but is the beginning of the end of Vintage Flying??? 🙁
Ben

No it´s not. Yes, it might be the end of commercial flying in vintage aeroplanes, but not vintage flying in general. Commercial flying in vintage aeroplanes only accounts for a very small percentage of the overal operations of vintage aeroplanes. The waste majority of vintage flying is done in privately owned and operated, small-ish single engined aircraft. As sad as I´m to see the grounding of commercial passanger carrying aircraft, like the DC3, it is not the end of the world. For the B-17 (Pink Lady), it is insurance that will keep it out of the air, because of the unfair appliance of max take off weight criteria for a vintage aircraft. I´m not sure we have seen the end of that though, and I would not be surprised if she would be flying again before long.

The vintage fleet can be roughly divided into two groups. The heavy metal (warbirds) and the light stuff. The heavy metal is facing a Catch 22 situation. The overal operation is getting very expensive, maintainance, fuel and insurance. The funny (or sad) thing is, that the Catch 22 comes into play there. The overal cost of keeping the airframe airworthy, will lead to fewer hours being flown, which will lead to less pilot proficency, which will lead to higher (hopefully not!) incidence rate, which will lead to higher insurance, which will lead to less money in the purse, which will lead to still less money available for flying…………..I think you all get my drift. I think the warbird movement in Europe is slowly comming to terms with this and is pooling it´s resources to keep cost down, and to maintain pilot proficency. Now a days, you will see the same maintainance facility do a lot of the work, and the same pilots names on schedule. Gone are the days of every John, Dick and Harry flying heavy metal warbirds. As long as there are people with money interested in the warbird sector of aviation, you will see warbirds fly for as long as fuel for them is available. And 100LL is getting to it´s end. It will not be cost but fuel that will ground them.

The light stuff is a bit different. Agreed, it does cost you a lot more to keep a Tiger airworthy, than, say, a C150. But everyone does not have the same attitude towards flying, thankfully. People learn to fly with a lot of different motivations. For some, just hanging in the air is enough, and a C152 will do just fine for that. Most, aspire to greater things. What those greater things are, differe from one person to the next. Some want the latest wizz kit in town and buy themselfs a Cirrus (have you looked at the prize tag of one of those), others want touring capability with four up (C182 very expensive) etc. Others want nostraliga. At 50.000 for a good Tiger, it is a lot more of a bargin than about 100.000+ for a Cirrus. You can spend an awful lot on maintainance for 50.000 pounds! The insurance for vintage category aircraft is not greater than for normal one, at least not in Iceland. The thing that will kill off this kind of vintage flying, is the lack of spares if the aircraft has to be kept on a normal CofA. If experimental/permit to fly category would be issued to these aircraft they could fly until………No fuel available

So, basically it is not all doom and gloom. When was the last time you looked into a hangar and saw rows and rows of vintage aeroplanes gathering dust with no-one wanting them? In the 60´s maybe??

I don´t know what you are looking for, but I think this site should be have most answers, and if not, a contact to seek more info
http://www.oca.269squadron.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm

bolyman has mostly answered my questions, before I had the chance to post this. But anyway here goes (written before bolyman´s post)

What I´m trying to get to the surface is the true nature of the museum. If it is a public museum, funded mainly by government money (city of Calgary money), then it beggs the question, why has it come to this? I can perfectly well understand a private organization doing something like that to raise money. If most of the museum´s income is from funds provided by the government (city of Calgary etc.), then this developments are truely amazeing. It only means that the City is not taking care of it´s museums and they are forced to sell off artifacts to stay afloat. Not good for publicity:eek:

If, howerver, the musem is pretty much left to it´s own devices to provide income for itself, then I can perfectly understand their point of view. I´ve even been there myself, in a bit of a different setup here in Iceland when I gave up a Miles Martinet as a member of the board of a museum. This has nothing to with “history being for sale” as some posters have put it. It has all to do with a “smaller” museum trying to stay afloat, trying to make do what they have, but at the same time insureing that nothing is lost. I realize now, that if we had not acted the way we did 10 years ago, our Martinet would be extinct.

I do not know the full story behind this Calgary Mossie, but from what I can see from the press releases on this forum, the guys making that decition have my full backing. They have two hulks in a hangar. One Hurricane, one Mossie. Government funding is not forthcoming to restore either of them to display standard. What do you do? Sell off the one least applicable to Canadian history to get the other one imaculate display condition. And Peter, your remarks about the Hurricane restoration are not very nice.

Peter, my comments very not aimed at you personally initially. However, with your history of claiming this airframe being “Canadian” and you being on line without addressing my questions, it could be interpreted as being for you, or someone with knowledge of what is going on.

Now I know that “a canadian museum had offered to to take it on free of charge” . My next question is going to be, is the Calgary Museum government funded, or is it a privatly founded? Can anyone answer that one (Peter)?

I´ve been watching this thread with interest. Clearly there are two schools of thought going against each other here. One is the local Canadian point of view, and the wider global point of view. Before I take sides, I would like to know the answer to one simple question. Clearly the airframe in question has been on the books of the Calgary Museum for years now, and has been kept in a dismantled condition in storage for all that time. The museum clearly thinks they do not have the money to restore it to display standard, and the same goes for the Hurricane they have. Now for the question I have. Has any of the other Canadian museums shown an interest in getting the aircraft, and paying for it? Paying in this case might be to restore the Hurricane to display standard for the Calgary Museum.

Is it possible that the Cultural Legislation is being turned upside down? Other museums not taking interest in the aircraft, hoping that said legislation will hand it over to them on a silver plate when the Calgary museum is unable to keep the aircraft and it´s sale to someone else is blocked? Just thinking, nothing personal. Hope the Canadian contributers will be able to enlighten me before I take sides in the argument.

Gentilmen, please do not throw your teddies out of the pram over this. The two of you (doc and scopion) have different opinions, ok. It has been civilized so far:D

Reading this thread, I think the best post so far has to go to Mark_pilkington.

Just thinking outloud. Have you checked the role No. 1 group was supposed to play in the event of chemical warfare? I´ve seen these patches on photos of Lancs, but never thought any more of it. Is it possible that No.1 group was the only group cleared to carry chemical weapons, and the patch was to alert ground crew about leakage of the weapons? Like I say, just a stab in the dark, I do not know.