates to development / R&D airframes not production examples of unique technology, but could be applied to the two surviving Wellingtons.

Category II : “Aircraft which are technically significant due to technological features (eg XP-55, Pitcairn AC-35), participation in aeronautical research (X-15, Winnie Mae), or being prototypes or advanced developmental steps for aircraft which became historically significant (P-51C Excalibur III).

Aircraft in this category will be restored to represent the event for which they are most famous.”
Clearly neither Wellington survivor are related to a technology development event, (R for Robert is restored to represent the event of its crash rather than an earlier period of service, but that’s not due to any compliance with Category II’s requirements), neither are either prototypes or advanced techonological steps for their type, but they are technically significant as the only two intact examples of this unique geodetic technological feature.

However I don’t think that then resolves or guides how the RAFM’s Wellington should be displayed, (ie bomber or post war navigation trainer).

Mikesh goes much further on page 25 onwards in discussing the marking decisions as being critical. On page 29 he specifically discusses military aircraft in category III and those of the World War II period, pointing out there are a number of factors to consider, the primary one being the reason for having this type in the collection?

(The Wellington as a type would surely be in the RAFM museums collection due to the type’s combat bomber heritage, not its post war navigation trainer heritage)

He then specifically states “Most surviving combat-type aircraft in museums never saw combat. to fulfil the purpose of representing a type of combat aircraft in the museum, markings and colours typical of the type that would have been used by a combat until to fulfil the historical significance requirement.”

On page 30 he interestingly states: “When planning a new exhibit that would require the use of a category III aircraft, it can become a temptation to paint for a second time these aircraft in new markings to suit changes in exhibit themes. This however, allows an exhibit requirement to dictate a change to the original purpose of the airplane in the collection. degrading its significance, and altering the collection plan.”

On page 30 and 31 he discusses the dilemma posed in displaying a Phantom II F-4B in the NASM collection, there for its role in the Vietnam war collection, but received 20 years after its combat tour and modded to F-4S configuration. He specifically discusses the issue of painting it as an F-4B when technically it has become an F-4S internally.

He states: “By evaluating the needs of the museum, and the ground rules that apply for meeting the mission of the museum, the right decision will be reached.”

“A mix within one system, such as markings and colours that encompass different periods on the same aircraft would not be acceptable. But a modernised cockpit, or upgraded power system that does not affect the exterior appearance of appropriate colours for and markings for another time period seem to be reasonable compromises if documented in the aircraft’s records and explained on the exhibit label.”

He clearly then seems to endorse the current marking of the RAFM Wellington in mark X Bomber colour scheme, while still being configured internally as a T10 Navigation Trainer, and while the turret is not its original example, it is the correct type that would have been fitted when it left the factory, and was fitted in it until its T10 Conversion post war.

However on page 31, the counter argument is put forward as part of some additional questions to be asked when developing restoration and reconfiguration plans.

in point 7 he states: ” Do the original and perhaps mundane, markings of the aircraft permit the museum to explain or interpret a facet of its mission which would not otherwise be possible” – Example: The RAF Museum has a category III Hawker Tempest V late World war II fighter that as a type was quickly relegated to second line target towing duties. While the Tempest is an important World War II RAF fighter aircraft, the museum’s plan is to restore this machine to target towing configuration and markings order to interpret this very important training role.”

So I can see where the RAFM may be coming from in regards to a T 10 colour scheme and Navigation Trainer presentation, given there is R for Robert in the National Collection to present the combat role of the Wellington.

However as I understand it, the RAFM example was built and delivered as a Bomber Mk X Wellington, the most numerous of the variants built and in service, and largely the same as the earlier Mk III which is described as the mainstays of Bomber Command through 1941.

Hence while its clearly not an early Mk I or Mk II (R for Robert is), the RAF Museum’s example as a Mark X represents the most numerous bomber type, and the Coastal Command versions, as well as being visually and externally similar to the earlier and important Mark III.

It was built and delivered as a Mark X Bomber, and served during the war as a mark X, but largely in storage or undocumented training roles, before its post war modification and service as a T10.

Type 440 Wellington B Mark X: The most widely produced variant of which 3,804 were built. It was similar to the Mark III except for the 1,675 hp (1,250 kW) Hercules VI or XVI powerplant and a fuselage structure of light alloy, instead of steel. The Mark X was the basis for a number of Coastal Command versions. A total of 3,803 were built at Chester and Blackpool.

Type 417 Wellington B Mark III: The next significant variant was the B Mark III which featured the 1,375 hp (1,205 kW) Bristol Hercules III or XI engine and a four-gun tail turret, instead of two-gun. A total of 1,519 Mark IIIs were built and became mainstays of Bomber Command through 1941. A total of 1,517 were built at Chester and Blackpool.

Type 619 Wellington T Mark X: Postwar conversions of the Wellington Bomber into training aircraft by Boulton Paul in Wolverhampton.[9] For navigation training the front turret was removed and replaced by a fairing and the interior re-equipped.[9] Some were sold to France and Greece

(from the wiki page)

I personally would still consider it best displayed in a Bomber configuration externally, probably as itself, and as it was delivered to the RAF without squadron codes, I would display the navigator trainer nose blank next to it, with some photos etc of the T10 post war conversion and its service in that role if I thought it important enough to tell to the general public.

Given R for Roberts existence as a Bomber Command combat veteran and displayed as such, an alternative story is tempting, and I would personally consider a Coastal Command presentation as a valid exhibition consideration given the mark X was heavily used in that role.

ie the Wellington types story is primarily one of a Bomber in Bomber Command, followed closely by a Bomber in Coastal Command (and a mark X is very appropriate to display either) and the T10 post war Navigation Trainer is a very small story of the Wellington Type to be told.

(Edit: I have since noted that the Mark X was only the basis of Coastal Command versions, and there are serious modifications/additional external equipment fittings involved beyond a coat of paint, hence ruling out that scheme as being appropriate)

But as long as the airframe is not damaged, we are all only talking about a coat of paint, and it can be reversed at the next refurbishment in 100 years time.

ie We are all getting into the debate area Mikesh points to when he says “it can become a temptation to paint for a second time these aircraft in new markings to suit changes in exhibit themes. This however, allows an exhibit requirement to dictate a change to the original purpose of the airplane in the collection. degrading its significance, and altering the collection plan”

The question for the RAFM to resolve is, why is there a Wellington in the collection, and what is the most appropriate way to display it to allow the history of the type to be best interpreted.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi Everybody.

This is my first post.

I support Panshanger Aerodrome in Hertfordshire, England.

I have an epetition which is running for a year, at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46036 and itself needs supporters to sign it (uk only).

Welcome aboard, I too support preservation and protection of our historic airfields, and played a role in the protection of Australia’s oldest and most historic airfield – Point Cook, – I nominated for National Heritage Listing, and I’ve played a role in other similar sites, so good luck with your efforts.

given I’m in Australia, I obviously cant sign your UK only petition,

I also have set up an avaaz petition to try at least come to the defence of all the other WWII Aerodromes:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_all_WWII_Aerodromes_from_All_Future_Housing_Planning_Applications_in_the_UK_that_seek_to_Destroy_their_Identity/?cbrFweb Anyone in the world can sign this and I hope with this one to change the law governing former WWII aerodromes, to be excluded from local plans.

Thank-you,

Dean McBride,
Ab-Initio Verimus Calum.

BUT I can – and have – signed the second one.

Good luck and welcome.

Hopefully others will do the same, aviation heritage isn’t just about the people and the planes, – the places are important too.

Its important to preserve the places where history happened, and ideally their unique and important surviving built heritage, even if not able to be kept in their entirety or retained for aviation related use.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Who says it’s about the aircraft?

– Goals is to provide information to say once and for all if the aircraft that came down near Zelhem is indeed the missing Lancaster, and hopefully recover crew member remains.
– Costs 400K euros, will be paid by national and local authorities, a private fund and local sponsors.
– Recovery will probably be Autumn 2013, with surveys starting mid July.

PS: recoveries like these happen all the time in Holland. There is regrettably still a very large number of crew members unaccounted for. They are usually only recovered when the council has new plans for a road or developments, or (like here) when a private party steps in to further things along.

I think the issue arises when there’s a heading saying a Spitfire or Lancaster is “being recovered” creating images of a damaged wreck being brought up from the sea (Dornier D0-17, or from the jungles of New Guinea (Swamp Ghost), or escavated in a wooden box from a secret storage bunker (Bundaberg/Burma etc).

The word “recovery” of an aircraft wreck suggests there is a recognisable aircraft likely to be recovered and that then leads to expectations of display as is, restoration to static or even restoration to fly.

Of course what is really happening in most of these cases is that a wreck site is being investigated/escavated and the wreckage is being recovered, not an aircraft.

This is the world of aero or battlefield archaeology and it would seem appropriate to develop a less confusing term to describe the activity than simply “Lancaster LD470 will be recovered” to perhaps something more like the Crash site of Lancaster LD470 is being investigated and wreckage/remains recovered.

Its not yielding an aircraft but its yielding closure and that’s just as important.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Not entirely in agreement with your definition of provenance. I believe provenance is a known history of ownership, and not necessarily anything to do with originality of parts.

Still, your post does provide a basis for thinking about some new words to define builds based upon levels of ‘originality’.. to avoid misrepresentation in either direction. I like Andy’s ‘re-creation’ for the likes of P9374..

Provenance, from the French provenir, “to come from”, refers to the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object.[1] The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archives, manuscripts, printed books, and science and computing. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery, by establishing, as far as practicable, its later history, especially the sequences of its formal ownership, custody, and places of storage. The practice has a particular value in helping authenticate objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

The debate resolves around three terms all trying to establish the same thing with slightly different words, its originality, it authenticity and its provenance, ie where did it come from, where has it been and what has it done.

Exactly like the art world, an objects value can vary greatly due to its provenance and authenticity.

Debates on this topic get very heated in the warbird world, where to some, anything with an elliptical wing and a roundel is a real spitfire, regardless of its “newness”, pointing to the wartime practice of swapping parts during combat repair or overhauls, alternatively the grandfathers Broom argument is trotted out that replacement of the handle and latter the head long after grand-dad has passed, still results in the finished product being a family heirloom.

Unfortunately most debates on this topic in forums such as these degenerate into slanging matches and loose all logic of debate.

A restoration is normally assumed to be a process of renovating an existing object, rather than creating one, however scarcity of complete airframes sitting around waiting to be restored has led to the process of acquiring original parts from disparate sources and airframes, and restoring them back into a single identity normally sourced from the fuselage, ie T-6s, Tigermoths and Pipercubs built up from a collection of surplus parts.

A recreation is a term gaining favour and purports to retain some level of provenance through use of some original parts including even the mere existence of a data plate, and therefore claim authenticity and identity.

A self confessed reproduction, (the recently built Me-262s, FW-190s, Yaks, Oscars and F3F’s) happily acknowledge they are new constructions to an original design or closely following an original design, but make no attempt to claim authenticity or provenance and therefore identity.

A replica (at least in the aircraft world) is at worst considered to be an external approximation of the appearance, but totally different to the original design/construction/powerplant,or even size, the Tora Tora Tora zeros being a good example. Its a term that was previously applied to anything not was not a manufactured original, but there are some past outcomes that are better described as reproductions than replicas given their duplication of the design and construction.

One day there will be some standards adopted and accepted in relation to aircraft, it will most likely come from the museum world, taken up by the aircraft brokers and sales agents, and eventually be accepted and adopted by “most” but not “all” of the warbird fraternity.

However there will still be those who claim “it doesn’t really matter” (on the basis those in the “know” – know the real origins of the aircraft they buy) or “it threatens the future of the warbird market” by undervaluing the products of such recreations/reproductions/restorations, and then there will still be those owners/rebuilders who will claim their particular object slips across the boundary of restoration/recreation/reproduction as they see fit and to their advantage. (and of course we all “know” who they are – so it really “doesn’t matter”)

It was refreshing to see the openness of a Canadian collection who recently discovered the identity of their Spitfire was not as it seemed, and here there is no dispute that the spitfire is an original production spitfire (albeit unrestored and in poor condition) but its provenance assumed one identity, and the correction of identity changes its provenance and therefore relevance to the Canadian collection. ie an example of provenance having some value, and why it should be scrutinised, and not simply permitted to be claimed by those wishing to ascribe value through it.

Regards

Mark Pilkington