Slashdot Mirror
Squadron of Lost WWII Spitfires To Be Exhumed In Burma
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt that sounds like a good Neal Stephenson plot point: "Like a treasure chest stuffed with priceless booty, as many as 20 World War II-era Spitfire planes are perfectly preserved, buried in crates beneath Burma — and after 67 years underground, they're set to be uncovered. The planes were shipped in standard fashion in 1945 from their manufacturer in England to the Far East country: waxed, wrapped in greased paper and tarred to protect against the elements. They were then buried in the crates they were shipped in, rather than let them fall into enemy hands, said David Cundall, an aviation enthusiast who has spent 15 years and about $200,000 in his efforts to reveal the lost planes."
She put a bullet Through his hat But he's had closer Shaves than that With Burma-Shave
If they turn out to be in good enough condition to be made flyable I will squee, a lot.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Not so sure about the perfectly preserved bit.
Not much anything mechanical does well with time. The ground has moisture which is the big enemy. I really doubt they had put them in a big plastic bag and vacuum sealed it. And even if they had, and nothing chewed into it, that still dries out anything made of rubber or leather.
They may just be preserved junk at this point - but it will certainly be interesting to see.
With recent austerity measures, the UK are looking at bringing these fighters back into service.
Thanks David!
These planes will be needed in the uprising against the psychlos.
I have had the pleasure of seeing-hearing-feeling a Spitfire fly by at full speed at very low altitude. It's a sexual experience for anyone who appreciates aircraft.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
It is sad when submitters don't check for the best sources.
Fox news copied their story from The Syndey Morning Herald, who copied the story from The Telegraph (UK) (April 14). There is a follow up story on the Telegraph site too; the buried spitfire story was revealed by a war vet, and they found them and made bore holes and looked inside the crates.
I can't find the "circle stars" button.
you'll need a web app like http://markup.io/ to be WebFour compliant.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
but actually useless.
Why unearthing all those planes?
To show? We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working.
To sell? How would buy one?
To learn new things? Don't think so.
Because we fucking CAN.
If you RTFA you would have seen that the original source was the Sydney Morning Herald, to which Fox dutifully provided a link, and which provided additional information. Fox managed to report the news without contradicting the original source or adding its own speculation, something few American media (I hesitate to use 'news') sources seem to be capable of these days.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
If they prove to be well preserved, they'll probably be amongst the best (working?) examples in the world. None of them saw active service - they came straight out of the factory, and assuming they can be put together.. why not?
They were buried in August 1945 - so after the end of WW2. The Japanese - the most recent "enemy" - had surrendered, and were not in a position to get control of the aircraft or use them. The reason they were buried was because the aircraft were surplus and it would cost too much to return them to the UK.
So I am not sure who the "enemy" was that they were being hidden from. I suspect it was a case of burying military equipment after a war because it would be dangerous for anyone else (eg random civilians or possible insurgents, etc) to have access to it.
I am anarch of all I survey.
All but the last one.
If they return in a semi-reasonable condition, I predict a frenzied bidding war when whoever ends up owning these auctions them off!
Good luck getting them out of Myanmar, it is still a military dictatorship and there are still sanctions in place against the place that prevent the transfer of military hardware. And I'm not sure whether a "visit by PM Cameron" where he discusses them for maybe 20 seconds is going to change much.
"We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working."
Who the fuck is this 'we'?
I certainly don't have one in my hangar, and if these are sold with 0 miles flown, I'd buy one.
Burying military surplus is a great way to give future military historians and archeologists solid evidence to study in the future. It is inexpensive and should be done with other unneeded military hardware.
Like, landmines and nerve gas.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
There aren't many Spitfires still flying, and I am sure that there are many air museums and old plane enthusists that wouyld want one.
I am originally from New Zealand, andoften get asked "Do you have Hurricanes in New Zealand" and of course my answer is, No, but we still have a couple of Spitfires, a Corsair and a Mustang and a Sea Fury...
I don't know if Sir Tim Wallis is still alive, but the Warbirds in the South Island woulld jump at the chance of getting more Spit's
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII but the Spitfire looked more beautiful.
Anyway Adolf Galland once asked Goering for a Squadron of Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.
but actually useless.
Why unearthing all those planes?
To show? We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working.
To sell? How would buy one?
To learn new things? Don't think so.
The same could be said about many things, including quite a few people.
They are important both because they are a piece of history, but also because the Spitfire is one of the two most gorgeous planes ever made.
If you're a redneck unable to see the point of art for art's sake, consider this: People will pay good money to see these planes. If any of them are trainers, even more to get a ride in one. And there are plenty of people who would mortgage their home in order to buy one, or even a share in one. Spitfires have value because people think they have value. What you personally think is irrelevant - this is like finding crates of gold.
To sell? How would buy one?
Are you seriously asking if there is anyone on this planet who would want to buy a factory-new fully functional Spitfire?
If you put them out there i'd expect them to be gone quicker than quick.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
but actually useless.
Why unearthing all those planes?
To show? We already have plenty of original spitfires all over the world and a few also still working.
To sell? How would buy one?
Try to buy one of those "plenty", see how much it costs. Plenty of pilots, collectors, and museums want to buy one, but they're pretty pricey. More on the market is a good thing. (And it's cheaper to dig one up than to build a replica, obviously.)
Beneath Burma? Why not in Burma? Or did you mean Thailand?
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII
I think the answer will vary depending on who you ask.
The Zero and Yak-3 were arguably better dogfighter planes. Late war planes with more armament and raw power? The Typhoon and Ki-84 would be contenders.
I even have a Swedish friend who claims that the J22 was the best fighter plane, because not a single one was shot down. :-)
The late European theatre where the Mustang saw most of its kills was more like shooting lightly armed fish in a barrel, with Germany resorting to badly repaired planes with young inexperienced pilots, and the Americans never entering a fight on equal terms - superiority or abort. Finally, any American who shot at a plane that went down would often get a "kill" - in one account of a battle I read, Americans surprised four FW's, and shot them down. For a total of seven kills.
While the Mustang was a great plane with many great pilots, it still means that the number of kills is less impressive than the same number of kills by pilots from other countries.
If I had the chance to pick a WWII plane for myself, it would be the Spitfire or the Ohka.
He would tend to the view that, rather than it being a sexual experience, a Stuka attack was more of a shit-in-the-pants affair. Even a friend of his who was a Lancaster navigator never showed any inclination to go to air shows post war.
Yes, the past romanticises everything. The Spitfire was pretty, but the old engineers i worked with when I started would recollect its awful design flaws - like the fuel tank right in front of the pilot (the reason so many pilots were burned.) Like the battlecruisers at Jutland, the Spitfire was of the "the only way not to get killed is not to get hit" school of design. The British aircraft of WW2 that most of them regarded as the pinnacle of design was the first stealth bomber - the Mosquito. The ex-WC who tried to teach us metalwork said that he owed his survival to being picked to fly a Mosquito - your chance of surviving a mission was over 99% while in the metal bombers it was around 96%, bad odds in a long war. Unfortunately, as its radar near-invisibility was achieved by being made largely of plywood, there aren't many left.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
While the Yak-3 may be arguable, it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
Hell, once people figured out the Zero's gimmick, Wildcats (by no-one's definition a top of the line WW2 fighter) were shooting down zeroes at favourable ratios....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A couple years ago, long after I read The Baroque Cycle and its ending about strange alchemic gold coming from The Solomon islands, they discovered traces of what must be the wreck of La Perouse expedition, 230 years after it disapeared. For mind blowing reference: the last words of Louis XVI as he walked up the steps to the scaffold were 'Is there any news of La Pérouse?'. It was begging for volume 4 to be written...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
The Mustang may have been tyhe best fighter of WWII but the Spitfire looked more beautiful.
My father served in Burma as an RAF pilot in 1944 and 1945. His squadron had converted from Spitfires to Mustangs earlier in the war. Near the end of the war, there was a strategy to change back to Spitfires - old ones, not up to the current spec - and send the Mustangs back to equip squadrons in Europe. The pilots were furious because the Spitfires had neither the range to be ideal ground-attack aircraft or the performance to fight Zeros. Luckily, Germany surrendered before this plan was completed.
I speculate that the crated Spitfires may be part of the planned downgrade.
Why unearthing the planes
To make lots of money for Mr Cundall of course
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." (Hermann Goering, 1943)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
with the Spitfires from Demons Run...
How are they going to find planes in a place that hasn't existed in almost 25 years?
If indeed they turn out to be viable, they would be worth a fortune or maybe even priceless. If the Burmese and UK governments are involved, I would bet they won't end up owned by private parties- they'll likely fly less under those circumstances.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Dogfight is a very specialized term. It is NOT a synonym for "aerial combat".
No one, but no one, with any sense would argue that any of those US planes was a better dogfighter. Hellcats, Wildcats and Corsairs (and don't forget Lightnings and Mustangs) almost never shot down Zeros in dogfights. They used tactics to avoid trying to turn with Zeros, because they knew they would die trying that. Most of the victories came after Japan's experienced pilot cadre had their heart cut out. The US won because of vastly more industrial might, and far more depth in pilot training.
if these are sold with 0 miles flown, I'd buy one.
Maybe if I was just going to sit it in a climate controlled room and let it appreciate. If I was going to fly in the thing I think I'd prefer if the original owner has rebuilt it and given it at least a test flight or two. But then again I've never been the type to get my hands greasy if I can avoid it. I love fast well built machines, but prefer to let someone else do the dirty work of assembling them.
Of course I first have to win the lottery, throw money at lawyers to get my criminal record expunged, learn to fly, get licensed, buy an antique warplane, pay off the FAA, ATF, DHS, and any other three letter agencies that wouldn't like me flying around with live ammunition, blowing stuff up in the desert. :-D
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I heard lots of Packard built Merlins at the 2007 Gathering of Mustangs and Legends at Rickenbacker AFB outside of Columbus Ohio. The overflight of a couple of dozen Mustangs in a "51" formation was particularly nice. More recently, I recorded the overflight of 19 B-25s at the 70th reunion of the Doolitlle Tokyo Raiders at Wright-Patterson AFB. Turn up your speakers and enjoy the "noise." That many bombers in the air is just something you don't see or hear anymore.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Old Spitfires fly all around
Up they come from under ground
New Old Stock is all the rave
Burma-Save
So, you're defining "dogfight" as a two-dimensional duel between two vehicles moving in three dimensions?
As opposed to, say, four vehicles operating in pairs, moving in all three dimensions?
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Note that the reason the Zero turned so well is that it had no armor, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue. And that it didn't actually take all that long to get a clue. When all is said and done, the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje with WW-one era paper bags, but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
it's hard to argue that the Zero was a better dogfighter, given that Hellcats shot down Zeroes in job lots without being shot down so much in return.
And mustn't forget corsairs shooting down zeroes in job lots....
IDTIMWYTIM.
Anyhow, the tactics for engaging Zeros was simple - don't get into a dogfight with one. Due to their shallow climbing angle, strafing them from above was a common tactic. As was engaging them two-on-one.
But in the early part of the war, when dogfighting still was common and the allies didn't enjoy superiority in numbers, the Zero had a 12:1 kill ratio against allied aircraft. And that's not the propaganda numbers either, but from counting actual losses after the war.
So I think we can safely say that it was a great dogfighter for its time. Not so great an all-round fighter plane, but that's a different matter.
If you RTFA you would have seen that the original source was the Sydney Morning Herald, to which Fox dutifully provided a link, and which provided additional information. Fox managed to report the news without contradicting the original source or adding its own speculation, something few American media (I hesitate to use 'news') sources seem to be capable of these days.
Yeah, but this is Slashdot.
Many if not most here act like they'd prefer getting their information from, and would put more stock in, the unhinged rantings of Baghdad Bob that were found scrawled on a wall inside some ghetto crackhouse, than they would hearing even the most well-done and bias-free story from Fox News. I'll even bet that most of these same people also think of themselves as being tolerant, except that they only tolerate hearing facts and opinions they agree with, and seek to shout-down, ridicule, and otherwise silence any opposing viewpoints or opinions.
That being said, being a WW2 aviation buff, I nearly squealed like a young girl myself when I read that upwards of *70*(!!!) WW2 Spitfires in crates were being unearthed.
Might it have been cooler if they found a cache of Horton Ho-229s or Focke-Wulf TA-183s?
Sure.
But this is *still* awesome, with a double-helping of awesome-sauce!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"Do you have Hurricanes in New Zealand" and of course my answer is, No, but we still have a couple of Spitfires, a Corsair and a Mustang and a Sea Fury...
... which sadly represents more firepower than the current NZ airforce.
I think it a bit of pity that these are 1945 Spits, with Gryphon engines and the modified airframes.
If you care to see what these XIVs might look like, see this:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
The XIV marque - like other Gryphon Spits - had an elongated cowl, which interrupted the series of broad, elliptical shapes that made up a Spitfire, and gave it an extraordinary, sculptural quality.
Additionally, there was an enormous , five-bladed airscrew, behind a pointier spinner. The tiny cross section where the fuselage tapers toward the tali was "beefed up" and a much broader and taller tail/rudder structure again, change the elegant line of the aircraft. I suppose, as late as these models are, that Burma mk XIV's also have... Horror! The cut-down and bubble-top, instead of the more familiar hood and sloping airframe, behind the pilot.
Even in Merlin-engined Spitfires, you begin to see the transformation hinted with the Mk VIIIs that served in Australia and Asia, with clipped wingtips and pointed tops on their rudders. But these were gentler adaptations, and lent an interesting variant on the form of the aircraft that wasn't displeasing.
Altogether, so seriously altered, the Spitfire may well have been able to maintain itself against the equally radical adaptations made in BF109s and FW190s. However in doing so, the Spit looked more derived from Hawker's Tempest fighters, albeit with a nip at the chin, and less like the supple, equine aircraft that Reg Mitchell derived from Thompson Trophy racing winners of the 1930s.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There is something like 40 spitfires flying world wide.
We have the potential to double that number and supply spare parts for all of them.
Most WWII aircraft have been regulated to showroom only condition.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
It is sad when submitters don't check for the best sources.
And it's pathetic when someone bitches because a link is from Fox. Sheesh. Give it a rest.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I think that once in the fight, the Spitfire was better than the Mustang. The problem with the Spit was that it didn't have the range the Mustang did, hence it was more a defensive than offensive fighter. Perfect for the Battle of Britain, but less so for bomber escort.
-- Alastair
the flyover of a lancaster really is remarkable, and leaves your bones shaking. its almost like your hair is tingling, as though it was on fire.
make me want to vomit
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Thatch's Weave allowed the US pilots to survive.
The Zero had no armour, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue.
Including despite orders to wear them, paracchutes.
They just weren't necessary.
the Zero was a superb fighter for fighting one-on-onje but not so useful against modern planes of the era.
Note, by the way, that saying that the USA only started winning after "Japan's experienced pilot cadre har their heart cut out" ignores the fact that the only way to "cut the heart out" of an "experienced pilot cadre" is to shoot them down in job lots. Which we were doing pretty much constantly after Midway.
The Zero remained superior to all marques until lack of development made it a loser. They put larger air cooled engines in but by then the British had shown the Yanks how to use the Corsair. Several other new models also made an appearance at that time.
I'd like to have seen what a zero would have performed like with a Merlin in it.
Note that even as early as Guadalcanal, Wildcats (by no means a first-line fighter) were capable of engaging a larger number of zeroes and winning.
The US pilots in China learned how to deal with the Japanese fighters before 1941:
"1. Don't get involved with them.
2. If you do get involved with them, don't get involved with them."
Will do... Just as soon as Fox News starts doing serious journalism. Don't hold your breath.
Of course not. A dogfight is two planes fighting no holds barred, one on one, in three dimensions. The Thach Weave is a DEFENSIVE maneuver to PREVENT individual dogfighting, which the Zero would win nearly every time. The fact that it was very effective says NOTHING about relative ability of aircraft, or even pilots, in a dogfight.
The US tested a captured Zero and told pilots "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero".
Understand, I don't really think any of this is news to you. The only issue is your use of the term "dogfight".
Funny, I thought they did serious journalism. You mean you haven't realized that by the Zimmerman case by now? Or are you still on full witch-hunt mode for the "white" who's actually not. And I'm not even talking about the "black" part. Only people with a serious political bias believe what you've said, because they're so wrapped up in their own bubble that they feel threatened by other media sources that don't conform to their own world view.
Anyway, let me point out the funny thing, it took this guy 15 years to find them. And he knew roughly where they are. Remember that thing about hiding stuff in the middle of a desert?
Om, nomnomnom...
That's not entirely true. A lot of their best pilots were not lost in areal combat but were killed when their ship was sunk. The "Battle of Midway" is a prime example of this. Most of the Japanese planes were still on their ships when they were hit (Agakai, Kaga and Soryu). Now if you are talking about land based planes, yopu might be right, however, most of Japans best fliers were on the carriers.
Another factor was rate of descent. The American planes could dive better than the Zero. I'm not sure if the cost of getting above the Zero offset the advantage of being able to dive upon it.
I understand that the Zero was fairly unique in having its wing root as part of the fuselage. This was hard to build and took up a lot of assembly floor space. Again, if manoeuvrability was won at the cost of production, why did only one manufacturer take this option?
Their they're doing there hair.
God what a miserable fucker you are.
God, I wish I had mod points.
Because we fucking CAN !
Yes !
There is still a Hurricane down at Wanaka - but it's not being flown due to costs, and for sale if you have the dosh. It looked sad at the last airshow, sitting idle on the apron :-(
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Another factor was rate of descent. The American planes could dive better than the Zero. I'm not sure if the cost of getting above the Zero offset the advantage of being able to dive upon it
Yes it was crucial. Witness the success of the P-38 in the Pacific theatre. Fighting the energy-fight and staying out of a level turning fight at all cost enabled US top aces to rack up impressive numbers against their Japanese adversaries. The top two scoring US aces flew the P-38 in the Pacific.
In the words of US Pacific ace Thomas McGuire; "Never get low, never get slow, and never attack with your drop tank on." I.e. use the vertical.
Stefan Axelsson
You know what's actually pathetic? White knighting Fox. Dude wasn't even "bitching", he was trying to helpfully offer links to far better sources of information. I for one saw that TFA link led to Fox and didn't click it on the rather safe assumption that even if there was no political content the Fox-ized article would be sensationalized, poorly researched, etc. It's what Fox does. It's who they are.
Many if not most here act like they'd prefer getting their information from, and would put more stock in, the unhinged rantings of Baghdad Bob that were found scrawled on a wall inside some ghetto crackhouse, than they would hearing even the most well-done and bias-free story from Fox News. I'll even bet that most of these same people also think of themselves as being tolerant, except that they only tolerate hearing facts and opinions they agree with, and seek to shout-down, ridicule, and otherwise silence any opposing viewpoints or opinions.
Maybe we just prefer to not support Fox in any way, shape or form, until such time as they cease being devoted to literally lying to the public about almost anything connected to politics. That means not clicking the link even when it's not related to politics. I do not want Fox collecting one millicent from ad impressions traceable to me.
And hell yes I'll ridicule opposing viewpoints -- when they're worthy of ridicule. Fox propaganda organs routinely produce ridiculous viewpoints, therefore they get shot down. This is not intolerance, or attempting to silence. This is responding to speech with more speech. That's kind of the nature of public discourse. You've so fully internalized the Fox meme of "EVERYONE ELSE IS EEEEEEVUL LIEBERUL MEEDIA, US AGAINST THE WORLD" that you're interpreting criticism as oppression. Sad.
Zeroes started losing when the Thach Weave was developed (which essentially involved avoiding getting killed until your wingman could ruin the Zero pilot's whole day). They continued to lose for the rest of the war, since American pilots fought in pairs for the whole war.
Thatch's Weave allowed the US pilots to survive.
No. The main survival maneuver was to dive away from combat, because the Zero had relatively poor dive performance (IIRC, a combination of the airframe's strength and some sort problem with the engine when trying to accelerate quickly in a dive).
The Thach Weave (note correct spelling, Jimmy Thach's name did not include a second 't') wasn't merely a defensive maneuver. By having wingmen fly the weave with discipline (rather than breaking off into individual fights), and training airmen in accurate deflection gunnery, US naval pilots were able to force any attacker to be repeatedly exposed to deflection shots from the supporting wingman. The weave was such a successful offense-from-defense tactic that it enabled the US Navy to achieve a high kill ratio even relatively early in the war, when they were flying F4Fs against the not-yet-decimated IJN pilot corps in Zeroes.
The Zero had no armour, no self-sealing tanks, none of those things that enhanced your ability to survive a fight if your opponent had a clue.
Including despite orders to wear them, paracchutes.
They just weren't necessary.
Er, in practice, after the USN developed effective tactics to counter the Zero, it turned out that these things were necessary. Zeroes were no longer untouchable, and it turned out that when shot they were rather prone to going down in flames.
By way of contrast, USN pilots affectionately called Grumman the "Grumman Iron Works" because their F4F and F6F, though heavy and less maneuverable than the Zero, frequently returned to base with a live pilot even when badly shot up.
The Zero remained superior to all marques until lack of development made it a loser.
No. It started losing as soon as the IJN faced superior tactics and training, even against an opponent whose main aircraft at the time (the F4F) was decidedly inferior to the Zero in most regards except maximum dive speed, firepower, and battle damage resistance.