Boeing 314 "Honolulu Clipper" Recovery Project

[Rajay]

My folks came from Seattle to visit me this weekend and brought along an article from the Seattle Times (NW Monday local news, page B-1) about a Kirkland-based non-profit called Underwater Admiralty Sciences (UAS) that wants to raise money to fund a recovery effort for both of the two Boeing 314 Clipper flying boats that “still exist.”

By “still exist” they mean, at least in the case of the “Honolulu Clipper”, sitting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, 530 nm northeast of Hawaii – submerged under 18,000 feet of seawater. The other one that “still exists” is on the bottom of the North Atlantic somewhere, but they didn’t specify its location.

The “Honolulu Clipper” was the 1939 prototype of the Boeing 314 series. It carried registration number NC18601.

According to the article, the Honolulu Clipper was on its last scheduled voyage for the US Navy ferrying thirteen naval officers back from Hawaii to San Francisco when it lost power in both starboard engines. Fire broke out and they were forced to ditch in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The crew and passengers were rescued four hours later and salvage teams spent several days attempting to tow the Clipper back to Hawaii, but apparently the seas were too rough.

According to Wikipedia, the flight was part of Operation Magic Carpet, there were 26 Navy personnel aboard, and it went down 650 miles east of Oahu just before midnight on November 3rd, 1945. After sending a mayday, the crew maintained radio contact with the merchant tanker Englewood Hills, which found the aircraft and removed the passengers on the morning of November 4th. After the escort carrier Manila Bay arrived on the scene, it sent over aircraft mechanics, but they were unable to repair the engines at sea. The Manila Bay then attempted to tow the aircraft; but the tow line parted as the weather deteriorated. The seaplane tender San Pablo was assigned to tow the flying boat into port; but Honolulu Clipper was damaged in a collision with the tender on November 7th and intentionally sunk on November 14th.

This is where I really have to give UAS credit for undertaking an impossible mission. When the salvage effort was abandoned, they were forced to scuttle the big flying boat so that it wouldn’t be a hazard to navigation on the open seas. Instead of just opening some drains that it presumably had in its hull, they used it for target practice and shot it up with 1,200 to 1,300 rounds of “explosive” 20 mm ammunition!

What makes them (UAS) think that after being sunk like that and then spending the next 66 years in salt water at the bottom of the ocean there is anything left to raise?

Even so, you just gotta go with "God bless ‘em and good luck!"

[StangStung]

Interesting topic, and you may want to have a gander at this thread:

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=42660

[Rajay]

Sorry for the double post then. I must have missed the other one. It's title wasn't as clear and to the point as mine.

[StangStung]

I don't think anyone would fault you for it, I just wanted to point you to the discussion!

[Rajay]

Thanks, I do appreciate that.

[Pat Carry]

It would be a whole lot easier and cheaper to go after the remaining planes in Lake Michigan. The airframes would be in alot better shape I'll bet.

[Mike]

It would be a whole lot easier and cheaper to go after the remaining planes in Lake Michigan. The airframes would be in alot better shape I'll bet.

Yeah, but that misses the point entirely. You might as well say that it would be easier to drag a few aircraft out of the Boneyard (there are lots of S-3s there, for example) than go after the Michigan ones.

In reality, do we really need any more FM-2s or SBDs? Many museums already have examples on loan from the NMNA, so the types are well covered by displayed examples.

Clippers, on the other hand, are (so far) extinct............ I wasn't aware that there are any in Lake Michigan!

[Warbirdnerd]

Sorry for the double post then. I must have missed the other one. It's title wasn't as clear and to the point as mine.

Made the same mistake you did and my post got merged with the original one with the vauge subject line...

[Cornerlot]

Anything else on this effort by some "French Recovery Team" ? Item says they saw in on "...June 14, 2012 the Honolulu clipper was spotted by the French Recovery Team FRT, with very little damage. Studies for recovery of the aircraft continue".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314

Multiple sources are repeating the same text, but it's original source is not given.

Steve

[Mark Allen M]

Interesting









The Honolulu Clipper being sunk by the San Pablo

The plane had got into trouble, landed at sea and the crew then radioed for help. Once rescued the captain of the ship decided that the seaplane would be a hazard to navigation so she was sunk.
Apparently she was so well built that ramming and shells were required to sink her.
The landing at sea happened Nov. 3, 1945, 650 miles east of the departure point at Honolulu. She was bound, as always, for San Francisco.
The Clipper was towed for several days but collided with the tender and was badly damaged, making her unsalvageable. The sinking was carried out Nov. 14, 1945.

[tom d. friedman]

what is the point of bringing up a spaghetti strainer from 18000 feet.. if mine gets stuck in my sink i'll call them. this group sounds like it has highly respectable credentials but their thinking & mind set shakes my confidence somewhat.

[CoastieJohn]

I noticed in the first pic the outboard engine is missing on the "starboard" side with the inboard engine smoked. In the other pics the smoked engine is on the inboard port side with the port outboard still attached. Plus the numbers are missing on the top of the starbord wings in some of the pics. I don't think these are the same aircraft. (Pacific vs Atlantic)??

[Mark Allen M]

Interesting observations, I would tend to agree with you these may be two different planes. Could also very well be the sun angle may be working in a couple of the images to block out the wing #'s, and by the 'smoke effect' are you suggesting the engine anti-glare? Actually if you look closely in photo one the wing #'s are indeed there. I now think it's the same plane after all.

[groundpounder]

I think that what might have happened is that the negative in the first picture got flipped over, hence the opposite image.

Edit: Upon further viewing it also appears that the top of the wing on the first picture has black paint on it while the other aircraft has numbers on its wing. It very well could be two different aircraft. The guns on the bow of that ship look awfully similar though as well as the location of the cannon holes in the bow and stern of the aircraft...in one side and out the other

[CoastieJohn]

Ya...pretty sure these are two different planes. The black walkway strip on top of the wing is pretty obvious, plus the missing engine.