Aussie Spitfire sold off to UK by the QLD govt

Without any hesitation I would like to say that no one can predict or understand decision of Government and also same for corporate sector. I can understand your feel Daniel, but we are helpless.

Not so helpless. As Ross (QLD Spitty) says; the premier of QLD who allowed that to happen was dumped dramatically at the last state election. Her party now has single figure member representation in the QLD parliament. She got the message.

Not sure how many Queenslanders realise their state government is the sole shareholder in an aviation business. Or, knowing, approve of it.

The Premier of Queensland is Mr Campbell-Newman, ex Major from the Australian Army, knowing our Army officer types he would have had a smile on his face with the sale of the aircraft!

Sale went through a few years ago.
QAM might still have the plaque..

The Premier of Queensland is Mr Campbell-Newman, ex Major from the Australian Army, knowing our Army officer types he would have had a smile on his face with the sale of the aircraft!

Interesting to see a picture LZ844 on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=144109239088533&set=a.142398902592900.32460.100004683720731&type=1&theater

Anyone know of the plans for her?

You can keep all your Spitfires in Oz, but please, can we have Winston back?

Ten years, and I still miss him..

DD:)

Good to see these two aircraft being restored to fly.
There are plenty of remains in Australia with true RAAF provenance to fill the gap.
You should really read a certain book about it…;)
Cees

I thought this was supposed to be us Brits

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whinging%20Pom

Another warbird tourism loss to QLD and Australia.

Looks like a blunder and some bungling by the Bligh ALP Government… not stopping the sale “not a training item anymore”….

Another **** up as i see it – sadly nothing new there in Australia’s aviation history of recent years.

Take a look at our airports…
Shame aviation is seen as “nusiance” by governments, yet when there is natural disasters as seen in QLD this year aviation….. is at the forefront and in demand.

Pity like in NSW too, airports keep been sold off and shut down by federal/state and local governments when given the chances.

I will say least 1 new airport is expected to open around Toowoomba soon according to news just released.

Maybe this might bring some warbirds in?

Being at a major Australian Aviation museum we heard nothing too.

Martin

I support Mark Pilkington’s words. I live in Brisbane and am a warbird owner with a number of aircraft and am known to most people in the business here. No-one here heard of these aircraft being offered for sale. To me there is an issue of a Government owned asset being sold without following due public disposal process. I intend to pursue this and we’ll see what real evidence there is to support your argument.

I’m happy to see aircraft restored to flying condition no matter where but I’m keen to see bureaucrats follow due process.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and flies and swims like one too….then.

I would like to thank all those who have posted very sensible comments about the situation, and to those who think my purchase of them is somehow outrageous I would just like to hope that, when the dust has settled, you will appreciate that their sale offers the chance to see another two Spitfires in the air where they truly belong, a situation that was unlikely to have ever happened if they had remained where they were.

He shoots, he scores 😀

From what I understand, both projects were offered locally prior to my involvement but no buyer could be found. I contracted to buy both aircraft some months ago at which point I made some effort to find a local buyer for LZ844 but without success, I even used a well-known Australian-based specialist broker to try and find a buyer, but his clientele also declined.

Martin

Thankyou for your open response, although I hope no one was seriously suggesting you had “made off” with anything or “stolen” someones exhibit, I think everyone acknowledges the aircraft was on loan, and if you have purchased the aircraft legally, and obtained appropriate export permits as I am sure you have, then you will have done all that should be expected of you.

In regards to any attempts to sell the aircraft locally either by Aviation Australia, or by your Australian based specialist broker, my only comment is that as Secretary of Australia’s largest volunteer / not for profit museum – no such contact or notification was ever received of any such opportunity?, and I suspect no other Australian museum (or at least volunteer museum) other than QAM knew of this sale and export until it occured.

Again that is not an obligation on yourself, just a dis-appointment here in Australia, (particularly as we now learn that you had apparantly sought a local buyer of LZ884 and its static restoration suited ongoing museum display), and certainly this is a failure of Aviation Australia in my opinion, and surprising given I had been communicating to them on other matters.

I would be pleased to know of the brokers efforts to find a local buyer, or those of Aviation Australia prior to that, and I do support those proposing to make representations locally in Australia over that situation, and in particular to the Queensland Government and management of Aviation Australia.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Thank you Martin,

A well considered, and informative post.

Bruce

LZ844 & TE566

Having read the thread I thought it was time I posted some sort of response to the various issues raised.

I originally sold TE566 to Aviation Australia back in 2002/3 after acquiring it from the insurance assessors handling the claim resulting from the unfortunate crash. The forward fuselage had effectively been destroyed but both wings, the tail and engine had survived, albeit damaged. Aviation Australia purchased from Airframe Assemblies a complete fuselage `kit’ and wing spars etc. to form the basis of a total rebuild to be done by the college.

LZ844 had been purchased by Aviation Australia in 2003 by private treaty after it failed to attract a bid at auction. This was repainted by the college and then lent to the QAM for them to exhibit. A change in government and the subsequent departure of the CEO of Aviation Australia (who was largely the driving force for the project) resulted in both aircraft projects being offered for sale.

From what I understand, both projects were offered locally prior to my involvement but no buyer could be found. I contracted to buy both aircraft some months ago at which point I made some effort to find a local buyer for LZ844 but without success, I even used a well-known Australian-based specialist broker to try and find a buyer, but his clientele also declined.

Both projects are now returning to the UK where they are destined for full rebuilds to flying condition.

I’m not going to get embroiled in the usual `what constitutes a Spitfire’ argument, it’s all been said too many times before and for as long as I’ve been involved in aircraft, which is a long time!

I do have some sympathy with the attitude of the QAM volunteers, who undoubtedly do a fine job with very limited resources but lots of enthusiasm and dedication. I do not feel, however, that I’m responsible for `stealing away’ their exhibit. The QAM have had free loan of LZ844 for over 4 years during which time they have enjoyed the benefit of this and presumably have also given great pleasure to many visitors. There seems to be some blurring of the distinction between `loan’ and `gift’ although this distinction was made very clear originally from the documents I’ve seen.

I would like to thank all those who have posted very sensible comments about the situation, and to those who think my purchase of them is somehow outrageous I would just like to hope that, when the dust has settled, you will appreciate that their sale offers the chance to see another two Spitfires in the air where they truly belong, a situation that was unlikely to have ever happened if they had remained where they were.

Martin Cobb

A shot of the bead blasted, and then ‘anonymous’, Spitfire after recovery from New Guinea.

JG891, now flying, was laying along side it and was in a little better condition…but not much.

JG891 went down the flying route whilst LZ844 was restored from the outset as a static…and that is the dilemma.

Mark

G’Day All

Better to have a flying replica than a static, even it if it has only a few original bits and pieces. One live aeroplane is worth more that 2 dead ones. Put it on the Australian Register in expermental catagory! Forget trying to make it something that it no longer is, don’t give it a false identity.

This is particularly true in this case because if it goes belly up in a pile of dust, nothing particularly significient aeroplane wise is lost!

cheers

But it is a Spitfire with an identity !!

Don’t forget, for example TA805 & SM520, what they started with and what excellent restorations they are now ?

Could you compere this with, for instance BS410 ??

Daniel/Phil/Miggy/Sabredriver/Liberator/Historicflyer/have I missed any?/et al, please take a Bex and have a good lie down – permanently…

There is really nothing “historic” in this airframe. It looked like a Spitfire….in the distance….

‘The book’ shows what LZ844 started life as. I have no idea what the standard of work is on the aircraft, but it is a static reconstruction based around a small part of original aircraft.

Very different to the infamous Mk 8 export of all those years ago!

Bruce

I’m afraid after watching it being “rebuilt” many, many years ago, what good parts went into this project underwent “death by restoration”:(.
I hope whoever bought this didn’t pay too much. The only good thing is that maybe something may be resurrected properly out of it.

More gen on the WIX forum.