I absolutely agree with Cees comments:
Regarding recovery of wrecks I would like to think that it’s best to recover those wrecks that have priority. Wich means IMHO that we should recover wrecks of rare or unique aircraft types to plug holes in collections. An example would be to recover as many Whitley or Stirling components so that a complete example can be reconstructed. There are plenty of unique types still out there and these deserve to be recovered instead of yet another of the mainstream types. But then again it all has to do with who is paying the bills and that’s the catch. They fancy a high profile type such as a Mustang or Spitfire instead of a Blackburn Shark. And who is interested enough in recovering a twin or fourengined aircraft (apart from the Canadian Hally) which increases everything problem by a third or fourth
I’m not so sure I fully agree with JDK when he states
There’s a sort of fascination with wreck hunting – it crops up again and again. But IMHO, it’s often a distraction from doing something cost-effectively worthwhile.
Take the York. DAS has spent decades rebuilding a complete airframe at DX, and yet a collection of large lumps in the back-woods of Canada is perhaps seen as a viable rebuild. Hmmm.
JDK is I know a strong supporter of the RAAFM as am I, I spent much of my youth and teenage years in the 1970’s helping out at the RAAF Museum long before the “Friends” existed, and recall that the rotten box full of steel tube frames recovered from bush fire ravished Tasmania @1978, or the badly crumpled and “wind/sand blasted” fuselage recovered from Horn Island a year later through the efforts of the then curator of the RAAFM W/O Bob Gould were laughed at as being worthwhile recoveries or restoration projects.
If it wasnt for Bob’s efforts to have them recovered, and later the volunteer efforts and dedication Ron Gretton and fellow volunteers those two aircraft the Hawker Demon, and Supermarine Walrus would not be sitting on static display in the museum collection today.
Were they cost effective??
I dont think the RAAF would have touched them let alone recovered them if the labour to be spent on them had been required to be paid for!
Were they worthwhile – in my opinion most definately.
Yet at the time two Hawker biplanes and two Seagull V/Walrus already existed on display in UK collections at the time with others under restoration, should have Australia and the RAAF Museum not proceeded with their local recoveries and restorations?
Is that an outcome JDK would have encouraged? then, or now? having seen the outcomes those very poor wrecks could become with time, and effort and materials? ( I am being cheeky as I understand the Walrus is JDK’s favourite)
It is a difficult question for anyone to answer conclusively, as to what wrecks should be recovered and which should be left to rot away? as not being viable or cost effective?
The Importance or justification is in the eye of the beholder, (or more correctly the benefactor) it would seem to me that if individuals have the funds to do so, they should be encouraged to recover and secure what ever they choose to, as long as war grave, property ownership and any local government limitations or approvals are respected.
if individuals wish to spend their time and money to drag a chunk of dead anson or bolingbroke fuselage from a farm in Canada and spend their weekends creating a static display item is that any different from grabbing a cockpit section from the local scrap dealer off a Vampire, Canberra or Hunter. and putting their efforts into that.
When should “we” stop encouraging the recovery of remanents of spitfire firewalls or P-40 crumpled cockpit sections that seem to attract lots of financially well off owners who can then fund the rebuild of these “economically writted off” wrecks into “brand new metal” aircraft “restorations” for us all to enjoy. The Firewalls or cockpit remanents themselves seem to be worthless, yet they grow into an identifiable and flying airframe of great value.
As many of you know I recently stepped in and privately purchased a derelict PBY, it has little relevance in its own right to Australia, or to the museum I am strongly associated with, (who has an original RAAF service airframe in much poorer condition in any case), it is not viable to restore it to airworthy condition, but it is very suitable for restoration as a museum static display. My own funds are being spent on the PBY, its my finances and decision to do so, its not the last of its breed, or historically important, but its my own business if I choose to save it from scrapping, regardless of its existance in downtown Texas, (or the wilds of Canada.)
The same can be said of many of the other wrecks in Canada or elsewhere, not all of them are of rare types or significant heritage value themselves, and their “recovery” will be up to the efforts of individuals or groups who make a private/personal decision to invest their own time and money, whereas a few specific types such as the York, Stirling etc seem worthy of a wider international effort and support.
Yet even where there appears to be univeral support for a wrecks recovery and restoration it is still hard to translate that into financial capability and successful outcome, as My own efforts in 2005 to publicly fund raise for the acquisition and recovery of Avro Lincoln RF342 to Australia amply demonstrated.
Yet the ambition and efforts to do it were rewarded later through private purchase with the support of a benefactor, with whom’s support it would not now have been possible.
If we are down to 3 complete Lincolns, or 2 complete Yorks worldwide, and there is sufficient parts left today to add another survivor to either list in a collection or part of the world that lacks a display of that relevent type, is it wrong to encourage those efforts? I guess my opinion on that is already well known.
I think Government and NGO Collections should be encouraged to pursue relevent airframes to add to their collections, from either trades, purchases, or even wreck recoveries as their resources and capabilities might allow.
Aircraft wreck recoveries do not need to be commenced as a restoration project immediately to proove their cost effectiveness, look at the many airframes MARC/Tallichet recovered from PNG in the 1970’s and the long delays to see many of those move from open air storage “as is” to become static or flying restorations, – the RAFM Beaufort is a product of that ambitious recovery project, so too I understand is the RAFM P40.
I understand there is a substantial and intact wreckage of a Lockheed Hudson on the Gander flightpath in Canada? currently there are a total of 6 in the world, with one formerly? on a plyth in newfoundland? 1 in NZ, 3 in Aust and 1 in the UK, it would seem worth surveying that wreck for recovery? and display within Canada or the USA in an appropriate collection a worthwhile outcome to encourage.
Of interest to me is the apparant “brand new” abandoned Bristol Freighter on Ruud’s website sitting in its own little Canadian lake, seemingly awaiting the day when a collection in the UK puts in place a long term strategy to recover it, and return at least one example to display in the UK, of course there are 12 examples surviving world wide and an example from another museum might be more cost-effective, but theres something to be said for “environmentalists and recycling” smiles.
I am not sure I can agree with J Boyle’s views
I
believe a mojor point here is getting museums to give up an aircraft to make it flyable. I don’t think Hendon, the IWM, the NASM or MNUSAF would let go of a Lanc or Lib to anyone. Witness what happened to “Black 6”. I’d love to see a Liberator in the BoBMF…but I don’t see Cosford or the IWM/AAM giving up theirs. At the end of the day the role of most museums is to preserve aircraft, not fly them.
Aircraft preservation isnt all about flying them, static display of complete aircraft in museums is just as important. There is a very significant cost to restoring an aircraft just for static, an even much higher cost to restore it to flying condition, and an ongoing bank loan to keep it flying, as per FIFI.
I am not sure its viable to argue for the recovery of a crashed B24, and hope it can be restored sufficiently for trade to a museum with an existing complete eample just to free up a complete a/c from another museum to return to the air.
I dont think there is a money trail that justifies that? it would be probably simplier for the “proponent” of another flying B24 to walk up and just pay “significant” cash for a museum example, and spend the “rest” of his fortune getting that complete example back into the air, than to fund a recovery, and a 10 year restoration of a wreck to be fitted out to static display standard, and then “convince” the Museum to “trade down” – then to finally fund the airworthy restoration of the original Museum display a/c.
Such “proponents” would be few and far between, and in the form of people like Mr Weeks, or Mr Collings, who already each have a flying B24 project in anycase, and I am sure if Mr Allen wants one flying he will find one for sale somewhere at “some” price he could still afford?
There wouldnt seem to be many other financially capable “proponents” for such a project?
But if there are apparantly still significant B24 airframes in Canada, Aleutian Is, Asia/Indonesia etc that are worthwhile recovery projects for static display, then ideally they will be targetted for survey and possible recovery / static restoration .
I think the issue for these wrecked airframes is that they are NOT viable airworthy restoration projects to attract the interest of a Mr Allen or Mr Weeks type collector, and instead will need to be on the shopping “type” list of a major government collection or well sponsored NGO public collection for static display, not motivated by cost effectiveness but by collection relevence and “holes.”
Without these ambitious recovery “efforts”, projects like “Swap Ghost” would remain in their Swamps to rot way.
Not all of these wrecks or hopeful recoveries are physically viable, or within the capability of the individuals or collections that might aspire to them, but there are so many recoveries that have seemed over the top yet have delivered impressive results – “Glacier Girl” etc that others should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Many of these wrecks perhaps have another 10 to 50 years of viability, depending on their geographic locations and remoteness, exposure to the elements and salt environment, we should be encouraging at least surveys and documentation of viable recoveries.
Having said all of that, I do agree whole heartly with JDK’s most important point:
My point is just that we aren’t doing anything like 100% at looking after the aircraft we currently have in museums and (open) storage. If someone (anyone) really wants to ‘save’ an aircraft just volunteer at your local museum.
and echo his statement that the quickest and best way to shift from the armchair or behind the computer screen to “save” an aircraft is to visit, join and assist in your local aviation museums in their efforts to look after what they already have.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
