.
I would agree after 70 years, and the apparant shallow depths that not much recognisable as the aircraft should be expected to rise from the sea.

I too would also question this discovery changing the “official history” as the “official history” is largely as his own press release outlines:

They left Allahabad, in India, on their way to Singapore before the final leg of the journey to Australia. Their last recorded position was over Rangoon, the capital of Burma (now Myanmar) at 1.30am on November 7, 1935.

No trace of the plane was found until 1937 when a fisherman found its starboard undercarriage leg on Aye Island, south of Rangoon.

Sir Charles’ friend, Jack Hodder, searched Aye Island in 1938, finding tree damage consistent with an aircraft crash.

He was followed by the late Queensland historian Ted Wixted in 1983, who believed the Lady Southern Cross clipped the tree line in the dark before attempting to reach Burma.

I had earlier incorrectly recalled the discovery of the undercarrriage leg being found on the west coast of the mainland, however resorting now to my library rather than memory I can advise on page 149 of his 1977 book titled “Charles Kingsford Smith – Smithy, the world’s greatest aviator” Pedr Davis quotes the official DCA report of 1937 as confirming the wheel was sighted on 1st May 1937, on the southern bank of Aye Island.

Aye Island lies just 1 & 1/2 miles off the west Burmese coastline in the Gulf of Martaban.

Given the lack of sightings after Rangoon, the finding of the surviving wheel, the contemporary work by Jack Hodder and later work by Ted Wixted in regards to damaged trees on Aye Island, I would have thought that has effectively led the “official history” to link the loss with some type of incident with trees on the Island.

It is conjecture as to if a forced landing was being attempted on the island, or if the tree strike was simply an unfortunate circumstance of darkness, low flying altitude, and the only bit of hard ground sticking up in the sea for miles around.

Aye Island has a promenant hill with a summit rising 122 metres or 406 feet above the surrounding sea leve on the south end of the island with a cliff and sheer drop into the ocean, Jack Hodder is also recorded as having found a few fragments of aluminium on the southern shore of the island near where the wheel was found.

Studies of the wheel when recovered apparantly suggested it had been sitting motionless at a depth not exceeding 15M on a muddy bottom for some time, to allow shellfish growth on it during the 2 years since the crash and its discovery, it was assumed tidal action had eventually caused it to break free from the wreck and float ashore.

If this object in the sea is proven to be the remains of the Altair and is in close proximity to Aye Island, it will simply confirm the commonly held history, but be unlikely to explain the cause of the tree strike?

It is a mystery worth the effort of searching and resolving, the location of a radial engine by sonar would seem a reasonable expectation if the search area around the east of Aye Island is not too large, and that the depths are not to great?

Of course the wreck may have floated for a period of time, and therefore drifted away from the island if indeed a tree strike was involved, or the aircraft could have ditched quite unrelated to the island, but the tree damage seems to be a reliable report by two seperate expeditions, and therefore strongly suggests the aircraft sits close to the island.

Of particular interest is that Davis’ book shows on page 150 that the retractable undercarriage of the Altair consists of a number of tubular bracing frames, all of which could be described to form triangular shapes, but one set sitting behind the main wheel seems directly formed by equilateral triangles?

I am willing to believe the wreck could now be found, and look forward to confirmation.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Pondskater,

I took a bit of licence comparing your calendar year staff numbers with financial year visitor levels, and obviously made a transcription error as well.

It would seem that despite the absolute increase in staff numbers, the quantity of staff to support the two sites based on visitation levels has actually reduced by 12% over the 2003 to 2008 window based on numbers are available in this thread?

One small error – in my earlier post I did not have the 2007 visitor figures – I’ve had another look through their Annual Report for that year and still can’t find it. The figures we have (as listed earlier) are:

2001 – 124 (100%)
2002 – 133
2003 – 141
2004 – 155
2005 – 169
2006 – 168 (135.5%)
2007 – ???
2008 – 182 (146%)
These are staff at end of March in each year

The National Cold War Exhibition at Cosford opened in February 2007

So:
……………..VISITATIONS……………..STAFF …………….VISITORS TO STAFF
……………..Total…% of 03/04……Total….% of 03/04….Ratio……% of 03/04
2003/04:..414918…..100%………….155……100%…. ……2676/1…..100%
2004/05:..526834…..127%………….169……109%…. ……3117/1…..114%
2005/06:..470815…..113%………….168……120%…. ……2802/1…….90%
2006/07:..516235…..124%…………..???……???%… . ……???? /1…..???%
2007/08:..601624…..145%………….182……129%…. ……3305/1…..119%

I hope that is right – it’s late and I’m packing to move house so haven’t got the time in the morning

Based on your revised numbers in my table format, the staff “reduction” over that period 2003 – 2008 is actually worse than my 12% and is more like 19% or nearly 1 in 5 staff.

James,

The visitation and staff statistics can support or expose the claims of staff shortages, but cannot confirm if they are effectively and appropriately placed across all the tasks and two sites.

It would seem however that despite a real growth in staff numbers of 29% over that 2003 – 2008 period, the growth in visitations, particularly at Cosford has far outgrown those staff numbers and left a net deficit of 19%, which could be expected to be noticed in some form or other customer experience on one or both sites?

Assuming the rapid increase in visitors (doubling) at Cosford has resulted in the majority of new staff being placed there, as well as the possible re-allocation of staff from Hendon, it may explain poor maintenance of signage, and reduced opening times of certain Hendon exhibitions due to staff shortages on that site?

Again I’m not in a position to comment on the actual and current visitor experience at either site.

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Smiles,

Having noted the roasting issued to another poster from this side of the world, I’m certainly not planning to enter this debate with opinions or claims of informed position on such facts, but I have found it interesting to read the concerns of those who are regularly and recently visiting the museum, and a lot of seemly valid points have been made in this thread so far, and I therefore have some questions I would like to pose?

One that isnt clear to me at least, is the relationship between the RAF Museum Cosford, and RAF Museum Hendon, I note they are co-branded and share the same website and I have always assumed they are managed under the single board and same Director responsible for Hendon, and I havent noticed that issue coming out strongly in the debate above?

If that assumption is correct??

> Is it possible the increases in staff reported in Pondskaters post of nearly 50% from 124 in 2001 to 182 in 2008 reflects an increased public access and display at Cosford with the opening of the cold war exhibition and further buildings to place more of that collection under cover and on public display? and restorations and display preparations for that site, or even two sites, rather than just indicating surplus staff at Hendon?

> Is it possible that the management focus, financial and staff investment has largely been at Cosford to bring it up to a higher standard and that Hendon has suffered as a consquence? at least during that focus of effort and investment on Cosford?

I understand Hendon has always suffered lower attendances than Duxford due to that latter sites ability to swell attendances with monthly fly-ins etc, but does any one know the comparitive visitation levels of Cosford and Hendon?

> Is it a simple matter of the management placing their current efforts into a venue delivering more of their “sales” or visitations?, or a business plan that actively intends it to do so?

In particular I dont see similar complaints of lighting, customer service performance, reliable public access etc about Cosford, so assuming it is the same Management team and Board it would seem they are capable of satisfactory outcomes (and if so, perhaps deserving of that being acknowledged?), and are simply yet to turn their attention back to the original site to ensure both products are at their optimum and same standard?

Perhaps if they are both under the same management, the best way to encourage serious consideration of your concerns and engage in meaningful discussion is to first contrast the two sites in terms of their product performance? so as to acknowledge apparant satisfaction with the Management’s achievements at Cosford, but to encourage matching efforts and achievements at Hendon?

Obviously if my assumptions above are incorrect and there is a more complex management and financial structure in place resulting in different management outcomes?, then I would be pleased to understand the actual relationship between Hendon and Cosford?

smiles

Mark Pilkington
speaking on behalf only himself, and his very un-informed opinion on this particular matter.

there’s one at the raaf museum

We have two HS748’s preserved in Australia,

A10-601 msn 1601 preserved/cocooned at the RAAFM Point Cook as per Mark12’s photo above.

N15-709 msn 1709 preserved externally complete with dummy engines with
Australian Aviation Museum Bankstown.

photo on airliners.net by David Sommerville http://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia—Navy/Hawker-Siddeley-HS-748/0940549/M/

also Cockpit of A10-604 msn 1604 is also apparantly with Bankstown.

regards

Mark Pilkington

And another thing……..

Mark P, I would have used the remains of the bulldog as the basis for a rebuild project, assumed the identity by using a few genuine parts.

I would far prefer to see a Bulldog flying, that have a collection of rotting wood and rusty parts sitting in the corner of a museum (RAAF or other)…… besides I think we could have had both (a pile of old bits and a rebuilt aeroplane) and there would have been history (both modern from the rebuild and old from the original aeroplane) – the best of both worlds.

I love reading about old aeroplane digs, I love reading about rebuild projects, I love reading aviation history.

cheers
Ross

Ross,

there was few if any parts that could have been reused, the ribs/spars were all rusted enough to prevent re-use due to dimensional limits without dealing with possible metal fategue from previous bush fires, about the only part suitable for re-use was a wind generator bracket/casting from the lower wing panel, and I dont think that really constitutes transfer of identity and provenance.

The Bulldog has quite complex rolled, folded and rivetted structure for both the spars, and fuselage “tubes”, I dont think it would be viable to undertake re-construction to original design, especially for a one off, particularly as I understand not all the drawings survive.

We have two originals on static display, albeit one rebuilt from a crash, while a full size replica is underway in the USA which should capture most of the essential elements of the Bulldog, but using a different engine and welded steel tube fuselage.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85754&highlight=bulldog

Having seen pictures of his previous project of a Bristol Fighter Replica, I have no doubt his Bulldog will look the part.

It would be better to encourage Ed Storo in the USA to document his replica design and make it available to others for additional replica’s, even the possibility of one with an airworthy Jupiter? if one can be sourced, than to embark on a “restoration” based on A12-7, or worse what would really be a replica claiming to A12-7 simply because it shared the same hangar floor as these original parts.

Its interesting we are talking about documenting the excavation and recovery of wrecks, what is also required is a standard for documenting the re-use of parts and their source identities in “restorations” and “recreations”, but that topic has already been done to death.

Not everything is suitable for static restoration, let alone airworthy restoration, and I think my “Bulldog” was beyond that point. But I do agree had this been used as the basis of such a project nearly all of the original material would have remained left over.

My concern was that it would be binned to dispose of its “duplicate” existance, to imply it had been re-used, rather than preserved and displayed as the historic artefact that it is, the third most substantial surviving remains of a Bristol Bulldog, and the only surviving remains of the 8 that served in Australia with the RAAF.

Now if we can get Ed to base his Bulldog in Australia I would be pleased to see it wear A12-7’s colours and number, without the need to suggest it is the original.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Well, yes. If you do the job, do the job properly. I think we can agree (I hope) that people stealing stuff from sites either ancient or aircraft accidents are both acting selfishly and removing data that limits the historical record. Removing items and not sharing the results in an appropriately structured, way is on the same line, if well intentioned.

I do think “doing the job properly” requires first to define what the “job is”?

I am guilty of recovering a wreck without measuring, taping and recording its exact configuration as it sat in the bush.

I am also guilty of recovering a wreck without permission from the appropriate authorities.

On those two items of evidence I could stand accused of stealing stuff and removing data that limits the historical record, however I can say my actions werent intended to be selfish?

The subject was the mortal remains of RAAF Bristol Bulldog A12-7, that crashed in 1936 in Victoria, and other than its engine and instruments being recovered at the time, lay there for nearly 60 years with various parts being souvenired or damaged by visitors or fires until it became overgrown and largely forgotten and hidden from sight.

I tracked it down from a magazine story and enquiries with the park ranger as the location of the aircraft wreck on “Aeroplane Road”, which yielded blank expressions? and puzzlement?, but at least the helpful contact details of retired rangers who “may know something about it”.

I discovered the sad remains, and recovered them – without any formal approval, to undercover storage in 1992, and while withstanding approaches from parties interested in acquiring the parts as the basis of intended replica’s or other outcomes, waited patiently for the RAAF Museum to eventually accept my repeated offers of donation, which finally occurred in 2004.

The parts were donated with a dossier of the recovery, ie my photos, and a map of the recovery location, along with copies of the wreck report and photos supplied to me by the surviving pilot, and details of local stories of the communities involvement in the wreck, so I did eventually pass on what ever data I had amassed.

I could have left the recovery to experts, perhaps the staff of the RAAF Museum.

However had that been notified in 1992, it may not have survived the 12 years it took me to get it finally accepted for donation by the museum, if it hadnt spent that further 12 years under cover rather still rotting in the bush, during which yet another bush fire had passed through the crash site.

Obviously there was some reluctance of the RAAF Museum to take the donation over that 12 year period, primarily due to lack of storage space, (I was willing to store it until they had space so it wasnt a problem) but its long term future is now in their hands to preserve and conserve, or cull?.

My “job”, role or intention in all of that was purely to recover it and place it in the location I felt was most appropriate to achieve its long term preservation. (I had the opportunity to donate it to the museum at Moorabbin to which I am now more closely associated, but felt the RAAF Museum to be the most appropriate from collection relevence and resources.)

Mine wasnt a “dig” as all of the parts were on ground level, but any wreck recovery can be destroying details of the crash, or alternatively recording the details “as found” regardless of its above, or below ground status.

This can be applied to wrecks consisting of shattered parts, or near complete airframes recovered for restoration such as Swamp Ghost, or the RAAF Museum’s Hawker Demon, Supermarine Walrus, or multiple A20 Bostons, all of which were wrecks, and most crash sites.

In my particular case I could have spend hours and days recording the parts in situ, (which I did in a minor way with my camera) but the wreck had been previously disturbed, and a detailed accident report and photos of the wreck at time of original pilot rescue and recovery exists, along with the official report into the crash, however my primary interest was recovery, as was the focus of the other examples above.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=31958&highlight=bristol+bulldog

My main focus was not crash or wreck archaeology, but simply to recover and preserve these rare remaining artifacts of an important type in RAAF history, and certainly not to undertake an autopsy of the crash site.

I suspect there are many wreck site recoveries in the UK that are focusing on part recoveries rather than forensic analysis of the wreck and its impact trajectory. I personally dont have a problem with this, unless the wreck site is of particular historical importance and worthy of a proffessional survey and inspection, surely this assessment/decision should be made at the MOD as part of the issueing of the dig permit to begin with?

For most other wrecks, which hopefully have had the pilot remains recovered at the time, the need to document the recovery in my mind depends on the level of the material surviving and the real value of the “insitu” information if it was painstakingly recorded.

Obviously if the wreckologist franternity are going to claim to be undertaking true archaeology, then it does have some proffessional standards and methods to apply.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Excellent news, congrats to all concerned.

The Mossie has been my number one favourite since growing up with a Mossie canopy as a home made cockpit plaything, my brothers, friends and I did many missions smiles, and I gained a great affection for the type.

Its a shame only one of the FBVI models have been preserved in the UK, (and for that matter now no TIII’s) but great work by the “Mossie Museum” to acquire the fuselage and then the Israeli wing to bring TA122 and the type back from the brink, I look forward to seeing it up close one day.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

As far as i was aware it had been sold to ‘someone’ in Australia, and was going to be completed to as near as damn it flying condition before export. Apparently the spares situation for Beau’s is less of a problem over there.

Feel free anyone to shoot me down if i’m wrong..

I understand you are correct Wyvernfan

Regards

Mark Pilkington