daniel/liberator/phil/whoever?

It seems the same problem was encountered over at Wix for much the same reasons, and resulting in the thread being locked there.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48641&p=487556#p487556

Clearly I wasnt the only one to question “why” or “how” the “Public AWAL notice” or information was being posted on public forums, with links to as passworded facebook site?

In anycase the need to access a password protected facebook account seems passed, as AWAL have updated their website with a comprehensive response and description of the issues being raised as concerns, along with a revised date of the resumption of the AGM.

It would seem simpler for those interested, and those needing to know, to go direct to the source, and get the official announcements directly.

http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/news.php

I dont intend to get into a debate of the internal issues of the AWAL itself, thats an issue for its paid up members.

regards

Mark Pilkington

? an announcement of an announcement?

I dont have facebook to find out what hides behind, but I understand from private advice that there is little or no detail other than a formal announcement is expected?

Edit: I’m not quite sure why the OP hasnt simply referred us to the AWAL website?, rather than his own Facebook page?

(Edit2: I am reliably advised the OP operates the AWAL facebook page smiles)
(So if this information isnt meant for non-members why not simply distribute it via circulating email?)

In anycase the AWAL official website offers publicly available information:

http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/news.php

But it is now carrying notice of a resumed AGM (although the date of that on 19th of January has now passed) and a newsletter advising of a raft of issues. (This seems to have been up there since 29 December?)

http://www.australianwarbirds.com.au/pdf/AWAL_AGMR_Notice_to_members_V2.pdf

I can only assume the announcement of an announcement is flagging further information will be released in the near future?

I’m not a member of AWAL but it is an important organisation in the role of supporting and administering Australian Warbirds, and so its ongoing success is something I certainly support.

Google finds a discussion on Prunne that “may” give some “unreliable” insight as to problems inside the organisation. Obviously however this may simply be “one side” of a very complex story?

ie: I cant comment on its accuracy or inaccuracy.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/505566-australian-warbirds.html

regards

Mark Pilkington

Wouldnt it be a simple matter that at the end of the war, the B1 FE’s were new and un-used and available in storage, having not been used for the Far East, and that B1 production would had stopped by then to give way to the Lincoln?, and that the majority of all other B1s in store or available would be well worn? veterans?, and probably mothballed ready for scrapping?, or being retired from service? as apparantly occured here?

regards

Mark Pilkington

As someone who has actively contributed to this aircraft’s demise through acquisition of its wing centre-section, wing outer panels and tail plane, (although still they are existing and intending to exist and be available for future research purposes ongoing, as against a scrapping outcome), I would make the following observations:

1. Its been advertised and available for anyone to take and restore it to its former glory, and has passed through a number of hands and apparantly judged to be beyond full restoration by those various owners?.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=77867

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=77675&page=2

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=52895

2. While it was of significant provenance that wasnt reflected in any apparant pursuit of it for acquisition and restoration by either public or volunteer museums, it simply circulated among well intended collectors.

3. Its centre-section was “cut” off the fuselage and it and its wings have suffered significant corrosion from external display and expose to the salt air, and were intended to be scrapped in the UK at the time I was advised of their intended fate. Clearly given the number of complete late series Ansons surviving in the UK the work to repair and restore the wings has discouraged previous collectors and owners, and from my own point of view the cut centre-section provided a cost effective ability to containerise it for shipping, and its lack of apparant value and intended scrapping allowed for a low acquisition cost, and the metal wing, even with its corrosion and significant repair issues, still provides for a cost effective outcome for a static display mark 1 restoration as against building a one piece wooden wing from scratch.

I was advised of its risk of scrapping and availability by a UK based Anson restorer, my interest on the wing was to secure one that otherwise would have been scrapped and have it available for a future mark I restoration, clearly others would have also known of the situation and uncertain future?

Much later I was approached as to my interest in the wings of G-APGP which I understand are in far better condition but would have posed far more costly shipping costs as the wing centre-section could not be containerised other than in an open top container, exposed to sea spray and costing more for the privaledge smiles, of course I already had VS562 and had no need of a second set.

Of these two sad Ansons, VS562’s wings and certainly its centre-section was always of great risk of being scrapped, and I suspect they would not now exist at all, other than for their shipping to Australia, and they are unlikely to be scrapped here.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=90452

4. Clearly its fuselage was intact and still fabric covered, and again could have made a viable museum display in its own right, although I suspect there may have been some tube rot in it given the condition of the wings.

But again, there doesnt seem to have been any apparant pursuit of it for acquisition and restoration by either public or volunteer museums?, or even private collectors?, even though this was again debated and its availability publicly known in 2009? as details of its wings departing for Australia became known.

In fact at that time surely the fuselage without its complication of storage and restoration of its sad wings was an even more attractive proposition for a suitable museum to take on?- however clearly it wasnt to be?

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=90452&page=2

Yes, I think its a crying shame that she has been split up as she has – no offence to Mark P.

However, it she has been available for sale for an awful long time, and no-one has been able to give her a good home. The fact that the centre section was cut was always going to be a serious problem…

Bruce

Pardon my ignorance of all things Anson, but am I correct in thinking there is a wingless Anson fuselage or cockpit currently for sale in the UK as a result of this? And if so, could someone in the know tell me a little more about it – condition (!), completeness, location etc?

Thanks
JK

She sold from Maes Artro for circa 5K and then passed through a couple more hands until being sold on E-Bay for circa 5K again! Having expected her to sell at the Retro Auction -I rather lost track of her but she seems not to have wandered far. She isn’t a very good reflection on British preservation.

As for your notes Mark -yes indeed the centre section parts did spend a long time at Maes Artro which is efectively Llanbedr and the atmosphere in this part of Wales is best described as ‘Maritime’ for the best part of the year!

There is only one place where the fuselage belongs in the U.K – I hope something could happen to make it happen.

5. Equally it would seem there was an opportunity to bring the good fuselage of VS562 together with the good wing centre-section and wing outer panels of G-APGP (although there are restored Ansons about, that started with less than G-APGP was, even in its worst condition!) to create a viable and complete post war anson display probably still presented as VS562 and its significance, however apparantly again there doesnt seem to have been any apparant pursuit of it for acquisition and restoration by either public or volunteer museums?

6. I know when I acquired the wings in 2009 that the intact future for VS562’s fuselage was at risk even then and that a cockpit section outcome was likely, and that again was a time that anyone interested in the intact fuselage could have pursued it?

7. I am not sure VS562 when became a cockpit section and when G-APGP arrived into the same ownership?

I certainly know APGP’s availability was notified to me long after the delivery of VS562’s wings, and I do know the owner has probably pursued and acquired them for a mark I project for a customer, and not to complete VS562. It is very likely VS562 was already a cockpit by then?

8. VS562’s cockpit section clearly survives today, albeit in a strange film set apparatus, but the cockpit itelf is probably largely intact as it was in 2009, and I am sure could still make a reasonable display should a museum pursue it?

In fact I’m not sure the removed fuselage section might not still exist and “simply” require welding, wood and fabric work to restore it into a complete fuselage again – those concerned or interested should make contact with the owner?, But clearly that fuselage section is likely to be disposed of in the longer term as well, if it hasnt been already?, it seems largely intact but cockpitless in the photo below, with VS562 fuselage frame to the RHS of the wing, and the remains of G-APGP’s fuselage frame to the LHS of the wing?

Was a museum ever wishing to do so, there seems to have been ample time to enquire and express interest in VS562 when it retained all its parts, or still constituted at least a complete fuselage, or even today to acquire I assume a relatively complete cockpit that still holds its prototype provenance?

We “cant” save them “all”, but if there are “those” we “do” want to “save”, we need actively express interest in them and ensure they are saved “somehow” by “someone, and not lament after the fact, that they were not.
“
By the way her engines remained in the UK and clearly may be of interest for preservation as well?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I think its “mentioned” because they, like a number of other people, are rather dismayed at the props treatment, more so given it was their own former prop, and more so because it was done on their own grounds apparantly near enough to in front of them? and more so because they have more than enough equipment on site to have helped remove the propellor had they been asked to be involved, or told what was intended?

Given that situation I think they are rather restrained in what they say about all of that?

I dont see any harm in them highlighting any and all of that, and clearly it wasnt them who hacked it off, or apparantly then hacked off the second one? since arrival in the UK?

Unless we saw that clear statement from the museum, including their identification of its source and true identity, then we would all be simply assuming its just a fibreglass copy that was cut, or the blade was removed properly rather than being hacked off? and claiming its all of little consequence?

I personally dont know how rare Barracuta props or blades are, or how significant the type is in the UK, or the level of need for a prop for any restored examples? clearly in Australia its not that important to us?

I guess if theres plenty of them lying around somewhere, or its not needed by anyone? its worthless keeping it prinstine? or preserving it in that condition? Maybe its of no consequence at all?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Why is there an assumption that 2 blades have been sawn through?

To fit the propeller, one has to remove the spinner in any case.

Might they not have simply been removed?

Strange thread……

One was witnessed being cut off at the Queensland Air Museum when it was containerised, as per the extract above, the second however is simply assumed to have been removed using that same method.

http://www.qam.com.au/aircraft/spitfire-v/LZ844.htm

09MAY11 Aircraft removed from Hangar 1 for dismantling by owner’s agent prior to shipping to the UK. To fit the aircraft in the shipping container, one propellor blade was sawn off by the owner’s agent. This propellor was originally donated to Barry Coran by QAM for incorporation in the rebuild of LZ844.

Its all there in black and white,

– I wonder if Mark will put it in the book smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

That prop could have gone to the Barra restoration being undertaken by Mike and the Bluebird team

Perhaps it can be recovered and repaired before its further demolished if the removed blades have been retained?, its certainly of little use to the current owner in its current state.

Regards

Mark Pilkington