Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:32 pm
I am all for aircraft recovery, and restoration regardless of how it's done so long as the aircraft is treated well, and the human element, whatever that may be, is treated with proper respect. I am all for recording the story behind a crash and of the crew members involved.
However, I do know something about archeology, and a lot about the scientific method. Virtually none of the details that have been used in this thread constitute true archeology, or archeological practices.
Having said that, I also do not believe that this is truly necessary for almost any of the aircraft crash-site investigations/recoveries that are conducted by warbird enthusiasts. Recording a story of what happened is just great, and I am all for it, but that is only one small facet of archeology and the manner in which it is performed by aircraft recovery teams rarely comes close to an accurate portrayal of events as it would with the scientific methods used by archeologists. Just wanting it or thinking it to be so does not make it so.
With respect to the statement that archeologists have to be present at "every" aircraft recovery/investigation in europe, this is simply not true. I'm from England... that's not how it's done there except for very unusual circumstances. The wrecks are all owned by the Air Ministry. You apply to them for a permit to dig. If you can prove that no live ordanance is present, and that any dead crew members have a known grave they usually give you permission to dig. Then you have to get permission from the land owner, and that's about it. I doubt any of the wrecks in Russia are documented by an archeologist. Some may be in the rest of europe, but just because a trained archeologist is present at an aircraft recovery doesn't mean that they run it, or that the recovery is conducted according to archeological methods. They are usually just recoveries, with a bit of attention (when there's time) to documenting what may or may not have happened. You have to remember that most recovery missions are very expensive, and require the rental of specialized equipment... they don't hang around any longer than they have to, and often don't worry excessively about damaging the artifacts in the process of recovery.
You have to understand that there is a big difference between true archeological practices and what happens at an aircraft recovery. Archeological practices are precise and painstaking. They mark down every detail with close attention to exactly how it was found, and exactly where it was found on a grid with respect to everything else etc. etc. along with a whole host of other considerations. This is NEVER how it is done with aircraft, except perhaps by the CIHLI guys, and they only do it for identifying human remains.
Aircraft recovery is not archeology. It is something else, and I am not sure what to call it, but that's the way it is whether you choose to believe it or not.
Cheers,
Richard
However, I do know something about archeology, and a lot about the scientific method. Virtually none of the details that have been used in this thread constitute true archeology, or archeological practices.
Having said that, I also do not believe that this is truly necessary for almost any of the aircraft crash-site investigations/recoveries that are conducted by warbird enthusiasts. Recording a story of what happened is just great, and I am all for it, but that is only one small facet of archeology and the manner in which it is performed by aircraft recovery teams rarely comes close to an accurate portrayal of events as it would with the scientific methods used by archeologists. Just wanting it or thinking it to be so does not make it so.
With respect to the statement that archeologists have to be present at "every" aircraft recovery/investigation in europe, this is simply not true. I'm from England... that's not how it's done there except for very unusual circumstances. The wrecks are all owned by the Air Ministry. You apply to them for a permit to dig. If you can prove that no live ordanance is present, and that any dead crew members have a known grave they usually give you permission to dig. Then you have to get permission from the land owner, and that's about it. I doubt any of the wrecks in Russia are documented by an archeologist. Some may be in the rest of europe, but just because a trained archeologist is present at an aircraft recovery doesn't mean that they run it, or that the recovery is conducted according to archeological methods. They are usually just recoveries, with a bit of attention (when there's time) to documenting what may or may not have happened. You have to remember that most recovery missions are very expensive, and require the rental of specialized equipment... they don't hang around any longer than they have to, and often don't worry excessively about damaging the artifacts in the process of recovery.
You have to understand that there is a big difference between true archeological practices and what happens at an aircraft recovery. Archeological practices are precise and painstaking. They mark down every detail with close attention to exactly how it was found, and exactly where it was found on a grid with respect to everything else etc. etc. along with a whole host of other considerations. This is NEVER how it is done with aircraft, except perhaps by the CIHLI guys, and they only do it for identifying human remains.
Aircraft recovery is not archeology. It is something else, and I am not sure what to call it, but that's the way it is whether you choose to believe it or not.
Cheers,
Richard
Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:14 pm
mike / helldivers..... sounds great!! you've got a pre-sale for your book already!!
Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:57 pm
Thanks Rob, it would be great to see more details come out about a lot of the recoveries. We so rarely get more than a brief description in the vintage aircraft mags, and then nothing more, when there's often a much bigger story to tell. Occasionally we get a great book come along, and I for one would be very interested in reading one about Mike's A-25... surely the odyssey of a lifetime!
Rob, I'd also really be interested in seeing the forms you talk about from Larry Webster. Larry's a guy we'd all like to hear more about too. I can imagine the stories he must be able to tell from his experiences!
Cheers,
Richard
Rob, I'd also really be interested in seeing the forms you talk about from Larry Webster. Larry's a guy we'd all like to hear more about too. I can imagine the stories he must be able to tell from his experiences!
Cheers,
Richard
Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:26 am
Hei,
I say no, I have been with some recoveries and it goes like Allnut says.
A big excavator and some enthusiasts who can't wait to get there hands on the parts that emerge.
For those interested some sites:
www.crash40-45.nl
www.dare40-45.nl
www.nfla.nl.
Is there anyone who can help me to post a photo on this forum?
best regards,
Mathieu
I say no, I have been with some recoveries and it goes like Allnut says.
A big excavator and some enthusiasts who can't wait to get there hands on the parts that emerge.
For those interested some sites:
www.crash40-45.nl
www.dare40-45.nl
www.nfla.nl.
Is there anyone who can help me to post a photo on this forum?
best regards,
Mathieu
Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:54 pm
I voted yes but I think I'm actually more nuetral.I think it is archaeology...to a point. Suppose an archaeologist digs up some sort of prehistoric beast. He/she then studies it, and it is eventually "put back together" and it is displayed. Is this not what goes on in historic aircraft recovery?
However, I think this point is drawn when you compromise the originality of the aircraft by essentially re-manufacturing it. If you basically use it as a pattern for a completely new aircraft it is not archaeology. I'm not saying that severely damaged parts and missing parts cannot be re-manufactured. I'm just saying that when the majority of the original aircraft is used in the restoration, IMO it qualifies as archaeology. Just my 2 cents.
However, I think this point is drawn when you compromise the originality of the aircraft by essentially re-manufacturing it. If you basically use it as a pattern for a completely new aircraft it is not archaeology. I'm not saying that severely damaged parts and missing parts cannot be re-manufactured. I'm just saying that when the majority of the original aircraft is used in the restoration, IMO it qualifies as archaeology. Just my 2 cents.
Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:30 pm
The accepted field of archaeology and what an individual archaeologist might do could be completely different as well.
Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:24 pm
Is there anyone who can help me to post a photo on this forum?
This might help.
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1822
Wreck Hunting
Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:44 am
I voted yes. Wreck Hunting is an aspect of archeology, but how the artifact
and the site are surveyed and recovered afterwards determines how
far the practice strays, or adheres to traditional archeological methods
and practices.
I have seen numerous instances where traditional archeology had to take
a back seat because construction crews who discovered the site were
toes-a-tapping on the sidelines.
Once the historic aircraft is recovered and one starts to repair it to return
to the air..doesn't it morph then and become an aspect of cultural anthropology?
and the site are surveyed and recovered afterwards determines how
far the practice strays, or adheres to traditional archeological methods
and practices.
I have seen numerous instances where traditional archeology had to take
a back seat because construction crews who discovered the site were
toes-a-tapping on the sidelines.
Once the historic aircraft is recovered and one starts to repair it to return
to the air..doesn't it morph then and become an aspect of cultural anthropology?
Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:48 am
HI WOW LOTS OF INTERESTING VIEW POINTS! 
I HAD HIKED INTO THE A25 CRASH SITES OVER 18 TIMES BEFORE ANY MAJOR EXCAVATION TOOK PLACE,EACH AND EVERY TIME I WENT I TOOK LOTS OF NOTES AND PHOTOS OF THE SITE.ALL EXCAVATION WAS DONE BY HAND AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY.AT CLOSE TO THE 9000 FT.LEVEL IN A CANYON SO STEEP AND RUGGED THAT MOST OF THE HIKE YOU NEED ALL FOURS JUST TO HANG ON AND GET TO THE NEXT POINT,ITS NOT FOR THE WEEK OF HEART.THE AIR FORCE RECOVERY CREW WERE ALL HAND PICKED FROM THE CRASH RECOVERY SQUADRON BASED AT HILL FIELD,CRASH RECOVERY IS THEIR SPECIALTY AND THEY ARE WELL VERSED ON THE SUBJECT.AGAIN DURING THE RECOVERY MORE PHOTOS AND NOTES WERE TAKEN.SEVERAL NEWS CREWS WERE ON HAND AT THE TIME OF RECOVERY.THEY INTERVIEWED THE MEMBERS OF THE RECOVERY TEAM AND HAD LOTS OF GOOD SHOTS OF THE BLACKHAWKS BRINGING OUT THE REMAINS.HUNDREDS OF MAN HOURS WERE NEEDED TO REMOVE THE WINGS AND OTHER REMAINS THAT WERE IMBEDED IN THE FACE OF THE MOUNTAIN.NO WE DIDNT USE LITTE PAINT BRUSHES TO CLEAN UP EVERY ARTIFACT A SPEC AT A TIME,NOR WERE ANY WORLD FAMOUS EXPERTS ON HAND TO PUT THEIR STAMP OF APROVAL ON IT AND HONESTLY I DONT KNOW ANY THAT WOULD HAVE THE INTEREST OR FORTITUDE TO EVEN MAKE THE HIKE! 
IVE TRIED MY BEST TO PRESERVE A DETAILED PHOTO HISTORY OF AN EVENT THAT MAY OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN FOREVER AND IN THE MEAN TIME RETURNED AN A/C THAT WAS ALSO THOUGHT TO BE NON EXISTANT.DO THE SAME STANDARDS OF AN ROMAN VILLAGE COMPARE THE DISCOVERY/RECOVERY OF AN A/C THAT CRASHED 60 YEARS AGO? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.IM SURE THERE ARE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT THINK THE A25 SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT AS A MOUNUMENT OR SOME KIND OF PROTECTED SHRINE,BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT MORE THAN LIKELY NOT MORE THAN A SMALL HANDFUL WOULD EVER HAVE MADE THE TREC.THANKS MIKE
I HAD HIKED INTO THE A25 CRASH SITES OVER 18 TIMES BEFORE ANY MAJOR EXCAVATION TOOK PLACE,EACH AND EVERY TIME I WENT I TOOK LOTS OF NOTES AND PHOTOS OF THE SITE.ALL EXCAVATION WAS DONE BY HAND AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY.AT CLOSE TO THE 9000 FT.LEVEL IN A CANYON SO STEEP AND RUGGED THAT MOST OF THE HIKE YOU NEED ALL FOURS JUST TO HANG ON AND GET TO THE NEXT POINT,ITS NOT FOR THE WEEK OF HEART.THE AIR FORCE RECOVERY CREW WERE ALL HAND PICKED FROM THE CRASH RECOVERY SQUADRON BASED AT HILL FIELD,CRASH RECOVERY IS THEIR SPECIALTY AND THEY ARE WELL VERSED ON THE SUBJECT.AGAIN DURING THE RECOVERY MORE PHOTOS AND NOTES WERE TAKEN.SEVERAL NEWS CREWS WERE ON HAND AT THE TIME OF RECOVERY.THEY INTERVIEWED THE MEMBERS OF THE RECOVERY TEAM AND HAD LOTS OF GOOD SHOTS OF THE BLACKHAWKS BRINGING OUT THE REMAINS.HUNDREDS OF MAN HOURS WERE NEEDED TO REMOVE THE WINGS AND OTHER REMAINS THAT WERE IMBEDED IN THE FACE OF THE MOUNTAIN.NO WE DIDNT USE LITTE PAINT BRUSHES TO CLEAN UP EVERY ARTIFACT A SPEC AT A TIME,NOR WERE ANY WORLD FAMOUS EXPERTS ON HAND TO PUT THEIR STAMP OF APROVAL ON IT AND HONESTLY I DONT KNOW ANY THAT WOULD HAVE THE INTEREST OR FORTITUDE TO EVEN MAKE THE HIKE! IVE TRIED MY BEST TO PRESERVE A DETAILED PHOTO HISTORY OF AN EVENT THAT MAY OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN FOREVER AND IN THE MEAN TIME RETURNED AN A/C THAT WAS ALSO THOUGHT TO BE NON EXISTANT.DO THE SAME STANDARDS OF AN ROMAN VILLAGE COMPARE THE DISCOVERY/RECOVERY OF AN A/C THAT CRASHED 60 YEARS AGO? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.IM SURE THERE ARE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT THINK THE A25 SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT AS A MOUNUMENT OR SOME KIND OF PROTECTED SHRINE,BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT MORE THAN LIKELY NOT MORE THAN A SMALL HANDFUL WOULD EVER HAVE MADE THE TREC.THANKS MIKE
Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:35 am
HEi to all,
Here some photos from a great project in The Netherlands.
in 1978, Jan van Huuksloot excavated a Me 109 G5 that was shot down december 1943. The pilot baled out and survived.
In 1994 van Huuksloot started to put all the pieces together, for those parts missing he used parts from 6 other 109 excavated in the netherlands and for the wings some n.o.s.. Next in the project is to fit an aircooled argus 411 engine in running condition.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein3.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein2.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein1.jpg
Best regards,
Mathieu
Here some photos from a great project in The Netherlands.
in 1978, Jan van Huuksloot excavated a Me 109 G5 that was shot down december 1943. The pilot baled out and survived.
In 1994 van Huuksloot started to put all the pieces together, for those parts missing he used parts from 6 other 109 excavated in the netherlands and for the wings some n.o.s.. Next in the project is to fit an aircooled argus 411 engine in running condition.
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein3.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein2.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f326/ ... klein1.jpg
Best regards,
Mathieu
Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:02 am
Mathieu
I visited this project at a small Dutch Museum (now closed I believe) back in 2000 and spoke to Jan. He is an amazing guy, an ex Fokker engineer who actually built a full scale template of a 109 ( in his lounge so the legend goes...it cost him his marriage!). He then stuck the crashed remains of the wreck he recovered on to the fuselage template...... which effectively made it a giant 109 jigsaw puzzle. He has added other original parts such as spinner, canopy etc as he has progressed.
Dave
I visited this project at a small Dutch Museum (now closed I believe) back in 2000 and spoke to Jan. He is an amazing guy, an ex Fokker engineer who actually built a full scale template of a 109 ( in his lounge so the legend goes...it cost him his marriage!). He then stuck the crashed remains of the wreck he recovered on to the fuselage template...... which effectively made it a giant 109 jigsaw puzzle. He has added other original parts such as spinner, canopy etc as he has progressed.
Dave
Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:40 am
Hei Dave,
The museum is still open at Seppe airfield.
Some correction to your posting: Jan didn't built a template fuselage, he conctucted the fuselage from the genuine parts he had. the only new parts are the longerons inside the fuselage, but you can't see them as the are covered with genuine longeronspieces. And yes he did it in his livingroom, but he only started after he was divorced.
Best regards,
Mathieu
The museum is still open at Seppe airfield.
Some correction to your posting: Jan didn't built a template fuselage, he conctucted the fuselage from the genuine parts he had. the only new parts are the longerons inside the fuselage, but you can't see them as the are covered with genuine longeronspieces. And yes he did it in his livingroom, but he only started after he was divorced.
Best regards,
Mathieu
Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:43 pm
Mathieu
He told me ( as did the guy I was staying with , Chris Vanhee), that he constructed a template. You can clearly see that the pieces he recovered were stuck on to it....as when I saw it there were many areas that were not yet covered with the original bits of skin. I will post photos later where you can see that quite clearly.
Dave
p.s. I see they were starting a legend about the aircraft costing the marriage....maybe the idea of him doing it was the trigger
He told me ( as did the guy I was staying with , Chris Vanhee), that he constructed a template. You can clearly see that the pieces he recovered were stuck on to it....as when I saw it there were many areas that were not yet covered with the original bits of skin. I will post photos later where you can see that quite clearly.
Dave
p.s. I see they were starting a legend about the aircraft costing the marriage....maybe the idea of him doing it was the trigger
Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:49 am
Could only find one shot after a quick look through my boxes, but it shows what I mean about the pieces being stuck on to a template fuselage. This was the norm all over the fuselage.
Dave
Dave
Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:34 pm
I don't have time to read all the replies to this thread at the moment, so if I restate what's been said, sorry.
I would say...It depends.
Some people go wreck hunting just to find a wreck and get souvineers. (spelling?) Others go to find out about the aircraft, the situations leading to the crash, etc...that is archaeology.
I would say...It depends.
Some people go wreck hunting just to find a wreck and get souvineers. (spelling?) Others go to find out about the aircraft, the situations leading to the crash, etc...that is archaeology.