Tom HSorry if this is going off subject too much, but just wanted to add a comment about getting the interest of young people into historic aviation. I am lucky enough to have NAM on my doorstep and have used their extensive resources on numerous occassions for research and advice on our small project, and regularly took my young son there during school holidays as it was his favorite place to go, I have also dragged my daughters along to help at Cockpit Fest, and all have now started to get interested. When I took a media graduate to NAM to take some footage for our short film I worried he may find it boring, quite the opposite, we struggled to get him out, he was fascinated and filmed so much stuff, most irrelevant to our project, but he was so enthusiastic I felt mean trying to stop him, anyway enough waffle, if there was a way to encourage young people to go to Aviation Museums and see and hear the tales behind some of the exhibits I think some would soon get hooked, although sadly distance will always be a problem. I’m looking forward to seeing the plans NAM have got for the Visitors Centre, and am also pleased to see that some schools are also visiting, perfect age to get youngsters interested. Best of luck with it.
Your efforts are exactly what is needed!
At our museum we do many similar things and unconventional events to attract new visitation.
It works better from an individual I find…FWIW
Tom
Tom HDoesn’t Canada have another ex Spartan airframe which is being restored in Vancouver and another in Ontario, both of which took part in the survey of Northern Canada ???
EN830
The Spartan airframe you are referring to in Vancouver is actually in Victoria. It is in private hands and being restored as a wartime bomber version.
As it is in private hands there is no place to direct a private owner to do other than he wishes (as it should be).
The one in Ontario you refer to I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) is the Windsor Mossie.
To refer to it as an airframe would be a gross exaggeration…several of our members were on the Northern recovery of the parts. It was a crashed, burnt out airframe lost during a photo mission I understand.
The Windsor group has done an amazing job but other than metal parts recovered there is virtually no original airframe. I understand the fuselage is a non airworthy version (test unit?) from the group now recreating them in NZ.
If anyone from the Windsor group frequents this site please correct me where I may be wrong.
The Calgary airframe is our last shot at this piece of history.
Brewerjerry
I appreciate where you are coming from but I do think this comment…
“I personally hope the aircraft stays in canada, exported it will probably be retored to fly and end up in a flying accident in the UK, like the blenheim,or the last flying mosquito.”
is over the top and I can understand the offense taken by some of those on this board.
A good discussion or debate is fair game…but please everyone lets keep it a fair game.
VX927
“Perhaps those of us here in England who would like to see the Mosquito return home can also join the email campaign?”
You of course can do as you wish but I would suggest your efforts would do more to support the retention in Calgary than a move to England.
During the Calgary Mossie debate Canada lost several aircraft that were, shall we say spirited from the country, without proper approvals. Heritage Canada is now extremely sensitive to the issue and Government officials at the Municipal, Provincial and National level have taken significant “heat” over the continuous loss of our heritage/history to other countries. (both aviation related and other items).
As such your international e-mail campaign would likely reinforce the need to preserve our heritage/history rather than achieve your goal.
My thoughts
Tom
Tom HYour last post has got me thinking even more than usual Tom!
I haven’t had chance to search for any details of #2AOS but did they by chance operate Harvards at any time?
Sorry TO
#2AOS operated Ansons and the school was commanded by none other than W.R. (WOP) May. Many thousands of students from the Commonwealth passing through the doors.
Also on our airfield was #16EFTS (about 500′ away from our facility) operating Tiger Moth DH 82c’s…we are lucky to have what appears to be the sole remaining Tiger from #16EFTS in our collection.
A notable graduate of #16EFTS….The Desert Ace Stocky Edwards!
In Alberta Claresholm was the main Harvard base as I recall (going by memory)
Tom
Tom HProbably not, I’m keen to see aviation history preserved. I am not worried, either way, whether this airframe remains in Calgary, and is preserved there, or returns to the UK for Peter Vacher to return to the skies.
I commented because I thought the claim that the airframe’s provenance is Canadian was a little ambiguous, considering this Mosquito’s actually history.
Good luck to whomever ends up with this airframe, just so long as it is preserved.
I appreciate your thoughts…but my point on provenance was it has a very significant Canadian provenance that makes it historically important to Canada.
History is more than just where it was built or how long it was used…it is the how it was used and the significance of it’s contribution. This aircraft is very significant here because of what it did…not just what it is.
Tom
Tom HIn which case you could say Peter Vacher is looking at the British significance, designed, built and initially operated in the UK !?!?!
Which is fine with me….
But it is in Canada, owned by Canadians, I am a Canadian and feel our history is very important.
I understand that Mr. Vacher is no doubt wishing to showcase the Mosquito as a piece of British history for Britain…I respect that.
British history is no less important to the British than Canadian history is to a Canadian…so is it little wonder I take the position I am.
If the shoe was on the other foot would your position be any different?
Tom
Tom HAs we are proud of our British and other Commonwealth connections through
#2AOS that operated from the Hangar that is now our Museum.
Look forward to working together as the opportunities come up.
Tom
Tom HThanks Twin Otter
As we move forward I am hoping when we both have time we can look at ways we can have our (2) museums work together for both our benefit.
Tom
Tom HI’m going to play devils advocate here Tom – nothing more.
If that work was so important, and needs to be recognised by the preservation of one of the aircraft that did it, why did you complete yours as a ‘faux’ FB VI?
That aircraft is a bit of a devils child as it sits – neither one thing or the other…
Bruce
Fair question
At the time it was recovered it was a 3 way partnership between the Alberta Aviation Museum, 418 City of Edmonton Squadron (Mossie Intruder Sqn) and the City of Edmonton.
The saving of the almost un-salvageable airframe was contingent on it representing a 418 Sqn aircraft or it would have been left where it sat…outside and unprotected. So save it as a 418 aircraft or let it rot.
Didn’t seem to be a choice.
As far as the current state…it is not the final and as time and resources permit the conversion will continue.
EN830
Not really I’m afraid…
With Mr. Jens restoration nearing completion in Victoria, the National’s bomber version (not currently on public display) in Ottawa and ours as a FB the wartime history has representation. The aerial mapping does not.
As far as Canada Heritage…they look at the Canadian significance not other countries, as it should be and I would hope as other countries do.
Tom
Tom HWhile I wish Mr. Vacher no ill will this aircraft needs to stay in Canada.
The way this line is used to minimize it’s importance…
“The Mosquito was built in 1946 in Britain and then sent to Canada, where it was used for mapping in the North.”
Really bothers me…the mapping of Northern Canada was a huge part of our aviation history and this is one of the aircraft that did it and the one most likely to be restored to represent that period.
Look on a map gentlemen and ladies…Canada’s North is multiple times bigger than all of Europe and it’s mapping could only have been done by air.
This alone is more than enough justification for it’s restoration and display in Canada and Canada Heritage is well aware of its place in history.
I do hope Britain and other countries that operated the Mossie can get flying or other examples of their own but the provenance of this one is Canadian and I, as one of many, wish to see it remain and present our history.
Tom
Tom HTO23
The term “casual enthusiast” is one of my own making that I use to describe folks that have an interest in aviation in general, but not enough to get active.
There are a lot, how many times have you heard…”I always wanted to learn to fly but never….”? These are the folks that attend airshows if they are big, catch TV shows like “Ice Pilots” but never get directly involved.
These are the folks that also bring their kids and friends and are a great opportunity to expand our obsession.
Your demographic project is a good one, one I have been trying to find the time to implement…think you will be able to share information with it? It won’t be directly applicable to our world but sure would provide some insight.
Thanks Tom
Tom HI appreciate the suggestions and thoughts that have put forward and quite enjoy some of the examples of past successes.
But I think its very important to look at how we can attract and include more of the “casual enthusiast” and the general public at large.
I think most museums and collections have a cadre of enthusiasts to draw opinion from to cover that end but we hardly look at the people like the “wives”, teens and younger. What about the whole generation of young adults that is out there that we have not attracted the interest of?
In order to celebrate and preserve our history we need to continue to grow…but how do we reach the non hardcore enthusiast and bring them to the fold.
Aviation history is amongst the most adventurous, romantic, exciting. Filled with heroes, villains, entrepreneurs and con artists but somehow we seem to be missing passing this message on to others, especially the younger folk.
You thoughts?
Tom
Tom HDuplication is not an issue IMHO. I want to take the kids to an aircaft museum on a whim. If it wasn’t for my local museum, complete with Vampire T11, Mystere, Hunter and any other duplicated aircraft, my next nearest one is three hours drive (on a good day). Duplication is good from a geographical sence. Sorry, but the kids are not interested in driving 8 hours each way to see for exaqmple, the only Sandringham in the country…
I think you are right…only the hard core enthusiast will travel longer distances to view a museum. Here in Canada stats show it.
So having multiple collections can actually work well and promote each other.
In Canada the country is too large for only a national museum, each province (except Saskatchewan) has one or more museums. As long as they are 1.5hrs or more apart and differing in mandate I don’t see a problem…matter of fact it can be a great help.
Tom
Tom HAmarok
I think you hit the key…balance.
Right now we are adapting to the impending closure of our airport and part of that is going to be adding new features and attractions.
But not to the detriment of the core museum duties (collection, preservation, education). That is what I think becomes the key…doing new things that accent the history and the collection rather than overwhelm it and keeping the new attractions and features focused to the museum.
I have seen too many examples in North America where the museum evolves to being more of a theme park (a la Disney World) than a museum…that to me is a failure of staying to the mandate of being a museum.
Tom
Tom HShame this thread has stalled…
The OP had a good idea in starting it, we need to be thinking about how we can not only better present the artifacts we have but also look at how we can make them relevant to today’s enthusiast and general public.
Tom H
Tom HFully agree with sentiments in the latter part of you statement, Tom…… We need more of them, lots more of them, especially young ones. Us “oldies” won’t be here for ever!!
Planemike
We are definitely on the same page here. I don’t know about your part of the world but in ours we definitely lost a generation.
I find the majority of those from 18ish to 35-40ish years know little to nothing of our country’s history, let alone its aviation history. In Canada the education system focuses on the history of the rest of the world and other cultures while allowing our own (especially modern history) go nearly ignored. When it is presented it seems to be done in the driest fashion possible.
I am familiar with this first hand as I have a daughter that has just graduated from the school system and I have sat on several school councils.
This has resulted, here anyway, with a generation that has little if any knowledge of its history and heritage…as such little interest and commonly think of history as boring.
Unfortunately computers have not helped as some seem to thing that experiencing history on the computer is the same as actually seeing it.
Makes reaching this age range tough…we have to bring the history to life, make it exciting and entertaining while educating them without telling them we are going to educate them.
The bright spot we see…the upcoming generation (18 and under) are excited about their history, want to see, feel and touch real things and are actively interested in learning and experiencing their past. But it needs to be presented in new ways and be exciting and entertaining.
What we are doing in terms of presentation and programming seems to be working as we have had amazing growth in the last 5 years and targeting the younger demographic has been very effective.
You are so right when you point out “We need more of them, lots more of them, especially young ones.”.
You have my hearty agreement.
Tom
Sign In
