Tom HThanks for the thought
But I have exhausted the paper trail…which does not surprise me as there has just been a 3year heated debate over the destiny of the airport and it is now set for closure…one runway has already been closed.
At this point we have come to accept that the airport is closing…but we are attempting to save and maintain as many of the historic buildings as possible.
If I can determine which level of government made the designation we can confirm the level of protection offered and move forward on saving what can be saved.
I think you can see why the paper trail is a problem…as the land is slated to be redeveloped this has the potential of being a thorn to those that want to eliminate as much of the original airport as possible.
Thanks
Tom
Tom HAlso to address the question of the great vastness in Canada and the chances of many Canadians being lucky enough to see Bob Jens Mosquito fly let alone RS700, how about a clause in the contract stating RS700 should return to Alberta at some stage to tour the area giving many other Canadians a chance to see this great plane fly over their state again?
Dave
Appreciate the point you are making…but, as some of us have been advocating, a broader national plan for aviation heritage needs to be adopted for all Canadians…but that is a subject for another thread.
Tom
Tom HWhat a shame that Canada couldn’t have drummed up the relatively small amount required to save the last example of the biggest aircraft ever made in Canada, the CC-106 Yukon at Guyaquil. Not as glamorous as a Mosquito, I guess.
I agree and a valiant attempt was made.
The biggest problem with the Yukon was not the recovery, but where to display, restore and maintain it. I can appreciate the problem as our 737 is a strain to keep conserved and safe…the Yukon would be an order harder.
In spite of that we did take a hard look at trying to assist or take it on ourselves.
I am amazed the National did not get more involved.
Tom
Tom HActually, I’d say most Canadians are within several hundred kilometers of these two places.
Well not to belabor a point, quick search on the net, but to make my point.
Canadian POP 34,000,000 or close enough
Ontario POP 13,000,000 or close enough
The closest edge of Manitoba and the far side of Quebec are near enough to 1000km to call it that…never mind the North, West and Maritimes.
On this point…
“Perhaps some outside the box thinking is required. Two major restoration locations in Canada are Vintage Wings and Canadian Warplane Heritage. Perhaps it should be sent to one of those places for restoration(based on donations and/or Calgary money or something worked out as a partnership). Then once complete, the aircraft is flyable and alternates years in the east and in the west for all of us to see.”
Would be far preferable to the aircraft leaving the country.
Tom
Tom HNot sure this airplane is such a great example. To the best of my knowledge it was not exported from Canada. It was rebuilt in North Dakota and spent most of the time after it was flying in his hanger in North Dakota. It was registered with the FAA not the CAA when Bob sold it. It was NOT an exRCAF machine so only things Canadian about it were paint scheme and the nationality of the gentleman that owned/restored it.
I guess that was my point…if not the best example.
There was no issue because it did not have a Canadian History, Corsair “Alberta Blue” or P-51 “Whats up Doc” would be similar examples.
None of them had a “Canadian Heritage” therefore unaffected by Heritage Laws.
Importing and Exporting warbirds, to the largest extent, is not affected by Canadian Heritage Laws, sadly, because so few aircraft remain in Canada with a Canadian Heritage!
This is why protecting those that do has become so important.
Tom
Tom HTwin Otter 23
“Shame about the Harvard Tom – back to the drawing board on that idea!
NAM’s original President was Air Commodore David Bonham-Carter, who amongst other postings was involved in helping establish some of the Canadian elements of the Empire Air Training Plan. This is an important part of the Training theme that NAM is planning to feature as part of its revised Interpretation Plans and I hope this is something that can be developed in an engaging way.”
I think we can still work together re: the EATS/BCATP as there is a connecting story to tell.
Last year we flew 2000km in an open cockpit bi plane visiting the Alberta Training bases, this year we will be doing Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
All part of the 70th Anniversary celebration of the Training Plan.
We will be connecting we are connected with the Harvard Historical Society in Red Deer and on the 2011 portion of the tour we will be working with the Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum in Brandon Manitoba as well as several others.
Perhaps there is a way to tie our efforts together.
Tom
Tom HThe ‘fair trade’ has brought some significant aeroplanes to Canada in recent years. A restored Bf109F and one of only 3 airworthy Bristol F2bs on the planet to Ottawa, the Potter collection (mostly imports from the US and UK), several Fireflies (from Australia and Ethiopia), a couple of Sea Furies.
As others have mentioned, free trade largely benefits all. The major collection in Canada has added a pair of very significant airframes, an active private collection that is seen by millions annually has brought in more types of significance to the country, two museums have examples of an ex-RCN fighter previously extinct in the country, and another example of a later mark has been restored to fly again.
A little churlish to begrudge the possible departure of an airframe that has remained in storage, largely unloved, certainly unrestored, for many years.
Mike J
At what cost have these airframes returned? How many have been lost?
You’ll note that none of the airframes returned are true Canadian Heritage aircraft and all can be resold/traded with out a problem because of that.
And while its wonderful that the National and Vintage Wings have been able to add these aircraft they are 3-4000km away from me and thousands of km away from most Canadians.
A factor that many in the conversation seem to not recognize our history’s are for all citizens of our countries…. Canada is 6000km + wide! and darn near as deep.
So sorry but telling me about 2-3 aircraft added to collections on the other side of the country comes up short in comparison to what has been lost and what you are asking to be given up without a fight.
And why has Mr. Potter so graciously had to import aircraft from the UK, USA and NZ to get what is a representation of Canada’s aviation history? Because its gone in the times before the Heritage laws existed for the most part!
As far as the airframe in question…it has a real Canadian heritage, not a representation and the circumstances (as I described to Bruce) are much more complicated than your post implies.
Sorry if I am getting a little harsh on this but seems some think their history is more important than mine or it is at least being put across that way.
Tom
Tom HSpartan flew only one F-5/P-38…As I recall now owned by the Commemorative Airforce, I may be wrong due to the hour of day but do not believe Spartan operated the B-25 for photo mapping for the North.
They did operate the Lockheed Vega Ventura (PV-1) but finding another one of those makes looking for a Mossie a cake walk.
Mind you they did (for a limited time) operate a Sea Hornet as well.
In any event the Mossie operated from both Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta during the mapping making it not only relevant to Canada but to Calgary as well.
But this examples history here is as a mapping aircraft and is currently stored with the Spartan Mods AFAIK.
And it begs the question which comes up with Lancasters from time to time…
Does every Lancaster need to be in WW2 colours when it did so much more that is never recognized?
Don’t get me wrong…Yes we must continue to recognize and remember the efforts of those that served in WW2 (my father was a Lancaster Pilot and my Mother an RAF parachute packer/rigger), but to the exclusion of all else?
Tom
Tom HPeter, Peter!
Oh dear, we might have come to an understanding here, but by mentioning ‘F’ Freddie, we have thrown it all open again!
Yes, I understand the value of the Mosquito in mapping Canada, and I do appreciate that there would be a value in finishing it as such. Its worth mentioning that the Spartan aircraft were substantially modified to suit the mapping task.
There is no value in using a PR35 to represent a BIX, which was a wholly different aircraft. You are then moving away from Toms argument, and playing back into my hands!
Bruce
Well Bruce we have found a point we do agree on…
The Calgary Mossie (at this point) is not encumbered by the conditions we had to deal with so the Spartan/Mapping scheme is the priority and the focal point both for the aircraft and for Alberta (yes even Calgary’s) history.
F for Freddie while a tragic tale and one that must be marked in Calgary’s history, in my personal opinion only, but is the foot note. (absolutely no offense or minimization intended to anyone)
If I was displaying the aircraft it would be as Spartan with the Spartan/Northern Mapping story with a wonderful large scale model of F for Freddie model adjacent with a display of that tragic tale so both could be covered.
In our case we are working backwards from that…as our Mossie continues its transition and the 418 Squadron story display is expanded I intend on having a large scale Spartan Mossie model with a display of the Northern mapping to try (not as well) to cover both stories.
So much history…so little time and so very little money.
Tom
Tom HAnd it brings my earlier point to bear.
“I guess my point is that we need balance. In the Mosquito ‘big picture’, Mapping of the Northern territories is a footnote. (with all due respect to Tom, Peter and the rest of the Canadian contingent).”
I see what you are saying Bruce but in our history it is much more than a foot note. In many ways a defining moment in the exploration and understanding of our country, its vastness and even today plays a role in understanding as Canadians how we relate to each other within that vastness.
It’s a matter of perspective and while I appreciate yours I hope you can understand mine.
Tom
Tom HTom,
I’ve worked on both sides – as a professional restorer, and as a volunteer. I’m pleased to say that as a result of my professional experience, I was able to make a difference to the volunteer organisation I inhabited. I’ve seen a lot of volunteer based restorations that were frankly awful. On balance, I would rather see the airframe restored by professionals.
Yes, history is made by the people who inhabit it. Yes, the tangible remains of that history exists in the aretefacts they left behind. On that basis we owe it to history, that those artefacts are given the best treatment we can give, independent of nationalistic considerations.
Incidentally, that precludes restoration to flight – as I say, I’m just trying to move the conversation on….!
Bruce
Bruce…
I clearly see your efforts and passion, but (again like you I imagine) I have seen “professionals” that made poor amateurs look good.
I understand your trying to “move the conversation on” and in being a “devils advocate” (and I have taken no offense) but when we are talking of history and heritage I can’t really set aside “nationalistic concerns” as you seem able to.
Guess I have just seen too much of ours sold for a quick profit and leaving our younger generations little to see, appreciate and celebrate.
Tom
Tom HWhich is precisely my point.
I would rather see the influx of different types that we have enjoyed – and I am sure Canada too, than a stalemate that seems to be eschewed.
I would rather that we now see the loss of some Vampires, Meteors and so on, than see them scrapped as a result of no interest in the UK.
A couple of years ago, Canada received an airworthy Brisfit, in exchange for a duplicate He162. Prior to that, a Me109F. Its not all one way!
Bruce
While the aircraft you note are of great historical value I think your examples make the point clearly…they carried no great “Canadian” historic significance and there was no issue in moving them about.
The issue rises when it is of great “Canadian” historic significance, of which I might add there are not many left here.
To the greatest extent our Heritage laws do not effect “the flow” so to speak.
Tom
Tom HBruce
I appreciate your trying to broaden the discussion by getting past the “nationalist jargon” but to a very large extent that is what the argument, not just of the Mossie but in general, is about.
The history was made by people…not aircraft, but all we have left is the aircraft and items surrounding them to remember and recognize/remember the people that made the history.
Regardless of what country you reside in there is no free trade in the above.
As for those stepping up as potential restorers…they have solid track records and support as Peter indicated and we should sometimes remember a passion that professionals don’t always have.
I also appreciate you wish to see the “best outcome” for the aircraft…we just may not agree on what that outcome is.
We cannot repair mistakes made in the past, but we can take steps to be sure to have a history to celebrate for the future.
Mark
Thank you for your post as you express much of what I’d like to say in a coherent manner.
As you point out well in your post Canada and Australia have much in common too bad we are so far apart.
When you consider the physical size of our countries in relation to Europe or even the USA vs the remaining historic aircraft is it little wonder that we are getting protective about what is left.
From Bob Jens Mossie in Victoria to the one in Windsor Ontario mentioned by EN830 is roughly 4000km by road and that’s only 2/3 of the way across Canada (more or less)!
Australia has similar distances.
I believe in my posts I have been very clear that I have no animosity to anyone involved in this conversation…but do try and view things from both sides of the coin.
Tom
Tom HWe have a policy in the UK, that allows free trade of historical aircraft. Aircraft come, and aircraft go.
As far as I can see, that adds to the rich diversity of aircraft we see in the UK, and they rotate on a regular basis.
There is nothing whatever to say that the Mosquito, once restored, would not return to Canada in the future. A full restoration, by professional engineers would be the best outcome for the aircraft, ignoring the politics.
The Mosquito has been stored for a very long time, and nothign has been done – only when there is a threat of it leaving do people get excited.
It does come across as wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Bruce
Bruce
Without going into details shall we say as with most things the story is much more complicated than just the aircraft (as I explained regarding our own) as I am sure you have had to deal with over the years.
As far as the free trade of historic aircraft….in Canada that has led to the loss of most of historic aircraft. Two – Three decades ago there was a great diversity of operating and/or historically significant (to Canada) warbirds…now it’s down to a handful.
Great thanks to Vintage Wings of Canada and Michael Potter as well as Canadian Warplane Heritage or the situation would be even worse.
So I would say consider Britain lucky to this point in time.
Which has led to the legislation now in place that covers not just aircraft but heritage/historic items in general.
With rare exception this does not impede the trade of warbirds…a good example would be that of Bob Mays “City of Winnipeg”” Mustang. An aircaft he built over time from parts around the world (it was a beautiful aircraft) and even though it was in Canadian colours when he choose to sell it due to his own issues there was no question of it’s being exported as it did not have an important Canadian history.
Same can be said for a number of other warbirds that have changed hands.
Corsairs, Mustangs and others.
If however and artifact does have a such a history it is protected but can still leave the country if proper steps and protocols are followed.
Getting back to the Calgary Mossie…
“A full restoration, by professional engineers would be the best outcome for the aircraft, ignoring the politics.”
First off…not being in a perfect world we can’t ignore the politics.
Second…the groups involved in retaining the aircraft in Calgary have the right professional and engineers involved. I would not expect you to know details but being so close to us (if you consider 300k close) there are people common to both the Mossie and other more mutual interests so information travels between our cities.
It is now up to the City of Calgary to:
a) Make a decision based on the direction they choose to take.
b) If they choose to retain the aircraft designate who will be restoring them.
c) If they choose to dispose of the aircraft follow ALL of the MOU’s, laws and ….legislation regarding the transfer of ownership if it is to leave Canada.
You can guess my preference of choice.
But I don’t get to make that choice, the City of Calgary does within the laws of the land.
As far as Canadian enthusiasts having their cake and eating it too…
I can appreciate with the information you have it may seem that way, but as I opened with there is more to the story than I feel is my place to explain or am at liberty to share.
Tom
Tom Hlast pictures shown to me by a friend that visited the aircraft (2-3 month ago) were wartime colours.
Tom
Sign In
