Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

Surprised this has not yet been discussed here:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/n...oodwin%20Sands

Or did I miss it?

A stunning sidescan image of the bomber, too.

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

Hi Andy,

Thanks for posting that, I assume that its 5K+AR of 7/KG3, with three POWs and one crewman killed. It would be a great recovery 70 years on, wonder if its a possibility,

Regards

Brian Bines

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

Yes it is said to be 5K+AR and if it is, two crew were POW, 2 killed, buried in Holland and Cannock Chase. I have been involved in this since Nov last year so expect an article in 'Flypast' shortly, including photos of a 5K+AR and 5K+GR, both of which were lost this day

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

Hi Chris, fantastic news that at last we may get the chance to see some substantial remains of the only Dornier 17Z in existence.
The fact its been submerged in sea water for 70 years will know doubt add to the problems in recovering this rare bird!

Please keep us posted on your forthcoming article!

Rgs,
Steve.

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

It will certainly be a fantastic coup if it can be pulled off. However, the difficulties of such recoveries are enormous as evidenced (for example) by the salvage of the Loch Ness Wellington and the Me 109 off Dymchurch recovered by Brenzett Museum in the 1970s. In the case of an aircraft partially submerged in silt or sand, that is a huge factor. Removal of such material is essential, obviously, otherwise the weight simply tears the airframe apart as in the case of the Spitfire recovered from the beach at Calais some years ago. However, I have no doubt that a proper plan and a professional recovery team will be in place to carry out what will be an enormously challenging and exciting project. Sadly, the site has already been dived on regularly (whether "legally" or not I don't know) and numerous treasures recovered including all five MG15s and an MP40 amongst other 'trophies'.

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

We are most amused to see that, once again, Mr Saunders has been indulging in one of his well known flights of fancy, both on this and other forums, implying in his fairly unsubtle way that this museum, custodians of the country’s largest collection of Battle of Britain artefacts and memorabilia, is already holding parts of this Dornier. Any Do17Z parts in our collection have been in our possession for many years and were not “recently recovered” as Mr Saunders states. We are sure that Mr Saunders, who has widely proclaimed his knowledge of the Battle , is well aware that there are at least five wrecks of Do17s in the vicinity of the Goodwin Sands alone, and guns (and other items) from these wrecks are in the possession of several other museums and private collections. It is also worth adding that we have never recovered an MP40 from an undersea crash as Mr Saunders states, and, indeed, the three examples of this weapon that we do hold have all been obtained from private sources and none have been recovered from a crash site, as their condition testifies.

We must reluctantly assume that it is his well known animosity to this museum that has prompted this correspondence and we now consider this matter closed. For those of you who are interested in facts about the Kent Battle of Britain Museum, there is a book covering the early days of our research and recovery, whose author has been involved since its inception, and who has not had to rely upon rumour and hearsay, which is due to be published in the early part of 2011.

Trustees - Kent Battle of Britain Museum

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

You mean by not mentioning your organisation once in his post? If you have a private quarrel, it would be better kept private.

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

To be fair Nick, I'm glad that we are able to hear both sides of this discussion, especially since locations and collections have been mentioned in the public domain, albeit in a round and about way. Mind you, not that I have any preference for who it right or wrong, but hearing both sides surely benefits everybody?

Cheers
Peter D Evans
LEMB Administrator

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

I'm not sure that I've heard any side of anything, Peter. Perhaps because it was done, as you say, "in a roundabout way" What's been posted here looks like a private dispute being played out in public, but in terms that only mean something to the participants. Certainly I could draw my own inferences, accurate or otherwise — no substitute for a clear, open statement of the perceived problem.

Perhaps Dave is saying: "Yes, we have MG 17s in our collection which were acquired legitimately. We are delighted that a Do 17 is to be recovered and wish the RAF Museum every success. We will naturally contribute whatever we can towards a faithful restoration of this machine, which is in the interests of all who care for aviation history."

Or he might be saying: "What we have we keep."

Or … any number of other possibilities.

Re: Dornier 17-Z, Goodwin Sands, 26 August 1940
 

I couldn't agree more Nick, the whole affair with regards the items removed is as clear as mud! To be fair, Dave's post #6 has been replicated on the FlyPast forum where the issue of plundered weapons has been discussed in detail. I have also been in PM with contact with members here and elsewhere who were able to confirm more to me in private. There certainly appears to be more to some of the discussion than meets the the eye of the casual enthusiast and I detect a very strong undercurrent of distrust and questioning of my motives. My personal interest all along when learning of this exciting project has been to see all the illegally plundered materials reunited with the airframe. No other motives or hidden agenda other than that and to hear both sides of the argument help me understand the bigger picture... :)

Cheers
Peter D Evans
LEMB Administrator