Surviving Aircraft of "credible" World Heritage Value – "THE LIST"!

Actually their are three of the Flying Boats left in North America

You’re doing better than that, you’ve got two UK built as well – there is a Short Solent at Oakland, San Francisco and a civil converted Sunderland owned by Kermitt Weeks in Florida as well.

and the Sikorsky VS-44A Excambian which is on display at the New England Air Museum. The Excambian is the only complete above water Trans-Ocean American Four Engine Flying Boat in the World.

And a wonderful relic it is too. Quite unique. I’d have it on the list.

But what I was refering to were the first generation of these big flying boats – the Short C and G Class (Empire) boats and the Clippers: Boeing 314s, Martin M130s and Sikorsky S-42s, which pioneered the Atlantic, Pacific and Empire routes.

The VS-44, Sandringhams and Solents that we have are all just that little bit later. But that said, any second generation flying boat is better than nothing. And as for the Martin Mars – you’ve gotta love that they’re still earning a living.

Now their has always been rumors that the United States Navy scuttle the last three Clippers off Baltimore.

I wish you luck with it. I’ve spent a fair bit of time chasing down, and eventually disproving, rumours of sunken flying boats. 🙂

Allan

Pondskater,

Actually their are three of the Flying Boats left in North America

The 2 Martin Mars that are being used as fire bombers and the Sikorsky VS-44A Excambian which is on display at the New England Air Museum. The Excambian is the only complete above water Trans-Ocean American Four Engine Flying Boat in the World.

Now their has always been rumors that the United States Navy scuttle the last three Clippers off Baltimore. Now this is one of those stories who do you believe, the reason I say this is that I’ve seen photos of them being scrapped at the Old Baltimore Seaplane ramp and I’ve read the actual Naval disposal reports stating that they were scuttle off Baltimore. Its quit possiable that both are true, I’m still trying to find how many of the Clippers the USN had. If they have been scuttle off Baltimore then we’ll find them its not that deep out there plus I know which paperwork to look for:diablo: .

Mark,

My apologies – I posted that from memory after reading it on the internet. Not a very reliable way to deal with info like this!

Anyway, I eventually remembered that I’d seen it on the Pacific Wrecks website here. It mentioned “Corinthian” had been found in Darwin Harbour – but it also mentions the wreck had been blown up at some point and had coral growing on it. Doesn’t sound promising for a restoration project.

However, the Government is taking it seriously and in a press release announced an interim conservation order over the site, including hopefully confirming the identity.

I am aware of the Broome site – and that it is registered as a memorial to the refugees who died, as well as the aircraft

If there are obvious gaps such as this, then would this help to make funds available if a possible survivor is found? I’m thinking here of a rumour that part of a crashed Empire boat has been discovered in IIRC an Australian harbour.

Havent heard of this one, other than the wrecks at Broome from the Japanese attacks, which included A18-10 “Centaurus”.

Google lists two other possibilities:
A18-12 – “Coogee” crash landed at Townsville during water landing – crew killed

A18-13 “Coolangatta” lost at Rose Bay in emergency landing, -crew killed.

Either may yield some remains as an artefact, but unlikely to yied a restoration project?

I know of an Australian Museum who has it on their ICON list, and intend to explore a full or partial FSD etc, but I dont know what time plan that is on?, or any link to parts recovery?

regards
Mark Pilkington

What about helicopters!

I suggest that helicopters have significantly changed our lives for the better.

The rescue missions done by helicopters alone must put several prototypes and production types very high on the “worthy” list?

Apart from Leonardo Davinci’s sketches of a helicopter like device, the following three are responsible for the genesis of the practical helicopter.

Breguet Brothers

Paul Cornu

Igor Sikorsky

Hi Tom – since the overall theme is surviving airframes, which Norseman survivor would you nominate for the list? Is there a particularly original or important airframe to represent the breed?

And on the subject of survivors, there is at least one class of aircraft that is now extinct. I’m thinking here (with my personal bias) of the first long distance airliners, the Clippers and C-Class boats.

We are almost certainly treading a path the big national museums have already looked at because the Science Museum here bought Short Sandringham VH-BRC (ex JM715), presumably to represent the era of large passenger flying boats and the French have F-OBIP at the Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace du Bourget

If there are obvious gaps such as this, then would this help to make funds available if a possible survivor is found? I’m thinking here of a rumour that part of a crashed Empire boat has been discovered in IIRC an Australian harbour.

Are there any other obvious gaps?

Allan

Hi again David and all

Ahh the extended Norseman defence…

While I agree with you as to the details of the job of the poor old Norseman, I think where we are diverging is in the impact it made.

To me, it was world changing in making servicing isolated communities and outposts practical, and in the day, safe and consistant.

While no single feature or portion of the design was ground breaking, the combination created was.

The practicality of the Norseman lead to the Beaver, Otter and Twin Otter…true
higher production full STOL aircraft that really made every corner of the world accessible by fixed wing.

We need only look to the medivac a few years ago in the antarctic…couple of good old Canadian Bush pilots in a old Twin Otter flying in where no one else would to do a medivac.

And it all started with the Norseman.

I’ll get off my soap box now

Tom H

Nashio,

While I can sort of agree with putting Boxcar on the list I tend to actually want to keep it off yes along with Enola Gay they both drop the A-Bombs. Now the reason I would say yes is that each drop two different types of Atomic Fussion Bombs and both are the only two Silverplate B-29s left. But then this would open up allot of other airframes for a World List that while Historical in nature they didn’t do any that change the out come of human nature it could be said that it was the second A-Bomb drop by Box Car that made the Japanese surrender.

Mark,

I would say no on every First Flight while I’ll agree that certain First Flights airframes should be look at and included onto the list.

I guess we could start a thread on all the First Flight airframes and debate each’s merit if being part of any World List.

This has been an interesting discussion and who knows maybe we can all come to a better understanding of what should or shouldn’t be consider part of a Heritage laws when it comes to airframes:D :diablo:

for the same reason as enola gay, i would nominate “Bockscar” as well as enola gay. I would love to see them both together, the only two aircraft in the world to have used nuclear weapons in anger. On a more sombre note, these two aircraft killed the most people in one go. It would still be none the less a breathtaking exhibit 🙂

Ahh – Comet Grosvenor House – another example of ‘Triggers broom’, or ‘Washingtons Axe’. Although the aircraft is preserved with a collection of international standing, it has been extensively restored, and much original structure replaced. It is also airworthy, and without its original engines, propellers, landing gear and many other parts….

I would nominate the Percival Mew Gull, G-AEXF, but there is less original in that, and only a very small part of the original survives!

Bruce

Tom – I don’t dispute your accessment of the Norseman for it’s role in the social history of Canada . I would say however that when it was concieved it didn’t use any new technologies or indeed push the boundaries of flight. It’s significance then would be pretty similar to the significance of a Cessna Caravan is now in Canada. Certainly a workmanlike design and I am a fan but the Beaver and Norseman didn’t contribute to the evolution of flight – they made it practical which is no lesser an achievement but something that a great many have.

smiles,

I was being a little mischievious in launching this off as a world list, in absence of the existance of National Lists, (Although the UK does have one) in that after a few “World Changing Event” airframes, the logical outcome would be Nations would look to their most significant “National” airframes to be put forward, and that becomes the temptation of posters here as well.

Despite the interpretation of some (and indeed my own use of the term loosly here myself) of the UNESCO definitions to be requiring an place (or aircraft) to be “world changing” that is strictly not correct.

As Don Clark shows in his post of 14th of Feb, there are a number of criteria to allow qualification of a place or building to be as being of outstanding universal value (which is to say of world or international significance – and no not of intergalactic significance!)

As an example of the UNESCO World Heritage List, Australia has had 17 sites listed as being of World Heritage.

Australia has 15 natural landscapes, and two buildings on the UNESCO World Heritage Lists, the natural landscapes are prinstine examples but are not related to a world changing event, the Sydney Opera House is there because of its unique architecture not because of the world changing event, while the Melbourne Exhibition Building is there because it is one of only two remaining structures from the world fairs or international exhibitions which were run in the 1800’s (The Effiel Tower is the other). The Exhibitions were not “World Changing” but were of world significance, and the building as a reminder, or place of that event has therefore been accepted of world significance.

I therefore consider Pearl Harbour, the Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, bombing of Dresden or the wider role/campaign of Bomber Command may be events of world significance and have surviving airframes able to be nominated?

A world war, and major battles or defining moments in it are clearly of world significance, thats not to say every example of a WW2 Spitfire or Mustang, or other “warbird” is of world significance just because they saw service in WW2, but those with operational service in key operations etc may well be.

Don is also correct that the UNESCO criteria is worded around “places”, “buildings” etc and not particularly “aircraft”

“i. to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

ii. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

iii. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

iv. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

v. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

vi. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);

vii. to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

ix. to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.”

Don suggests aircraft would be mostly likely to be tested against criteria (i), (ii) and (iV), however I believe (vi) would also very importantly apply to those which were themselves directly involved in a major event.

I certainly feel the Flyer is of world significance, its orginality may be compromised by substitution of spare or replacement parts but it is not a replica, it is a composite, and the original parts clearly retain full provenance.

The Bleriot XI (Conservatory of Arts in France) put forward by Pondskater is IMHO of world importance, despite being “just a short flight between two neighbouring countries, France and England in 1909, seen in context of its time, the distance – over water was evidence of the endurance and reliability of aircraft, but it also caused the military applications of aircraft to suddenly taken seriously despite the Wrights spending years being unable to interest the Military much in their invention, The “breaching” of the English Channel immediately rendered the English “rule of the sea” a questionable defence of its home country from “air invasion”, and caused rapid military aviation development in the UK, British Empire and Europe.

I would also agree with the Fabre Hydravion and Bell X-1 also put forward by Pond Skater.

I intentionally limited my two “Australian” nominations to the Southern Cross and Vimy, as their exploits were both “International” and certainly of great significance to aviaition worldwide, if not for mankind.

I left off the Duigan Biplane, a 1910 local design, built by John Duigan, based only on reading of overseas experiences and never seeing a previously seeing a flying machine. He followed the Wrights examples of tethered gliders before embarking on developing an airframe and engine combination. While clearly the most significant Australian “National” airframe IMHO, by 1910, many other aircraft and pilots had flown world wide. In the same vein I would question the Avro Triplane of 1909, as being of World significance because of its status as the first UK built aircraft fly, as that is a “National” significance ,and would imply every Nation could nominate its own “first to fly”.

(The Avro Triplane might still be of world significance because of what Avro went on to do, as a very significant airframe builder, of airframes that were important in world events – WW2?)

I had also left off the list
Parer & McIntosh DH9, which was the first single engined aircraft to fly from England to Australia in 1920, (AWM or National Museum of Australia collection)
Bert Hinkler’s Avro Avian in which he flew solo from England to Australia, 1928 (the first solo flight) Queensland State Museum.

I personally believe these are significant flights in the world history of aviation as well ,but unsure if they are as significant as the “first” by the Vimy.

The DH60 “Jason” of Amy Johnson would then fall into the same category.

An interesting one is the post war “first” flight across the south pacific from Australia to South America by PG Taylor in the Catalina VH-ASA “Frigate Bird II” in 1951, it is long after the other significant pioneer air travels, but is the first for its course of departure – destination – and this then raises the question – is every first flight between every different country of international or world significance, even though they are obviously of National Significance to each of the participant countries.

My own view is that the Vimy Flight to Australia was such a long distance flight, – effectively half away around the world, that at its time it was world changing / or of world significance, and in a different way, while the Southern Cross flight from US to Australia was a slightly shorter overall distance, and nearly 10 years later, but it consisted on very long distance legs requiring pin point navigation accuracy, and extensive endurance of the aircraft and crew.

Together, both of these flights (and others) led the way for the modern long distance Air Travel.

While the first single engined, first solo pilot, or first female pilot flights are important on those same routes, they aren’t quite as significant in my view as the first, however that is not to say they are still not of world significance?

I support the Curtiss NC-4 and Alcock & Brown Vimy as being of World significance, and although they predate it, I consider Lindburgh’s solo flight to be of world significance i the same vein as Parer, Hinkler and Amy Johnson above.

I do also believe the B29 Enola Gay in the Smithonian is undeniably of world significance, the first (and hopefully only) use of the Atomic Bomb in war, and that event’s dramatic impact on the ending of world war two in the Pacific, was an important world changing event, & would make it clearly of “world significance” IMHO.

I agree with Bruce that National Lists would be easier to do, as it would let those of us from each Nation to focus on histories most important to us, and avoid the need to explain / justify/compare for others from overseas who dont know the context of a particular event, but I do believe there are still some airframes not yet raised that are of World Significance.

Lighter than Aircraft played an early role, there are some airship gondola’s still surviving, some of these might qualify, and certainly the Apollo 11 Command Module in NASM Washington USA, associated with the first successful landing of man on the moon is of world significance (maybe this one REALLY IS of “universal significance” too ,we will need to hear from ET on that one), and there would be other capsules etc, hopefully the first manned flight capsule is preserved in Russia somewhere?

I would propose we still let this “Event” focus run one more day, what of Wiley Post and the Winnie Mae?, The DH Comet “Grosvenor House” and Turners Boeing 247 of the 1934 Air race? (The race played an important role in the development of air-travel although it was perhaps the results of the DC2 airliner, coming second overall and first on handicap whilst operating a scheduled service with mail and passengers that is the most astonishing and significant aspect of that race, but IMHO the race, and therefore those two surviving airframes are of world significance, I am sure there are still a few more such airframes to be teased out.

Then the world significant types can begin, in which case Bruce’s Mosquito, and the prototype or Tom’s Norseman can come in to play.

To avoid confusion, I would suggest seperate threads (for each Nation’s own list) be created if people wish to commence listing aircraft of National Significance for each country, it will then be easy to view each post relevent to each list and debate.

All an interesting and stimulating debate.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

While a ‘World Heritage Value’ list has some value, it appears to me that we are being far too narrow in our debate. Sure, in case of total loss of preserved airframes over time, mankind should ensure that at least those most significant are preserved forever (which is a heck of a long time!), but in order to ensure as much is preserved as possible, we need to start by identifying the most important aircraft in individual countries. Many of these will be identified as those preserved by national and regional museums, but clearly, there are big holes.

A number of people have identified the NAHR, compiled by Ken Ellis in 2001, and still largely valid, as being a good starting point in the UK. I understand that it is currently being updated, but suggest it would have more value if the whole thing were kept on an ever evolving data base, that can be updated as circumstances change. I will have a chat with the BAPC chair next week, and see how it is going.

The long term goal for the preservation movement, and on the whole, this wont include flying aircraft, has to be to continue to bring significant and historic aircraft into its care, to ensure they are preserved beyond our own lifetimes. The contraction of the jet warbird market (certainly in the UK) will allow the liberation of one or two significant (but not necessarily world class) airframes, and in time (probably beyond my life), the contraction of the warbird market as a whole will allow many more.

So, turn this on its head – identify those aircraft with significance to a particular nation, and then use that to isolate those of world significance. It could end up being a big list!

Bruce

J Boyle

David Burke

While I appreciate your comments on the Norseman and agree other aircraft played a huge role in opening Canada’s North and other remote areas, the Norseman was the first designed for the job rather than adapted.

While other aircraft were adapted to be “Bushplanes” the Norseman was the first designed to be a “Bushplane” from a clean sheet.

This in turn eventually lead to the Beaver, Otter and other STOL aircraft.

So, in my mind, it is truely an aircraft that changed the world.

I do appreciate the Fokkers, Junkers, and Fairchilds…agree we need to pay tribute to them, as we do in our museum…but the Norseman hold a little bit of a special place.

Tom H

Don,

You accuse me of being narrowed mind:rolleyes:

Anyway August I agree with everything you put in your last post. To follow up on a question you ask me Yes I do think we need to narrow it down to and Airframe that Change the History of Mankind.

As we have all read UNESCO outline while we have named allot for good ones of these how many really have help change the History of Mankind.

I do believe we all agree that the Wright Flyer which was restored and by what I was told that over 50% of it is original, then whats next I would have to agree with Bleriot XI and also the X-1.

So would we also include the X-15 and the SR-71 I say no to both but they both change how flight is look for Mankind both aircraft were the test beds for the next Generation of Flight be it Spaced or Sub-Space flight.

As for Passanger aircraft I would have the Comment Prototype and the 707 Prototype but not the 747.

Also we seem to be missing stuff from the Germans and Russians surly there is stuff from these two Country’s that would need to be look at. What about Fokker early stuff.

Its an interesting discussion and sorry Don buts its far from over you might think it is but I and many other seem to think its worth discussion.

Both the Norseman and beaver had a great deal of foreign input in their designs . It could also be argued that the Beaver was an adaption of existing technologies rather than a quantum leap from it. Certainly a worthwhile aircraft but whether it’s of world inportance in the development of flight is questionable.

I would like to submit the Prototype Norrdyn Norseman

The first true ground up bush plane and idealoical grand father to the Dehavilland Beaver.

The Norseman opened practical access to Northern Canada and all remote areas.

This oft forgotten Pioneer changed the lives of those that inhabited remote areas long before the helicopter flew…and a handful remain in commercial service

Tom H

Not that I disagree about the significance of the Norseman,
however I’d point out that the same could be said of a number of aircraft that opened Canada’s (and the Alaskan) wilderness…
Junkers, Fairchilds, WACOs….

The Norseman is interesting (in part) because it was a Canadian aircraft designed for local conditions…and as you point out, it helped pave the way for the Beaver.

Uh-oh. Don wants (or wanted, since he has apparently bid farewell to the thread) us to play in the big time. I think most of us were playing in the intramural league, from a parochial aviation-history perspective. The UNESCO list invites us to measure airplanes up against developments in the history of humanity viewed from several hundred or a couple of thousand years in the future. The question in that context becomes not which airplanes make the list, but whether any airplanes do. When you’re playing that far out of your league, is the game fun any more?

The only obvious candidate for inclusion on a list like that is the Wright Flyer, which Walter Boyne has compared in technological significance to having preserved the first wheel ever made, or the embers of the first intentionally set fire. Most who are not airplane buffs might see that as a stretch, but perhaps we are too close in time to the event and in 4008 A.D., Boyne will be proved right.

One thing I would bet on, for a civilization that by then will have colonized the nearer parts of the galaxy, distinctions like first to cross the Atlantic (that would be on Earth, sonny, where we went on vacation last summer) or first operational jet fighter plane will seem pretty trivial. If a museum of 20th-century airplanes still exists in 4008, I imagine a visitor walking through it will tend to see the differences much as we see the difference from vessel to vessel in a display of ancient Greek pottery: interesting, but not especially significant.

“First jet” or “first rocket” might be meaningful to such a civilization, but likely a preserved early engine, rather than the airframe that happened to carry it, would be the artifact of interest.

If the society of the future is highly dependent on nuclear power, then the good old Enola Gay might warrant inclusion for its association with the earliest use of the technology. I imagine that 2,000 years from now, the fact that the Enola Gay was the most non-innovative, off-the-shelf component of the Manhattan Project weapon system will be less important than the fact that it is a part of that system that survives.

Note that several items on the UNESCO list are included not for their specific qualities but because they are representative of something (e.g. Gothic architecture) that has happened to survive intact. That opens the door for a handful of airplanes to be nominated as representative examples of different facets of 20th-century aviation, but deciding which ones that would be just opens a different, oft-repeated discussion which has become tiresome to many of us. It is, however, the real-life daily thought process of curators at collections like the NASM which are regarded, at least by themselves, as custodians of aviation heritage at the preservation-for-millennia level.

Hmm, I was right. Not too much fun.

August

To me ‘Enola Gay’ isn’t as important as other aircraft that have been discussed and turned down here. It was just a regular B-29 plucked from a unit, modded for special weapon delivery and used as the platform for the first aggressive atom bomb drop. Of course though, it should be included on this hypothetical list. The prototype B-29 would seem to be more imoportant – not that it survives.

I also dont think the Bell X-1 is as important (also still very worthy of inclusion) as the Meteor, more of us are touched by jet flight than supersonic flight.

I think the way Scorpian would have it, there would only be five aircraft list!

For a more simplistic bit of fun I just had a quick ask around at work here at air traffic with casually interested people, the list would be a Wright flyer, a Bleriot, the A&B Vimy, a Spitfire, Meteor, Comet and Concorde.

Don – Thank you for all of that. The World Heritage lists are currently for natural environment or for human acheivements in buildings/monuments. The criteria are not always simple. I live in an area which may apply for listing as a “cultural landscape” which is a very hard thing to explain to the general public.

However, there is no harm in using these criteria for a hypothetical discussion as we are doing so here is my attempt at a summary of where we are so far:

Notable firsts – criteria ii and iv – outstanding acheivements in technology/ illustrating a significant stage in human history – in my view proving stages in aviation:
Wright Flyer NASM.USA
First Successful powered Flight (I’ll come back to this one in a minute)
Fabre Hydravion/Le Canard. Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace du Bourget
First aircraft to take off from water. 1910.
Bleriot XI , Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers
cross-channel flight – proved longer flights were possible
Bell X-1
First aircraft through sound barrier

And there is the first oceanic crossing, which is under discussion:
Curtiss NC-4, first crossing, USNAM
Vickers Vimy (Alcock-Brown), first nonstop crossing, Science Museum
Can I highlight this article: http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1919/1919%20-%200723.html
It points out the sheer organisational effort the US Navy put into getting at least one of their four aircraft across the pond.

Other “significant stages in human history” as relating to aircraft might be:
Passenger aircraft:
Represented by DC2 – it had a huge influence not least coming second in the MacRobertson Air Race to a custom racer. But which survivor represents the breed? The one at Albury in Aus is being restored to represent the racer but is it original enough?
Shame there are no Clipper or C-Class flying boats left.

Passenger Jet:
de Havilland Comet 1A F-BGNX, de Havilland Museum, UK
Example of the first commercial jet airliner
plus a 707 and 747 anybody?

Commercial Space Travel:
Space Ship One

One issue that does come through in reading some of the World Heritage list is the originality of what is preserved. I don’t think a massively rebuilt aircraft is as worthy of listing as one that is straight from service. So what state is the Wright flyer in? Has it been rebuilt since it went in the museum? If the changes are the developments made to it by the Wright Brothers, then they are an important historical record in themselves.

Oh, finally:

B-29 Enola Gay
We all know why so really no discussion needed

I know this won’t be popular but, is it the aircraft or the bomb that is “directly or tangibly associated with events . . .of outstanding universal significance”? The Hiroshima Peace Monument is already on the listing under criteria vi. Is Enola Gay worthy of its own listing or is it just nationally important to the USA?

Your thoughts

Allan