Malcolm says;
Well at the risk of inflaming more passions TIGHAR does stand for the The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery so a little matter like being able stabilize objects that have been immersed in salt water should have been factored into the mission statement and business model. TIGHAR was apparently not just created to find Amelia Earhart - I for one see the search for the L'Oiseau Blanc as being of greater significance to aviation history than the Electra.
Malcolm,
Yup, the name has Recovery in it. Got started that way in 1985, some 27 years ago, when the plan for the organization was a bit different. Yes, things have morphed a bit in near 30 years, but recovery of historic aircraft is still very much part of the agenda, we're just focused on a few specific aircraft. I think Ric has considered updating the name, but he likes the acronym TIGHAR and simply prefers to keep it.
Unfortunately, as an independent non-profit organization whose goal is preservation as opposed to reconstruction, recovery of aircraft is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is funding. Most of the aircraft that are recovered these days are headed for a complete reconstruction project so they can be made airworthy again to satisfy somebody's personal desire to have a flying example of a historic aircraft. This also takes money and many personal fortunes are being put to this use, but in the end, the goal is to have a valuable asset with which to make money, as an investment, or as a revenue generator.
If you can make money with the end product - a flyable aircraft - you can attract quite a bit of private equity up front willing to buy a piece of the action. Several groups have taken this approach to the Earhart Electra, hoping to make money on it. A great example of this approach is the research and recovery of Glacier Girl from under the ice in Greenland. The aircraft had to be substantially reconstructed (something like 80% new parts) to get it airworthy again as it had been crushed under 200+ ft of ice. In the process, they took what was one of the few authentic WWII examples and essentially stripped it of all the original materials, so it has lost its importance as a resource example of original WWII techniques and materials. Don't get me wrong, I love to see P-38s fly, but seems a shame to take an authentic time capsule and not think about it's significance as a time capsule.
TIGHAR, on the other hand, does not have such reconstruction plans. If found and recovered by TIGHAR, the Electra would get conserved in the condition found rather than reconstructed. Yes, it would probably be on tour for a while, but would ultimately most likely end up being "donated" by its owner, the nation of Kiribati, to the Smithsonian. Not much of a money maker for TIGHAR and certainly one that doesn't attract private equity investments. Instead, we have to raise funds without a promise of ownership, a much harder proposition.
We could have yanked the P-38 out of the sand, or the TBDs off out of the lagoon long ago and easily sold them into the reconstruction market if that was the type of recovery we were interested in, but it is not. (OK, not the TBDs, but the involvement of the US Navy just illustrates the complexity of recovering historic aircraft)
We have done a lot of research on the stabilization of aircraft immersed in salt water, and the conservation of such is not a simple matter. TIGHAR probably knows more about it now than most aviation archaeology groups. Until one is ready to deal with the considerable conservation measures, funding required, and a proper museum to house the artifact, it is actually better to leave the aircraft where they are in the water. Until we can do it right, we'd rather not do something that would in the end be detrimental to the aircraft. This was not well understood 30 years ago, and many recoveries have turned to disaster for the aircraft as those folks were unprepared to conserve them once out of salt water.
We've narrowed the focus to a few main projects, two with known positions for the aircraft, and two with unknown positions. There certainly are plans to recover all of them, but it is hard to recover any of them without the right resources, and more importantly, the right plan to conserve, preserve, and house them as genuine historic artifacts, rather than recover them for the private reconstruction market.
What I don't understand is that any understanding of the complexity TIGHAR faces recovering the aircraft we're interested in, you seem intent on criticizing TIGHAR for the lack of actually recovering an intact aircraft to date because the 30 year old name of the organization has the word "Recovery" in it.
Really, have you nothing more to contribute?
Andrew
