Tom HYou are right Scorpion
Here is where things do get interesting…
In my personal opinion
A historical aircraft…
Is one that has participated specifically in a historical event in a significant manner.
Examples:
The Wright Flyer
The Silver Dart
W.R. Mays specific AVRO Avian
The Winnie May
The Prototype Mossie
A heritage aircraft…
Is one that “represents” a piece of a countries history.
Examples:
The Mossie in our Museum
The CF-100 we have on display
A Fokker Universal
In summary:
Historical: One that partidipated or bench marked a historical event
Heritage: One that represents the greater effect of the type on a countries history
Off the soap box
Next
Tom H
Tom HMorning all, sorry I could not responde yesterday but other committments blocked my time.
Scorpion89
1) So, in essence, we agree aircraft are no less an important historic atrefact.
But return to removing them because they were mass produced, irrelevant.
Mass production has nothing to do with how many remain or how important their place in history is. Most items considered antiquities were, in their day, mass produced. Idols, emblems, fancy jewelry etc.
So to me the arguement does not stand.
2) Your example of airframe recoveries can be done just as well under heritage laws as it can, without. The restriction being if the airframe is designated important or not. If the hypothetical deal is approved and done through proper channels what makes the difference?
3) The Calgary Mossie is not a suitable example, and more importantly “who” gets to say what is best for any given airframe?
Systems are put into place for greater reasons than your or my opinion on what should happen with a given airframe. When followed there are generally few problems.
I see we will agree to disagree on this one.
We are also going to disagree on the “fashionalbe collector”, while there are many true diehards when it comes to collectors (to whom I admire) there are just as many or more that buy…don’t fly or display and want them to add to their works of art and other items. This is where the 7 figure prices come from and with those prices come the increased parts costs etc etc.
We are currently watching the same thing happen with Muscle cars so we are not going to meet on this one.
Now on the last points
Don’t get me wrong…there is a difference between the “Big Business the warbird industry” has turned into and having Big Business, generically involved in Heritage.
My point is…
What the Warbird industry wants needs to come after the importance of aircraft as a heritage item.
Big Business as a supporter of Aviation Heritage is not the same thing. Big Biz supports heritage when it makes economic sense and there is a benefit to their involvement. Only occasionally is it done from pure philothranic interests.
As a supporter they expect, and should get, value for their dollar as advertisers/sponsors. That is the way of the world, and our facility works very hard to insure our corporate supporters get measurable value for their involvement and get treated as business partners.
As to you last comment…
We agree… rules once set are for everyone to follow and all should be treated equally and fairly under them.
My two bits
Next soap box
Tom H
Tom HVne
Sounds like what you are doing not only makes sense but represents the history well.
If an aircraft has a documentable, significant history (your Spit) restoring the aircraft and colours as close as possible makes sense.
When it doesn’t and the data is not availabile…picking representative schemes makes sense and tells the story very well.
With generic airframes/aircraft, to me, the story you are chosing to tell overwhelms the airframe.
What do others think?
Tom H
Tom HGreat post Mark
I admire the depth and consideration of what you quoted.
It seems to cover the intent of protecting without blocking and that is the whole idea to me.
I will PM you for more information when I get time.
Thanks again
Scorpion89
I have to run back into a meeting and I want to answer throughly to your responses so I will have to wait till tommorow.
Sorry
Tom H
Tom HBruce and Eddie
I tend to agree with both your comments to an extent…
While I think in a perfect world you are absolutely right, but alas this is not a perfect world.
Our sorta composite B-25 is being restored to represent a specific aircraft because of the history it holds within our local and mandate. A pattern aircraft could not address that.
That is where the issue of which to represent becomes the problem.
If our B-25 was one of Doolittles raiders I would fight to the death it be restored that way…but as an airframe with no charactor of its own having it represent an important moment in time becomes the obligation in my mind.
Your thoughts???
Tom H
Tom HGentlemen…
You all make great points!
I would suggest a system for a country that combines several I am familiar with:
1) A register with a points system similar to your Registery of Historical A/C. To be operated by a non aligned group within the country. Example, in Canada it could be CAPA.
2) If an aircraft is above a pre determined number of points it is ear marked to the government as a Heritage aircraft. Publicly or Privately owned.
This is actually a good thing for the private owner, as having an aircraft with a special statis should drive the value of the aircraft up.
3) If the aircraft is to be offerred for sale, first it must be offerred to public institutions, then not for profit, finally within country.
4) If there are no takers then the Registry is notified and clears an open sale and exportation is cleared.
Seems to me a fair system, airframes continue to be availabile for export but the home country gets first shot should an aircraft clearly qualify. If there are no takers in country then it is free to the world and there should be no complaints.
Love to hear your thoughts.
The next questions become:
1) Enforcement? How do you deal with those that skirt the system?
2) Penalties?
3) What about recoveries?
Great thread
Tom H
Tom HScorpion89
Hope you don’t mind…and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but shouldn’t we back up and look more at the system?
Before we go International with a list should we not consider the other important levels involved. National, Provincial (State, County etc), Local?
Lets look into the concept of a reasonable system.
Tom H
Tom HI’m dredging this thread up as I think it ties to Scorpion89’s Heritage laws thread in a big way.
Can we get some more input here?
Tom H
Tom Hso now things start to get more interesting…
Scorpion89
We agree
1) Aircraft are historic artefacts
2) We agree they are worthy of being preserved
3) and protected
4)But you feel it should be a totally free market????
To me this contradicts the points we agree on?
Answer me these point if you would be so kind…
1) What makes an aircraft any less important than any other antiquity?
You agree that some historic items should be protected, but then seemingly arbitrairly want to remove aircraft? I would like to understand this more.
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.
3) “Heritage laws” prevent free trade and preservation.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Interesting debate…keep it up
Scotavia…
To me this conversation is still very much in the stage of discussing the concept…I don’t see us anywhere near arguing the actual rules yet.
I am very familiar with living with a historic site, our Museum is designated and it does make for some irritating issues. But if it was not designated and protected I would bet it would not be here today.
Some parts of the world have very good historic site legislation, some do not…our Province is somewhere in the middle. But…if there were none most sites would be lost.
And quite frankly sometimes one mans progress is anothers disaster…progress for the sake of progress is not a good thing, there needs to be balance.
You live in a country with hundreds of years of marvelous buildings, structures and such. Neither Canada or our southern neighbor have been around as long as some of your pubs!
We in Canada are still learning to protect ourhistory and savor it as your country has done…in many ways you are very lucky.
As to copies instead of originals…sometimes you have no choice but to have or use a copy, but are the citizens of a country not entitled to be able to become educated and enjoy their true culture and heritage?
I was once told, and it stuck, a community or society’s foundation is its history and like a house if its knowledge of its history, foundation, is strong then the community or society will be strong…if it is weak it is destined to collapse.
I still believe it.
Bruce…
As usual you make a wonderful point on the restoration of aircraft.
As we are still only discussing concept I take from your comments you agree with the ideals or concepts of…
Aircraft being historic?
Being worthy of preservation?
Being worthyof being protected?
Or am I putting words in your mouth…(I hope not).
JDK
Enjoy you comments as always.
Good debate
Next round
Tom H
Tom HSo in concept…
We do agree…(Lard Tunder’n)
1) Aircraft are a historic artefact.
2) They are worthy of being preserved as an important piece of our Heritage.
3) Nothing wrong in concept with a nation setting out to protect them as historic artefacts.
So what this comes down to is you don’t like the rules some countries layout in doing it?
And I still don’t care what the UN does, still a personal opinion.
Tom H
Tom HNow I’ve got a few minutes…
Scorpion89
I am not going to get into a tit for tat on specific aircraft…nor other countries laws which I am not familiar, but I do think the entire concept should be debated.
So…
When 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.
I also could care less what the UN thinks or does, personal opinion.
So lets look at the concept in general…
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.
What is wrong with the idea of a country…any country putting laws in place to recognize and protect aircraft as historic artefacts?
We protect art, first nations artefacts, artefacts of many other kinds…why not aircraft?
Aviation has influenced our nation in huge ways altering and creating all new cultures…as it has in many other countries.
Should we not recognize this fact, should we not take steps to preserve and protect this piece of our heritage?
Ball is in your court, the Wright Flyer not protected as an artefact of National significance? Blows me away.
Tom H
Tom HScorpion89
You beat me to it…
I was gonna bring the topic up when I had more time.
I really do think this should be discussed on the forum, but it will be a bit before I can reply to your initial post.
Tom H
Tom HWell you have the last knowledge that I have…
Best I can help you with
Tom H
Tom HScorpion89
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
Tom HThank you for the input…
I agree Deny that I will need to gather much of the information you speak of, I just don’t want to do it in a public forum. Once I have enough leads I will approach the Museums off-line and get additional information.
I also generally agree with your reasons for problems, they are hard to deal with…but solutions can be found.
Your questioning system is excellent and is the type of thing I am looking at, but again prefer to do it off-line.
Pondskater…you are right to approach a museum directly and publicly they should be leary of saying they are having trouble. Which is why I am looking for input here and will follow up once I have enough leads.
It’s not bad being a museum in the Centre of a City…mind you we are on an airport (lol), at least for the time being, our City Centre Airport has been under threat for many years so while we continue business as usual we also try to keep an eye out for a less favorable future.
Thanks for the comments
I would also be interested in hearing about museums that have had to close, no matter how long ago.
Tom H
Sign In
