That is another arguement entirely. Yes, a genuine part (or painting) can tell you a lot of things. But as I said before – if you don´t know which of our hypothetical parts is genuine, then it makes no odds.

It makes a lot of odds, which is exactly the ponit of the thread, and JDK’s post.

“If” transparancy and honesty isnt maintained then future historians/ researchers will be led to believe these new build aircraft are authentic 1940 built examples, and therefore will mislead as to the quality etc of wartime production and materials.

The quality of the reconstructions, and the accuracy to design and fitout are to be applauded.

Despite their best intent to be accurate, many of todays “reconstructions” and ‘restorations” take warbird’s to “better than new” condition, with polished skins, ripple and blemish free gloss paint work, sometimes dual cockpit conversions and updated engines or avionics, and in most cases rivet lines and metal work equal or better than the hurried wartime production.

Theres nothing wrong with that, flying warbirds should be at the highest mechanical condition, and a pride in the quality of presentation is understandable, but they are not preserving history in the fullest sense, they are providing a different and important experience.

All that is asked for is transparancy in what original components exist within the airframe, and their true provenance, simply to distinguish to other more original examples, flying or static.

regards

Mark Pilkington

,
Ross

Yes VH-BQA is Leigh Giles project, originally carried the registration VH-ACA and was formerly owned by Lord Casey, BQA is a subsequent registration, not a current registration or reservation.

VH-UXS is the current registration of Maurice Rolfes Proctor restoration, formerly VH-DUL.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
VH-EPN is a complete example formerly with the Drage Airworld collection at Wangaratta, now privately owned and under restoration by Todd Miller in Victoria.

c/n 28 VH-EPN ex- VH-DAI/SSC/SSV ex-G-APBR under restoration Victoria, Australia

The fuselage of a second is displayed in “quasi” Army scheme in Lincoln Nitschke’s collection in South Australia

c/n 46 ex- VH-SSR ex- VH-DAV fuselage only Lincoln Nitschke Aviation Museum, Greenock, Australia

2 out of the 9 world wide survivors in Australia, 7 complete, 2 fuselages (4 currently airworthy).

It seems a reasonable effort to acknowledge Edgar Percival.

I understand he did the design of the EP-9, it being the first product of his “new” company Edgar Percival Aircraft Limited after he had sold and left the Percival Aircraft Company to Hunting, although Australia holds a few other notable Percival products including:

Flying
Gull IV VH-UTP
Gull VI VH-CCM

Under Restoration
Vega Gull II VH-BQA
Proctor I VH-UXS
Proctor I VH-AHY

Static Display
Gull VI G-AERD
Proctor I VH-FEP
Proctor I VH-AUC
Proctor 2 VH-BQR
Proctor 2 VH-AVG
Proctor 5 VH-BCM

The Gulls & Proctors probably being the better memorial to his sleek pre-war designs, that he was best known for.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[QUOTE]It seems the earlier US proposals were based on unique business arrangements that may have never been deliverable.
Really? says who?[/QUOTE]

I’m pretty sure I just said it in the earlier post?, and based it directly on your earlier comment

David Walton had some serious discussions over possibly sending the aircraft to the US where it could have been used as a research support aircraft.

Obviously “despite” serious discussions – it wasnt delivered as an outcome or arrangement, therefore that it may never have been deliverable outcome is a perfectly reasonable conclusion – and WHY would anyone want to use a one off example of a “very expensive to operate and support aging warbird” for research support, what unique flight characteristic does it have? that a more modern and cheaper to operate aircraft would not provide more reliably?

the very mention of the US just gets dismissed as being unrealistic.

I’m sorry, but from my opinion, thats because it is unrealistic.

The funding viability might be poor in the UK, but it will be much poorer in the USA, the ONLY merit in sending it to the USA is dry storage at Pima, in some “forelorn” hope it might fly again sometime in the future, however thats not a realistic hope to justify its relocation. – Despite the apparant “ease” of getting a C-5 to shift the tonnes of spares, – where is the maintenance base, where is the team of trained and experienced engineers – where is the army of willing volunteers – wheres the US company sponsorship proposition? – Wheres the airshow demand?

Your proposal appears to be based on the simple premise that dry storage in the USA is the best outcome at this stage? rather than remaining grounded in the UK due to lack of funds – (I’m sorry if I have missed any other point of your proposal)

There doesnt seem to have been a lot of calls for it to be displayed in the USA, and I assume little or no financial sponsorship offers to do so?

A fundraising airshow tour of the USA might be worthwhile, if it:

1. was profitable beyond the costs of getting there and back, and the operational and support costs.

2. was fully funded or committed upfront to avoid the aircraft becoming stranded in the USA.

Otherwise the simple proposal of flying it to the USA in the hope of buying time or finding some rich american sponsors is rather naive.

XH558 was maintained runnable for a while after sale in the hope it may one day return to flight, it took six million pounds of UK taxpayer funds to do so, and access to spares, and engineering resources – it wont happen again with the aircraft sitting parked in the USA for any length of time!

– the current effort to raise funds to restore WR963 and refly a Shackleton in the UK, months after the grounding of a near airworthy WL790 in the USA and its static display at Pima? shows the obvious outcome of flying the Vulcan to the USA.

The USA does’nt need another static display Vulcan, its got 3 already, with one under cover (and 1 in Canada too) – unless NASM were given it for undercover display at Dulles Washington, it would in reality rot away in the USA just as quickly as in the UK, but without any local volunteer support base to combat and delay the deterioration?

TVOC should have a contigency plan for its early retirement from flight, as they should have had for its eventual retirement from flight?

I cant see any wisdom in the UK public investing in this Vulcan to see it end up in outside static display in the USA, as against static display and eventual undercover preservation in the UK? Its obviously in better condition than many of the other static display examples in the UK and therefore a better candidate for under cover preservation, and ideally kept capable of ground running?

Auctioning off the paint scheme is a minor compromise
Minor? This is the old Sea Vixen argument. Some might think it’s acceptable but most (not least the HLF) would think it was a complete joke. Cold War educational artefacts can’t be tarted-up in Red Bull colours – thank heavens. Besides, what point would there be in covering a Vulcan in silly colours? A sponsor could paint a 737 much more cheaply and get a much better PR return.

– So the HLF and UK taxpayers are unlikely to care if the Vulcan is flown off shore to the USA as you previously comment, but will be greatly offended if it is not displayed as a flying aircraft in the UK in an accurate paint scheme? –“you” must be joking?

There are 4 Vulcans on external display in the UK, and two preserved under cover, – all are in cold war paint schemes, while 1, XL426 remains taxiable, it is clear that the real value of XH558 is its ability to fly – Not its paint scheme!

IF the Vulcan could remain flying in the UK by auctioning off its paint scheme it WOULD be a minor compromise to achieve the project outcome of a flying Vulcan in the UK?, and a worthwhile compromise if the alternative is grounding due to lack of sponsorship.

Cold War educational support of the Vulcan can be achieved through more aspects and methods than just maintaining the period paint work?

My own preference is to see historic aircraft in their original or period paint schemes, but if no other funding is available, and large sponsorships are required to keep an aircraft flying then I think its a compromise well worth considering.

The “Red Bull” SeaVixen is actually the proof of the concept, given its successful operations for a number of seasons – Red Bull continue to justify its PR return from an expanded fleet of 14 historic aircraft ranging from a DC6 and Alpha Jet through to a Corsair, B25 and soon to be P38, it obviously works for them.

Here is a working successful model of large historic aircraft flying under sponsorship and you seemingly reject it out of hand? in preference to some undefined outcome in the USA?

http://www.flyingbulls.com/start_skiped_e.html

But in any case, the idea has already been ruled out.

The comparison with a 737 is irrelevent, the sponsor is being invited to be associated with an historic aircraft, not simply have a flying billboard.

The question is how to maximise or offer the greatest brand exposure to that sponsor, obvously large signage and logo’s over the camouflage scheme or under the wings offers the benefit of both worlds, but if a sponsor would pay for the repaint at beginning and end, and sponsor 3 to 5 years of operation it would seem a very minor compromise, and far better outcome from the HLT funding, than flying it to the USA to sit on the ground over there?

If faced with grounding the aircraft indefinately, or flying it to the USA to be grounded indefinately, I would have thought an option of a sponsorship auction of the colourscheme would be quickly and willingly reviewed despite it earlier “ruling out”?, surely its a simple TVOC management decision not a regulation or law?, and even if its a requirement of the HLT Grant surely its a negotiable element in the face of outright failure or closure of the project?

and is that what we really want, – for it to fail?
It already has failed – or at least it’s on the point of failing – but nobody has any suggestions as to what to do about it. Despite this, the very mention of the US just gets dismissed as being unrealistic. Personally I don’t see how shoving 558 into a field next to the Victor at Elvington would be any sort of solution.

And so if it already has failed in the UK where the aircraft is most relevent and likely to gain sponsorship, and the fund raising in the US would be worse than in the UK and next to zero? what justifies the expense and effort to pursue an obviously irrelevent static display outcome in the USA over an undercover and taxiable outcome in the UK that results in long term preservation and lasting UK public access?

I personally think compromising on the paint scheme to achieve ongoing flying of a Vulcan in the UK is a far more realistic and preferable option to flying it off to the USA for a very unlikely flying future, and also think seeking an undercover preservation in the UK as a last resort, is a far better solution to what seems to be an obvious open air static display ultimate outcome in the USA, from flying it to the states.

Again I hope TVOC are exploring ALL options including auctioning paintschemes or even an airshow tour of the USA – if that is financially attractive and viable, to keep the aircraft in the air?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The following Bleriots are recorded as being imported to Australia.

1. Bleriot monoplane (s/n unk) Imported by L Adamson in Nov 1909 – attempted flight by Defries 18 December 1909, dumped at sea to recover import duty – no serial number known

2. Bleriot XI s/n #37 Imported by F Jones in Feb 1910 – flown by Custance in March 1910 in SA, destroyed by fire @ May 1910

3. Bleriot XI s/n unk, imported by Gaston Cugnet as Bleriot company demonstrator in September 1910, named “Australia” by Australian Prime Minister, flown at Altona Victoria, crashed at MCG, shipped to Queensland for static display in March 1911.

4. Metz Bleriot XI s/n unk, imported by AB “Wizard” Stone, April 1913, offered to Defence Dept in Sept 1914 but not accepted.

5. Bleriot XI s/n unk imported by Maurice Guillaux April 1914, made first loop the loop in Australia 20 April, first Melbourne to Sydney Airmail flown 16 July 1914.
NOTE:aircraft survives today in the Powerhouse museum collection – Sydney

6. Bleriot XI s/n unk imported by Lt R E B Hunt, Aug 1914, offered to Dept of Defence, rejected, apparantly not removed from ship?

7. Bleriot monoplane s/n unk, imported by T Reynolds Sept 1914, donated to Defence Dept, became CFS-6, mostly used for ground instruction.

8. Bleriot XI s/n unk imported by A J Carter Oct 1914, (French Consul in Qld) sold to F Hammond, offered to Dept Defence in Oct 1914, rejected.

A number of monoplanes of local construction, and based on the Bleriot also existed in Australia between 1911 and 1914.

In addition to the original “Guillaux” Bleriot XI surviving in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, two replica’s were built by the Burnie TAFE in Tasmania in the late 1990’s with one placed on display in the Queen Victoria Museum in Launceston Tasmania and the other stored in a private collection in Victoria.

Google at the National Library of Australia, AWM and Mitchell State Library of NSW will yield many photos of Australian Bleriots.

http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime/bleriot/

– Gaston Cugnet at the MCG

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P00589.001

POINT COOK, VIC. C.1914. BRISTOL BOX KITE IN FLIGHT WITH BLERIOT XI AIRCRAFT FOLLOWING. (ORIGINAL GLASS NEGATIVE HELD IN AWM ARCHIVE STORE) (DONOR: R.H. LECKIE).

This photo held by the AWM is quite interesting, the aircraft at the front is definately NOT a military Bristol Boxkite as used at the CFS in 1914 in the form of CFS 3 or CFS 8, it does not have the top wing extensions, and in addition its tail is not a “box” with upper and lower horizontal surfaces, Neither is it either of the Hammond Boxkites which had arrived in 1910 but both had ceased operation by 1912. it bears no resemblance to other biplanes in the country prior to 1914, including the Caudron, Farman or Duigan. If taken at Point Cook it would therefore be one of the two Graham White Boxkites CFS 11 or CFS 12, and the Bleriot in the distant background could be CFS 6 referred above although these Boxkites were not at Point Cook until 1916?, and CFS 6 is reported as only being used for ground training?

It could be Maurice Guillaux’s Bleriot visiting in 1914 prior to the airmail flight, or the same aircraft when later owned by R G Carey and used by him at Point Cook in November 1916 to gain his Civilian pilots licence.

Given the apparant Graham White Boxkite dating it as 1916, it is most likely this second option of the Carey aircraft at the time of his civilian licence test and the photo is actually from 1916 not 1914.

regards

Mark Pilkington