Scorpion89A very interesting and well reasoned assesment. But if I may oppose the export. In 1909 the Wright Brothers licensed their design to the Short Brothers who set up the UKs first (indeed the world’s first) aircraft factory to produce a run of six copies of the Wright Flyer. I would argue that this makes the Flyer significant in UK National Heritage in being the start of UK aircraft manufacturing.
Hi Allan, Point of debate if you like while The Short brothers might be the first UK aircraft factory they were not the first to set up an aircraft factory that would be the United States Army Signal Corp who signed a contract in Sept. of 1908 with the Wright Brothers for six Wright Flyers.
Scorpion89I know this is pedantic but as per my earlier post [without the devil icon]… why?
My scientific training tells me that without setting out the rules first you should not make such a statement.
Whilst I recognise that it may be a valid view, without the rules in place first you will never achieve an agreed result, you will just go round in circles.
e.g. What defines an aircraft? Are we talking about powered flight only? Etc etc
I guess this reflects similar points to those Mark is making.
TwinOtter,
Alright since I’m the idiot who started this thread I give you this.
Define the rules to allow an aircraft to be consider alright then this is how the Smithsonian defines it then. Taking the Wright Flyer since we all can agree it is the most Historic Aircraft in the World.
I give you this statement by the Smithsonian,
The original Wright brothers aeroplane
The world’s first power-driven heavier-than-air machine in which man made free, controlled, and sustained flight
Invented and built by Wilbur and Orville Wright
Flown by them at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina December 17, 1903
Now I can throw a second aircraft that the Wright Build into the same catagory the Wright Flyer III which is the only fix-wing aircraft to be designated a National Historic landmark in the United States.
So to expand on this then what do we consider Historical Aircraft well as I already layed out in another post it has to be an Aircraft that change the makeup of Human History, Hence why I put the Enola Gay and Box Car and the X-1 all of these aircraft change Human History.
So with that in mind for a list to actually be complied then you would have to list certain aircraft that help to change mankind.
As for what is part of ones Country’s Heritage well thats were we get into a very Grey Area now isn’t.
Scorpion89Roger,
Very cool so what other items do the Museum have and is there a website.
Scorpion89Alright then let me turn this discussion side ways then, over on Wixs there is rather heated little discussion about the Solomon Island recovery’s.
Now the discussion involves this what is consider Historical and what is consider Heritage, I guess before we start making Heritage Laws we must define what these two are in context of preservation.
For me while the aircraft that are in Warzone’s are consider Historical to the area I don’t consider them part of the over-all Heritage of the Country.
Taking the Solomon Island Debate, They have a rich South Pacific Island Heritage that was in place long before WWII. While I can agree that WWII was important part of there History it’s not part of the over all Heritage
With this in mind I do think they deal that they struck with Chris Turner with the Solomon Government shows how you can have rules in place and still preserve the History with out having Heritage Laws.
Now I guess is this what is consider Historic and what is consider Heritage now is the Prototype Mossie consider part of the English Heritage or is a Historical part of the over-all English Industrial History.
See this is going to be the problem we need to establish what we consider a Heritage Airframe and what is a Historical Airframe I would submit that the Wright Flyer is both a Historical Airframe that is now part of the United State’s and Worlds 20th Century Heritage.
Scorpion89Hi Vne,
If I recall your A-26 while not having a glowing Military History wouldn’t it be nice to have it restored in its last scheme it had in service.
As for the TBM why not pick a scheme that hasn’t been on TBMs before like a post war French Navy or Royal Netherlands. Just an idea.
Oh and if your trying to guess who I am just think about the person who got your A-26 information from Maxwell.
Scorpion89Answer me these point if you would be so kind…
1) What makes an aircraft any less important than any other antiquity?
It depend on what the aircraft is now I think we all can agree that the Wright Flyer should be on any Heritage List for Protection. The way I look at it is this way if the aircraft was involved in some sort of Historically changing event then it should be part of any Heritage Protection. Now that is the big question what does one consider Historically Changing and that is where we the ones who our part of this must advise and help form some sort of critera.
You agree that some historic items should be protected, but then seemingly arbitrairly want to remove aircraft? I would like to understand this more.
Because in General Aircraft were Mass Produce hence they are allot of examples you should not pigion hold your self into a position that doesn’t allow for the preservation of the airframe.
2) You also seem to imply that the “Free Trade” somehow makes the presentation and preservation for the public good better. Could you explain?
I live this everyday and do not see your point.
Alright lets take this example then I want to recover x amount of aircraft from a Country that has allot of wrecks I go and get all the proper paperwork done and I present a plan that say that I will be able to recover these aircraft in return I will take x amount of aircraft and help you build a National Museum around them and will seed the museum with some money I get from the selling of the airframes. Now don’t you think its a win win for everyone I get to make money and help recover and preserve aircraft while the Country get a new Museum and has money set aside to help expand and restore the airframes and tell the History of the events.
3) “Heritage laws” prevent free trade and preservation.
Very true statement all you have to do is look what is going on with the Calgary Mossie right or wrong how the process was done in the long run what is the best for the airframe in this case sell it have it restored us the money to restore the Hurri and have money left over.
Today warbirds are a “fashionable” collectors item That will change and if the sole criteria for ownership is the depth of your wallet. As it was at one point with Egyptian antiquities, then your history and heritage leaves the country and as with Egypt, in most cases never to return.
I don’t buy that statement while it may seem that way Warbirds as a collectors item only account for a very small part of the Warbird Movement. As for leaving the Country that started the day they were build and sent off to fight, All you have to do is look at any P-51 History chance are that airframe has served in at least two different Air Forces.
If Warbirds had not been driven by this fashionable business market the cost of acquiring historic airframes and their restoration would not be anywhere near what it is today.
Once again I dis agree the cost of restoration and the fact that more and more folks want their aircraft to be restored back to original condition dictates that it will cost to build new patterns . Don’t forget allot of these items have been lost. Look what the B-17 CoOp did when it first form they took and had a production line for Nose Glass and Turrets started up but it took money to get it going.
So as I agree with your statement “warbirds are a very big business” dhould I take that to mean we should allow “big business” to dictate how we handle historical issues? Is “big business” to be taken as more important than a countries history?
Yes and No to that question Tom, like you I belong to different type’s of museum and we all know that if it wasn’t for BIG BUSINESS then allot of museum would not have items for display or in our case(Aircraft Museum) money to help with restoration and general up keeping. Why is it every year we always try to get x amount of Corp. Spouncer, look at some of the major Warbird Airshows they all have now gone to having some sort of Big Business helping out. But so have all most every other type of museum.
Help me out Scorpion, because ether I am mis understanding what you are saying or you are saying the business is more important than the heritage?
No I’m not saying Business is more important then Heritage but when you have Laws that prevent Heritage from being preserved because it is a business then that is wrong.
Scorpion89In simple – ANY extreme isn’t a good idea – a completely free market or complete control by state or a supra-national organisation isn’t a good idea. Amazingly, something in between is a good idea – where in between is the debatable point. Please respond to what people say, not what you want to believe they think.
Sorry James but I miss understood how you wrote it.
As to your list, it’s interesting it consists entirely of aircraft of US importance; one of the issues in this is most nations don’t realise the importance of other types to other countries.
James you need to read what I said when I put up this list I stated that this was start and yes they are US Build Aircraft of the ones I put up I think I would remove the NC-4 while its Historical to the United States in the long run I’m not sure it would be something that UNESCO would consider, as for the other I would think you would tend to agree that these should be part of any list. Now would you like to add some aircraft to the list.
Unlike Bruce and Tom, I’m not keen to discuss this in this context. There’s a worthwhile debate to be had about this but a pre-requisite (IMHO) is an open mind able to accept or be convinced of others views and rights. Desperately trying to force other’s views into shapes to be overwhelmed by your own, Scorpion, isn’t the point. One fundamental is the absolute right of sovereign nations to make laws for their own country – however much noise you make, it doesn’t have anything to do with the rights and responsibilities of other countries, or their consistency or ability to apply them. Whether they are good or bad ideas is fundamentally irrelevant.
Yes James your correct every Country has and should make ther own rules but and this a very large But you can’t have rules and Laws and pick and choice when you wish to use them. If you noted I put up a post about the NZ Heritage Laws and how they could start effecting your neck of the woods care to dicuss this.
So are you say James then I don’t have an open mind on the subject please you know me better then that considering what I’ve been trying to get change here in the States with the whole Navy ownership. It seems to me that your the narrow mind person in this discussion or is it that you just don’t like my style of dealing with stuff if that is it then just come out and say no harm to that. but give me the credit that I do have an open mind on this subject all I want to be able to do is preserve aircraft and present them to the public and if I make some money on the way great welcome to the Free Trade World or am I not allowed that even in your eyes James.
Scorpion89Hi All,
I have to run off to DC for the rest of the day but will get back to this tonight, But consider this one item folks, Most of the Heritage Laws out there take some sort of direction from UNESCO so why I can understand what some of you are saying that we need to start with Country,State,Local great but we also need to understand where and hows this Laws have come into being and how they effect everything.
I’ll throw this one out their for all of you to debate,
In New Zealand they have the Protected Objects Act 1975 well an new amendment was add to it,
F Register(1) The chief executive must establish and maintain a register of objects, or categories of objects, of national significance.
(2) The register—
(a) must include (but is not limited to) any protected New Zealand object in respect of which the chief executive has refused to grant an application for permission to export; and
(b) may include any protected New Zealand object—
(i) that its owner submits for inclusion in the register; and
(ii) that is of such significance to New Zealand or part of New Zealand that its export from New Zealand would substantially diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage.
(3) An object may only be removed from the register if it no longer meets the criteria specified in subsection (2).
(4) The register is not available for public inspection.
Sections 7A to 7H were inserted, as from 1 November 2006, by section 10 Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 37).
Now why do I bring up this item simple please read #4 you can’t have a list and then not make it available to the public.
Scorpion89Now taking what Bruce has said I’ve started a list of Aircraft that I think should be on any UNESCO list,I think all of you will agree that these aircraft belong on the list.
Wright Flyer
Enola Gay
Box Car
NC-4
Spirit of St. Louis
X-1
I know that these are just US Build Aircraft and that we can if we like add to the list would one consider something like the 707 Prototype as being put on the list. That is the problem we need to have a critera for this list and it has to be Internationally Agree to. While I’ll agree that there are Historical Airframes out there like Lady Be Good but is this B-24 worthy to be listed on a UNESCO list I think not sure in Libya it will/would make a fine center piece to a museum display because of its local history but outside of Libya its just another B-24 lost during WWII.
Maybe something good could come of this discussion.
Scorpion89The thought that restoring something the correct way makes it inordinately expensive is right, but if we dont restore our aircraft correctly, then just what are we preserving? Up and down the country are examples of aircraft with stripped out cockpits, missing wiring, hydraulics, no engines and so on. How does this represent an operational aircraft for the future?
Bruce this is a given we see it everyday in restoration but you just can’t say its only found in aircraft, look at Historical Buildings and Vintage Cars, sometime we have no choice because the cost would prevent said item to be either lost of never restored.
So, in principle, I would support a proposal that listed certain aircraft for preservation in a specific country, but it would be difficult if not impossible to work out what went on the list and what didnt! If any scheme also assisted in allotting heritage funding to restore them properly to a standard they would have seen when operational, without compromising the existing material, then so much the better (I know, aint gonna happen!!)
Great so how do we come up with a list and do we follow the Smithsonian Guide Lines for Aircraft Restoration if so then we need to have clear rules on what can be list of Historical Aircraft. I’m all for UNESCO drawing up a list and place certain Historical Airframes but at the same time Heritage laws need to be re-writen to allow for the recovery of airframes and Governments need to be put on notice that they can’t have counter laws IE US Nay Policy.
Scorpion89So James,
Are you saying then your against free market then because if you are then please explain how you can support restoration that is going on Downunder by what I’m understanding by your last statement you fell it shouldn’t happen.
That doesn’t sound like the Mr. Tweed I know.
Scorpion891) Aircraft are a historic artefact.
Yes to a certain ascent, they must be so Historical that they need to be listed as such example Wright Flyer.
2) They are worthy of being preserved as an important piece of our Heritage.
See above
3) Nothing wrong in concept with a nation setting out to protect them as historic artefacts.
Yes and No, Yes each Country should protect all National Items but in doing so there must be a very precise critiera just because there is X amount of airframes left in the Country doesn’t mean they are Historical Relitive to the Heritage. Also you must allow for recovers to preserve said airframes to do so go against all thing we strive to protect.
So what this comes down to is you don’t like the rules some countries layout in doing it?
Its not the rules per say its how they are enforce or in some case lack of enforcement. You can’t have Heritage Laws on the books and decide to pick and choice how and when your going to use them. Also I think UNESCO needs to come up with some sort of ruling on Aircraft and 20th Century items in general.
My problem with Heritage Laws when it comes to Aircraft is that we live in a some what open Free Trade World and lets all agree that Warbirds is a very big busniess World Wide to have Heritage Laws provents Free Trade and Preservation. With Out Free Trade the P-61 that MAAM has would still be sitting in the Jungles, or Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby would have never been restored and placed on display at Wright and Patt. all Heritage Laws do is stimmy the Preservation Goals which do include money. As you said once in another thread Money is an evil of History but with out Money airframes are lost or if you would like me to put it in another way with out Money places like Gettysburg would be a Shopping Mall. Sometimes you need to have money to preserve your History. Look how much a P-51 Mustang Restoration goes for these days.
Scorpion89When one recognizes that aircraft as an artefact is, as a piece of history, a relatively new ideal the preservation and protection of the airframes becomes a learning curve…and mistakes are made and laws at this point are in there infancy and generally , from my experience, rely on the honesty of those in the country to follow the letter of the law.
But is it really a new preservation idea we have had aircraft being set aside since they were first being build. So you can’t say that its true new concept. Yes many mistakes have been made example the only complete B-32 was accidentlly scrapped.
I also could care less what the UN thinks or does, personal opinion.
But see Tom most Heritage Laws are drawn up around the UNESCO Laws and Regulations.
As a Western Society we are just coming aware of the importance of preserving our MODERN history…aviation being the chosen focus in this case.
Granted I’ll give you that here in the States the WWII stuff was just add in 1995 to the NHPA but this was for only location like Trinty Site.
What is wrong with the idea of a country…any country putting laws in place to recognize and protect aircraft as historic artefacts?
None but its a di-service to the airframes if you decide that all should fall under said laws. Using the Mossie as an example you have 5 of them in Canada none of these have any RCAF History but I tell you that I know the location of three but because of your laws I can’t go and recover any of these because Canadian Law claim heritage rights so the Law is actually harming the Airframe. I could recover one present it to Calgary they could turn around and sell there present example and use the money to restore the RCAF Airframe. Mean while I can take the other two and use one to sell off and then either present the third to a Canadian Collector or Worthy Museum providing that I get permission to do a few more recovers which in the long run help preserve Heritage.
We protect art, first nations artefacts, artefacts of many other kinds…why not aircraft?
Because most aircraft that Governments try to protect have nothing to do with the over all Countries History or you already have more then enough Airframes preserved
Aviation has influenced our nation in huge ways altering and creating all new cultures…as it has in many other countries.
No Debate on that Tom but so has Trucking,Rail and Mass Produce Cars and very few if any of these are listed on any National Historical Preservation List.
Should we not recognize this fact, should we not take steps to preserve and protect this piece of our heritage?
No but how far do you go in protecting is the real question there has to be a far and balance look at this. You can’t have Laws that don’t allow for recovery’s and free movement of Airframes all this does is hurt the very thing your trying to protect. Example the United State Navy Policy on Aircraft, with out going into the bitter part of it we all know there policy and how it has hurt the preservation of USN/USMC Aircraft.
Ball is in your court, the Wright Flyer not protected as an artefact of National significance? Blows me away.
Yea it is rather mind boggling that the Wright Flyer isn’t list even on the UNESCO list of Heritage Artifacts.
Alright folks step up lets hear what the rest of you have to say.
Scorpion89Scorpion89
There has been no new information at any level since the other thread was closed.
As I understand it the City of Calgary was holding off on doing anything until they had gathered all information on the issues and took it to council…
All I know, no real change.
Tom H
Ah But Tom by what I was told by a friend who lives in Calgary and been following the events was that it was to be discussed in Council on Wend. my friend could attend since he was at work at the time. Hence why I put up the thread. As for gather information what information they should have all the information from when it was put up for sale the first time and should already have all the information they need this time correct:rolleyes:
Scorpion89Happymeal,
I find your statement interesting because around X-mas there was a statement of sort saying till the insurance can be dealt with that Pink Lady will Most Likely not fly during the 2008 airshow season.
Also by what I understand there are two different US Based Buyers who have inquired about purchasing Pink Lady.
As for a B-17 on Display in Europe there is already one but the problem is it sitting in storage at the French Air Museum maybe thats the one someone should be looking at to purchase.
Sign In
