Only known surviving Dornier 17 to be raised from the English Channel [Archive]

JU_88

05-03-13, 04:41 AM

Cool, I hope they restore it - although its not really clear in the artical :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10034998/World-War-II-bomber-to-rise-from-watery-grave.html

And its destined for a new Home at Hendon RAF museum, little more than an hour from where I live..... excuse me but I think one of these is in order :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5MfDn_27X0

Jimbuna

05-03-13, 06:31 AM

Will certainly make another trip to Hendon worthwhile :cool:

BossMark

05-03-13, 06:36 AM

Hope they can restore it

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 07:18 AM

I can not recall seeing a aircraft that was not restored when displayed at any museum I have visited. Effort to recover the craft is enough to warrant a full restoration. I would think the aircraft would get a proper restoration down to every detail. Many years it will take but it will be done IMO.

Herr-Berbunch

05-03-13, 07:26 AM

Here is the original thread hereabouts of finding it with the plan to raise it. I'm glad it's got this far, and obviously a full restoration would be great. :)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182331

And two more.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182351
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182408

And some BBC videos of it -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22394606
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22386431
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380915

Jimbuna

05-03-13, 07:46 AM

I notice the Germans aren't too hopeful regarding its condition...aluminium and salt water certainly don't compliment each other.

Herr-Berbunch

05-03-13, 07:53 AM

I notice the Germans aren't too hopeful regarding its condition...aluminium and salt water certainly don't compliment each other.

No, but the aluminium oxide doesn't flake like iron oxide, in fact it forms a nice skin which acts to protect the rest of the aluminium from the water. :sunny:

Jimbuna

05-03-13, 08:00 AM

Hopefully that will be the case but either way they'll have to be doing the equivalent to treading on eggshells whilst raising her.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 08:08 AM

I notice the Germans aren't too hopeful regarding its condition...aluminium and salt water certainly don't compliment each other.

I'm thinking those involved are not hopeful for great condition but enough to warrant a restoration. Many aircraft here in the state have been restored with much of nothing left that resembled the aircraft. Perhaps the ocean life that lives on the surfaces(coral) protected the aircraft to some degree?

Jimbuna

05-03-13, 08:21 AM

Reminds me of this Halifax at Hendon...

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/102/img1225x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/img1225x.jpg/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7499/img1228g.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/img1228g.jpg/)

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7307/img1233ry.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/img1233ry.jpg/)

http://www.archieraf.co.uk/archie/1048tls_continued.html

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 08:46 AM

Jim,

Was the plane left in this condition?

Hottentot

05-03-13, 09:42 AM

Many aircraft here in the state have been restored with much of nothing left that resembled the aircraft.

And many aircraft after the restoration have resembled nothing like what the aircraft in question was. That's what I'm most worried about in this case too.

Dowly

05-03-13, 09:50 AM

And many aircraft after the restoration have resembled nothing like what the aircraft in question was. That's what I'm most worried about in this case too.

Yeah, this was my first thought too.

Herr-Berbunch

05-03-13, 09:59 AM

And many aircraft after the restoration have resembled nothing like what the aircraft in question was. That's what I'm most worried about in this case too.

Yeah, this was my first thought too.

But then your second thought was, 'Many aircraft here in the states have been restored from much of nothing left that resembled the aircraft when it was recovered.'

:yep:

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 10:07 AM

And many aircraft after the restoration have resembled nothing like what the aircraft in question was. That's what I'm most worried about in this case too.

Can you point me to those? For the life of me, I do not believe 1000's spent to restore a P-40 it would look like a Sopwith Camel when completed. :hmmm: :haha:

Hottentot

05-03-13, 11:12 AM

But then your second thought was, 'Many aircraft here in the states have been restored from much of nothing left that resembled the aircraft when it was recovered.'

I understood what he meant, thank you very much.

Can you point me to those? For the life of me, I do not believe 1000's spent to restore a P-40 it would look like a Sopwith Camel when completed.

Every time you restore an aircraft, you make choices like that. Sometimes it sparks an outrage, like the rumor of BW-372 getting painted in Navy colors in which it never served. Sometimes it's more subtle like removing the red star from a P-39 that saw use in Russia. And on everyday case it's covering the marks that make the object an individual object and thus a museum piece.

Take this plane, for example. It's a plane which by the looks of it was shot down. It's a question of if it's going to be treated as such, or made a generic Dornier 17 to represent all Dornier 17s. As the article says "the propellers clearly show the damage inflicted during the bomber's fateful final landing, experts have said". Are they going to repair that damage? How about any marks of the battle that took place before the plane's fate?

This plane has a story. By restoring it they can either honor it or ignore it. I hope they go with the former, because as an object without a story it would be not much more than a lawn ornament.

Herr-Berbunch

05-03-13, 11:22 AM

But as the only Do-17 it has the stories of all of the Do-17s, no matter how the restoration goes.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 11:30 AM

I understood what he meant, thank you very much.

Every time you restore an aircraft, you make choices like that. Sometimes it sparks an outrage, like the rumor of BW-372 getting painted in Navy colors in which it never served. Sometimes it's more subtle like removing the red star from a P-39 that saw use in Russia. And on everyday case it's covering the marks that make the object an individual object and thus a museum piece.

Take this plane, for example. It's a plane which by the looks of it was shot down. It's a question of if it's going to be treated as such, or made a generic Dornier 17 to represent all Dornier 17s. As the article says "the propellers clearly show the damage inflicted during the bomber's fateful final landing, experts have said". Are they going to repair that damage? How about any marks of the battle that took place before the plane's fate?

This plane has a story. By restoring it they can either honor it or ignore it. I hope they go with the former, because as an object without a story it would be not much more than a lawn ornament.

Under, what I would call normal circumstances, the aircraft in question is "restored" to what it looked like the day it went down. However, there is a difference between "fixing up" and "restoring". Restoring anything means returning it back to what is was like out of the factory. Doing anything is modifying...to the purest. However, planes have a different appeal when "restored" to the unit it was from. Pictures of the battle damage are enough to tell it's story. A museum will only spend so much. For me, spending anything on it at all is enough for me to be glad it was pulled from the depths and but on display.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 11:30 AM

But as the only Do-17 it has the stories of all of the Do-17s, no matter how the restoration goes.

:up:

This is why restoration and fixing up have two different meanings.

Hottentot

05-03-13, 11:52 AM

But as the only Do-17 it has the stories of all of the Do-17s, no matter how the restoration goes.

That's why it's tricky. What I'm most afraid of is that they'll give it a shiny new paint job, fix all the dents and scratches and make it look like it just came out of factory. Far too many museum planes (or any other objects, for that matter) look like that, as if they weren't ever used anywhere. Sure, they are pretty and it's nice to have your photo taken in front of one. But that's about it.

Personally I'm hoping they'll treat this as it is and fix the damage caused by the years under water, but not the damage caused in battle, like the engines.

JU_88

05-03-13, 11:58 AM

I guess we will see what state shes in after they pull her out from her watery grave of 70 odd years (assuming they succeed) :hmmm:

Edit* some pics and a video over at the good ol' dailyfail :D
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318808/Last-surviving-Second-World-War-Dornier-bomber-raised-watery-grave-70-years-biggest-recovery-kind.html?ico=news%5Eheadlines

Looks like she is resting upside down, which is not a great start..... and the of course the nose is obliterated. But despite this they are still saying thats is in 'remarkable condition'.

Oberon

05-03-13, 12:05 PM

If I recall correctly, the museum does not plan to restore it to pristine condition but rather to display it much like the Halifax.

Dowly

05-03-13, 12:10 PM

Personally I'm hoping they'll treat this as it is and fix the damage caused by the years under water, but not the damage caused in battle, like the engines.

Very much this.

And if you recover, say, 1/4 of a tank and you restore it. It's not THE tank anymore,
most of it is just a replica. :-?

bertieck476

05-03-13, 12:21 PM

Amazing that she's so "intact" and not suffered more damage from nets, the goodwin sands were famous for swallowing ships in years gone by, the fact it lays in 50 feet of water probably means its on a more stable part of the sandbank than the drying parts of it.

As an aside, what kind of muppets do the dailymail employ to edit their website with whitstable and folkestone both spelt incorrectly.

Oberon

05-03-13, 12:23 PM

Very much this.

And if you recover, say, 1/4 of a tank and you restore it. It's not THE tank anymore,
most of it is just a replica. :-?

I believe that is the plan, obviously it could have changed since the announcement but I'm fairly sure I saw somewhere that it is planned that the wreck will be washed thoroughly to get rid of the corrosion and water damage whilst at Cosford. I believe (of all things) citric acid will be used to help remove silt and the like. At this point it's hopeful that the original markings will be displayed and in good condition.
During this time, the museum at Hendon will be being overhauled and a new Battle of Britain display will be being created, once this is complete and the Dornier ready, then she will be taken to London and the conserved wreck put on display in the Battle of Britain section. Bringing together a Do-17, He-111, Ju-88, Bf-109 and Bf-110 in London for the first time since the 1940s. :yeah:

EDIT - The Battle of Britain Beacon will likely be the final home for the Dornier, I think the design is still being mulled over, but it's going to be about 300ft high.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8682646.stm

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 12:27 PM

That's why it's tricky. What I'm most afraid of is that they'll give it a shiny new paint job, fix all the dents and scratches and make it look like it just came out of factory.

That is a restoration

Far too many museum planes (or any other objects, for that matter) look like that, as if they weren't ever used anywhere. Sure, they are pretty and it's nice to have your photo taken in front of one. But that's about it.

Museums do their best to preserve the past. Depending on the museum, not all displays have items that are new looking or look as never used. Then there are living museums. Museums that restore aircraft/automobiles for flight and driving. If museums did not restore vehicles like this I would never have witnessed B-17, Spitfires, P-40, Hellcat, Dauntless, Lancaster and a slew of other aircraft operate/fly. Sometimes it just depends on what is left to work with concerning full restoration. Perhaps this aircraft can tell it's story in the condition it is in and be left on display as such.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 12:30 PM

Very much this.

And if you recover, say, 1/4 of a tank and you restore it. It's not THE tank anymore,
most of it is just a replica. :-?

Sometimes there is no other choice but, make from scratch, parts to complete a restoration. Simply no way around it other than hosing off the tank and plunking it down in a display. Not a bad idea but do patrons of the museum want to see this?

Dowly

05-03-13, 12:37 PM

Sometimes there is no other choice but, make from scratch, parts to complete a restoration. Simply no way around it other than hosing off the tank and plunking it down in a display. Not a bad idea but do patrons of the museum want to see this?

I have no problem if some parts are restored, but if a large part of the object needs to be build from scratch, then I dont see the point of even using the real parts. At that point, to me, it just becomes more of a replica.

Why not just put them up on display as they are? Or store them somewhere?

Sailor Steve

05-03-13, 12:40 PM

And if you recover, say, 1/4 of a tank and you restore it. It's not THE tank anymore,
most of it is just a replica. :-?
By that standard there are no flying DC-3/C-47s anymore. After more than seventy years every single part, piece and panel has been replaced, so nothing is original.

Oberon

05-03-13, 12:46 PM

Honestly, the Dornier is a one of a kind, it's too valuable to mess around with. If people want to see an intact Dornier so badly then it'd be better to build a new one from scratch if they can get the blueprints, like the American Me-262 group did with their 262s.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 12:46 PM

I have no problem if some parts are restored, but if a large part of the object needs to be build from scratch, then I dont see the point of even using the real parts. At that point, to me, it just becomes more of a replica.

Why not just put them up on display as they are? Or store them somewhere?

I think it boils down to what is left of the original. I agree that it does become a replica but a lot of what we see today has had a majority of the parts replaced or made. It is the nature of the beast. By and large, it's all about $$$$$$ in the end.

As they say in the classic car arena...."It is only original once."

Dowly

05-03-13, 12:49 PM

By that standard there are no flying DC-3/C-47s anymore*. After more than seventy years every single part, piece and panel has been replaced, so nothing is original.

Yes, that's how I see it. Same as an original musket would have it's parts replaced by
new ones. To me, it's not the original anymore, it becomes a replica.

*Of course, nothing stops anyone from looking at the plans available and actually
building a C-47 though. :yep:

I think it boils down to what is left of the original.

Yep, I agree. IMHO, if there is enough to restore something, that still keeps much of the object original, I'm willing to say it's a restored piece. Say, a tank that is missing it's wheels entirely from one side, I'm ok if they build them from scratch.

Hottentot

05-03-13, 12:56 PM

That is a restoration

An object can be restored to many other states as well.

Museums do their best to preserve the past.

History deals with the past. Museums preserve heritage.

Depending on the museum, not all displays have items that are new looking or look as never used. Then there are living museums. Museums that restore aircraft/automobiles for flight and driving. If museums did not restore vehicles like this I would never have witnessed B-17, Spitfires, P-40, Hellcat, Dauntless, Lancaster and a slew of other aircraft operate/fly. Sometimes it just depends on what is left to work with concerning full restoration. Perhaps this aircraft can tell it's story in the condition it is in and be left on display as such.

While I agree on most of what you wrote there, it's still a shot down plane we are talking about here.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 01:24 PM

An object can be restored to many other states as well.

History deals with the past. Museums preserve heritage.

While I agree on most of what you wrote there, it's still a shot down plane we are talking about here.

-Restored by the definition is the original state the item was manufactured. Anything else is a modification.

-Museums do both.

-Agreeing in part or whole, the aircraft I have seen fly were basket cases at one time. The first P-40 I watch fly was found covered in tar and on a pole over a bar in Arizona. Restored to it former glory. Should we have left it on the pole so it could tell it's story? By and large, it depends what is left to work with that should drive what part of preserving it should take place. Glacier Girl P-38. Found deep in the ice mangled. Rescued, repaired, restored and flying. It was a destroyed P-38 they were dealing with here.

05-03-13, 01:48 PM

It is strange how numerous airplanes produced during ww2 have become so scarce.
Even the ones manufactured in many thousands.
Good luck restoring the DO - 17.

Wolferz

05-03-13, 02:10 PM

If it's at the bottom of the channel, wouldn't that make it a submerplane?

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 02:12 PM

If it's at the bottom of the channel, wouldn't that make it a submerplane?

No, a channelplane. :03:

JU_88

05-03-13, 03:16 PM

For me personally its a case of:
Do i want to see something how it was intended to look? or do I wasnt to see it as it was found?
The answer really depends on what it is..
To use Jims Halifax example, ive seen that one for real and its by far the sorryist looking thing in the room :P

As a museum peice along side other BOB aircraft that are not wrecked, Id rather see it restored as needed rather than smashed to hell. (And considering this Dornier is allegedly in pretty good shape under the circumstances)
So long as its exterior is restored with reasonable accuracy and craftsmanship -and with similar matching materials. (E.g not some crudely knocked up canopy made from mdf and clingflim :O:).

The fact that some of its aluminium/paint/plexiglass was manufactured in 20XX rather than 1939 wouldn't bother me much at all, the majority of it is still an orginal Do-17z
IMO, not being 100% orginal materials is small price to pay for seeing the aircraft restored to its intended appearence.

If you think about it, old cars get restored all the time, as do old buildings that are centuries old. So I dont see restoring a 70 year old bomber as sacrilege.

But after forking out £350k to fish her out, I dont know if they will have enough cash left to fix her up any time soon.....

em2nought

05-03-13, 03:16 PM

The paint job on that Halifax is better than most paint jobs on a five year old Chevy. :har:
Reminds me of this Halifax at Hendon...

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/102/img1225x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/img1225x.jpg/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7499/img1228g.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/img1228g.jpg/)

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7307/img1233ry.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/img1233ry.jpg/)

http://www.archieraf.co.uk/archie/1048tls_continued.html

eddie

05-03-13, 03:35 PM

This is as far as they have gone with the only 219 from the war. Is it a replica, because it was painted?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/219_zpsad9e118d.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/219_zpsad9e118d.jpg.html)

Jimbuna

05-03-13, 05:00 PM

Jim,

Was the plane left in this condition?

Yes, that is her on display.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-13, 08:31 PM

Yes, that is her on display.

Why was it displayed in this fashion?

Oberon

05-03-13, 08:47 PM

Why was it displayed in this fashion?

From the museums expanded history of the aircraft:

It was later decided that due to the effort and expense required, a full restoration would not be attempted and that the aircraft would be displayed unrestored as a tribute to bomber crews of World War 2.
As the aircraft had lain in a fresh water lake, although fabric had rotted from the control surfaces, cabin transparencies had distorted and magnesium alloy parts had corroded, the duralumin structure was in good condition, with little rust.

Hottentot

05-04-13, 12:02 AM

-Restored by the definition is the original state the item was manufactured.

The professional conservators I have worked with have a different definition. I'm going by that.

Anything else is a modification.Another term which I haven't heard being used in the museum context. An item can be restored or conserved. From Oberon's posts it seems they are going to conserve this one. I'm happy with that, but not against restoring either, as long as the object's identity is not removed.

the aircraft I have seen fly were basket cases at one time.And since there have been no plans of making this plane fly again, the comparison doesn't work.

The first P-40 I watch fly was found covered in tar and on a pole over a bar in Arizona. Restored to it former glory. Should we have left it on the pole so it could tell it's story?Depends on how it got on the pole and covered in tar.

HunterICX

05-04-13, 03:51 AM

To me a museum piece that shows the scars of war/battle moves me more and tells me more about its history then when it would be fully restored to the state it was in when it rolled out of the factory.

a nice example is the World War 1 tank Mk.IV Deborah they found in France.
It was shot in world war 1 ditched by Russian PoW's into a hole and left there for 90 years untill someone found it, dug it up and put it on display in the same state they've found it in.
http://www.1rtr.net/historical/Deborah_51.jpg

HunterICX

JU_88

05-04-13, 06:16 AM

OT -Nice sig Hunter, I use my old Alpha 2 favorites in SSF4 - Guy and Sakura, but i only ever do ok online with Guy, always seem to get hammered when i use sakura. :O:

05-04-13, 06:21 AM

In my opinion they should restore the plane.
It is pointless to keep it in air museum as a rusting wreckage.
Better yet make it flying again.

Oberon

05-04-13, 06:36 AM

Better yet make it flying again.

And if it crashes and burns?

It's the only known relatively intact Do-17 in the world at this time.

05-04-13, 07:06 AM

And if it crashes and burns?

It's the only known relatively intact Do-17 in the world at this time.

You have point here.:salute:
Make it flyable then.

JU_88

05-04-13, 07:09 AM

Better yet make it flying again.

Given that its airframe will already be severely damaged from its war time impact, plus the effects of corrosion from being in salt water for 70 odd years, I really dont think that is ever going to be possible.
There is still a good chance that it might disintergrate as they try to recover it.

If they wanted a flying DO17, it would probably make alot more sense to build a replica, I dont think there are any flight worthy WW2 Luftwaffe bombers left, the last one was a Spanish built Heinkel 111 and it crashed on its way to Montana Airfest in 2003 - tragically taking the lives of both its pilots. :(

05-04-13, 07:21 AM

Given that its airframe will already be severely damaged from its war time impact, plus the effects of corrosion from being in salt water for 70 odd years, I really dont think that is ever going to be possible.
There is still a good chance that it might disintergrate as they try to recover it.

Many ww2 planes had been restored to flying condition from rusty wreckages.
Not saying that it must be possible in this case but if it can be done then it seems to me like better option than just keeping ton of rusting metal on display.
Restoring it externally is cool with me too in particular as a last and only DO-17.

Jimbuna

05-04-13, 11:35 AM

Being as it's the only one I'd like to see her restored and displayed as a static museum piece.

Oberon

05-04-13, 12:04 PM

Being as it's the only one I'd like to see her restored and displayed as a static museum piece.

I'm happy with the old girl just being conserved and then preserved the best they can, the time she's spent down there is going to have taken its toll, and they'll be lucky if she comes up in one piece.

It's like the Mary Rose, if you want to see the thing as it was when she rolled out of Dorniers factories then build a replica. This is a piece of history, let's not screw around with it, especially given how valuable she is.

Jimbuna

05-04-13, 12:13 PM

I'm happy with the old girl just being conserved and then preserved the best they can, the time she's spent down there is going to have taken its toll, and they'll be lucky if she comes up in one piece.

It's like the Mary Rose, if you want to see the thing as it was when she rolled out of Dorniers factories then build a replica. This is a piece of history, let's not screw around with it, especially given how valuable she is.

I'll wait and see what she looks like when she breaks the surface...and I pray she won't disintegrate inside the cradle :huh:

AVGWarhawk

05-04-13, 08:39 PM

August

05-04-13, 11:31 PM

Valuable in what respect?

Isn't it the only known one left in existence?

05-04-13, 11:47 PM

Isn't it the only known one left in existence?
That is exactly the reason it should be restored.
70 years old wreckage is just a wreckage of historical aircraft.

Oberon

05-05-13, 06:07 AM

That is exactly the reason it should be restored.
70 years old wreckage is just a wreckage of historical aircraft.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I'd rather the old girl be conserved than rebuilt. Personally I think that if people want to see a full on working Do-17 then someone should build a replica. This is a piece of history, much as in the same way that you wouldn't rebuild a castle or Stonehenge. It's valuable as being the only Dornier 17 in existence, and hopefully (providing the recovery is successful) the only relatively intact Do-17 in existence. You can't mess around with that.
Sure, I'd love to see a Do-17 like it rolled out of the factory, it'd look great next to the He-111 and Ju-88 that the museum already has, but I'd rather that it'd be a replica than 5K+AR, and who knows, perhaps if the RAF Museum can raise the money, they will get one made. That would be nice.
Still, we'll see what condition she comes up in, I think she's going to be in much worse shape than the likes of Glacier Girl, Kee bird or the like.
However, she could be in such good condition that the RAF Museum will decide in the future to rebuild her, in which case I will support the decision, because ultimately it's up to them, if they want to conserve her like the Halifax or rebuild her, then it's their decision and I'll stand by it, however given the financial climate, I'd wager that they will focus on conservation to begin with and then consider whether or not to opt for a full rebuild.

Jimbuna

05-05-13, 06:20 AM

^ Pretty much how I see it because ultimately every decision will be tied to financial considerations.

JU_88

05-05-13, 09:35 AM

True that budgets are tight, so if they do restore, lets pray they dont cut corners to end up with something about as accurate as this shocking example of a JU-88A replica. I might understand if this was on display in China, but its actually from a German museum. :o A low budget can be the only reason I can think of for its awful appearance.

http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3658&g2_serialNumber=2