Dave HellmanThank you for your replies,
Especially SeaDog.
Reading between the lines on the reply, I guess as a member of the public I cannot ask certain questions allegedly relating to our historic aircraft without having a rude reply which is then directed personaly at me. (thank you Bruce for moderating all replies!)
The over reacting to this thread by some in the reply seems extreme at most and over defensive.
Why cant there be just answers to the actual aviation questions rather than attack with rude replies nobody is forced to read this thread.
Has the aircraft been allegedly sold, as some of us on threads hear it has! and others see that the CAA registration hasnt changed which is a 28 day requirement. What is the actual status SeaDog can we have it from the actual source?
So obviously the rest of the subjects discussed are off bounds, that is absolutely fine, no one would want a few blood vessels burst because of apparently which seem sensitive questions.
Thank you for your kind reply’s its obvious now the forum is not a place to get actual answers. However in most cases on the forum there seems to be a good amount of genuine people who do help the best they can.
Dave HellmanDave
As I’m sure you are aware, one responsibility of a Trustee of any charitable trust is to ensure that the finances that have at their disposal are spent wisely on the core objectives
In order to help you understand why the Gannet may have been sold by Chatham to it’s current owner, might I suggest that you refer to the Chatham Historic Dockyard website, If you refer to the Dockyard Corporate Plan 2006, you will see that the 2 core objectives for the Trust are as follows
1) To secure for the public benefit the preservation and use of The Historic Dockyard at Chatham in the County of Kent in a manner appropriate to its archaelogical, historical and architectural importance;
2) To promote and foster for the public benefit a wider knowledge and understanding of the archaelogical, historical and architectural significance of The Historic Dockyard.
I see no mention in there of anything aviation related, and I would not expect to as this site was involved in the construction of some of the ships that made this country the greated naval power in the world for most of the 19th century. As the core collection on this site is the buildings I would suggest that a Fairey Gannet – at the risk of stating the obvious, is an aircraft – would not fit in with their core objectives and the conservation of it would therefore be at the bottom of their list of priorities. I am not sure if you have ever been to visit the Chatham dockyard, but one thing that will strike you when you go it that it is on the side of a hill that slopes down to the river medway with dry docks and covered slips along the edge of the river and buildings that date back over 200 years. There is not a runway or hangar in sight.
I would suggest that if you have any evidence showing that there has been any inappropriate deals between organisations or individuals, then you present your evidence to the appropriate authorities and stop making unsubstantiated suggestions.
I think that you will find that Kennet Aviation does an awful lot to support the activities of the Fly Navy Heritage Trust.
Thank you for your input, but I have to say, I as a member of the public and a good supporter of historic aviation as well as a great many others should be able to ask simple questions that should not be sensitive with the aim to get an official reply from people in the position to answer directly.
Surly the official answers to questions should be available somewhere when members of the public want to know dealings that involve organisations which are supported by the public! or is the public and enthusiasts not important enough to get this information but good enough to donate their money!
I think you may have missed the point which is made, and hopefully there are some official answers from someone.
On the subject matter allegedly the aircraft was sold to a private collector of Naval aircraft for £1 which as per your reply’s seems to be a private collection at North Weald, but there doesnt seem to be any record of the aircraft being offered publicly for tender. Why? why did it go directly to one person almost like it was earmarked and not offered out. There must be a simple answer!
Allegedly this private collection is also owned by the same person who is also a trustee for the Naval heritage trust at Yeovilton.
And allegedly the trust was a source of a new Mk3 engine which was purchased from them for the Mk3 owner.
Can anyone provide evidence this is not the case as its recent history seems very secretive, does anyone know who has allegedly bought it now
Looking at the other threads what part does this private collection also play with the two seat Sea Fury recently purchased which arrived at North Weald and supposed to operate with the historic flight at Yeovilton as it reads they are also it seems overhauling the aircrafts engine at North Weald to. Did the trust actualy purchase this aircraft? as a supporter of the historic flight I didnt think they had that much spare money around! or is it on loan?
Can anyone tell me who governs trustee’s within a heritage trust subsidised by the public, which makes sure trustees are not developing the trust to their own benefit. At the end of the day its the general public which are relied on to keep the interest and funds in all these trusts, and it should be our right to know exactly what goes on within them when asked.
With great respect is my question to the entity at Chataham responsible for the sale, was the Mk3 Gannet XL500 sold on for approximately £1
Dave HellmanDave, sounds like you may have an axe to grind here.
As a tax payer I’m happy that the previous/current owners MAY have payed a small amount for the Gannet, its parts, and tools etc, but the costs of bringing it to airworthyness will far exceed these sums, I am far more satisfyed that as an ex MoD asset that the aircraft is being cared for and will possibly fly again. Even if the engine came cheap (or was it loaned?) via the FAAM, surely it is in our better interest to see it being used in a runner than sitting on a shelf – the tax payer dosen’t lose out either way.
Not sure where you got the £1 thing from, I seem to remember that may have been what 849 Sqn personnel payed for it as a token fee when they took it on as a squadron mascot from official FAA ownership a long time ago at Culdrose.
As for current ownership, I was under the impression that HFL own the Gannet not Kennet. I also know they have requested tools and info on here in the past, so they couldn’t have got everything ‘through the system’.How on earth does the dear old Gannet always get in embroilled in these issues, it is bad enough with XT752!:rolleyes:
I believe that there are bad cases of wasting public money in the MoD disposals system (in fact learnt of a real shocker early this week), but that is an issue really to be addressed to DSA themselves.
Thank you Pagen01 there is no axe to grind but questions to ask.
As the subject matter has fallen on the Mk3 Gannet as an example, my point is exactly what seems to be now evident.
If an aircraft was retired by the Navy and entrusted to a museum for a token £1 this obviously was for the reason that a publicly subsidised organisation was making sure it was protected for the general public to get the benefit and not a scrapper.
If the asset is then privatly sold off, its been without the ability for the general public who have all aided the care of it to tender for its sale openly. It does looks like it allegedly hasnt been offered or sold to gain the best possible price from various potential offers.
If as alleged been sold for a £1 and found its way to a collector which also is alleged to be connected as a trustee to a Naval heritage trust but now as its been mentioned sold off again to someone unkown it raises some eyebrows I feel.
I am sure much goes on behind closed doors in many fields but as a member of the public who has donated to many aviation causes I feel we are owed explanations to questions when raised especially when other organisations such as the Vulcan Trust, YAM who have another Mk3 and many many more who have to do it all the standard way and generaly pay the going rate rate.
I was even told a Mk3 was tendered to the public a few years ago in Scotland!
It wouldnt matter to a buyer how much it cost them within reason to get an aircraft flyable if they bought it for £1. I dont think you can even get a new bolt for that, and if they couldnt get it airworthy its still worth a great deal more as a static, ask YAM.
I beleive its no good to historic aircraft and their future by sticking heads in the sand instead of asking civil questions like these hoping anwers come back from officials who actually know. Thinking its OK that aircraft are going to be made airworthy by a new civilian owner doesnt answer the actual question if the initial procedure of sale is fair and known to the general public.
I wonder how many other aircraft been sold off from museums etc which the general public were not able to take part in and now in the hands of private owners!
Dave HellmanI don’t feel I have anything else to say on this thread other than before you get too carried away with conspiracy theories you should be aware Kennets no longer own it……………….:rolleyes:
Thank you for all the feed back,
Especially to Jagx204, but are you aware that a change of ownership cannot be the case unless the Kennet aircraft has just been sold now.
Under the ruling of the CAA they have to re-register the new owner within I believe 28 days so at the moment this cant be!
You must have information the rest of us dont this is all new news to us as I have just read some threds which indicate the aircraft will return once airworthy.
When was she sold, and is it to anyone we know?
Dave HellmanThank you for the brief history thats great,
I think my point was that aircraft which are in the care of trusts, museums that take money from the general public, should have an obligation to sell these artefacts via the correct way so aircraft which at one time are preserved by these organisations with this aid of the publics money should not end up in the hands of select chosen civilians for their private benefit, but forced to allow public tenders where everyone has an option of playing a future part in such aircraft. There are many I am sure who would have bid a £1 and much more for it if this is true.
If one museum pay’s over £20.000 + for a very neglected Gannet, why should private individuals allegedly be handed a fairly good one for a £1 from a museum which I am sure must have accepted public money in various ways over the years. It doesnt matter how much money has to be added at a later stage to the aircraft after its sold that is immaterial.
To me it just doesnt sound correct and moral if this is the case.
You mentioned Kenet! isnt someone allegedly involved with this outfit, also a trustee for a Naval Heritage trust at Yeovilton? Now you mention it allegedly the new Mk3 engine also came through from Yeovilton for this very Mk3. Perhaps someone knows more and can varify this.
Dont get me wrong its great there are many people who are restoring aircraft, but when it looks like there is a short cut in the system when others have to pay the going rate and more for aircraft, spares, help etc and realy need the public to donate to a good cause, why should others privatly benefit from what seems to be insider dealing.
Dave HellmanThank you all for you kind welcome,
I have done a great deal of looking into historic aircraft that end up in civilian hands as a hobby and there are definatly grey areas for sure.
Can anyone verify for instance a rare aircraft like XL500 Fairey Gannets sale to its civilian owner, as its alleged it was pruchased for £1 and a brand new engine unit for only £10.000 ten thousand pounds!!!!!!!
I may stand corrected but I dont believe it ever came up for public tender through disposals either I cannot find any records of this anywhere!
I hope this is not true at all, as I believe the Mk3 Gannet at YAM which is not in a good state was supposed to be purchased for £20.000 and more spent after which will never fly as I understand.
Sign In
