Repatriation????

Yes, that crash was indeed a great loss. Thankfully it did not have any detriment to the sales.

I read that one is now in Switzerland and will act as a demonstrator to European airlines. I saw one fly over recently, it was heading straight at me, and seeing the wings I assumed for a while it was a Fletcher or Cresco. But as it drew closer I was concerned that I couldn’t hear the engine. Fletchers and Crescos fly over every day here, and the Fletcher is as noisy as a Harvard. Crescos are quiter, but nowhere near as silent as the PAC 750XL. Wow it was quiet. Make a good stealth bomber!

I hear quite a few are being used for parachutists now. They have used Crescos for the same job in the past, they simply take the hopper out and loads of space! Some don’t even fit a side door, just drop out the bottom!

Pac 750xl

Thanks for the update on the Fletcher…it originally came out in the 50s.
You’re right, they are marketing the 750XL here, they’ve sold a couple to skydive operators.
We were sorry to hear about the loss of the prototype when it ditched off the west coast on Christmas. It was an appearent fuel delivery problem.
A USCG Hercules was on the scene and saw the plane ditch but the pilot never made it out. The company say’s it won’t effect North American deliveries.

A bit about our aviation industry… Yes, the original Fletcher design was originally American, but there is quite a difference between that aircraft design with its tiny piston engine and the Turbo Fletcher prototype, and what that development lead to in terms of agricultural aviation in New Zealand and round the world, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

New Zealand Aerospace Industries, and its successor Pacific Aerospace Corporation, have indeed developed the American design considerably, through to up-engined Fletchers, then the Turbo Fletcher, then the Cresco which is a substantially different design that looks similar, and now the PAC 750XL, which is basically an expanded design on the Cresco that can seat nine passengers.

Fletchers and Crescos have sold to many countries across Asia. Africa, Australia and I think even the USA. They have been the backbone of the NZ aviation industry for decades and saved PAC when the CT4 (military sales) failed to reach tagret by four aircraft and the production line was shut down. In the 1990’s thanks to the success of the ag aircraft keeping the industry afloat, the CT4 was put back into production and it remains in production today.

The PAC 750XL is now also breaking into a world market, and I saw in yesterday’s paper that a massive deal has been struck to build 72 of them in co-operartion with a Canadian manufacturer – and apparently they’ve already secured sales for over 90 aircraft. They are taking on many more engineers, so it is great for our aircraft industry.

Also varying companies in NZ have developed their own engine fittings, and Fletchers have flown here with Ford V8’s and Chev V8’s, which have apparently proven to be very good.

Firstly – A point of fact, New Zealand did actually have an aircraft industry during the war, and it still does.
The prototype Turbo Fletcher was a recent case here in NZ. Probably the most important development in agricultural aircraft in the Southern Hemisphere.

The Fletcher was originally designed in the U.S., but it does deserves to be in New Zealand because it was fully developed, maunfactured and used there. Again, put planes where they wil be appreciated.
I’m glad the Zero is popular in NZ, but if you look in the book by Marachat (Sp?) about surviving Japanese planes, it’s a shame more of them aren’t in their own country.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m really glag Kermit weeks preserved the Sunderland…Weeks is a true hero of the historic aircraft community all of us owe him a big debt, and Florida is as good place to keep the plane as any, especially since it’s accessable to the historic plane fans who are in the neighborhood anyway when they go on Holiday to Orlando.
The USAFM isn’t a bad place for the Mosquito…but there could be a better place, especially, if it were to be made flyable. Right now, I’d rather see a whole Mosquito at Duxford than Dayton….even though I live closer to the latter. Why? Because the typical Duxford visitor will appreciate the plane more than the typical USAFM visitor and the Mossiue meant much more to the RAF than the USAAF.

Dave it sounds like you’re saying “What’s mine is mine!”
If NZ had an aircraft industry during WWII, and the sole remaining example of the “Kiwi Mk 12” or whatever were in a museum in the US or UK, I’m sure you’d be saying something different.
The purpose of the discussion is to get us to think about where planes would bae best appreciated. I’m glad the NZ warbird community is thriving, but I’m even happier that the planes you are desperate to hold onto are common enough that you’re not keeping something from other places that have an equal (or greater) claim to them.

Firstly – A point of fact, New Zealand did actually have an aircraft industry during the war, and it still does.

No, I don’t think I am saying ‘What’s mine is mine’ at all. There really is no clear defining line on what should be where. And I don’t think people should try to make such a line in the sand.

An aircraft don’t necessarily need to be based in it’s country of origin so long as it is being taken care of properly.

I see your point about the emotional attachment a country might have if an aircraft is the only one of its kind left and it is languishing in a foreign country. But who’d to say it will be appreciated in its own country?

The prototype Turbo Fletcher was a recent case here in NZ. Probably the most important development in agricultural aircraft in the Southern Hemisphere. It was the only one exisiting, and was rotting on a pole at Hamilton International Airport, Rukuhia. The airport (or someone) decided it needed to be restored and preserved, and the best place would naturally be the Mystery Creek museum, which is the national museum of agriculture. But they didn’t want it!!! They were happy for it to ot on a pole. Eventually a home was found in the Waikato museum and Art Gallery, which is totally inappropriate as it is the worst museum I’ve ever been to, and does not give a monkeys about anything that isn’t art or Maori culture. I dread it may not last long there. So there is a case of an incredibly important and solitary historic aircraft that is not appreciated at all in the very city it was designed and built!!

Furthermore the Sunderland is not the only one in the world, there are thankfully others around. Most are already in Britain. If it did go back to Britain it would be unlikey to fly anyway. So why not allow Kermit to own his example and keep it in the USA, at least it is loved and looked after. And his preservation of the plane ensures that in the future it may well fly again and be able to return to or visit the UK or NZ or any other country that cares to claim an attachment to it.

The USAFM Mosquioe is one of dozens around, and it is not the only potential flyer in the world either. The USAAF did use Mossies, as did many other countries and most countries seem to have at least one in a museum somewhere.

If a very rare aircraft is in a museum that saved it from the brink of destruction and even extinction, that museum, wherever it is located, has done the world a favour, not just their local populace. If people really want to see it theywill simply have to travel to that museum, not hope the aircraft is shipped to them. I mean, a museum, no matter where it is located, wouldn’t restore and display an aircraft it didn’t appreciate.

The Zero in Auckland for example, which incidentally I’ve read is the oldest example and only one of its type in existence (can anyone confirm?), IS very much appreciated where it is. The plane is a major asset of the Auckland War Memorial Museum.

It is apparently the biggest drawcard of Japanese visitors to the museum, but it also brings in many other nationalities who wouldn’t normally get a chance to see such an aircraft. It brings in a lot of money which helps maintain all the exhibits there. And the fact that these Japanese tourists go to see it while in New Zealand doesn’t necessarily mean however that they’ll go to see it if it were in a museum in Japan. they see a lot of things in Auckland they wouldn’t other to do at home – it’s the nature of any tourist.

I’d hate to hear it was to return to Japan simply because someone thinks it would be more appreciated there. It simply wouldn’t be. Most Japs don’t acknowledge what went on in the war, most of the younger ones have no idea as their schools have neglected teaching them because much of their war effort is so shameful.

So the Zero is much more appreciated in an environment where the public understand what exactly it stands for, and also an environment where its custodians care for it and have lovingly restored it. On a recent visit it looked stunning, and the amount of people filing in to see it was quite astounding to me.

Furthermore, it is a war prize that belongs to all New Zealanders and it stands as a symbol of the freedom New Zealanders fought for and the many sacrifices they made in the war in the Pacific. It should remain in our country’s major war memorial museum. Not somewhere that may be looked on as a shameful object of an unacknowledged past.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Spitfire that sits nexdoor to it, even though it too is a wonderful symbol of NZ’s past, I wouldn’t mind a jot if someone took it out and got it flying, even if it went back to the UK. That’s because it isn’t rare as such and is appreciated wherever it is.

I was very pleased when Pioneer restored the rusting hulk of P40E/N from Motat. It was one of the few remaining remnants of our wartime RNZAF fighter wing on display anywhere, but restoration has done it so much more service than sitting in the museum. The fact the Ray Hanna bought it and took it to the UK was not a worry. It was appreciated there as much as it is when flying here. And now it is back.

So as I say, there is no clear line of what should be where. I think we should appreciate that museums have preserved what is around today, wherever they are.

“What’s mine is mine”

[QUOTE=Dave Homewood]”My musing is based on a perfect world”

Personally I think the whole idea is a little daft. But if such a ‘perfect world’ were to exist, my ‘perfect world’ would have the Sunderland return to New Zealand, where it served it’s military career, not the UK where it was apparently unwanted. Along with that we’d also take back Kermit’s 486 (NZ) Sqn Tempest, and 485 (NZ) Sqn’s Spitfires ML407 and MK432…..and….

Oh well, at least NZ has recently had it’s Corsair and P40 returned. 🙂

As for non-flying museum pieces, I think that it is a credit to museums that have taken the trouble to preserve aircraft even if they are not from their own country. In many cases it is pure luck that such aircraft have survived to this day. A case in point is the Zero in Auckland Museum. It could so eaily have been destroyed along with the RNZAF’s Bf109 and Albatross, which were sadly burned after WWII. The Zero was certainly under threat.

I think such museums that have saved aircraft from destruction like this deserve the right to own it, and not have it taken off them and sent ‘home’ to Japan. That aircraft spent very little time in Japan but has had nearly 60 years in NZ – so it is ours – no-one else’s. Many museums in many countries will no doubt feel the same.
QUOTE]

Dave it sounds like you’re saying “What’s mine is mine!”
If NZ had an aircraft industry during WWII, and the sole remaining example of the “Kiwi Mk 12” or whatever were in a museum in the US or UK, I’m sure you’d be saying something different.
The purpose of the discussion is to get us to think about where planes would bae best appreciated. I’m glad the NZ warbird community is thriving, but I’m even happier that the planes you are desperate to hold onto are common enough that you’re not keeping something from other places that have an equal (or greater) claim to them.

JDK, don’t forget that the Hudson in the RAF Museum is also Australian.

The ‘Roo on the front is clearly a clue. 😉

However it’s a half and halfer – Civil setup in military colours. I wouldn’t mind it in civil colours, or proper military (turret, nose guns etc) but halfway I find a bit of a pain. The Hudson now at Temora is a lot more like it (Not just ‘cos it flies).

“My musing is based on a perfect world”

Personally I think the whole idea is a little daft. But if such a ‘perfect world’ were to exist, my ‘perfect world’ would have the Sunderland return to New Zealand, where it served it’s military career, not the UK where it was apparently unwanted. Along with that we’d also take back Kermit’s 486 (NZ) Sqn Tempest, and 485 (NZ) Sqn’s Spitfires ML407 and MK432…..and….

Oh well, at least NZ has recently had it’s Corsair and P40 returned. 🙂

If it were not for that fact that Warbirds are shared and sold around the world, many countries would not have a warbirds culture at all. New Zealand’s scene would be very limited, just Harvards and Tiger Moths – like it was in the 1980’s before Sir Tim Wallis began importing his collection of fighters that really got the scene moving. Nowadays we have a thriving warbirds movement with some of the world’s most exciting projects, factories and airshows.

Also without the international trafficking of warbirds the likes of the ex-OFMC Corsair would probably never have been restored to flying.

As for non-flying museum pieces, I think that it is a credit to museums that have taken the trouble to preserve aircraft even if they are not from their own country. In many cases it is pure luck that such aircraft have survived to this day. A case in point is the Zero in Auckland Museum. It could so eaily have been destroyed along with the RNZAF’s Bf109 and Albatross, which were sadly burned after WWII. The Zero was certainly under threat.

I think such museums that have saved aircraft from destruction like this deserve the right to own it, and not have it taken off them and sent ‘home’ to Japan. That aircraft spent very little time in Japan but has had nearly 60 years in NZ – so it is ours – no-one else’s. Many museums in many countries will no doubt feel the same.

JDK, don’t forget that the Hudson in the RAF Museum is also Australian.

The fact is that aircraft are restored or preserved by people or organisations that have the money. If it takes someone like Kermit Weeks to preserve an aircraft that was not viable on these shores then so be it. The important thing in my mind is that the aircraft are being preserved. It is getting easier for people and indeed aircraft to travel around the world and as long as the aircraft survive they are accessible.

Reading the posts on this forum for the past few months I have been impressed with the welcome we in the UK afforded to Steve Patterson on his visit. If we continue to afford such a welcome we can hope to have aircraft that are owned by people outside this country visiting our shores. I hope that if we afford a civil welcome to Mr Patterson at Leg Ends he may well wish to return with an English aircraft on an occasion in the future. If the likes of Steve and Kermit Weeks can afford to restore our heritage I am sure they would, GIVEN THE RIGHT WELCOME, like to allow us to see their aircraft.

I visited the Kermit Weeks facility at Polk City this Easter and was impressed with what he was trying to achieve. The back lot tour allowed the public to see what was happening and indeed how they achieved their goals. I am worried that there are a number of us on this forum that think that the UK is the only place that aircraft can be restored and displayed.

In summary following this what now appears lengthy post – If they are restored we should be pleased – and it matters very little where, as long as they are restored to a high standard.

Where they belong….

There are other American
types which played an important part in the ETO which could have quite happily been substituted for a B-24 – a Marauder readily springs to mind.

I agree it would be nice to have a B-26 there…too bad the U.S. scrapped virtually all of them, the USAF Museum example came from France (an Air France training airframe) to the USAFM where it certainly belongs.
Of course let significant airframes stay where they served…the question I posed is more about one of a kind or extremly rare airframes, in other words if only one Lancaster survived, I’d say it belongs at Hendon rather than Paris, Sydney or Canada.
And please don’t think I’m against Kermit Week’s huge collection…the quote is not from me and I don’t think the author meanty it as a slam…but it got me thinking about the issue. Anyone like Kermit who puts millions into saving historic planes deserves all of our thanks.

I have to agree with David here. A bit of linear thought shows the repatriation argument to be unsustanable on ‘origin’ or cost.

Just to take one example: Lancasters. Would you like to take RAAF operated British built Lanc G-George out of the Australian War Memorial? Give ‘Just Jane’ back to France? Send the IWM Duxford Lanc back to Canada (where it was built)? Take back the Aeronavale Lanc under restoration at Le Bourget?

Something close to my heart. Walrii. There are 4. All British built, but operated all over whe world from the Arctic to the Antarctic, North America to Russia. The British built but entirely Australian operated Seagull V A2-4 VH-ALB is in the RAF Museum, where it has no good reason to be, except its origin. Personally, I’m pleased to see an Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force aircraft represented at Hendon. The British HD874 is in the Royal Australian Air Force Museum at Point Cook. It was used at Heard Island, and to cut a long story short, belongs in Aus; not Britain, though some people suggest swapping the ‘British’ for the ‘Aussie’ a/c.

The Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, has a Walrus, whose military service was in the Irish Air Corps. Now I can’t see anyone seriously expecting it to be returned to Eire?

The last was desperately unloved, and without D1ck Melton, would have been lost. It’s avaliable to buy to restore to fly – if there’s enough money. But there’s no takers, UK or elsewhere. Ironically, someone like Kermit Weeks is frankly the a/c’s best chance…

There’s some discussion, as requested!

Cheers

John – the actual reality is that most aircraft that are well preserved are that because nobody else appreciated them where they were ! The Sunderland
was for sale for a long time in the U.K with no takers. I can assure you having seen her in April that she is safely inside with a secure future. It could be argued that having spent the greater part of her career in the Virgin Islands
Florida is not too far from her spiritual home.
Before we start addressing bringing aircraft back to the U.K we really need to get our own machines in order. There is already far too much duplication of types and there are blindingly clear examples in the U.K where
museums could co-operate more to improve each others collections.
Regards the B-24 – it took a massive effort to bring her to the U.K -something that already had been done by the RAFM . It’s very much the case
that she is somewhat ‘lost’ in the cramped AAM. There are other American
types which played an important part in the ETO which could have quite happily been substituted for a B-24 – a Marauder readily springs to mind.
Whilst the idea of returning the Lincoln from Argentina will appeal to many – the actual reality is that it formed an important part of the Argentine Air Force and it’s their history. They would probably argue the point that
we cannot even preserve an important test example in the U.K – the Sandtoft machine G-APRJ.

In a perfect world…

So it would have nothing to do with money, then?

Flood.™

My musing is based on a perfect world…and to generate discussion.
As historic aviation fans, I believe we need to be make sure rare airplanes are seen by the people who need to see them.
I was in favor of moving the B-24 from Lackland to Duxford, few people appreciuated it there, and the glassfibre model serves its purpose. (Though I still wonder why the Liberator Cosford wasn’t moved).

That may mean a Lincoln leaving Argentina and heading to the UK, or a Rufe or Tony leaving the U.S. and going to Japan.

So it would have nothing to do with money, then?

Flood.™

Just my 2 cents:
I live in Germany, and I think, we have too few allied aircraft over here. I´d really like to see some Hurricanes or Spitfires in natura here (not those painted overall “redbull”), not only Focke-Wulfs or Messerschmitts.
And I guess it will still take some time until I´ll have the opportunity to visit the UK.