Warbird Information Exchange

justin, welcome!! regards, tom friedman

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Col Rohr,
Hi there. Did not realize i was so popluar.


Firstly, I do not recall having any contact regarding a Betty & F4U - please email me offline, with your email address, and I will be happy to review your message. I can tell you that I would never write 'shut up' to any email. I dont think that it is a betty wreck, but rather a Ki-49 Helen that you are speaking about (its wings were removed & reportedly scrapped). You are right that many people call this wreck a 'Betty' and it certainly looks similar to one. This airplane is very historic, although not attractive to salvagers, and is a well known tourist site. I have had the honor of visiting this special aircraft in 1993, 2000 and 2003. Also, this is an example of a wreck we have photos of from 1944 - present, and sadly, all the damage to it is 'man made' starting with 5th Air Force parafrag bombs, and later to scrapping
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-49/3220.html

One quick note, I am flattered by the idea that PacificWrecks.com is regarded to have the power to protect these relics, and look forward to redoubling my efforts on these matters. But, on the same token, I am only one person and although I am proud to have contributed to small matters, you are right a larger effort is required. Col, I would welcome your or anyone's support in matters you have discussed.

Other countries or states (like Northern Territory, Australia) have enacted legislation to protect wrecks, or like you say to get a UNESCO to recognize some wartime artifacts as worthy of protection. From the research I have done, UNESCO would cover this, but the country that it resides must inact the legislation. Ofcourse, its worthwhile as such protects also will draw more tourists to such sites.


Scrapping
(a new topic here) Agreed, is the worst enemy, I agree. There is no way to stop it, aside from possibly greater education and apreciation of history. There is also grafitti on several wwii memorials in New Guinea, these are all sad happenings, as far as I am concerned.

Swamp Ghost
I would be happy to elaborate on my views about this. I dont know weather to be flattered or cursed to be in some way associated with this 'ghost'. This is a different topic, but just to offer a quick link with some historical info on this aircraft visit:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/swampghost/

Firstly, the Travis AFB proposal - (the best, fairest proposal ever offered for the recovery of that plane in terms of compensation, etc) was rejected by New Guinea goverment in 1987, and the effort / people involved dispanded. This, according to Travis AFB Museum that I have discussed with as well as members of that project team - Robert Gonzales.

I am in favor of tourism related to this wreck for the following reasons: a) I visted it myself and was an amazing experience b) numerous salvage attempts have been proposed, but none have come to completion for a variety of reasons c) due to the tremendous costs, dangers and possible damage caused to the wreck, i feel better to leave it there.

My 6+ years of research on this aircraft will culminate in a DVD, if anyone is interested. Any proceeds, if any, will be donated to the PNG Museum and local landowners because I believe in tourism. I only decided to make a publication about this topic last year when I discovered new information about this wreck's wartime history and after visiting it myself. Here is a link with details: http://www.TheSwampGhost.com

Bendix Turret - this turret has been submerged for nearly 63 years, so i have been unable to observe it myself. I would have to study its composition and probably others can comment if it is likely to still be intact. (what parts are metal vs. aluminum, etc) We do have photos of what this turret looked like from Boeing, and also, will have to check the National Air & Space Museum's B-17D Swoose if it has a turret.

I have been amazed that over the years of interest in the topic of wrecks have been surprised to discover controversy related to many of these wrecks (because of recovery/restoration interests). My goal with Swamp Ghost was to research this amazing aircraft's history. I have had the honor to speak with many involved with past recovery attempts, and all the veterans who once flew this bomber. Some have declined to be interviewed, but I have turned over every stone or at least tried to contact everyone with any known involvment. Most of the salvage attempts were proposed and failed before I began researching this aircraft (around 1999).

There are few/no grass fires in that part of PNG, as even in the dry season the area is a wetlands / swamp. And, the turret is inside / under the aircraft. What ever is left of it, will have been submerged in water. I have a few photos of it thur the clear water, that is the best i can offer about that. I am unsure if its guns are present or if they were removed when rediscovered in 70s, or what damage the outer turret sustaned when it force landed.

Grass Fires
This is an interesting topic. Certainly anything exposed to fires weakens or damages the wreck - firstly by removing any primer / paint. Some (post war) were even ignited due to fuel still in the tanks!

Naturally occuring fires happen in dry hot areas seasonally or on occasion. More commonly wreck near old airfields might be subjected to man made fires, as grass is not cut down but burned off reguarlly. Those that remain in grass areas are wrecks that are usually in more deteriorated appearance. Like the passage of time, its not that the fires will destroy these wrecks completely but certainly their condition is lowered.

Most recovered aircraft wrecks have been from grass areas, as they are easiest to get to. In the past, that is often a good reason for recovery, but I cant recall fear of fire damage being cited as a main reason, rather that grassy area is easier to access from the air, or transport something over.

Hope this helps, as always feel free to email me my contact info is in my profile.

Best,
- Justin

_________________
Pacific Wrecks
http://www.pacificwrecks.com

One more quick reply....

Bf-109 Park - I guess, that is a matter of opinion. I could offer other examples, but you get the point. I respect the value of museums & restoration, but also feel there is a place for such in situ relics, that is my opinion. This is a Warbird Recovery / Restoration Forum, and I am aware of that.

P-61 recovery
I had heard this rumor too. Currently I have not had any firm information - photos or USAAF serial numbers to confirm this, or even what location they came from. I look forward to hearing from anyone with such information, naturally will be credited. Certainly, the recovery of two 'new' P-61s would be exciting news. I have seen the P-61 at Mid-Atlantic Air Museum, that was an impressive site:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p ... 39445.html

Buried Aircraft
Another topic i enjoy. Certainly, some accounts are true about aircaft being buried, and dug up. THere are some locations, like Finschafen in New Guinea where planes were buried at the end of the war, and other rear-area bases where this reportedly happened. Specific to Finschafen, there have been some recoveries from there from 1980s - 2003. Anyone with additional information, i would be eager to hear about it. A number of partial P-40 hulks came from there over the years. I have never been to this place myself, but have some historical info on it at:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/ ... hafen.html


Here is one thing we can ALL agree on...
I, like everyone would love to dig up a pristine aircraft wreck from a forgotten dump, or discover the sealed hanger on the eastern front. My comments are simply from realities of having seen wrecks in jungles, which is equally romantic of a concept, but also, some realities and insights that are worth sharing.

Thanks,
- Justin

_________________
Pacific Wrecks
http://www.pacificwrecks.com

Actually, to the contrary, I'd say "Pacific wrecks" causes others to try harder to counter this "let em rust" thinking.

The best way to protect these old wrecks is to remove them, and rebuild them or put them in a museum.

If you say leaving them out in the jungle will protect them, grab a book on properties of metals and cite it.

Why do you insist on telling people to leave the planes out rather preserving them in the name of preservation? You have no basis to make this claim, and common sense and properties of metals says you are wrong.

Recover these aircraft or let your kids visit the dust or mud in a few years...it is childish to think that an aircraft like the Tufi B-17 is somehow going to last...

Chris,
HI there, last email from me i promise. Let me just clarify: If we are talking about fundamental wishes: yes, sure it would be great to have every relic or artifact recovered and in museums to be seen - I agree with you there!

Nor, is the purpose of PacificWrecks to advocate for leaving wrecks where they are, but FACT IS, some wrecks WILL BE in the jungle forever (see a, b, c below)

As we all know, sadly even established museums in the past have gotten 'rid' of stuff for various reasons, or even store relics outside due to lack of space/funds/ etc. Or even how seemingly popular restorations have to have miricals happen in funding, etc to get completed.

What I am talking about is everything else that is left... like it or not, we can all agree... some of the remaining wrecks out ther WILL be recovered. Others WILL NOT.

Leaving wrecks 'where they are' is certainly a viable choice, if you assume that NOT every wreck can or will be recovered for a variety of reasons... like: a) certain wrecks that are not feasible for recovery due to danger/cost/prohibitive nature of 'recovering' it. b) historical signifigance of an object or sensitivity to it (ie, USS Arizona) c) wishes of the country where it resides / laws.

I offer these points in the interest of discussion. I will happily debate these points with anyone, and look forward to LEARNING from the insights that you have to share.

Here is the good news... salvagers have done a good job, since the early 1970s when warbird movement arguably started many / most / the best airframes were all recovered, call those the 'A' quality wrecks. Many of these are in museums around the world, restored to fly, etc. But, even these 'A' quality wrecks took tremendous time/money/labor to bring to those states, we all can agree on that point.

We all love Warbirds, I am just offering the counterpoint observations here.

The Tufi B-17 is an amazing wreck, of course, some of its 'damage' occured from its ditching. I have not been to that wreck specifically, but a similar B-17, off Guadalcanal i did visit. It was partially salvaged during WWII (broken apart by USN salvage hooks). But, the undamaged wings, center fuse section were in remarkable condition.

Here is information on both wrecks for those not familiar:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2452.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2420.html

Ofcourse, recovering a wreck from water has other challenges associated with it, that we all know about.


RER,
I would be eager to get any information related to the P-61s, ideally USAAF serial number or photos who verify it to me. Encourage anyone assocated with that to contact me as its amazing news, if true.

Please enlighten me on the SNs of the aircraft you mentioned as destroyed by grass fires. i do not doubt those, just want to know which specifically we are talking about, please email me those off-forum. Also, like i said, what is definition of destroyed

Navy Policy - do you mean the rigid protection of sites , seizure of recovered wrecks & procicution of those involved? I think this is probably what you mean. Like everyone, i do not understand this law either. Certainly there must be a balance or perhapse involvement of US Navy in recoveries. Maybe some wrecks where people died should not be recovered, but agreed, for the SBD that went down in Great Lakes, was recovered & restored I do not understand.

Hopefully my points above will clarify about where my views are coming from. One other point... maybe others will disagree, and I can respect that... I think that it is a great tribute to visit a relic in the place where it 'rests'. This is an experience similar, but different than seeing a plane in an airshow or meticulous display.

Best,
- Justin

_________________
Pacific Wrecks
http://www.pacificwrecks.com

Justin:

Please keep up the discussion, however, some of the poits you mention appear contradictory. At first you say it's leave them where they are, but when push comes to shove it looks like you change your position on the matter.

Chris,

Yes, this is a complicated subject. Objectivily speaking, there is probably no single 'answer' to the point of recovery vs. leaving a relic. I certainly agree, that there are arguments & cases for BOTH recovery and restoration, that are 'right' thing to do, depending on circumstances, etc.
My personal view, is that most/all of the remaining wrecks, which are of poorer quality are probably better left where they are. That is my opinion. As stated, I am always eager to learn more from anyone. Whoever reads these posts can draw their own opinions from their own experiences, views and backgrounds.

All I hope is to encourage discussion about points that might not be considered, and possibly, some of you to agree that, at a minimum, this topic with no single answer.

Another interesting point, the wreckage of the Betty bomber Yamamoto died in... here is some info about it for those interested in the background of the wreck, etc:
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/g4m/2656.html

Is still where the war left it. The Japanese go to visit it to pay respect, and worked to have the wreck protected 'as is'. True, some pieces (seat, door, wing bit) were recovered by others, and are on loan to the Yamamoto Museum in Japan, but it is interesting that in this case, the Japanese are not interested in recovering the wreck. I have discussed this with members of the Japanese protection comittee. The area where the wreck is located was subjected to a cruel localized civil war, that left people poor and killed. Yet the wreck survived untouched. I asked the local people why, they said a) the war history is a large part of thier collective history & memory b) because they understand that this is an important wreck c) Every few weeks/months, Japanese (or other outsiders) come to visit the wreck, hire them as guides eat their food and visit with them, which they enjoy. True also, the local people occasionally charge an 'admission' fee that varys from USD$16 - 50 depending on size of group, etc but I have no problem with this, as the same way a restored airplane makes a museum or owner money, the local people have the 'right' to do the same.

If it was an American wreck with same historical signifigance would it still be there? I am not sure. I just cite this as an example of a wreck that by choice of Japanese is left there. Maybe, deep down inside they would like to recover the plane, but also I am told that visiting the wreck is considered important way of paying respect also. If anyone is interested in this specific topic, I will ask my friend to elaborate more on this topic or answer any questions people might have.

PS - for those of you that enjoy forums, also you might enjoy the PacificWreck.com forums.. its specific to WWII Pacific and has threads related to some of these topics. Like this board, it encourages posters with various veiwpoints who share an interest in these topics
http://pacificwrecks.com/forum/index.php

Best,
- Justin

_________________
Pacific Wrecks
http://www.pacificwrecks.com

From wreckchasing.com. Sms up the situation pretty well

What is Aviation Archaeology?

Aviation archaeology is the researching of, location of, and documentation of aircraft crashes and crash sites that occurred before 1970. The pursuit of aviation archaeology is often referred to as "wreck chasing." As the nation's population expands, we are often encroaching upon historic aircraft crash sites. It is the job of the wreck chaser to locate and document these sites before they are scavenged by recyclers or built upon by developers.

Who wreck chases? Every major aviation museum has, or is actively locating crash sites for potential exhibits or restorations. Institutions ranging from the National Air and Space Museum, the Air Force Museum, the National Museum of Naval Aviation to the Royal Air Force Museum and the Imperial War Museum have recovered aircraft from the wilds and either restored or displayed their finds. One of the most poignant examples of wreck chasing is located at the world-class Air Museum - Planes of Fame in Chino, California. The museum displays the only complete Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" bomber in a setting depicting the way it was located in the jungle. Many of the Grumman F4F Wildcats and Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers on display today were recovered from Lake Michigan years after training crashes sent them to rest on the murky bottom.

Many one-of-a-kind aircraft on display in museums owe their existence to wreck chasers. Outside the collections of the National Air and Space Museum and The Air Museum - Planes of Fame, the majority of surviving Japanese aircraft were recovered from their battlefield resting places and subsequently restored. The Sikorsky S-43 under rebuild at the Pima Air and Space Museum, Tuscon, Arizona, would not have survived had it not been for aircraft recovery pioneers such as Gary Larkins. Another fine example of wreck chasing is the P-38 Lightning that is today on display at the Hill Air Force Base Museum. This beautiful display was built from parts of a number of different wrecked P-38s by Ed Kaletta of KalAero in San Diego, California. A fine example of an aircraft recovered by wreck chasers and brought back to live by aircraft restoration artisans.

Documentation of a site often brings closure to families who have lost a loved one. Many soldiers, sailors, and airmen gave their lives while training or being transported in military aircraft. Location, preservation, and documentation of these sites is a national obligation. A number of wreck chasers have located crashed military aircraft and recovered identification tags and personal effects of aircrew. In turn, the wreck chasers have taken steps to ensure that these items are presented to the next of kin.

The U.S. Air Force and Navy both have aircraft recovery policies - each very different from the other.

GO GET THEM AND SAVE THEM


Back to Home Page

IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE AT LEAST ENOUGH STUFF RECOVERED TO ASSEMBLE AS MANY OF THE ONE OF A KINDA JAPANESE A/C FOR RESTORATION AND DISPLAY. THERE ARE VERY FEW JAPANESE A/C ON DISPLAY ANYWERE,MANY DONT EXIST AT ALL EXCEPT FOR THEIR JUNGLE RESTING PLACES.I DEAL WITH CORRODED ALUMINIUM EVERY DAY,SOME FROM FIRE DAMAGE,FRESH WATER AND SALT WATER,AND LAND RECOVERYS. THE ONE THING THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT IS WITHOUT STABLIZATION MOST ALL OF THESE RELICS FROM WW2 WILL BE GONE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.THE SCRAPPERS ARE THE WORST,BUT THE DETERIORATION FROM CORROSION IS CLOSE BEHIND.I AGREE THAT MOST OF THIS STUFF IS ONLY PATTERNS BUT AS WEVE SEEN IN THE PAST A COMPLETE A/C CAN BE REBUILT FROM WRECKAGE AND IN RETURN BE ENJOYED AND STUDIED BY FUTURE GENERATIONS.THE TIME IS NOW IF WE WAIT ONLY THE MEMORYS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MACHINES THAT BATTLED IN MANS GREATEST CONFLICT WILL REMAIN.THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER AVIATION SURVIVORS OF THAT TIME FRAME BUT ALMOST NO JAPANESE A/C.I FEEL THAT IT IS JUST AS SHAMFUL TO RECOVER THESE RARE ARTIFACTS AND THEN LEAVE THEM OUT TO ROT OR IN A UNRESTORED/UNSTABLIZED STATE,THIS DOES NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE PRESEVATION.THANKS MIKE

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

People,

I have bought into this argument at a very late moment, but may as well throw my two-bob's worth in. I'm not a metallurgist, but work in the technical division of a major fastener company and get asked this question at least once a week.

Aluminium passivates, which is to say that it forms an inert surface layer that - in most conditions - will not react with the surrounding environment and therefore electrochemical corrosion will not occur. However, if the environment is altered in certain ways, that inert layer can become active and immediately accelerate the corrosion process.

In most atmospheres Al is very tenacious, but reacts poorly when introduced to detergeants and acids because they cause deterioration of the oxide layer.

Hence, a B-17 lying in a tropical jungle will corrode at a different rate to that of a P-47 at the bottom of a lake. Therefore, I don't believe that there is any hard answer to the question of whether to leave them or recover them before they turn to dust. Note: the process of recovery may even speed the corrosion process because it is a change of environment.

Here's a thought from a third direction: why not recover them, but leave them for display in the country in which they are found. These wrecks are very much a part of their history as well. One precedent is the recovery of the Kookaburra, a Widgeon that crashed in the Australian outback whilst searching for Charles Kingsford Smith. It was recovered and is now displayed in Alice Springs in exactly the condition in which it was found. True, it would have been impossible to get it flying again, but any full restoration would not have reflected the Kookaburra's place in Australian history: a tragic ending for two brave aviators.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

I too have come into this topic a little late. It sure is a complicated issue, with arguments, in my mind, both for and against aircraft recovery.

As with most WW2 aviation nuts, I began my interest with plastic model kits - building, painting and then usually destroying in some mock battle. Anyway, since then I have visited numerous air shows around Australia and been 'up close and personal' with many warbirds. Though this gives me a thrill, I know that the best experiences with aircraft I've had, are walking to and then going over a wreck site - taking only photos.

The thing that bothers me with restoration is when an individual or organisation begins hoarding aircraft parts - locking them away in a hangar somewhere. Then building a composite aircraft from pieces from these recovered aircraft as well as newly built parts, then pass it off as a famous Ace's mount - with the original identities being lost to the ages. Whether this is just an oversight, or done for other reasons, I don't know.

Primarily I consider myself a historian - a desk jockey - not an aircraft engineer, pilot etc and have no aspirations of ever owning my own aircraft. I see wreck sites in Papua New Guinea as being a sort of battleground - like Omaha Beach, Kokoda, Gallipoli etc etc - and am currently saving to one day (soon) visit the country to visit these battle and wreck sites.

However, as a volunteer at the Australian War Memorial, I see a restored P-40, Zero, Mosquito, Spitfire, Sea Fury and Mustang at least once a week. Though these to me are every day items, I do see what they can do for other visitors who are not as lucky to see them so often - and I can understand the potential for these aircraft to teach others about what happened.

So as you can probably see, I'm a fence sitter leaning towards pro-rust-in-peace. I'd be happy to comment on anything above, so feel free to post here, the PWD Forum, or e-mail me directly.

All the best,

_________________
Daniel Leahy

PACIFIC WRECK DATABASE
http://www.pacificwrecks.com

PACIFIC GHOSTS
http://www.pacificghosts.com

Let's suppose a P-40 ace gets 4 kills in his plane; then they replace the tail, and he gets 1 more kill to become an ace in the same plane.

Is it an aces plane? They replaced the tail before he got 5 kills. I suppose the plane is an unauthentic composite? I suppose the tail must be removed and placed by itself in a museum, and the forward fuselage should be placed in a separate museum as a four kill airframe. Almost sounds kind of snobish

Kind of like how Rolls Royce has to make sure the slots on the heads of all their engine screws have to line up. Really snobish

It kind of reminds me of how folks drink tea, and that they have to hold out their pinky when the drink it to be proper. Also, to be a real snoooob, you have to drive a mercedes to the golf course and shave your poodles. Come on, now get real.


Chris

If the tail is replaced in the period of THAT history..then it's "his" 5-kill
machine with a HISTORY of that fix, and his honours. If 60 yrs later, the
tail, or whatever is replaced..then it is no longer the original aircraft,
but an original preserved for its intended display purposes using
current repairs..regardless if you did it with "actual" period materials! The originality begins to fade. The less you have of the ORIGINAL..the less you
have a "True Representative" of that history!!

As to the lining-up of screw slots...

Chris,
I hope in your lifetime..that you are able to experience the care of quality
and pride that has been the "stamp of excellence" for Rolls Royce! Superb
machines! Nickels, "setting edge-on the manifold"...perfectly balanced! I
cannot claim the same largesse...but when I strive for excellence, I
remember what I've observed. Scrutiny in all phases of the project!
Work coming from your favorite machinist..you detect for flaws. De-burr, chamfer, peen, lighten, harden..grind and measure..measure and grind.
Make it Breathe..Zapp-it..Life!! I've created Life!!!!Ad Nauseum!

Hylomar!...Wasn't this sealer/adhesive created specifically for the
extreme requirements of the RR machines?? Too bad Norton motorcycles
didn't realize that sooner...they wouldn't have leaked as bad!!!

And when you're all done...it's really a kick!!!..if someone notices thru
all the "glitter and shine" of carefully polished aluminium and paint....that
I "capped it off "..with aligned slots! Symmetry is more than skin deep!!!

I've seen your Harvard pics..you have a care for detail...but your talk suggests your in a rush. In time ,you'll realize that patience with people
as well with the machines...will get you thru the worst of times!
I ain't sayin' slow down..I'm just saying "realize what your moving thru"!!!
Listen and see where you are....things "glide" alot better when they're
polished.

Be ahead, above the headhunters! I'll wager,..one of these days, all your
Dzus fasteners will line-up!

sorry 'bout the sermon...but it is Sunday....

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

Wrong answer, I don't rush.

As for originality, people are too obsessed with the past. If you damaged the airplane, and used original parts today. It's in the repair manual. and that applies just as well today.

The plane discussed above with the tail replacement would not be the original 5 kill aircraft. The point is a repair done by the manual then is just as valid as a repair done today if it's done the same way.

Then your airplanes past and present are continous. It's all what you think about your plane or work, not what some historian dictates.