Warbird Information Exchange

That was what I meant. However, I think there is a massive difference between finding a ton or two of alluminium and magnesium and steel to finding millions of tons of rock, however far we have got. With the build sites we were able to use it to determine where to look. For crash sites we would have to determine where to look, then use satellite, I think.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

I am pretty sure there is something that can easily spot something like a small fighter under a dense canopy.

The only problem I can see is that the field of view is pretty small if you are searching for something that small. So how do you narrow the search field to increase your hits.

Do tell, it's called a...?

Having talked to a few aircraft recovery guys who've worked in similar jungle, you can be standing on the wreckage and not know it's there - this is real jungle, we are considering here, not temperate forest. It's not 'a dense canopy' it's mostly a 40 degree rocky bank with mature trees with full density below. If it's located with the magic widget, you've got to put a team in, they hack a 60 year old set of tropical hardwood trees off it, then you fly it out with heavy-lift helicopters. Oh, and let's not touch the local and national politics.

Crash wrecks aren't worth it in Burma - too wrecked, decayed (high humidity) and too hard to find and almost impossible to extract, and then what are you going to do with something that's not that rare? Some are Lysanders and Hurricanes - part wood and fabric, plus tube fuselages. The engine's your only hope of location. A Mohawk would be nice. Half a dozen lost? Several burnt out? Checked how big Myanmar is?


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

Or imagine Texas with the ground as broken as the Rockies and filled with all of N America's trees.

Wrecks left behind at airstrips would be worthwhile. For those, paperwork, recollections, maps and machetes are the route - but I understand relatively few Allied aircraft were left, and the Japanese records are patchy.

Ooops, sorry. Where do we sign up? Of course it'll beat an office job.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I seem to remember that there was some serious talk about several spitfires being buried at an airfield in Burma, and that an expedition had been mounted. I don't believe that they found anything though. A lot of money burned up on that one I suspect, which would have gone half way to buying a good chunk of a spit. James is right about the value of money being spent on wreck chasing, vs. preserving what we already have, and should be commended for reminding us of this. I doubt that there is anyone more thoughtful, or pragmatic on this site. There is a great deal of romance in wreck chasing though, and there lies the rub. I think, deep down, all of us have a little of the "Indiana Jones" in us. I know that I do.

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

Sorry, I dont no much about the satelite or how it works. It is pretty new and I did get to see some images.

The images look sort of like a medical Xray, but it is not Xray or as clean as one. So my guess is that it can find metallic objects pretty easy once you know were to look. Ya, I know it sounds like bull.

Like I say the field of view is probably around 150-300 feet at the magnification needed to find a fighter. So that is one big problem. The other is that I am sure the satalite is very busy right now with other industrial high yield type uses.

I know Burma is a craphole, dont forget there are local villager problems as well. But there are other countries and regions as well.

Much pithyier than my ramble, Richard, thanks.

OTOH, anything's possible, and sometimes we need big dreams. But it's wise to do the pen and envelope calculations before you've burnt the cash.

I'm just wondering what would be worth the cost of restoration from the Burma front if we could find it and magically transport it to a good resto shop. (not the cost of recovery, just the cost of rebuilding to say, static.) Not even the Japanese types would stack up in dollar return. Or am I wrong?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

When I make my millions I'll be heading over there to scoop up what i can find. B-24, B-26, A-20, P-38, Kate, Val, Zero, P-39

Of course this is when I make my millions.

OK, here are some links on the technology being used by the new satelite.

It is not a military but rather a deep space scientific satelite. Here is a summary about it and the company as told to me. They turned it towards earth for some reason(dial-in functions I think) and found that the imaging results in x ray type pictures. They then modified it a bit and use it for industrial exploration.

The link below talks about a variation on the technology from the same company. It is the same imager but they inhance the view with a low power xray(such a thing?) for earth stationed use. With some searching I bet you can find a article about the satelites. Perfect for airplane hunters.

Here is link to general tech
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3520/

Here is link to the images, check out how clear they are. I saw the space based images. I know these can very easily show an airplane under any amount of foliage. Yes, I have been in some thick stuff.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3520/gallery/

The picture I saw was more like this but in 2-D(through a cinderblock wall!) creepy stuff.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3520/picture/7270/

JDK,

Yes, I agree, that is why I characterized a statement about those books as "just as inaccurate as what you said." The point of my statement was not to denigrate your work but to illustrate that one persons trivial hobby is another's life work. You may think that documenting the Fiat CR.42 Flaco is a noble cause while I may think it is a gigantic waste of time. I'm sure you don't appreciate people trivializing what you do, so how about giving others that same consideration.

Like I said, I personally won't go hunting down anymore projects, I already have more than a lifetime's worth of project aluminum sitting around getting dusty including a B-25J, PV-2C, L-29, P2V-3W and Cessna T-50(well parts of one lol).

Anyhow, I appreciate your contributions as well as those who hike into the wilderness to hunt down "worthless" pieces of scrap metal. I find them both interesting.

take care,
Ryan

I think that you will find the satellite imagery systems they use to scan earth are probably infrared based (ie. infrared radiation emitted by the objects being scanned). I doubt seriously if they actually transmit x-rays from the satellites, as you implied in your post. The sort of power needed to generate the sorts of returns shown in those images would be imense (when you realize that the satellite is most likely many hundreds of miles away). The results sort of look like x-rays, which might be what seemed confusing. X-ray receivers are used on deep space probes though (but not transmitters).

The techniques you were sort of referring to are part of remote sensing (which is what they call examining the earth from satellites). The satellites which do this are in near-earth orbit (ie. between about 200 and 500 miles above the earth's surface), not deep space. They've been used for all sorts of things, such as examining crops to determine irrigation and disease problems, spying, weather prediction, etc. Many different types of sensing are done, across the whole electro-magnetic spectrum (from DC to light as they say).

They have been doing these sorts of things for about forty years. The technologies have improved a great deal of course, but I doubt that they have progressed to the point where they can accurately locate a smashed up aircraft buried in dense jungle for the past sixty years. That's not to say it can't be done, but the pattern recognition requirements would be immense, if you consider that the aircraft in question is most likely not aircraft-shaped any more. I also doubt that there are any satellites dedicated to doing this sort of research, unless there is something very specific that they have been tasked to look for... such as a recent accident location. Anyway, not to burst anyone's bubbles, but it is unlikely that this sort of research is going on, on any regular sort of basis, if at all.

Cheers,
Richard

PS. Just so that you know, my background is in satellite communications, rather than remote sensing. However, I did help design some of the antenna components recently launched on the DAWN mission to study asteroids in the solar system.

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

I am sort of familiar with the infrared and other various spectrums, this is not that type of system. What I saw was comletely different and about 3 years old now amd way beyond the infrared types.

I have been searching for a specific arcticle on the image I saw, but have not yet found it. But it is the best sytem I have ever seen for exploration of old aircraft, etc. Especially in Burma or PNG.

PS, I read a bit more on your thread. Yes, the problem that was pointed out to me is that you have to know were to look. Otherwise you will never find anything.

Fellas, I find this threasd interesting and intriguing, and 've learned maore about you guys than I have wreck hunting Let's try and keep it amiable. If someone pisses you off, take a deep breath and a walk, and try to step back. Let's keep this one going okay?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Hi Ryan,
I appreciate your points, but I think you believe I'm saying something I'm not. I also wished to demonstrate that contributions to airworthy (or static) restorations go a long way further than the (all-important) guys who bash the metal.


But what I said wasn't inaccurate - it remains a fact that wreck recovery is a high risk of loss against only a possible gain, versus museum work being the opposite. That's just the way it is!

After that basic understanding, then it's up to the adventurer to decide if the cost/effort loss risk is worth it. In the case of, say Glacier Girl, clearly it was, big thumbs up from me, mighty impressive job - and not forgetting those expeditions that failed, either. There are aircraft worth retrieving, if found, but it's clear that few of us here appreciate the economic viability (or lack of) many potential types recovery. Even in a 'because it's there' non-profit scenario.


I've not trivialised anybody's work, that's your take on my opinion, which shows you're missing my point I think. - just pointing out a little (uncomfortable for some, clearly) cost risk analysis.


Dat's exactly my point!


Thank you, but again, you are assuming a view I don't hold - I NEVER said 'worthless'. The theoretical P-61 aileron (spoiler, I think, actually) may be priceless for helping the MAAM guys.

I'm not mad, and don't advocate shutting down the discussion - it's certainly interesting.

Hauling a C-46 of B-17 out of Burma would be an amazing adventure, but why not look closer to home to recover an unloved example?

I'm still interested in hearing any type that went down or was abandoned in Burma that would be worth getting out. A Mohawk would be great. Who's prepared to pay more for a Mohawk wreck than an airworthy Mustang?

Thoughts welcome -

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Hi James , could not agree more with you that ' wreck chasing ' can be a big risk in money laid out against possible returns , but it the persons choice on how they spend there money . On some of my trips looking for parts for my fairey battle cockpit project , i have come home with nothing after spending much money/time and yet on other trips have come home with many useful parts for myself and other peoples projects , sure its not on the scale of digging up a P38 from under the ice , but it is still wreck chasing and it is how i like to spend part of my time , the choice is mine.

As for helping restore a type of aircraft in a museum , lets say for example a spitfire , say a volunteer puts in the time/effort maybe even money into this project , then the management of museum decide that for whatever reason we will trade/sell said spitfire , where does this leave the humble volunteer , i feel that people who chase wrecks are after there own piece of history that they can look at/restore to flight/static or whatever it is there choice.

cheers dave

I just wonder how many P-38 could have been restored with the money that was spent on glacier girl? I tend to think more people and corporations will donate or sponsor something glamorous like an expedition than a restoration. Now after all the publicity that glacier girl got more corporations sponsored the restoration. Look at the cost of the key bird (money and life).

Steve

_________________
"Any excuse is good enough if you're willing to use it!"