Hi folks; Just read on the tv channel CP24 news
ticker [Treasure hunters find ww2 bomber in beaufort]
and that was it.Anyone else heard anything.:confused:

This relates to the very recent “discovery” and attempted unauthorised recovery of a B-26 Maraulder in Canada by two private individuals camping on site, diving on the submerged wreck and air bagging the cockpit onto a trailer.

I understand the whole aircraft may have been present and relatively intact, with minor nose glass damage and prop strike damage, however it is understood the recovery process was undertaken by de-rivetting?/cutting the cockpit from the main fuselage?

The Yukon Provence has stepped in and halted the unauthorised recovery, and charges have been laid by the mounties.

Official news story here following arrest and charges.
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30304

Two charged after raising WWII bomber from lake

‘The Flying Prostitute’ crashed en route to aid Russia in 1942
Jun 05, 2009 04:41 PM

Bob Weber
THE CANADIAN PRESS

The fate of a derelict Second World War bomber once nicknamed “The Flying Prostitute” is up in the air since two Calgary brothers fished part of it out of a remote Yukon lake.

The brothers want to complete the salvage and see the B-26 Marauder restored and placed in a museum. But the territorial government, suspecting a profit motive, has grounded their plans and is charging the pair with violating the territory’s heritage legislation.

“Our past is not to be peddled,” Jeff Hunston of the Heritage Resources Department said Friday. “We want our heritage in the Yukon.”

The B-26 was a high-speed, medium-weight bomber developed by the United States and saw action in several theatres of the war. Some were used during the D-Day invasion, the 65th anniversary of which is being marked this weekend.

The plane’s nickname was derived from its short wingspan, which appeared to give it no visible means of support.

Many Marauders were part of a lend-lease program that helped arm Russia against the Nazi invasion. In a massive airlift called the Northwest Staging Route, about 7,000 warplanes were flown from Great Falls, Mont., to Fairbanks, Alaska, en route to Siberia. There were stops in Canada to refuel.

On Jan. 16, 1942, six of them left Great Falls. Three got lost in Yukon airspace and crashed after running out of fuel, said Bob Cameron, a Yukon aviation buff in Whitehorse. The fourth crash-landed on the ice of Watson Lake and another crashed on takeoff as it set out again. Only one made it to Fairbanks.

“That was an unlucky group of airplanes,” he said.

Enter history buffs Brian and John Jasman, who found one of the planes last year with a sonar device. They had been combing through declassified military records and accident reports for 20 years. This spring, the brothers floated the nose cone of the derelict up to the surface and hauled it to shore.

“It was kind of amazing,” said Brian Jasman from his campsite beside Watson Lake, just north of the British Columbia-Yukon boundary.

“It should be in a museum where everybody could see it. Sitting in 70 feet of water, it’s just going to rot to nothing.”

The Jasmans were starting their search for the rest of the plane when the territorial government stepped in.

“The government of the Yukon owns that plane,” said Hunston.

The Northwest Staging Route helped establish some of the territory’s modern-day airports, he said. The many warplane wrecks it left behind are important artifacts of Yukon history – and potential tourist attractions.

Hunston suspects the Jasmans’ motives.

“We’re well aware of the antique warbird market out there. There’s a lot of money to be made and even parts can be hot commodities.”

Although thousands of Marauders were built, there are only a handful in museums and even fewer in flying condition.

Hunston fears the Watson Lake Marauder could wind up in an American private collection, much like a P-39 Cobra fighter that was allowed to leave the Yukon and ended up in a private museum in Oregon.

“We, too, want our warbird heritage preserved and exhibited in museums so that everybody benefits.”

Hunston said the brothers have been served notice to appear in court on charges under the territory’s heritage legislation. They could face a fine of up to $50,000.

But the Jasmans claim finders, keepers. Brian says the U.S. air force has relinquished any claim on the wreck. He also points out that the plane’s location underwater places it under federal, not territorial, legislation.

“We’re going to stick it out and let the lawyer deal with it and see what happens. Legally, they can’t take it.”

So, for now, the Marauder sits atop a trailer alongside the Watson Lake airport where it attempted to land 67 years ago.

There are dozens of relics like it along the old flight route. Just this week, a pair of unexploded 227-kilogram bombs were found near the airport.

The Marauder isn’t even the only wreck in Watson Lake. Cameron said an old Lancaster bomber is visible from the surface.

The town’s airport was a maintenance depot during the war and used for testing in the years afterward.

“There have been quite a few accidents in Watson Lake,” Cameron said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/646307

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:34 am Post subject: B-26 bombers were not part of Lend Least to USSR

——————————————————————————–

Those B-26 airplanes were definitely not part of Lend Lease to USSR. If I remember correctly, B-26 airplanes were not part of that program. Whoever told them that these planes were part of lend lease to USSR does not know what they are talking about.

According to the USAAF Form No. 14 Aircraft Accident Reports:

The airplanes were part of the 77th Bomb Squadron and were part of the USAAF Alaskan Air Force. The three B-26 bombers that crashed at Watson Lake were part of a flight of 13 B-26s that had originated at Gowen Field, Idaho, en route to Elmendorf Field, Alaska, via Fort Nelson and White Horse. There were also 11 P-40s and a couple of transport airplanes making the trip. Several airplanes made the flight successfully to White Horse and on to Elmendorf. The 3 B-26s that crashed in the vicinity of Watson Lake took off from Fort Nelson and soon encountered poor weather on the flight to White Horse. Three of them got lost and ran out of fuel, resulting in forced landings near Watson Lake. The three airplanes that crash landed that day:

B-26 # 40-1459, piloted by 2Lt. E.S. Avery
B-26 # 40-1464, piloted by 2Lt. W.J. Dancer
B-26 # 40-1502, piloted by 1Lt. G.A. Doolittle

Further, two airplanes were involved in accidents upon landing at White Horse. They were:

B-26 # 40-1461, piloted by 1Lt. J.G. Pickard
B-26 # 40-1453, piloted by 2Lt. G.S. Stevens

Also, a detailed accounting of the events surrounding this series of accidents can be found on page 41-42 of the excellent book by Blake W. Smith, “WARPLANES TO ALASKA.” These airplanes were part of a plan to reinforce Alaska after the Pearl Harbor attack. The airplanes had absolutely nothing to do with the Lend Lease to USSR.

Tony Mireles

Photos of cockpit on trailer.
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30284

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Its great to hear this rare airframe has been given a little more time or certainty, for a preservation strategy to be put in place for a long term future.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Just to add the other side of the coin to the Boston Globe piece. I am sure Rob Greinert would not mind me posting a paragraph of a recent email to me.

Mark

Lutes got out of the wreck and walked off into oblivion

Everyone including the US Ambassador in Port Moresby knew what was happening.

The wreck site was visited four times by the US Military. On the last visit the combined CILHI team and PNG National Museum staff
jointly concurred that Lutes had walked off and was not in the vicinity of the wreck.

Permission to recover was granted by the PNG Government via the National Museum Director.

But never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Elliott has posted this link in a new thread, but I think it is worthwhile placing it here to answer the Boston Globe story and link that commenced this thread and debate.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25558504-5001021,00.html

Its good that Rob has been given the opportunity to respond to the implied accusations made in the recent Boston Globe article, it is a pity its authors didnt seek and provide a right of reply in their own article?

the salient points in answer to that other article at Boston.com are:

World War II hero Marion Lutes is believed to have perished in the jungle after surviving the wreck of his P47D Thunderbolt in April 1944.

When locals found the aircraft on a 60-degree slope decades later, the cockpit harness was unlocked and there was no sign of the pilot.

Lutes is still officially listed as missing in action but his Thunderbolt, pulled from the jungle several years ago by Australian salvager and restorer Robert Greinert, is rising phoenix-like in a cavernous hangar at Illawarra Regional Airport, south of Sydney.

While the brave pilot is gone, his memory and that of others who lost their lives defending this country are being kept alive by dedicated Australian enthusiasts.

But Mr Greinert and his Historical Aircraft Restoration Society are incensed by US criticism their work may have compromised the recovery of human remains.

Despite numerous sweeps of the site before the salvage operation, it is understood that the Pentagon has not given up hopes of recovering Lutes’ remains.

“It (salvaging aircraft) has been presented as evil grave-robbing, which is just not correct,” society spokesman Ben Morgan said.

“It doesn’t happen that we storm in, grab this stuff and run. It (the imputation) is very hurtful.

“This is highly insulting to individuals who have devoted a large part of their lives and their personal resources to preserving historic aircraft.”

Mr Greinert, who has been recovering and restoring wrecks for three decades, received clearance from PNG authorities and maintains he never touches any site where there are MIA issues.

The Pacific Wrecks website seperately confirms the wreck was subject to a number of MIA searches well before the wreck was recovered.

Wreckage
The wreckage was first located at at about 8,200′ near the villages of Nando and Tauta by a group of students ‘Operation Drake’ in 1979. They discovered the cockpit closed, and no remains were seen.

Although surveyed by US Army CILHI on three occasions, the site was never the subject of a dedicated MIA search for remains of its MIA pilot, and is list as an open MIA cases.

Rachel Phillips, JPAC adds:
“In 1990, a CILHI team surveyed the site. They did not find remains or personal effects. In 1999, there were two CILHI teams that visited the site associated with this case. Neither team found remains or personal effects.”

The wreckage remained in situ until October 2004.

Its good to see Rob confirming he doesn’t resort to a “crude” approach in his aircraft recoveries, and does’nt touch / recover wrecks with MIA issues or that may be troubled by a bunch of old bones.

Hopefully others involved in wreck recovery and restoration will adopt and agree with his views and attitudes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I don’t remember saying to treat the remains with disrespect. I did say they could be just a pile of crumbling bones.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings. I DID make the point that in a practical sense that a living ongoing memory invoked by seeing and flying the restored aeroplane is BETTER than having a deteriorating wreak buried in the jungle of New Guinea or on some Pacific island – one that is never or only very very occasionally visited.

I did say that within the next not-so-many years that anyone who knew the deceased would also be deceased, and likely the next generation as well.

I pose the question, when did you last visit the grave of your great-great-grandfather and be honest with your answers.

I have noticed a tendency on this forum for people to make long-winded answers and to attribute attitudes and inferences that in fact weren’t made.

Please read and assimilate what was actually said. I am not talking about Tangmere 1940 here

Paul – its just a statement of fact – they are “old Bones” it is the context and the memories associated with the bones that are important. My view is that the restored aeroplane serves as the focus for the memory. Here is a suggestion – get some of the personal effects and build them into the restored aeroplane as a on-going tribute to the original crew. Don’t think it has been done but it really make the connection between the past the contemporary

regards

Ross,

As you are obviously referring to my own “long winded reply’s and suggesting I am attributing attitudes and inferences that were’nt made”, I would like to make it clear I’m not arguing that wrecks should be left in place indefinately, as you seem to be drifting the debate to above, the issue in this thread, and the article it refers to in link in the first post, has been the recovery and respect of the “old bones” before recovery of the parts, and treating the remains with respect.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings

Below are your own words that I have responded to in my earlier posts:

Increasingly people are cremated as opposed to burried. Graves are unvisited the ashes of the dead pose a problem for the survivors and are often “thrown to the winds”. In western cultures at least, most people these days put very little value on the graves of their anticedents.

Yet when it comes to military graves its a different story and I don’t need to elaborate.

My opinion is you can identify the aeroplane and it is rebuilt to flying and that history made a living thing, that is a lot better than getting to troubled about a bunch of crumbled bones. A crude approach I am sure, but as I often say “I am a fully paid up member of the human race and entitled to a view”.

There is too much political correctness comming into this issue. The people concerned died over 60 years ago in tragic circumstances in another 40 years anyone who ever knew them will be well and truely dead.

Nothing will remain but a memory (and maybe a few old bones), the memory will not be of smiles, laughter and personal contact, rather just a bit of writing somewhere, maybe a name and some details in some history book.

Sorry not enough for me, give me a live breathing aeroplane and all the feelings that envokes. I sometimes sit in the seat of my Tiger Moth (RAAF A17-300) and dream of who has sat there before, what did they do during WW2 – that is a living memory and I am sure that those in the future who sit in that same seat will have similar day-dreamings

.

So correct me if I am wrong (which I invited in my first post if I had mis-interpreted your view?), but the two quotes above seem clearly to suggest you consider the aircraft wreck should be recovered without interest in, or effort to resolve that there are human remains present, or that the wreck is effectively a war grave?

ie recover the aircraft remains without being troubled about a bunch of crumbled bones?, particularly given the age of the wreck and the assumption the immediate family and decendents have no interest in the fate of, recovery of their family members remains?

Again I am sorry if you think I attributing an attitude to you that isnt correct? as I am only responding to what you have posted.

(although to be fair to you. in some cases I include a reply to other comments of those who have replied to me)

For clarity my position was explained at the end of my first reply to you, and at no stage have I suggested a wreck might never be available for recovery? the point you now seem to be arguing?

I personally think we should recognise the significance of “fatality” wrecks, and not treat them as simply a pile of spare parts for wreckology or museum collections, Ebay sales, or other restorations and data plate rebuilds – that may limit, complicate or simply slow the recovery of some airframes or wrecks- but so be it!, I have voiced this position in other KP posts and threads regarding UK Defence permits for “digs” by “wreckologists”.

It is a reasonable compromise to allow the MIA inspection and recovery of a “bunch of crumpled bones” process to do its work and declare the wreck clear of remains and available for salvage, far better than simply a “crude” approach.

I understand a number of wreck recoverers in remote areas undertake their own serious inspection and recovery processes and return the remains to the MIA authorities, and perhaps there should be a formal training and accreditation process to permit those proffessional recoverers to undertake such work formally? on behalf of the authorities?

I have read the article that launched this thread, and am dis-appointed the authors have focused on a couple of individuals, including using them in the headline photos, without seemingly getting their approval or giving them the right to reply or be interviewed for their position on the general “accusations” made in the article.

Again, I’m sorry if I am mis-representing or mis-interpreting your view above, but it is based on the impression I get of your “crude” approach , “logic” and “view” expressed in your post above?

By the way, in your new “suggestion” above in your latest post, I assume you intend that the non-existant / non interested family and decendents of the crew that have rotted now to be “just a pile of crumbling bones” and who dont have an interest in the remains while they are in the wreck, will instead now be approached for permission before the “personal effects” of the deceased crew are removed from the crash site as well, and built into the restored aircraft???

(as “personal effects” are you really?? suggesting the “pile of crumbling old bones”???)

As we have both pointed out, we have vastly differing views, your entitled to yours, I’m entitled to mine, and certainly also entitled to comment and criticise if we do not agree, even via a long winded reply.

You openly described your view and attitude as a “crude approach” in your first post, If I have mis-represented your attitude above please explain where?

regards

Mark Pilkington

One wonders if Shorts would have thought 4 150 hp Rotec engines more than powerful enough for a subscale Halifax when their S31 half scale Stirling only had 4 80 hp Pobjoys.
I have to agree though that scaling down an aircraft and getting it to look right will be hard, but this thread has made me think about the usefulness of subscale prototypes the S31, GAL50 and Avro 707. Just what was gained from making a subscale prototype over a model in a windtunnel?

Thanks Aeronut,

Smiles, well I guess there is the proof it can be done, I had forgotten all about that aircraft.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/short_s-31.php

Specification
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 2586 kg 5701 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 15.09 m 49 ft 6 in
Length 13.31 m 43 ft 8 in
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 290 km/h 180 mph

Lifting 5701Lb (inclusive of two crew and fuel) with only 360HP at 50% scale would seem to suggest 600HP will be suitable for 60% (on a crude equivalence of size between the two types), and composites might provide more strength at a lower weight than timber?, (although the link above suggests the S-31 had a metal monoque fuselage rather than being all wood?)

I wonder if drawings of the S31 survive from Shorts somewhere?, maybe someone can do a 60% Stirling as well?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Are we to presume, that if there is a chance there are living relatives, that graves/crash sites/battlefield cannot be touched?
Or are we actually concerned with the deceased person themselves, and how they would have felt?

I would have thought that depends if there are human remains present, and what is done to deal with them being there, obviously there are many fatal accidents and battlefields where the remains are removed, the site is not then a grave, war grave or otherwise.

There are many cemetaries later built over, many bodies in the bombing of London entombed in the building rubble and later built over by reconstruction, the WW1 fields with mass graves obviously was farmed and perhaps cultivated for the last 100 years, the recent road making at Anzac Cove uncovered bodies during the process.

I’m not religious and am not concerned with the deceased person themselves and how they might “feel”, I dont think they will be “floating around on a cloud” concerned how their mortal remains are being treated. I’m not even concerned that this respect needs to rely on an identifiable and concerned next of kin.

Instead to me its a measure of civil society that we respect the remains and grave of a fellow human being. Otherwise we could simply accept use of skulls for street football and candle holders, and find other worthwhile uses for the body parts, and degenerate to that level in many other ways. ie Why not recover the gold teeth of the dead before they are buried, better still why not gas them to death to hasten the supply? (hmm I think someone tried that and it didnt get popular support? – damn that political correctness!)

I dont think I have said graves/crash sites/battlefields cannot be touched?, I am referring to the instances where remains are known to exist, or discovered to exist, and suggesting some level of respect and process to identify and recover the remains should exist, (and most cases such processes do exist, it is the notification and access to do so that is being debated in the article that launced this topic) or in some cases there is the firm decision to leave the remains and wreck in situ which seems to be accepted and general treatment of ships as war graves (ie the recent discovery and declaration of the wreck of HMAS Sydney , despite the lack of identifyable remains).

In the main however I am responding to a point of view that a “bag of bones” should not stand in our way of recovering the wreck for restoration and profit.

regards

Mark Pilkington

There is too much political correctness comming into this issue. The people concerned died over 60 years ago in tragic circumstances in another 40 years anyone who ever knew them will be well and truely dead.

Nothing will remain but a memory (and maybe a few old bones), the memory will not be of smiles, laughter and personal contact, rather just a bit of writing somewhere, maybe a name and some details in some history book.

Ross,

I’m not driven by political correctness or religious belief, and I admire and respect a restored flying or non-flying aircraft as much as the next enthusiast, but not over and above respect for the effective grave or resting place of a fellow human being, particularly if that person gave his life in the defence and service of others.

I dont really care if remains, or a marked grave site are 100 years old and no living person appears interested or connected to them, it does’nt change the respect due to that person.

Otherwise we would consider it fair game to simply desecrate church graves and cemetaries once the last occupant has been buried for 100 years or more. While cementaries might reclaim burial plots over time, I am certain it is done with a due process and certain respect for any recovered remains.

In the particular case of aircraft wrecks, quite often there is the ability to identify the wreck and therefore the identity of the person in the wreck, regardless of the solitary bone surviving, or the age of the wreck.

There may well be immediate family and decendents even of WW1 pilots today, keen to close the mystery of their fate, and perhaps bring them home, and much more so for WW2 pilots.

Even if the pilot has no living relations, the Military Services, and the Country itself quite rightly feel obliged to repatriate the remains of a lost serviceman for a dignified burial, ie witness the efforts Australia and Britain are currently undertaking to identify the WW1 Soldier remains discovered in the mass grave in France, and to re-bury them in individual and marked graves.

The reason we all revere the warbird aircraft is because of the efforts and sacrifices of the men who flew them, not the efforts of the aircraft themselves, the “living” breathing history and “feelings” all derive from the place in history made by the men who flew them, and particularly those who made the ultimate sacrifice, including those still rotting in a wreck, forgotten by family and friends, and reduced physically to a “bag of bones”.

Unfortunately your “crude” approach and logic is to dismiss them and their memory as un-important over the bent piece of aluminium that marks their grave and resting place.

To cast the bones aside, gather up the wreck, build a new aeroplane around the identity, and then to claim this is all done in the name of honouring those who flew these aircraft, is to my mind hypocracy.

As you say, thankfully we dont share the same view.

regards

Mark Pilkington