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

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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

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

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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]

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)

Edit* some pics and a video over at the good ol' dailyfail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ws%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]

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]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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]

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.