Scorpion89Bump,
For all of you Stringbag Experts 🙂
Scorpion89Alright my turn on the Soap Box:eek: ,
While I can understand Tom views in a way I actually believe that if the aircraft as the History then it should be mark in that, but here is where I tend to stray on the subject. I think the Airframe should be preserved first then when its rebuild to what ever status that it is going to be then decide which scheme should be applied. Example the CWH old FG-1D was painted up as SubLt. Grey that last Canadian Airman to be awarded the VC. Does this degrade the aircraft history no because any of us who ever say the aircraft while it was on display in the museum noted that they had a very nice card on the Aircraft History. This example show how some museum do it and it still tells the airframe history along with in this case Canadian Hero History.
Now as Tom has pointed out allot of museum get hand me down airframes of outright basket case made up of many different airframe in this case what do you do. Well my example is the Tiger Moth that I used to fly it was rebuild from three different wrecks we decide to take a basic Training Command Scheme and apply it.
In the end it is a tricky line to walk do you preserve the airframes history of do we tell the story of the aircraft and the pilots and or region history if you can do both that is the best way.
Alright time for me to pass the Soup Box who’s next:diablo:
Scorpion89I have spoken to the system and how it is supposed to work, period.
The right people are now involved on a direct basis to insure things will be done right, to this I am extremely pleased. It may still wind up going to the UK or elsewhere if there is no made in Canada solution. That is how the system is supposed to work and I can only hope that, as I have repeatedly said, it works out best for all concerned.
So Tom if you say that your only talking about the System then the system failed because, when RS700 was first put up for sale and they was an uproar over it they City of Calgary back out which by what I understand if it was me I would have been sueing the Museum and the City since they both signed contract but thats neither here or their at this point, what the point is that its no big secret that the Museum has been trying to sell the Mossie for along time so I ask you if your saying that no one is following said Heritage Laws then explain to me where are the Canadian Groups who should have come forward when it was first put up for sale. Oh and for the record folks I heard about the sale a year ago at an Airshow up in Canada some folks were already talking about a sale involving the Mossie and having the Hurricane rebuild so its not like its been under the radar now has it folks.
I’m still waiting to hear someone explain to me why the City doesn’t have the right to sell THEIR Property.
Scorpion89Lindys,
Does it have to be in England/Europe
Scorpion89Ah But Bruce,
Here is the problem and since neither Tom nor Richard seem to want to answer the question is this.
These airframes are not owned by the Museum Richard has already stated this fact hence by what was explain to me from a very well placed person in Otttawa was that if they are owned by the City of Calgary then they are look at just like a Police Cruiser or any other City Property and be but up for Tender and don’t need to follow the Heritage laws.
As for if they return to airworthy status I could care less what I’m more concern about is that they are restored and put on public display to educated the next generation, instead of being locked away in some Dungy Stone Storage Building slowly rotting away. And if that is wrong then I think some of you need to rethink why your into Historical Aircraft.
The best line I ever heard any collector say is this “I’m only the Stewart of these aircraft my job is to preserve and educated the next Generation”
Scorpion89Thanx, very helpful answer :rolleyes: . A search for ‘Corsair’ on this forum alone produces 500+ results 😎
.
Is one of the airframes that was pulled up off the Gold Coast Downunder and was sold off to a guy in Calf. sometime back its only good for parts.
Their is a thread here on Flypast about it about three years ago.
Scorpion89And Tom,
That is the problem you don’t need stupid Heritage Laws to protect Military Items it doesn’t work because if you really want to use these laws then every item that is surplus must not be scrapped or sold. Oh by the way thanks for the nice CT-133 I’m looking forward to getting it up and running sometime in the next few years to bad your Heritage Laws didn’t stop us Yanks from Buying up all of them after none of your CAPA Museum want any of them.
Yea I know how to research also maybe you guys in CAPA should start rethinking the whole heritage laws and how to make them work in reguard’s to aircraft. because right now all they do is make it harder for airframes to be restored or rescued.
Want me to tell you about the 30+ Canadian crash site that I know about but your stupid laws won’t let me and others recover and help you guys preserve you so-called history or snap yea I said that maybe you should take off your rose-colored glass’s and start thinking about the welfare of the Museum’s.
Scorpion89Oh Yea,
I forgot to ask in my last post, So being this is the second time that the City has try to sell the Mossie where have all these CAPA Museum been its not like its some big secret that they have been trying to unload the Mossie.
Now I’m sure if you say that they need to follow your little rules then I can think of a few folks in Canada who would have step up and purchase the Mossie in the past few years.
Scorpion89Some awesome photo’s i’ve not seen before.
Anybody know the story behind the ex-RN Corsair wreck ?
.
yes:D
Do a search either on here or on Wixs and all your question shall be answered
Scorpion89To Scorpion 89
Could you please provide us with the reference source of your statement on the red square/black border markings of aircraft flown by Indonesian forces during the Japanese occupation.
United States National Archives capture Aircraft records and files.
Scorpion89Hold On Richard,
Now didn’t you stated that these aircraft are not owned by the Museum.
And hence they aren’t part of the Museum and fall under City Ownership and the City has and can do what they wish with said items. now before you tell me to push off and I don’t have a clue on what I’m talking about. I’ve made many a purchase from Canadian Cities of Surplus items that could have fall under Heritage Canadian laws and rules. The one thing that keeps come back is the payed folks at the museum hence why I ask my question about any rules from the Canadian Military. For some reason I don’t buy the over-priced payed employs where is the proof of this. Now are these folks employs of the city of Calgary, the way it was explain to me that since the City owns about half of the aircraft then these folks would have to be City Employed. So the pay thing goes out the window if this is true.
Now for the Hurricane do you have any photos to show us the condition of said aircraft the reason I ask is I talk to a well know restorer in Canada who said the Hurricane isn’t what your billing it to be.
Oh and one other question you stated that the Mossie was in a Stone Building great but I must ask you what type of ventalation does this Stone Building have. How Hot does it get during the summer and how cold does it get during the winter, while it may be protected from the Outside Elements it still is being effect by them if these building isn’t properly heated and vented.
Trust me I’ve seen my far share of Wooden aircraft that have been kept in Stone/Brick Buildings but didn’t have proper Heating and Venting most if not all the wood had some sort of delamination of wood and dry rot of fabric.
Can you post some photos of the Mossie what I mean is some close up of the wood and fabic items.
Now we all want what is good for the aircraft and if it means they get sold and rebuild and put back on display great and who care if the City doesn’t follow Heritage Canada laws its not like they have been followed that much in the past if your read of some of the aircraft that CAPA and Heritage Canada has let leave or not even jump up and down. maybe its time for the all of you to rethink Heritage Law when being used for Military Items like Aircraft and Armour because as long as you pick and chose when to use said rules and laws then you create problems you have now.
Now if I come across being harsh well think about this folks which is better having two aircraft sit in some dungy storage building slowly roting away or having them return to their glory. Think About it.
Oh and yes I feel this way towards every museum that has stuff in long term storage so don’t think I’m just picking on the Canadian on this one.
Scorpion89I’m probably going to get hate mail for the rest of my life for what I’m about to say but I’ll say it anyway. Anyone with a collection like that who refuses the offer of free help is crazy. If they have no intention of maintaining them in a reasonable condition fit for at least static display what is the point of owning them? Far better that they were spread around among the various groups of preservers/restorers who would at least look after them.
Mike I have one name for you,
Walter Soplata go tell him what you just posted and see what his answer is.
Scorpion89Here is the link to the photo from China Lake,
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/R-W-Wrecks.htm
Most of these aircraft are still out their.
Oh and if anyone tells you that there are no more B-29s left at China Lake then they are speaking with a fork tounge’s. There are at least two still there one is in a Hot section which the folks at NAS China Lake will not confirm and the other is still sitting not to far from where Docs was located albit its in many parts but its still their. Also how many folks know that there are at least two PB4Y sitting out on the ranges at China Lake.
Scorpion89A little digging, looks like 80 F-84s were converted and used as drones
F-84kx converted
F-84B, US Navy target drone conversions.
Assigned BuNo. 142269 / 142348.
Chris true if you noted in my above post I said that NAS China Lake had some still on the Cold ranges. They were used for ground Target thru out he Naval Weapons Training Systems.
If you goggle NAS China Lake there is some photos of two f the straight wings.
Scorpion89The U.S. funded the AVRO flying car. Even in liberal democracies, funding it conveys some sort of wonership.
But as far as I’m concerned, you can have it with my compliments.:D
No JB if they want them back we should get OUR B-24(s) back in return fair trade if you ask me:p 😮 :diablo:
Sign In
