And I thought I’d sinned too!!?? Glenn sorted it, thanks.

My comment, why would you bother, relates to the fact that it was a failed project that was never going to be built because of a design fault. I really can’t see why you’d save it, especially as it was the cockpit which was the problem.

G’day 😉

It is in poor condition, only a mockup in anycase, and is the mockup of a failed project, so yes I can see the view its not worth the trouble.

However the Wamira holds a special place in Australia’s sad Aviation Industry story.

It was a joint venture between the 3 pillars of the wartime and post war industry, CAC, GAF and HdeH, operating as the Australian Aircraft Consortium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAC_Wamira

The story of the aircraft and its creators are interwoven, as AAC was set up expressly to design and build the aircraft.

The consortium came into being in 1981, with its members being the three main aircraft manufacturers in Australia at that time—the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC), the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF), and Hawker de Havilland (HdH).

The RAAF, which expressed an intention to buy 69 aircraft, specified a turboprop trainer of broadly conventional tricycle undercarriage low wing monoplane layout, to be powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-25C engine.[1] Unusually however its two seats were to be in a side-by-side configuration.

The RAAF also specified that the type be fully aerobatic; be capable of cross-country navigation and weapons training; and have a 200 kt cruising speed at Sea Level, and a minimum service life of 20 years and 8,000 flying hours.[1] AAC signed a Design and Development contract in June 1982 and began work to produce an aircraft to meet the design criteria under the designation A10.

When it became clear that the aircraft as specified by the RAAF had limited appeal to other potential users, a version with the more usual tandem seating was designed, this being designated the A20; both models were named Wamira.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Westland Aircraft to establish a joint venture to market (and hopefully sell) the A20 in Europe.[2] The A20 was subsequently entered in the competition to replace the Royal Air Force (RAF) fleet of BAC Jet Provosts,[3] a competition eventually won by the Short Tucano.

An Engineering Mock Up (EMU) was produced in Australia consisting of a fuselage from the fin fillet forward with stub wings. Made from wood & alloy it utilised real aircraft components such as ejection seats, control columns, rudder pedals etc… and was shipped to the UK appearing on the Westlands stand at Farnboro’84.

However the Wamira was never a serious contender due to it being at the design stage whilst the other three contenders were flying aircraft.

By the time the RAF competition was lost, the whole Wamira project was in doubt. This was partly due to delays in completing the prototype, but mainly due to huge cost overruns.

At the time the RAAF was replacing its front line fighter fleet and wanted an Airborne Early Warning platform and in-flight refuelling aircraft to enhance the new type’s capabilities,[1] and an Auditor-General report found that the Wamira project cost was likely to be more than double that originally estimated.[1]

In July 1985 it was announced that the RAAF trainer requirement was now a competition, and that the Short Tucano and Pilatus PC-7 and PC-9 (all of which had tandem seating) would be considered as well as the Wamira. The same month CAC was absorbed by HdH, meaning that HdH now had a two-thirds share in AAC, and quickly became sole owner of the Wamira project when it bought GAF’s share.[4]

On 16 December 1985 the Pilatus PC-9 was announced as the winner of the competition and the Wamira project was cancelled.[5] Ironically the consortium partners were later jointly responsible for licence-production of the PC-9.

It was the last real attempt to build an indigenous military design for mass production.

It suffered the “worst” of Defence and Government meddling and nobbling, it was designed against a specific RAAF side by side seat requirement, when the RAF and all others were tandem seat specifications.

The Consortium therefore built a unique local design to meet RAAF requirements and reducing its ability to win business elsewhere, and the A10 prototype was built, the RAAF then walked away from their own specification and adopted the tandem requirement, leaving the A10 stranded as a waste, and the A20 still only on the drawing board and mockup stage.

Of course the different cultures of the 3 companies didnt help, there were long held rivalries to deal with, and the project suffered delays and cost over runs not just caused by the problems within Defence, it should have been run by one company as the lead contractor and the other two as sub-contractors, as had worked on earlier projects, but none had the capital to do so.

In the end the Wamira didnt win a local or export contract, but definately closed the door on all three independent companies. and bringing to an end local manufacturing of local military designs, it is the bookend of the story started by in the late 1930’s Laurence Wackett and CAC with the Wirraway, Wackett, Woomera and CA-15, and therefore fits well with the collection at Moorabbin where the CA-31 mockup is also displayed.

The A10 prototype is stored in the collection of the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, the A20 wooden mockup has led a sad life in the UK, but been under the protection of an enthusiast in recent years, and a number of Warbirdz forumites have decided its worth bringing home given its availability on ebay.

The Wamira is not quite the technological ilk of a TSR-2, but the stories have some parallels, perhaps a cockpit mockup in similar or worse condition of that UK aircraft type would generate similar preservation issues and interests for similar reasons.

I participated in a similar forum fundraiser for an HS 748, no doubt there are both aircraft enthusiasts of a different interest, and General Public normal people who would ask the proverbial “why would you bother” for that, or many other aircraft preservation efforts.

Some might argue that “aircraft enthusiast” is simply a medical condition yet to be fully diagnosed on some disorder spectrum, we all at some time probably encounter people who cant understand why we do the things we do – smiles

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Its summer down here and we all do silly things due to the hot sun and too many tinnys, and of course we are trying to create a distraction after the disastrous ashes series.

XV806 can we put you or any other UK forumites down for $100? smiles

Hopefully “Daniel” / Phil will assist us further by putting his name and money down on the table?

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
and I thought it was a post about the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight with a mispelt abbreviation.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
I think Bomber Command played a very important part in WW2, and in world history, while the “few” stopped the imminent invasion of Britain in 1940, without a successful and ongoing bombing campaign to destroy Germany’s fuel and manufacturing resources, (let alone her shipyards) there may well have been more successful bombing of Britain and its airfields and factories. That would have cleared the way for a second eventual invasion and had that occurred before Pearl Harbour the US would have been denied the use of the UK as its entry point into the European War and perhaps allowed Nazi Germany to consolidate into a long term Empire, still existing today?

Its quite ironic that Neo-“NAZIs” happily accepting the name of that German WW2 oppressive authoritarian regime are able to enjoy the political freedom in both Germany and the UK to protest against a memorial to the young men who gave their lives for that freedom.

Had the real “Nazi’s” won, there would be no memorial considered, and any protestors against that decision would have been shot!

I think a memorial to Bomber Command is very appropriate, and long overdue, my only concern is that the memorial as proposed in the illustrations in the article, does appear to represent a “bombed out building”? and that does seem to invite confrontation with the victims of Bomber Command, and form a “red rag to a bull”?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Smiles, I know where some 1/72 scale spits are still in their boxes, does that count?

While I can confirm they are mine, I can also confirm they are not down a mine shaft!

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

Tom,

I have had a fair bit of involvement in registering airfields in Australia under our State and National Heritage systems, so hopefully the info below may be relevent and of assistance in a Canadian context.

In regards to online records of heritage listings for Edmonton Airport, Google only finds Hangar 14 listed on the local city of Edmonton Inventory and Register of Historic Resources.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/edmontons-historic-resources.aspx

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/InfraPlan/Hangar.pdf

There is no further references to the Edmonton Airport on the local City Register.

Hangar 14 is also listed as a Provincial Historic Place on the Alberta State Register, which is available online on a Hermis database.

https://hermis.alberta.ca/ARHP/Details.aspx?DeptID=1&ObjectID=4665-0774

I assume Hangar 14 is the building where your museum is located.

This, and the Rutley Hangar at Calgary seem the only “airport” listings at the Provincial level on the “Alberta State Register”

However it seems the Provence had an earlier heritage listing system called the Alberta Register of Historic Places, dating from the 1970’s and stored in various database formats including paper files.

What is the Alberta Heritage Survey?
The Alberta Heritage Survey is a program of the Historic Resources Management Branch of Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. It was established in the mid-1970s, with its main function being to administer a collection of information, including photographs, relating to heritage resources across the province. The Alberta Heritage Survey includes data from as early as 1970, when the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building began documenting Alberta’s heritage. In the more than 30 years since the Program’s inception, the database has been vastly expanded, often in co-operation with communities and heritage groups. Today, over 80,000 individual resources are documented in the Alberta Heritage Survey.

The Alberta Heritage Survey Online
The extensive Alberta Heritage Survey database is a work in progress. With data from many sources, and having already passed through several systems, the format, style and content of the records varies greatly. Whatever it lacks in consistency the Survey makes up for in its diversity and wide coverage of the province. There are grain elevators, outhouses, banks, mines, houses, water towers, ranches, hangars, bridges, barns, train stations and churches, to name just a few of the types of sites represented. From Manyberries to Indian Cabins, and hundreds of communities in between, the Survey includes records that represent a cross-section of Alberta’s built heritage.

https://hermis.alberta.ca/ARHP/Search.aspx?DeptID=2&st=%7e%7eairport

That list is partially available online and offers the following buildings as being listed at the Edmonton Airport.

HS9394 – Hangar #6/Building #14 (apparantly the Hangar 14 referred above?)
HS9395 – Hangar #11/Building #25

It has many other buildings/hangars listed at other airports that are not showing on the Alberta State Register “Hermes” database and so I would enquire with the Coordinator of the Alberta Heritage Survey Program and see if there are any other Edmonton Airport buildings on this list, particularly check the listings prior to and after HS9394 and HS9395? as its possible these relate to the heritage listing you found of 1976?

For example even though it doesnt seem to come up in the search, by adjusting the url of the displayed page from a search of the register I can see “HS9393” is Hangar #4/building #12 at Edmonton Airport and “HS9396” is the North West Industries wartime aircraft repair facility at or near Edmonton Airport, so it would seem at least 4 buildings were added to this list?

The Canadian National Register appears to be an amalgam of Local/Provincial lists with some National Sites also added.

The Canadian Register
The Canadian Register is a searchable database containing information about recognized historic places of local, provincial, territorial and national significance.

Remember, the Canadian Register is a work in progress. Current listings represent only a fraction of the total number of Canada’s recognized historic places. New listings are added every week so if you don’t find what you’re looking for today, come visit the Canadian Register again!

A historic place is a structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value by an appropriate authority within a jurisdiction.

Over 20% of Canada’s historic buildings have already been demolished. (That’s the same as wiping out about 60 Canadian university campuses.) We need to work together to protect these remaining places. Make your choice – how do you want to protect a historic place near you?

Take steps to get it recognized
Get involved in your local heritage organization
Check out our library of resources to get up to speed

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/results-resultats.aspx?m=2&Keyword=edmonton%20airport

It only finds the two listings for Hangar #14 arising from the listings in the Edmonton and Alberta lists.

Of course just because the airport is being closed and the buildings arnt already listed doesnt stop them being assessed and listed as heritage buildings now. Given your recent celebrations of the Centenary of Canadian Aviation, and also the recent 70th anniversary of the BCATP you should be able to get both Provincial and National heritage agencies interested in doing a heritage analysis.

I would suggest you explore:

1. Using City policy C450B http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/C450B.doc

2. Getting the Edmonton Heritage Council involved
http://www.edmontonheritage.ca/

3. As well as the Edmonton Historical Board
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/edmonton-historical-board.aspx

4. Try and assess if the airport is of National or Provincial importance?, and get the appropriate agency involved quickly.

How to Protect your Historic Place

One of the ways you can help to protect a historic place is to have it formally recognized by your municipal, provincial, territorial, or federal government. Places that are important to the entire country may be recognized as National Historic Sites of Canada. Each province and territory has a different system of formally recognizing historic places. For most jurisdictions, follow these steps:

Step 1: Search the Canadian Register of Historic Places to find out if the place has been listed.

Step 2: Think about what makes the place important.

Is the place associated with a historically significant theme, person or event? If it’s a building, is it special for its architecture or design? Does the place have special meaning because of its landmark, spiritual, or cultural associations?

Step 3: Consider your answers to the questions above.

Is your place important at the national, provincial/territorial, or municipal level?

Step 4: Level of Designation

If you think your place is nationally significant, seek a national historic sites designation.
If you think your place is important to the province or territory, seek a provincial or territorial designation.
If you think your place is locally significant, seek a municipal designation.

Step 5: Contact your federal/provincial/territorial heritage program.

Times for the designation process to be completed will vary from place to place. Please be patient!

good luck Tom, its important we save the built heritage (hangars etc) associated with aviation, not just the moveable heritage (aircraft) or archives (photos / records), you should be able to argue that even if the airport is closed, that aviation specific buildings such as Hangars / Control Tower etc are heritage listed / protected and required to be retained for adaptive re-use rather than demolition, as a way of retaining the aviation heritage even if the runways are lost and the airport closes to aviation use.

We have had some success getting the heritage value of airports /airfields recognised in the last 10 years, here are some I have been involved in.

Note in many of these the entire site is registered or specific precincts are, rather than just individual significant buildings. Where the entire site is listed, the individual buildings are graded in significance from high signifance – retention essential down to contributory buildings, these groups of buildings are considered more valuable as contributing to the overall sites context or heritage rather than just on their own, hence the objective is to retain the layout/plan of the original site rather than just saving the most significant buildings.

National Trust

RAAF Point Cook
http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/#detail_places;66866

Victorian (State) Heritage Register

The former CAC Flight Hangar (Commonwealth Aircraft Company – aircraft factory)
http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/#detail_places;12650

Werribee wartime satellite Airfield
http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/#detail_places;71889

RAAF Ballarat – wartime Wireless Air Gunnery school (EATS) Base
(EATS = BCATP)
http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/#detail_places;14247

Commonwealth Heritage List

ESSENDON AIRPORT
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3DEssendon%2520Airport%3Blist_code%3DCHL%3Bkeyword_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword_PH%3Don%3Blatitude_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude_2dir%3DS%3Bin_region%3Dpart;place_id=105161

RAAF LAVERTON
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=state%3DVIC%3Blist_code%3DCHL%3Blegal_status%3D35%3Bkeyword_PD%3D0%3Bkeyword_SS%3D0%3Bkeyword_PH%3D0;place_id=106002

RAAF POINT COOK
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=state%3DVIC%3Blist_code%3DCHL%3Blegal_status%3D35%3Bkeyword_PD%3D0%3Bkeyword_SS%3D0%3Bkeyword_PH%3D0;place_id=105275

National Heritage List

RAAF POINT COOK
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3DPoint%2520Cook%3Blist_code%3DNHL%3Bkeyword_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword_PH%3Don%3Blatitude_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude_2dir%3DS%3Bin_region%3Dpart;place_id=105671

The Australian Heritage register systems consist of:

National Trust Listings – these can be of local, state, national or international significance.

Local / Municipal listings – local council/city registers of private/government buildings of local/state/national significance, within their municipal boundaries.

State Registers – as each state originated as a British colony they retain jurisdiction over heritage within their borders, listing private/government buildings of local or state significance

Commonwealth Heritage List – as Commonwealth sites (owned by the Federal or National government) are considered to be outside the jurisdiction of State Governments the Commonwealth Heritage list contains sites that are equivalent to State significance, but commonwealth owned.

National Heritage List – the highest significance list in Australia, only sites of National significance are added to this list.

You will note RAAF Point Cook (a commonwealth owned site) is listed by the National Trust, but not the State of Victoria register (due to its commonwealth ownership – ie outside of Victorian jurisdiction), but is on the Commonwealth Heritage List (being of Commonwealth significance ie same as State significance) and also the National Heritage List (being of National significance)

The registration of historic airports is not limited to the state of Victoria, New South Wales has recently undertaken a thematic survey of its historic WW2 airfields and so far has listed Evans Head and Tocumwal, while RAAF Richmond in NSW is on the Commonwealth Heritage List.

While NSW ended up with more WW2 bases than any other State, many of the wartime airfields were returned to farm land after WW2 and stripped of hangars and huts etc. The surviving Victorian sites, Point Cook, Laverton and Ballarat are the more intact of their relevent themes of WW1, Interwar/WW2 and EATS training school compared to their nearest equivalents in NSW, unfortunately most of the wartime airfields in the other states are stripped of any significant buildings etc as well.

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/aerodromes_intro.pdf

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/aerodromes_study.pdf

I hope that the above examples of the Australian experience might assist you in convincing both City and Provincial heritage experts in exploring Edmonton airport in its entirety or at least a number of its buildings being added to the Alberta register.

Matt/Fraser Nash – Essendon Airport is in fact protected under both the Register of the National Estate – although a toothless law, and the Commonwealth Heritage List – a very strong protection, Linfox has restored the Wirraway Road Heritage precinct (having learned after they demolished the former 1924 Commonwealth Hangar without permission some years ago), the airport is leased for 99 years under the Federal Airports Act and the former Victorian state Labor Government’s policy calling for its closure is not supported by the current Federal Labor Government, or Liberal opposition, or incoming Victorian state Liberal Government – I think its quite safe as an airport at the moment, and its heritage buildings are very safe.

regards

Mark Pilkington