Further to the Kennet Aviation post yesterday.
First off, we had the sale in 1983 of Spitfire PL983 by the Shuttleworth Collection, this caused considerable ill feeling among the many volunteer helpers who spent thousands of man hours and cash to further the ‘restoration’ of their Mkxi Spitfire, only for Shuttleworth to sell it off from under them, apparently retaining funds raised.
Then, another long restoration of Spitfire MA793 in South Africa, during which extensive use was made of Atlas Aircraft Corporation facilities and services, among many others.
In 1986 reports started to circulate that a sale had taken place, despite vigorous denials by owner Larry Barnett. It was stated in the press that,
MA793 ‘had an in-flight problem’ and would need to divert to another airfield, it never arrived there, landing instead at another airstrip.
It was crated up there and shipped to America.
The SA government itself together with Atlas Aircraft, were extremely unhappy at this manoeuvre and sale to say the very least.
The latest disposal, Seafire LA564 owned by Peter R Arnold, perhaps best known here as; Mark XII, now seems the latest victim, being discreetly disposed of to Kennet Aviation.
Again, this ‘restoration’ had a not inconsiderable input from many sources including Rolls Royce and British Aerospace, added to this, the many donated parts large and small, together with volunteer assistance over a very considerable time, all very valuable.
Others put great effort in many ways towards all these aircraft. All for what? or, should I ask, who?
Now, this in my humble opinion, begs the question,
Is the continuing irresistible urge sell off of Spitfires for a massive cash profit at the seemingly expense of the true enthusiast and enthusiastic companies damaging the fragile structure of volunteer help for the future, for without that help it will prove harder to restore any aircraft?
This of course, does not appertain to bona fide restoration companies who pay their own way in full.
By: Bruce - 12th April 2008 at 07:17
I dont think this thread is going anywhere, and as there is a consensus of opinion, except for the original poster, I will close it.
Bruce
By: Oxcart - 12th April 2008 at 00:53
No.
I’m still up for volunteering – if anyone will let me anywhere near their aeroplane
– ME TOO!- but all i can offer is my exceptional Tea making skills!:)
By: DaveF68 - 12th April 2008 at 00:10
I’ll just pick up the popcorn……
By: Mark V - 11th April 2008 at 23:17
what an extraordinary post (#1). These aircraft are largely privately owned and the owner can, within the law, do whatever he likes with his property. I have lost count of the number of aircraft I have worked on (voluntarily) that have been subsequently sold by their owners. But its just part of life in this business, something that if you volunteer your time you have to accept as being a probability. In fact, come to think of it I have woked on some aircraft for several different owners, most recently Spitfire BL628, so just because the aircraft is sold it does not mean that your input necessarily ends.
I do this for the aircraft, to preserve history, simple as that. Historic aircraft change hands, just as simple.
By: *Zwitter* - 11th April 2008 at 23:02
[QUOTE=’D-Day’;1238340]
Is the continuing irresistible urge sell off of Spitfires for a massive cash profit at the seemingly expense of the true enthusiast and enthusiastic companies damaging the fragile structure of volunteer help for the future, for without that help it will prove harder to restore any aircraft?
[/QUOTE]
No.
I’m still up for volunteering – if anyone will let me anywhere near their aeroplane
By: pagen01 - 11th April 2008 at 22:43
I’m going to keep an eye on this thread – it looks like it could get personal.
Bruce
Hasn’t it got personal because some of the subsequent posts made it so?
Surely on a forum someone has the option to air their views, I don’t share the view. The only real objection I have against the first post is naming somebody, which is just not done on forums, unless consultation or the other person uses their name as their ID.
By: XH668 - 11th April 2008 at 22:19
Isn’t the whole point of volunteering that you give your effort because you enjoy doing so? No strings attached.
That’s how it works for plenty of the people I volunteer alongside.
That what i thought as well, tho you do get some aircraft owners who give you the odd flight or what ever
By: jbs - 11th April 2008 at 22:15
[QUOTE=’D-Day’;1238340]The latest disposal, Seafire LA564 owned by Peter R Arnold, perhaps best known here as; Mark XII, now seems the latest victim, being discreetly disposed of to Kennet Aviation.[/QUOTE]
I am sure that the majority of these type of sales are conducted ‘discreetly’.
There is one thing I would point out and that is Kennet did not in fact take on this project directly from Peter Arnold, which means your example is in fact inaccurate and misleading.
By: Mark12 - 11th April 2008 at 22:14
Welcome to the forum M….n. :rolleyes:
By: Robbo - 11th April 2008 at 22:08
Isn’t the whole point of volunteering that you give your effort because you enjoy doing so? No strings attached.
That’s how it works for plenty of the people I volunteer alongside.
By: Oxcart - 11th April 2008 at 22:06
So, Mark 12 IS Peter Arnold after all!!- I’m feeling smug for guessing that!!
By: Junk Collector - 11th April 2008 at 22:00
I’m going to keep an eye on this thread – it looks like it could get personal.
Bruce
I think it already has !
By: Bruce - 11th April 2008 at 21:58
I’m afraid that one has to accept that as a volunteer, that sometimes priorities change.
The situation with the Shuttleworth aircraft is completely different to the Larry Barnett Aircraft, which is completely different to the Seafire.
The latter two were privately owned – not owned by volunteers; not owned by a museum trust. It is ENTIRELY up to the owner what they do with them.
If you want to volunteer to work on an aircraft, AND have a say in its future, I suggest you own it to start with. Otherwise there can be no guarantees, and neither should there be.
I’m going to keep an eye on this thread – it looks like it could get personal.
Bruce
By: Nashio966 - 11th April 2008 at 21:46
I do hope you’re ready for the backlash from this sort of ill-informed comment!:mad:
have they outlawed the stocks and hanging? :diablo:
By: Lee Howard - 11th April 2008 at 21:38
[QUOTE=’D-Day’;1238340]This of course, does not appertain to bona fide restoration companies who pay their own way in full.[/QUOTE]
I do hope you’re ready for the backlash from this sort of ill-informed comment!:mad:
By: Yak 11 Fan - 11th April 2008 at 21:38
It’s life I’m afraid I have spent 20+ years volunteering on other peoples aircraft and I get way more out of it than money could buy. If the owners over the years felt like selling their property (as has happened to a collection worked on) then its entirely ther choice and they do not deserve to be slated on a public forum.
Sign In
April 11, 2008 at 9:24 pm