Whitley_Project I would say a salt water recovery is still worth it depending on condition and what you want to do with it afterwards – there will always be some useable parts as probably the basis of an identity.

Don’t forget, there are still many extinct types – marine recovery followed by difficult and expensive conservation is the only option for many of them.

Elliott, I do agree

With 60 years now being the period of salt immersion of these dumpings and other wrecks, I think the salt water recovery days of WW2 a/c iare coming to end, unless you are desperate for patterns to recreate an extinct type such as the Skua or Devastator.

There have been some exceptions to the rule, the P40L recovered from the beach in Italy appears to be in surprisingly stable condition, and was obviously well worth the effort of recovery and saved an extinct sub-type, without even the need to use it as patterns?

The current project to recover and preserve a Sunderland mark I is a good case study to see how much will really survive the recovery?

The holy grail of a complete Stirling being recovered and restored will probably justify the effort of still looking and hoping.

But the recent recovery condition of the Skua shows that these materials are deteriorating over time, and for most of the dumped/ditched or wrecked aircraft the clock must be at the proverbial 5 minutes to midnight?

In regards to the Corsairs etc dumped off Australia, workshops seem to be solving the process of “recreating” rare parts such as wing centre-section spars etc, and already have enough patterns without fishing out more, in very poor condition, and I dont think many of these dumped parts are suitable for re-use.

In regards to fishing out a wreck for its identity, I do think we need to think through this habit of finding a corroded rivet, assigning an identity to it, throwing it in the scrap bin, dragging out a replacement and claiming we are now restoring the original complete aircraft. The Corsair cockpit in the photo’s above would seem to yield little other than a shadow on the workshop floor.

If we use jigs and patterns from other restorations we could “rebuild” it in 2008 metal, but then have we really “restored” it, or have we “recreated” it.

If we can do that from existing jigs and patterns and use of other spare parts, why fool our selves and posterity by recovering the wreck to claim its identity?

I much prefer acknowledging the “receation” for what it is, like the F#F, ME262, Oscar and FW190 limited productions of recent times.

I do support trying to recover the Devastator in the Marshall Islands before there is nothing left, and trying to stabilise and preserve as much as possible.

And if its possible to “restore” and fabricate a complete example even better.

regards

Mark Pilkington

OP mentioned that some, according to legend, might still be in packing crates (maybe not aircraft, but engines and other parts).

Does anyone have another take on that story?

I would belive it possible, but very unlikely. We all know that tons of stuff was discarded after the war, but there were also quite a few surplus sales.

The material dumped off Australia is understood primarily to be RN FAA aircraft (and perhaps obviously some RNZAF? types that may have been intended to operate with the RN FAA in the Pacific?) lendlease material, which is “lost during the war” did not have to be returned?

There are photos of the aircraft stored on shore in Australia before being dumped, they were primarily complete aircraft but there may also have been NOS airframe and engine spares dumped in the same process.

Rumours have suggested P40’s, P51’s and Spitfires in boxes sitting in the same dumps, but there does not seem to be any substance of unaccounted airframes in the RAAF inventory that would line up with those types being included in the dumping. The photo’s I have seen were all US and UK built Carrier types, I assume the UK examples may have simply been dumped as a downsizing of the RN inventory, rather than lendlease payment related?

In anycase, anything in wooden boxes is likely to be as salt impregnated as all the other airframes, and of questionable recovery value.

With 60 years now being the period of salt immersion of these dumpings and other wrecks, I think the salt water recovery days of WW2 a/c iare coming to end, unless you are desperate for patterns to recreate an extinct type such as the Skua or Devastator.

There have been successful salt water recoveries and preservation for ongoing static display, but I am not sure future recoveries will yield structures capable of stabilisation for static display, let alone airworthy restoration?

“I think the bottom has long rotted out of this barrel, and its well and truely beyond any further scraping”

regards

Mark Pilkington

most likely Hollandia PNG then.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Thanks for those Mortmer

regards

Mark Pilkington

Scott?

Any more information available at the museum on the engine or aircraft it was fitted to?

My research has identified the aircraft was built by Howcraft Carriage Company of Oxford Road West Hartlepool at a cost of £200.00.
The aircraft was designed by a Captain Joseph Donovan and on the day of the scheduled flight it was he who attempted to fly the aircraft.

The attempted flight occured in late October 1909, thereby an important attempt at rivalling S F Cody for first to fly in the UK?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi Cees

This is an interesting point that you have raised.

Just sticking to the remit of the RAFM at Hendon for a moment, and their wish to display as many examples of types operated by the RAF, then there are several notable ones absent.

Just off the top of my head here are some 40’s era types:

Extinct:
Supermarine Spiteful
Westland Welkin
Westland Whirlwind
Bristol Buckmaster
Bristol Buckingham
Vickers Wellesley
Short Stirling

Partially extinct:
DH Hornet
Bristol Brigand
The trouble is many of these now extinct types were few in number in the first case, and many did not see combat use. This second point really drives the desireability of recreating a type from scratch. A post war type with little or no combat use ends up an interesting footnote in history, with little money to realise a professional recreation.

Your idea of recreating a Supermarine Spiteful is a sound one based on some of the common parts that could be gleamed from the spitfire industry, and the wing of the Supermarine Attacker could be measured in detail, but the desire and money to do it would have to be considerable. If they really wanted to do this I suggest they could sell or trade one of their spare (stored) spitfires to raise the funds, but I cannot see this happening at the moment. To be honest, they could do exactly the same to raise funds to restore the Halifax properly instead. I bet you’d support this more! 🙂

smiles “partially extinct” is that like being 1/2 pregnant?
(sorry David – I just found that amusing)

I think the issue of National Collections “recreating” or “reproducing” airframes should be limited to airframes or types of significance, and not simply to create a “missing” type in a series etc for enthusiasts like a model plane collection.

I am not in a position to speak authoritively on the significance of the Spiteful in English Aviation Heritage but I would have thought there would be far higher priorities of “missing” types in the RAF Museum collection or even distributed National Collection than the Spiteful? and in that way I would agree with David Burke.

Even the work David Collins is doing to create a DH Hornet “Reproduction” is probably outside the focus of the RAF Museum as a type of importance to them, (not in any way undermining my appreciation for what David is trying to do), ie would they ever commence the project David has undertaken?

Where a “partially extinct” (smiles) type such as the Hornet or Skua can allow a composite or “recreated” example to be created from original sourced parts and patterns, that effort should either derive from the types significance to a collection (and their ability to undertake it) or be left to those enthusiasts who are willing to take on the “impossible” driven by their own interest/obsession in the type and capability to do so. (Glynn Powell’s Mosquitos probably fit into the same mould – if you pardon my pun – smiles)

In the end a “recreated” Spiteful may not provide much more benefit to the RAF Museum than a Full Scale mockup would? and would consume far more funds and effort, for the same external display outcome?

Perhaps like the replica MB6 in the USA, the Spiteful will attract a warbird investor to fund a flying “recreation”? but again thats likely to be driven by a personal interest or obsession, and lots of disposable income.

It would seem a close approximate might be created from a P51 Wing and a new build fuselage started with the Spitfire fuselage frame kits that seem now readily available?, and capable of being registered and operated in the US in the Experimental category?

I think David Collins hits it on the head in his comment above

“This second point really drives the desireability of recreating a type from scratch. A post war type with little or no combat use ends up an interesting footnote in history, with little money to realise a professional recreation.”

In the end a composite “Spiteful” may not really be an accurate “Spiteful”, so if not intended to fly, why not simply produce an accurate fibreglass FSM at much lower cost and effort? or why not leave it as a type to dwell in photos and books?

I personally would prefer to see a sympathic restoration of the Halifax proceed over such a Spiteful “recreation” outcome, or a “Recreation” of more historically important types such as a Stirling (fuselage?) or the current Hampton projects.

A case in point is the Halifax composite recreation “Friday the 13th” at Yorkshire, an excellent project undertaken by those enthusiasts, but perhaps a project that the IWM or RAFM would never have contemplated having a role or place in their own collections?

Is it really an authentic/accurate Halifax perhaps not, and in its case does it really matter?
(again not intending to diminish appreciation of what has been achieved)

That project has delivered a full size complete “Halifax” on display for educational and experience values, even if not perfect for historical and technical research purposes.

The Halifax is a very important type in aviation history, and at the time it was an extinct type. In fact in part it continues to fill a gap left by the non-restoration of the RAF Museum’s example, perhaps lessening the likelihood of that airframe being “restored” rather than “conserved”, as a restored “FSM” can be viewed elsewhere?

In Australia one day I am sure someone will seek to place a “CA-15” on static display, should that be a frame, skin and rivet “reproduction”, or simply an externally accurate FSM?

I personally will be more than satisfied to see the latter.

regards

Mark Pilkington

A bit of an ‘in joke’ Rearwin Cloudster G-EVLE gave up its engine (before restoration)

thanx for clearing that up – smiles

I assume its Melvyn’s?

regards

Mark Pilkington