Haven’t seen the old girl for a few years, so can’t comment. I’d like to see a comprehensive restoration/conservation as per G-George in Australia rather than anything piecemeal.

At an Australian Aviation Museum Network forum at the AWM last year (BAPC equivalent), those in attendance were given a unique and detailed presentation by the AWM curators on the history of G for George and its various refurbishments, including the AWMs own work, and the aircraft still retains its original wartime paint as it carried when delivered to Australia.

it has been over-painted a number of times, but the AWM has painstakingly rubbed down through the layers at various locations to identify the location of markings and stencils, as well as for colour matching, and have then applied new markings and paint over the top in line with those findings.

An important focus was not to achieve an “airfix” uniform shade of colours or pattern line up, but to reflect and reproduce the different paint finishings from the various replacement parts the aircraft carries due to in service replacement or field refurbishment, resulting in a patchwork quilt of differing black and camo finishes and camo lines that do not match at every join line- ie those effects and outcomes are intentional and deliberate and based on evidential research.

I would expect that AWM research from G for George would be available to, and informing the work being undertaken at the RAFM on S for Sugar.

G-George is also now largely complete internally, but had suffered souveniring over its many years in storage in the hands of the RAAF.

G-George and S-Sugar are the most significant of the 10+ surviving lancasters given they are both combat veteran early mark 1 versions with long wartime operational service, and suffered the wear and tear such service and replacements would cause on factory fresh paint finishes.

They didn’t look like airfix kits in service, and don’t need to do so in museums either.

The current hotrodding approach to super polishing P-51s with mirror like finishes by some within the warbird community is not “more accurate” simply because it looks neat and pretty, or as if its leaped off the front of the airfix box, or rolled straight out of the factory.

Here is the presentation material from the AWM website showing the research methods and the finished outcomes.

http://www.awm.gov.au/media/conference/bigstuff/papers/treatment/paint_pearce.pdf

regards

Mark Pilkington

Is the Avro Lancaster at Hendon, S-Sugar, in original and preserved wartime condition? Was it rolled straight out of service into preservation? Or did it go through several lives and then get restored to the current condition? Just wondering.

S for Sugar demobbed from operational service with Australian RAAF 467 Sqn in 1945 as a Museum Exhibition asset at Waddington, and then moved to Scampton in 1959 and became the gate guardian in 1960 still in its wartime colours.

It was then repainted back as Q for Queenie of 83 Sqn from its earlier wartime service.

Used as a source of spares for the BBMF Lancaster in its earlier lives, Q for Queenie joined the RAFM collection in 1970.

Restored with new Perspex, it was repainted as S for Sugar in 1972 on its display inside the RAFM.

A real mark I wartime combat veteran Lancaster, one of only two such survivors and 3 mark I’s surviving.

Its sad that the UK had such a hard post war recovery that a few more RAF Heavies including Lancasters, Halifaxes and Stirlings could not be found good homes.

But what is missing in quantity is made up with quality, S for Sugar is a very significant WW2 airframe.

Built / delivered in June 42 under a Manchester contract but completed as a Lanc, it joined 83 Sqn at Scampton, and flew its first operational sortie in July 42, and joined RAAF 467 Sqn in August 43.

Here is its very impressive history as documented by the RAFM.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/74-A-12-Avro-Lancaster-R5868.pdf

regards

Mark Pilkington

Terrific post Mark! 🙂

I haven’t been to Port Moresby at all, let alone to have a look in the Museum there. Unfortunately, the collapse of the airline I was working for in 2001 stole that opportunity away. 🙁
I can only go by what other people have told me and from what I remember (fraught, I know!!) from photos I have seen of it in much happier times, as it has deteriorated significantly now.

There are some pics of A20-13 online:

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/wirraway/A20-13.html

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Wirraway-2A20-13

But they are not detailed enough to confirm CA-1 configuration?

It also looks like someone has been quietly swapping parts out, as these look suspiciously like Ceres tailplanes with their wider leading edges.

I cant recall who it was who advised me it wasn’t a CA-1, (Mr IW most likely?) but of course until its confirmed I’m only relying on rusty memory.

The other idea I have had mulling over in amongst the detritus in my head, is possibility of any wrecks/remains in either South Africa or Zimbabwe. From memory, a lot of the Harvard Mk 1s were sent there as a part of the ETS.

I think a number of us have probably had those thoughts and discounted them as likely to have been scrapped long ago, but South Africa had those Ventura’s sitting on farms for years and elsewhere in Africa there were those early Fireflies waiting to be recovered until relatively recent times.

Either way, to me, the project would certainly be possible, it just needs someone with the time, ca$h and madness to do it. I’ve got the madness, but not the other two prerequisites….:D

I know the UK CAA doesn’t have an experimental category and that would mean some creative paperwork and an ID would need to be established for a hybrid T-6 to claim to be a Harvard Mk I, but given (I recall?) that a Tora “Zero” flew in the UK, surely a T-6 “modified” (even with steel tube fuse and fabric side panels) could be flown in the UK?

Of course other than money, parts and time, such an outcome would seem relatively straight forward to achieve in Australia or the US under more liberal certification arrangements?, but the type is not likely to generate the same interest as it would in the UK?

Equally however, it would be possible to do the same thing in the USA and produce a very nice looking pre-war BC-1 or SNJ-1?

Although I would be happy enough to own one of the skytypers SNJ-2s and have it in the pre-war USN colours. (although one of those in two tone British camo and yellow undersides with roundels and RAF serial would easily pass as a Harvard Mark I on the Duxford flightline for most people in anycase, despite its solid side panels, tapered wing and full monocoque rear fuse and would be a fairly simple CAA paperwork).

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Old aircraft hangar seen at Hamilton Airport. Anyone know the history? WW2?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217780[/ATTACH]

It bears great resemblance to the US built “Butler” transportable hangar of WW2.

The elements that support that are:

1. The style of the doors and overall ratio of height/length/width
2. the Office and Toilet skillion attachment along the length of the building wall

the missing elements are the windows along the main side wall, but I suspect they may have well been subsequently sheeted over?

We had these in Australia and one still survives (although again relocated and modified from its original site at CAC in Port Melbourne) at Tyabb airport in Victoria)

The attachment has a picture of that building for comparison.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=butler%20hangar%20cac&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvhd.heritage.vic.gov.au%2Freports%2Freport_place%2F12650&ei=wnPDUevFKOy0iQe57oD4Cw&usg=AFQjCNG1VeEsfhvVxS0c4aZ2Gn3sorrrEg&bvm=bv.48175248,d.aGc

regards

Mark Pilkington

I ask would anyone want to keep and display a Taliban IED to show what sort of weapon blew someones loved one to pieces?

Thats what I think of that Dornier and all axis aircraft! Just my opinion I don’t expect you to share it.

Allied aircraft are a different thing they destroyed evil regimes in Germany and Japan and I hope they are preserved and commerorated along with those who died for our freedom. Without their ultimate sacrifice I would probably not be able to write this.

So clearly your view is to erase all elements of the loosing side of any war your on the right side of, ie commemorating only the Victors?, on the basis that the history of man doesnt need to record or retain anything of that other side? Yet wisdom acknowledges those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

I’m sorry but I think you are confusing the purpose of recovering and preserving the Do-17, as being to commemorate the enemy?, and apparantly have a significant issue with that, and apparantly the preservation of any axis aircraft more generally?, regardless of their condition?

The Australian War Memorial in Canberra, is a bonefide sacred National Memorial to Australia’s wartime servicemen and fallen, not just a military service museum (as against the purpose of the Royal Air Force Museum) or an Aviation Museum, its prime purpose is to honour and commemorate Australians who have served and died for their country.

However it displays examples of WW2 axis aircraft including German Me-109, Me-163 and Me-262, in original but complete condition, along with a restored Japanese A6M-2 Zero and the corroded but conserved remains of a Japanese Oscar. It also displays a Mig-15 of the Korean War, and a Pfalz DXII and Albatros DVa from WW1, along with many other military weapons/vehicles/uniforms captured from the enemy, – even a Japanese midget submarine, etc from the various conflicts that Australians have fought and died in, and it continues to do so from Afganistan and Iraq, along of course with representative military material used by Austalians.

http://www.awm.gov.au/visit/aircraft-hall/

https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/anzac-hall/over-the-front/

In fact I wouldnt be surprised to find the AWM has acquired and preserved a Taliban IED given its major role against Australians in both Afganistan and Iraq, and being one of the primary causes of injuries and deaths of Australian servicemen in those conflicts, and have certainly collected similar from the Viet Kong and NVA.

edit: in fact they have already done so

http://www.smh.com.au/national/ied-viewing-cancelled-following-soldiers-death-20121022-280vg.html?skin=text-only

Date: October 22 2012

David Ellery

An Australian War Memorial media viewing of improvised explosive devices recovered from Afghanistan was cancelled at short notice this morning following confirmation that a 24-year-old Special Air Services Regiment soldier had been killed in a blast overnight.

The viewing, to coincide with the launch of a book detailing the way in which many of the items in the AWM collection had been acquired, was also intended to publicise an exhibition highlighting the sophistication of the deadly devices to be held in 2013.

Of the 39 Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since February 16, 2002, 14 have been victims of land mines or Improvised Explosive Devices.

Highly sophisticated in design, despite the use of “garden shed’’ materials including plastic containers and home-made phosphate based explosives, the IEDs are a hallmark of the Afghan conflict and have claimed far more civilian lives than foreign troops.

Last night’s victim, whose name has not yet been released, is the first Australian to be killed by an IED since Private Matthew Lambert’s death on his first tour to Afghanistan exactly 14 months ago on August 22, 2011.

Six of the 10 Australia’s to have been killed since then were the victims of so-called “green on blue’’ attacks by renegade Afghan soldiers.

An AWM spokesman said today’s function had been cancelled “as a mark of respect for the (digger’s) family following the sad news this morning. The IEDs will be on display at some point in the future. The date of their display is yet to be confirmed’’.

The AWM has its origins in the collecting of WW1 artifacts from 1916 onwards by Charles Bean the official war historian, and the concept of the AWM was in place in 1920 and exhibited in the Melbourne Exhibition Buildings until its permanent home in Canberra was built and opened in 1941.

The survivors of those Wars assemble each Anzac Day in April and each Armistance Day in November, and commemorate honour our fallen, (and to be acknowledged by we fellow Australians), in this sacred place and have done so since the 1940s when it was built, and neither their returned service organisations, nor they individually, do not complain/object to these objects from their enemies being preserved and displayed in “their” sacred War Memorial.

This is not done to elevate the “evil regimes” of Germany and Japan, or to commemorate them, it is to record both sides of the war that young Australians died in, so future Australians can know and learn from that.

I therefore certainly dont share your view and opinion in regards to worth of recovering and conserving the Do-17, a combat veteran of the Battle of Britain, (not only an important air battle in UK history but also world history), and consider your opinion to be wrong, mis-placed, and mis-guided, although I do appreciate your an ex-serviceman and may have strong personal feelings on such issues.

However I consider I’m entitled to oppose that view even though I’m not a returned veteran and you may be, as certainly my father and many others were and are, and having seen and heard their views of the AWM, I’m happy to side with their views.

I therefore accept their collective position and acceptance of the collection, preservation and display of enemy objects, weapons, uniforms vehicles and aircraft in our National place of commemoration. I think the majority of Australians who visit the AWM would also share my view, not yours.

However its not just my view, or my percieved view of my fellow Australians, its actually the intented purpose and charter of the AWM as it was set up to be nearly 100 years ago.

http://www.awm.gov.au/about/

The Australian War Memorial combines a shrine, a world-class museum, and an extensive archive. The Memorial’s purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war. Its mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society

http://www.awm.gov.au/about/origins/

Guiding ideas
In keeping with the sombre commemorative tone of the Memorial, Bean was from the start concerned that it should not be seen to be glorifying war or triumphing over the enemy. He urged Treloar and others not to speak about “trophies”, preferring the term “relics” instead. He also urged that captions and text should not use derogatory terms, such as Hun or Abdul (German and Turk were preferable).

In the 1950s Bean drew up a list of exhibition principles, suggesting among other things that the galleries should “avoid glorification of war and boasting of victory” and also “avoid perpetuating enmity � for both moral and national reasons and because those who have fought in wars are generally strongest in their desire to prevent war”. In general, the former enemies should be treated as generously as were Australians. The exhibitions also needed to be made interesting, for example, by presenting relics as objects with their own story rather than as just examples of a type. Bean also thought of the future: “exhibits [should be] so described and displayed as to be understood and interesting seventy-five years after the events.”

Some of these issues became an area of dispute in the early 1950s when some swords surrendered by Japanese generals at the close of the Second World War were taken off display, as being tokens of surrender and thus violating the principle that the Memorial should not be in any way a monument to victory. After a public outcry, however, the swords were put back on display.

I dont wish to go off topic any further into this issue, or need for a debate to commence between us over this issue.

I’ve made my views known and I will leave you with the above to contemplate, your views and position have been made known a number of times, and of course your welcome and entitled to them.

But its out of the water, and at RAF Cosford, and there’s little point repeating ongoing opposition to that situation in here, or in this thread/forum?

I would suggest you exercise your democratic right, and write to your MP if your not happy with the situation.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The data plate is not the main constructor’s plate, nor does it carry the aircraft W.Nr, and has no relevance to the identity of the Dornier.

Yes I acknowledged that in my post, and edited it later to confirm that, however the relevance in that article isn’t so much the photo, but the apparent quote from the RAF Museum? Which implies the Manufacturers data plate has been found and identifies the serial?

When raised from the seabed, the surviving data plate still attached to the fuselage confirmed the plane’s identity as: Dornier 17 Z-2 Serial No 1160 of 7 Staffel, III Gruppe/KG3 (7th Squadron of the 3rd Group of Bomber Wing 3), Coded 5K + AR, just the museum’s research had indicated.

Which implies a dataplate quoting s/n 1160 has been found?

Of course that quote may be inaccurate, and it would be good to see it confirmed directly from the RAF Museum website and even better evidenced from the plate itself, but surely we aren’t going to accuse the RAFM of dataplate restorations smiles.

They have assumed the a/c to be 5K+AR based on records of the wrecks in the area, that particular wreck apparently had no MIA’s associated with it and so could be recovered.

While it might turn out to be a different wreck, I suspect the RAFM would now happily admit that -if indeed its identity was not 5K+AR, rather than fabricate a story to backfit?, or maintain the original claims or theory?

I’m happy to accept the RAFM’s word that it is 5K+AR, if the articles quote is from the RAFM.

regards

Mark Pilkington

So if the surviving crew of 5K+AR state they (belly) landed on the dry sand of Goodwin Sands and the recovered Dornier doesn�t exhibit the sort of damage we�d expect to see from that (and was located inverted)…

…then the recovered Dornier isn�t 5K+AR?

I haven’t seen the reports of 5K+AR to confirm it belly landed on dry sand rather than in shallow water on a sand bar? (so I’m assuming others have?)

but I guess if it did the question arises – what happened to that one?
why hasn’t it been a favourite picnic destination by the Goodwin sand-cricket players for many years

Did it get salvaged?

Did it get blown apart? by the Military as a target or to remove it as a shipping danger?

Did it get dragged off the bar by the Military into deeper water?

Did it get washed off the bar by sea and storm action?

If either of the last two, couldnt 5k+AR still be the inverted a/c recently recovered, “even” if its absolutely certain it bellied in and remained upright?

Hopefully an identification of the wreck will be forthcoming soon?

regards

Mark Pilkington

I think people are forgetting that companies that trade in the U.K have Corporation tax liabilities. Therefore if you passion happens to be old aircraft and vehicles a donation to a cause if often a way of directing money that otherwise would just go straight in tax with possibly no tangiable benefit to your cause and company image.

I’m not up with UK corporate tax rates or donation tax deductibility, but if its anything like Australia then I’m not sure companies in the UK get 100% tax write off? for such donations?

In Australia the tax deductable donation is simply deducted from gross taxable income, with the remaining net taxable income being taxed at the corporate rate – in Australia that’s 30%.

So then the effective tax saving is at the company tax rate- ie if its 30% tax rate they are still donating the other 70% as more than if they had just let the tax man have it.

Corporate Donations are hardly then simply a cynical tax dodge.

Its sad that a corporate benefactor to British aviation heritage cant simply be acknowledged and appreciated for doing so, I guess there must be so many of them lining up that discouraging some doesn’t really matter?

Perhaps if the corporate sponsorship and funding of this Dornier is causing so much heartache – it might have been better to simply leave it in the sand to rot away?

Again, my own view is that the RAFM and Seatech are to be applauded for such a recovery, and those who have assisted or are assisting in kind or in cash are also to be applauded.

If a sponsor gets his logo on the News on the side of a truck during the delivery phase – surely that’s no great crime?

from my view on the opposite side of the world – well done to wargaming.net – keep up the good work.

Regards

Mark Pilkington