mark_pilkingtonhmmm,
if it put its landing gear down its clearly a gull wing amphibian, not a flying boat, you should hang your head in shame lol
smiles
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss.
if an Australian museum had a complete Tiger Moth Project i.e. in bits (worth about $30-40,000 today) would they sell it (we have about 200 flying Tigers in Aust so it isn’t a rare aeroplane).
If the tigermoth was surplus to their requirements I would imagine they would sell it etc, if it formed part of their collection strategy they would most likely retain it for eventual re-assembly and display?
Are you suggesting Static Museums should not collect aircraft that have an economic value or attractiveness to restorers? ie somehow only collect the dregs?
The Australian built Tiger Moth is an important part of Australia’s Aviation History, surely they have a role to be displayed in a museum, regardless of the number still flying or their worth on the open market?
If an Australian museum had parts that would help a private project to get back to flying would they part with them? Obviously sell them at a reasonable price (not give them away or sell cheap).
If the parts were surplus to requirements I would imagine they would be prepared to sell it, and certainly a “not for profit” museum should be asking a reasonable price and not be expected to simply give them away or sell them cheap just because a private owner wants them.
The museum however may prefer to trade the parts with another museum to achieve a part back to help in their own restoration, and in same cases such “horse trading” gains more for the museum than the simple cash in bank outcome of a parts sale.
Obviously a museum isnt under any obligation to simply sell them just because the private owner’s flying project needs them, the museum may not consider the price offered is fair?, prefer to keep it for future trading/sale options?, explore possible museum trades as an alternative?, or even test the wider private owner market for better offers than that being made?
If we then move into the realm of stripping rebuildable parts of a complete display aircraft or engine, even to swap them out with damaged or “out of tolerance” parts, then I think that is something that the museum would need to consider carefully.
If the aircraft is rare, why should the museum dilute the quality and value of its example? without appropriate compensation or payment, if the aircraft is common its value is still diluted by the cherry picking of parts, & why cant the private owner simply source his parts elsewhere at market value, unless he is hopeful of a cheaper price from the museum?
Obviously there are situations where rare rebuilds are supported by museum’s with rare static examples, but I think those arrangements are so “one-off” that its not possible to determine what someone should or would do?
It is disappointing that many consider static museums only as a repository of airframes and parts for the flying fraternity, and should simply release their “attractive” and “exotic” aircraft to the warbird movement for airworthy restoration, and only retain the “uninteresting” and “boring” aircraft that are of no interest to these private owners, collectors or airshow spectators, or simply fulfill their roles with photographs and cardboard cutouts? or fibreglass replicas?
There is a role for both static collections and flying collections in the preservation, display and exhibition of our Aviation History, but flying historic aircraft is not always the safest way to ensure their survival and preservation, as many unfortunate examples demonstrate.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonhey guys, if you can read the report from the NMUSAF, and the fight with the Commerative AirForce over its F-82 Twin Mustang, CAF wanted to sell it, but the USAF museum interfered, and retook possesion of said aircraft after 40 yrs of being in the CAF collection. If you plan on selling a warbird or such, w/o the approval of your countries respective airforce/govt. you better think twice before doing so.
Dog House Ldr, your reference isnt really relevent to this thread, the issue between the NMUSAF (or US Government) and the CAF is a simple ownership dispute.
The CAF received the F-82 from an NMUSAF Base Museum and rebuilt it to fly and retained it for 40 years, however that in itself simply proves possession (which isnt disputed by the NMUSAF).
It is the contractual arrangements that allowed that to happen, ie was it a conditional donation (ie “indefinate loan”) or an outright transfer of ownership, that is causing the interference you refer to?
Excellent threads on the WIX forum debate that issue and have links to the recent court legal decision, which at this stage seems to come down on the side of ongoing NMUSAF/government ownership. Obviously the CAF disputes that, and is apparantly intending to appeal that decision.
Normally a government does not interfere with a warbird sale unless the country concerned has export restrictions on heritage objects inclusive of aircraft, I understand that is not the case in the USA, but is the case in Canada and certainly is in Australia.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonTwinOtter,
Australia does not have an active group such as the BAPC, however a more broader “Museum’s Australia” does exist to support and accredit all types of museums and galleries, unfortunately it has no specific interest group for Aviation Museums as against Maritime Museums and other groupings, Moorabbin is a member of that body, but most other volunteer aviation museums in Australia currently are not.
There was/is a specialist Aviation Museum Association, but unfortunately its apparantly in recess and has not really ever achieved anything of note for the sector, that I am aware of?
Most Australian Volunteer Museums are typically not for profit ‘Incorporated Associations”, while Moorabbin is an earlier and more formal (but equally not for profit) “Company limited by Guarrantee”, the structure originally created by Government for such purposes.
Both structures have requirements through the governments “model rules” that the assets be given to a similar body in the situation of the organisation being wound up, ie the members/shareholders can not profit from it, however equally the legal structures empower the organisations to acquire and dispose of assets in line with their objectives, freely.
As stated in an earlier post, Moorabbin has a formal collection policy and has previously disposed of surplus aircraft from its collection including a Flying Firefly project, Flying Wirraway project and a Static Bristol Beaufighter project to fund its own building construction.
Unlike the HARS, and many of the interstate volunteer museum’s, Moorabbin has never been the recepient of a major State or Federal Government building grant, during its 46 year existance, obviously such an outcome might immediately address the current situation without resorting to sale of assets of historic significance?
In relation to the Government collections the situation is more complex, the AWM is allocated an annual budget, but appears to be able to sell aircraft such as its B-25, (and to acquire aircraft such as the Hudson) and manage the financial transactions and decisions internally, and retain the proceeds for other AWM purposes, with such decisions apparantly being left to management and approval by the AWM Board.
The RAAF Museum is an asset of the RAAF and the Department of Defence, as are the other Service Museums’ I am not aware of the decision or approval processes in their collection or de-accession, nor their specific policies? but I am sure they exist in a formal manner.
Currently I understand those service museum’s cannot collect gate takings for retention and use, and that any incomes transfer to consolidated revenue.
I am aware of similar issues with any cash donations to the service museums, and I imagine the same thing would happen with the proceeds of any aircraft sales?
However as a taxpayer I would question the need for a Government funded collection such as the RAAF Museum to sell a major asset like the Boston, Walrus, Demon, Farman – (some of its most significant airframes), or alternatively its flying Mustang – as one of the most valuable, to place further aircraft undercover, as I would expect such activities should be funded by our government in any case.
Compare the spend on museums and ‘heritage” by our State/Federal Governments as compared with the “Y’Arts and SpB’ort”, and now “Environment”, with Heritage spending often actually being for “Natural” Heritage (ie Environment), rather than “built” heritage, despite a seperate Environment budget.
Interestingly much of the Heritage funding and even Museum Australia support to bonefide museums gets syphoned off to activities and organisations such as “Galleries” which seem to be more Arts related than history or Heritage related in any case.
In the State of Victoria, our well funded Arts Precinct is about to have another $120M spent on it?????? after at least $700M over recent decades??
CULTURAL FUNDING
Australian Government
In 2003-04, the Australian Government allocated the majority of its cultural funding to support Arts activities ($1,259.2m, or 74% of total federal funding), while Heritage activities received $440.3m (26%). The category of Broadcasting and film was the main recipient of federal Arts funding ($1,012.8m or 60%) with Radio and television services in particular receiving $915.3m (54%). Other museums were allocated $202.4m (12%).
State and territory government
In contrast, state and territory governments directed the majority of their funds towards Heritage activities ($1,951.4m or 83%) in 2003-04, while Arts activities received a total of $404.8m (17%). Nature parks and reserves in particular received $983.0m, representing 42% of the total state and territory government funding allocation for cultural activities. The remaining funds went towards Art and Other museums ($484.7m), Libraries and archives ($357.1m), Performing arts venues ($144.5m) and Zoological parks, aquaria and botanic gardens ($126.6m).
SPORTS
During 2004-05, $1,477.9m in income was received by government organisations for the provision of sports and physical recreation services. The majority of this income ($1,175.9m or 80%) was received as operational and capital funding from government or as council reimbursements. The 600 government organisations employed 11,051 persons.
During 2004-05, the total income generated by businesses/organisations engaged in sports and physical recreation services was $8,820.5m. The highest single income items were government funding ($1,563.6m or 17.7% of total income), sports membership and competition fees ($1,305.7m or 14.8% of total income) and sponsorship and fundraising ($806m or 9.1% of total income).
From the Bureau of Statistics above, it can be seen the museum sector (which includes “Art Galleries” within that sector) gained $680M or 24% from a total of $2790M of Cultural funding (ie the rest went to the Performing and Visual Arts at an amount of $2110M or 75% of the funding.
This compares with $3042M spent annually on direct Government funding of Sporting activities, including $182M on “Elite Sports” to win Gold Medals etc
Much of that $680M to the Museum sector went to the Government owned Museum’s and Art Galleries at Federal and State Level, with little if any distributed to support regional or volunteer museums.
Interestingly the federal government operated Australian National Maritime Museum distributes grants of $5000 each to many regional Maritime Museums each year, having distributed over $500,000 via 146 grants over the last 10 years, there is no equivalent scheme for regional aviation museums in Australia today to assist them in their activities.
Imagine what such a scheme could do to assist even the current restoration programs of the Australian Volunteer museums?
Even better imagine if capital grants of say $250,000 for building works could be accessed by at least one of those museum’s once a year (0.008% of the annual “Cultural Budget” or 0.3% of the annual “Museum” sector budget?
Imagine if we could take the $2M loose change and rounding errors in the Elite Sports Budget and invest that annually in our Aviation Heritage? at our volunteer museums, rather than in world records, gold medals and the sponsorship bonanza’s of a few talented individuals?, a whole 0.07% of the total Sports Budget.
The RAAF museum is funded from a Defence Budget in the order of $19B, the Pegasus project to significantly expand the under cover display s thought to cost in the order of $10M, or 0.05% of one years expenditure, and 0.3% of Australian Defence expendiure in Iraq and Afganistan todate.
I suspect there is probably some waste somewhere that could be avoided to fund it (like the 10 year project recently scrapped, to introduce the Sea Sprite Helicopters at a cost of @$1B).
Unfortunately Australia does NOT have a Heritage Lottery similar to the UK example, despite a specific recommendation to the Victorian Government by the National Trust to do so during the recent Pokie Machine licence revenues.
Despite the views of some that the private sector can sustain and preserve all of our aviation heritage, that is simply not true, that sector largely ignores whole segments of our aviation heritage, and focuses largely on warbirds and antiques, and unfortunately including many types which have no real relevence to Australia’s aviation Heritage at all.
The private owner, while supporting historical aviation as a hobbie is often constrained by the investment “payback” equation, and supply/demand, and hip pocket limitations.
And to be fair many owners are simply looking for the equivalent of the aerial sports car, jet ski, or speed boat, the proverbial “toys for the boys”, and a supposed long term investment, few are making an intentional and true “sacrifice” for, or “contribution” to, the National Collection.
There are exceptions to that rule, with excellent airworthy restorations bringing “back from the dead” DH Dragons etc that are labours of love and expenditure on a “whatever it takes” rather than “whats the rate of return” basis.
However those restorations are few and far between, and other than the locally sourced Tigermoths and Austers, Winjeels etc most “historic/warbird/vintage aircraft are imported such as Nangchungs, L-29’s, Jet Provosts, Hunters, Stearmans, Harvards etc which while enjoyable to see in the air, and provide diversity and interest, hold no real historical or heritage value to Australia, and even other airworthy and more relevent types in Australia such as the flying Meteor, Canberra, Constellation and Catalina are imported representative types but not specific aircraft of any significance arising from involvement in Australia’s Aviation History.
There are few if any individual owners in Australia who have shown the ability or appetite to pursue a Flying Beaufighter type project, (given the two currently still available in the UK, and the attempts by an Australian Sales force to tout one all over the country), if the Moorabbin Beaufighter had been sold in 2001, it was at risk of being sold overseas to the highest bidder, (particularly given the exchange rate at that time) and this opens the other regular debate about a Nation’s right to retain its own history as against the global warbird market.
Would it “really” be better to see it flying in the USA or the UK, than preserved and accessible to Australians at Moorabbin?
Even the HARS project has been slow to progress and faces significant obstacles related to engines and props.
Ross / “Proctor” is a vocal supporter of the efforts of the QVAC to stem the tide of aircraft leaving SE Queensland in earlier times, however I suspect that success relates more to the economic growth and prosperity of the region than to any other unique situation, although I do understand that group has a particularly successful “support” culture. Were Queensland to suffer a significant and sustained downturn in economic fortunes, and Australia with it, it would be a return to the 1970’s when aircraft were disappearing oversea’s at a rapid pace, and the private owners would be churning ownership to buyers in other locations.
Australia has had a number of successful major private collections over the years, the Marshall Collection, the Drage Collection, the Long Collection, the Dunn Collection, the Zuccoli Collection while those owners played a major role in saving aircraft at the time, those collections have not lived on indefinately beyond their owners, luckily most of those aircraft have remained in Australia, although a spitfire was spirited away, and an ME-109 attempted to be spirited away in a similar manner.
The story and long term outcome may be different for the Thomas Collection at Camden and the Lowry Collection at Temora, and perhaps the new Searle Collection on the Gold Coast, with all three expected to remain as permanent collections under ongoing trusts, but in the main most private owners in Australia, or their families, will eventually sell their aircraft to the highest bidder, and subject to the economic conditions at the time, not neccessarily to a fellow QVAC/AAAA or AWA Member, or even an Australian!
It is disappointing that many consider static museums only as a repository of airframes and parts for the flying fraternity, and should simply release their “attractive” and “exotic” aircraft to the warbird movement for airworthy restoration, and only retain the “uninteresting” and “boring” aircraft that are of no interest to these private owners, collectors or airshow spectators, or simply fulfill their roles with photographs and cardboard cutouts? or fibreglass replicas?
There is a role for both static collections and flying collections in the preservation, display and exhibition of our Aviation History, but flying historic aircraft is not always the safest way to ensure their survival and preservation, as many unfortunate examples demonstrate.
I personally have my own long term private restoration projects sitting stored away for a time when my family commitments permit me to blow the cobwebs out of the workshop and spend more time out in the shed, but I have always tried to assist the static museums, regardless of my own personal interests.
I grew up in Werribee and in the early 1970’s at age 12 used to take a 1.5H train ride and walk to get to Moorabbin 80km away on the other side of the bay, when I was told there was a RAAF Museum down the road at Point Cook I started travelling down there each sunday helping out as an un-official civilian “friend” years before the more formal organisation existed. I spent 8-10 years at Point Cook helping out and gravitating to the aircraft restorations underway, and eventually pursuing my own projects.
Today I remain a strong supporter of the RAAF Museum and the future of the Heritage site of Point Cook itself, (and financial member of the friends of the RAAF Museum) but put my physical and other efforts in at Moorabbin as I feel I can make a difference, and pound for pound my efforts achieve more at that location than they could at Point Cook.
I also join/support and donate to other interstate and volunteer museums, as a way of assisting and acknowledging their efforts.
I hold the Queensland Air Museum in high regard for their achievements in acquisitions, restorations and building programs, they have some natural advantages due to their location, large area of land, low rent, access to relocated retirees for their volunteer workforce, a local catchment area of tourism with no direct competition, and a supportive State Tourism department that does not have a burgeoning Arts, and Sports industry to support or promote, (although I know they are now suffering problems with the intended closure of the airport.)
It always surprises me that the volunteer museums around Australia seem unable to attract more support and involvement from aviation enthusiasts, restorers and vintage/warbird operators who supposedly support and value Australian Aviation Heritage? but seem to focus on their own personal endeavours and shun any physical support or involvement in these collective or “public” endeavours?
Proctor VH-AHY JDK et al
Don’t shoot the messenger, both Pt Cook and Mooirabbin are good museums, just used as examples. I made the same comments about Queensland Air Museum to Dick Hitchins (when he was alive) . Dick subsequently became a friend and we had many hours of conversation about the problems experienced with air museums.
I have followed the history of QAM since the 1970’s and was invited to the official opening of their museum at Caloundra. I do know what’s involved and I am able to pass informed comment and I will leave it at that.
On that theme, I am interested Ross, given your location, your involvement in the industry since 69′, and with restorations since 76′, and advice and friendship with Dick Hitchens, to ask if you have ever been, or are now a member of QAM, and what involvement you have had there beyond attending their official opening? (and if none, why that is?)
If we want our Aviation Heritage to be appreciated and supported by the general public and government, then we all need to actively support it ourselves, – the reasons why the Arts, performing & visual artists, and Art galleries get significant funding is because those who enjoy those passtimes actively support, lobby and get involved, on many levels, even simply through attendance or joining the appropriate club or organisation, the same is true of the support for sporting activities.
Unfortunately Australian GA is slowly die-ing due to our own apathy and in-ability to work together and promote the hobby, contrast this with the situation in the USA.
I think a preferred outcome to our museums being encouraged to sell major assets to fund buildings would be for:
1. More enthusiasts to become actively involved in their local volunteer museum, (even if they have their own restoration projects)
– become a member – show at least a financial /postal level of support
– take on a part-time, leadership or mentor role in restoration/administration
2. Attend yourself, take a friends, and encourage friends/relatives etc to visit and support those local volunteer museums by simple word of mouth etc
3. Encourage Governments, Corporates etc to support preservation of our Aviation Heritage by letter etc and lobby for increased grants and funding.
4. Consider making an annual tax deductable donation yourself to your local volunteer not for profit museum as you might do to other worthwhile charities? who knock on your door, or approach you in the street or over the phone.
5. Collectively support all those who make meaningful efforts to preserve Australia’s Aviation Heritage, in either Government, not-for-profit, or private endeavours.
if WE want our Aviation Heritage preserved, then we ALL need to get involved! and help!
More generally to everyone, if your local volunteer museum, where-ever they are in Australia (or the world) have achieved any worthwhile achievements with their current resources and memberships, I wonder what they could achieve if “YOU” the ‘reader” donated some of your own time and effort as a visitor, member, contributor, supporter or donor?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI offer the following comments as an individual, and not in anyway a formal statement or reply on behalf of the AARG and its museum, (of which I am the current Secretary).
I do so due to the obvious expectation expressed above for me as a regular forumite, to comment, and the impression? it might give – if I did not?
The undercover housing of all aircraft in an aviation museum is an obvious priority for anyone, although even today many other museum’s in Australia (including the RAAF Museum at Point Cook) and many many more oversea’s, continue to have aircraft exhibited outside, and exposed to the elements, including many of the UK volunteer aviation museums, MOTAT in NZ and many of the USAF “base” museums, major museums in Asia and museums in the former USSR.
This is particularly true of large aircraft, and the housing issues they create, and even not all of the recently preserved concordes’ made it undercover.
Even the National Museum of the USAF itself still has externally displayed aircraft ( one of the top two museums in the world in my opinion?), in some cases such as the National Museum of the USN at Pensacola, aircraft can be exposed to (and damaged by) extreme weather conditions, well beyond the beating rain or sun experienced at Moorabbin.
At Moorabbin the most significant or delicate aircraft within the collection, where possible, are stored or displayed under cover.
Currently the following aircraft are outside and exposed to the elements:
Bristol Freighter
Douglas DC2
Douglas DC3
Vickers Viscount
DH Heron
Wessex
Gannet
Meteor T7
Sabre
Catalina Fuselage
Avro Lincoln Fuselage
That situation is not ideal, and efforts continue to achieve further undercover accommodation for the remainder of the collection.
However those external airframes are subject to ongoing corrosion treatment, restoration and preventative maintenance.
The DC2, DC3 and Catalina each have dedicated work crews currently progressing them, the others are subject to period rejuvenation that unfortunately see’s them move through a cycle of faded/peeling paint, paint stripping/bare metal, and eventually resplendant new coatings. The aircraft are particularly an eyesore during certain stages of that cycle. Each cycle brings improved external preservation techniques such as canopy whiteout, bird hole sealing, corrosion treatment and protection, but of course the deterioration, and work load to correct, would all change with under cover protection.
Some of these external airframes are rare and/or of great significance, while others are duplicated by better examples elsewhere in Melbourne, let alone Australia, and the museum obviously needs to balance its resources against the preservation importance of each airframe, and to attempt to place under cover the most significant aircraft ahead of others.
Unfortunately at this time none of the larger aircraft (DC3 / Viscount) would fit inside the existing buildings, even if all others were removed, and any large building construction on the Moorabbin site will be expensive and difficult to comply with “ambiance” and planning limitations.
Interestingly those site limitations existed, but were not known, or obvious in 2000 and would have emerged had that sale and proposed building expansion been attempted.
Having said that, the AARG currently enjoys an excellent relationship with its landlord, is under no threat of relocation, and is exploring appropriate expansion of the existing site within those limitations.
The AARG started in 1962 to save a derelict Beaufighter from scrapping, and from 1964 to 1989 all of its aircraft were displayed in the open at Moorabbin.
Today only 11 of its over 50 aircraft remain outside, exposed to the elements.
Were the AARG to have ensured it had undercover storage or display for each of its aircraft prior to their acquisition, most of the current aircraft would not be in the collection.
In fact many of the aircraft within the AARG collection would probably not exist at all anywhere today unless the AARG had acquired them, including:
Beaufighter
Proctor
Desoutter
Viscount
DC3
Bristol Freighter
P40
Wackett Trainer
Wirraway
Ceres
Swallow
Gannet
Venom
Vampire
Meteor
Sabre
C310
Sycamore
The AARG’s stated collection policy is to principally acquire aircraft which were designed by Australian’s and or built in Australia or have a strong association with aviation in Australia. Clearly the Beaufighter is a rare and significant aircraft in its own right, but also very relevant and significant to the museum’s core “Australian Made” collection.
The AARG’s collection of locally built CAC and DAP/GAF aircraft is not matched elsewhere in Australia at either the RAAF Museum, AWM or other private/volunteer collections, and given those two factories roles in the social, industrial and wartime history of Melbourne and Victoria, where the museum is located, it is very appropriate that the Museum’s collection particularly focus on and display aircraft from those two local factories, as well as the wider aspects of Australian Aviation Heritage.
This is also the logic behind the more recent acquisition of the Lincoln parts from the UK, and the Beaufort parts as future and long term projects, which interestingly had not generated serious interest by other parties.
They have a complete Beaufighter in what looks like good condition, it is under cover.
The Beaufighter itself is restored, undercover and well cared for, and is one of the most popular and drawcard exhibits in the museum, and its loss would have an impact not only on the “Australian Made” collection significance and completeness, but also the visitation ‘attractiveness” to veterans and enthusiasts and even General Public members. (The museum recently received correspondence from a 489 Sqn (NZ) pilot who is travelling to Australia with his adult children on a pilgrimage to see the Beaufighter)
The museum has previously sold duplicates or surplus aircraft from its collection. Including the Firefly formerly flown as Mickey’s Mouse, the yellow Wirraway now in Kermit Weeks collection, and the Beaufighter Mk 1C now in the collection of the National Museum of USAF, those sales were used to fund some of the existing buildings on the site.
Strategies continue to be explored to expand the existing buildings on the current site, without resorting to sale of unique and significant assets within the collection.
The disposal of the Beaufighter to fund building expansions was previously proposed back in 2000, and rejected by the membership at that time, it is an obvious source of funds to the museum, and remains as an option should that ever be required. (It is interesting to note however that two Airworthy Beaufighter projects have been available to the warbird market for a number of years without an apparent successful sale)
The museum could equally dispose of those other less glamourous airframes currently outside to absolve itself of criticisms, or the burden of preserving them undercover, however there is not a stampede of interested parties seeking to make offers on those airframes to return them to flying condition, or replace those with fibre-glass replica’s nor to take them and place them undercover elsewhere.
Given the current interest in liberating Mosquito’s from museum’s why not simply also argue for the De-Havilland Heritage Centre to release three of the four held in their collection? Without recognising that museum’s original and perhaps primary role incorporating a “Mosquito” museum.
To do so would undermine the value and significance of that collection of the prototype, B35 and FBVI all on the one site, the collection becomes as significant as the individual aircraft.
Similarly it has been argued elsewhere on other forums that fibre-glass replicas (Calgary Mosquito / Barksdale B24) could be substituted for the real aircraft within a static museum, to allow the originals to be passed on for airworthy restoration.
The purpose of a static museum is more than to present an external facsimile of an aircraft, it is to ideally preserve an aircraft intact, internally and externally, for viewing by the general public and enthusiasts, but also technical reference by other researchers, rebuilders, and future generations, a task a fibreglass replica cannot achieve.
Interestingly our museum’s Proctor has recently been used to provide a rebuilder who posts here with reference information that could not have been derived from a simple fibreglass mockup.
It is disappointing that many consider static museums only as a repository of airframes and parts for the flying fraternity, and should simply release their “attractive” and “exotic” aircraft to the warbird movement for airworthy restoration, and only retain the “uninteresting” and “boring” aircraft that are of no interest to these private owners, collectors or airshow spectators, or simply fulfill their roles with photographs and cardboard cutouts? or fibreglass replicas?
There is a role for both static collections and flying collections in the preservation, display and exhibition of our Aviation History, but flying historic aircraft is not always the safest way to ensure their survival and preservation, as many unfortunate examples demonstrate.
The AARG Museum operates self sufficient on its gate takings and volunteer staff for its annual operating costs as well as acquisitions and restoration/maintenance, and the attractiveness of the collection is key to bringing in the general public (who are the primary source of income rather than the enthusiasts).
The Collection’s rarity, depth and bredth all play a role in that income generation and visitor attractiveness.
It is worth noting that the AARG’s Museum collection with its paid entry fee, survives and operates successfully, in the same local “market” as the wonderful and impressive RAAF Museum, which provides free entry to the very same Melbourne public.
Removal of the significant aircraft would reduce that performance and threaten the viability of the collection for any of the aircraft’s future, obviously improved display space, improved presentation of the aircraft would increase attractiveness.
Since its creation the AARG has managed to place over 40 airframes into under cover “preservation”, although not all of those are restored or on display. It obviously will continue to seek solutions to putting the remaining 11 aircraft undercover.
The AARG might be guilty of biting off more than it can chew, however it has done so since its inception, and achieved surprising results from its little resources, hopefully it will be able to continue to achieve surprising results? and acquire more resources to do so.
Obviously it could fail in its ultimate objectives for one or more aircraft, and might yet one day need to relinquish airframes beyond its resources, or sell aircraft to fund buildings, (although neither of those outcomes is expected to happen).
But in that event? it will have contributed to the preservation of the aircraft beyond their original fates, and retained them from a period when no one wanted them (the Beaufighter to be scrapped in 1962) to a period when people are calling for them to be sold for profit and gain for $1M or more?.
It is a pity many of our less glamourous but equally significant airframes, are not yet held in such high regard, hopefully overtime the wider collection will be appreciated beyond the warbird opportunities, the AARG has saved and preserved some very rare and important aircraft.
While the Museum and its collection was well was known in the enthusiast movement as the “Moorabbin Air Museum”, that name however conjured up expectations of a collection consisting of cessna’s, pipers and other GA aircraft seen operating on the Moorabbin airfield, and did little to encourage the general public to visit to see a wider and more significant collection.
The AARG museum is the major volunteer aviation collection in the State of Victoria and could have adopted a “Victorian” state based Air Museum name similar to its South Australian, Western Australian or Queensland peer’s, it was felt the collection already within the AARG was beyond a simple “state” heritage focus.
It was perhaps “pretentious” of the AARG to adopt the “Australian National Aviation Museum” title further contrasting its actual situation with that conjured up or expected by the name as implying a government operated museum?
However given the depth of the collection the AARG had been the basis of the NASMA proposal and other more recent National Collection proposals, and had in anycase registered the “Australian National Aviation Museum” name 20 years ago, yet in that same time Goverment still hasnt successfully delivered any such an outcome, let alont any more worthy of the name than the AARG’s own collection, despite a number of proposals to do so.
It is particularly dis-appointing that a country such as Australia, that has contributed so much to the pioneering of aviation (Hargraves/Smith Brothers/Hawker/Hinkler/Kingsford-Smith), and has gained so much from Aviation (transport/defence/communication), is still yet to create a government funded National Air Museum despite proposing it back in 1975.
Until such an outcome the AARG, through its efforts to preserve the aircraft within its collection, remains one of the few groups trying to achieve such an outcome, it would be hoped more Australian enthusiasts and individuals would consider supporting its efforts by joining the group and getting involved.
As stated at the beginning, I am the Secretary of the AARG, and given that role, I hope its appreciated and understood that I do not intend to get into a “to and fro” debate on the “Moorabbin” specifics of this issue, given the ambiguity/risk of my statements being confused between being personal or official statements on behalf of the organisation.
The success of any volunteer museum is reliant on individuals contributing their time and effort, and its achievements so far are a credit to those members past and present over the last 46 years who have contributed, money, time and effort to preserve Australia’s aviation heritage.
For those interested, the history and evolution of the AARG’s collection and museum display over the last 46 years can be seen here http://aarg.com.au/ourhistory.htm
The Management of the AARG’s Collection and the Museum is really an issue for the members of the organisation, and I would encourage anyone with a strong interest in supporting the future of the AARG collection, to join the museum and assist in its operation and successful preservation of the aircraft within its collection.
The AARG has been exploring expansion plans for Moorabbin, as well as expansion/annexe sites elsewhere to allow erection of large buildings at lower cost, to house the remainder of the collection,(without closing or diminishing the Moorabbin site). However those are details to the AARG’s strategies and activities, which to be fair, are the business and prerogative of its members and council, and I am not at liberty or authorised to debate or disclose, unless part of an intended announcement of a successful outcome.
regards
Mark Pilkington
commenting as a private individual and forumite
“Views expressed on these pages may not be those of the Australian Aircraft Restoration Group or its servants.”
mark_pilkington.
It always surprised me that a DH86 did not compete in the 1934 Centenary Air Race?
I realise that DH was focusing on the Comet Racers as the primary “weapon” to maintain british pride and ensure a british win in the race, but the DH86 had a cruising speed of 123 Kts (228kmh), which was faster than the DH89 Rapide that did compete with 115 Kts (212 kmh), although slower than both the Boeing 247 and Douglas DC2.
Does anyone know why a DH86 did not compete? was it over concerns that the American transport aircraft (Boeing 247 & DC2) would perform better denting british pride? or simply that the airframes completed at that time were committed to delivery?
I understood early production deliveries included aircraft to Australia including Holyman’s and QANTAS, and that these were shipped out and erected locally, it is surprising that DH did not include one in the race for air delivery to promote the type, which at the time was the fasted British built airliner?
The DH86 was the most advanced use of the timber/biplane layout for airline use, and represented the last word in that technology, it is dis-appointing that one did not survive into preservation, and an eventual FSM at the Qantas Founders Museum will be a welcome example, at least externally.
On the issue of the Zulu Shields, the Australian experience with the DH86 was not pleasant, as described on the wiki page and within Australian publications, with great concern over the fin post strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Express
Technical Deficiencies
This section is largely sourced from the book Air Crash, Volume One by Macarthur Job[2].Seriously lacking in directional stability, the D.H.86s were frequently in trouble. On 19 October 1934 Holyman’s VH-URN Miss Hobart was lost in Bass Strait with no survivors. Flotsam that may have been wreckage from the aircraft was seen from the air three days later but surface ships failed to locate it in rough seas; the aircraft had effectively vanished. At the time Miss Hobart disappeared the design of the aircraft was not suspect, and it was thought that an accident may had occurred when Captain Jenkins and the wireless operator/assistant pilot Victor Holyman (one of the proprietors of Holymans Airways) were swapping seats in mid flight. However following the loss of Qantas’ VH-USG near Longreach four weeks later while on its delivery flight, it was found that the fin bias mechanisms of the crashed aircraft and at least one other were faulty, although it is doubtful that this had any direct bearing on the accidents other than perhaps adding to the aircraft’s lack of inherent stability. Further investigation revealed that VH-USG had been loaded with a spare engine in the rear of the cabin, and that one of the crew members was in the lavatory in the extreme aft of the cabin when control was lost. It was theorised that the aft centre of gravity condition that thus existed resulted in a loss-of-control at an altitude insufficient for recovery (the aircraft was at an estimated height of 1,000 feet prior to the crash).
On 2 October 1935 Holyman’s VH-URT Loina was also lost in Bass Strait, again with no survivors. This time a significant amount of wreckage was recovered from the sea and from beaches on Flinders Island. Investigation of the wreckage revealed a section of charred carpet on a piece of cabin flooring from just ahead of the lavatory door. It was thought possible that a small fire from a dropped cigarette had led to someone running aft suddenly to stamp it out – the sort of sudden change in weight distribution that could set up a fatal loss of directional control while the aircraft was on a low-speed landing approach.
The Royal Air Force’s Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment tested the D.H.86 design in 1936 following three fatal crashes in Europe. It would be forty years before the report was published – one of the most damning indictments ever written on the design of a commercial airliner put into series production. The D.H.86 had been rushed from design concept to test flight in a record four months to meet the deadlines set by the Australian airmail contracts, and a lot of attention to detail had been ignored. It was a big aircraft for its power, and as a result very lightly built. There was poor response to control movements in certain speed ranges, the wings were inclined to twist badly if the ailerons were used coarsely and, most seriously, the vertical tail surface was of inadequate area. The result was an aircraft that, although quite safe under normal conditions, could rapidly get out of control under certain flight regimes.
Although the control problems were overcome on later-manufactured D.H.86Bs, the results of the tests do not appear to have been communicated to Australia and the D.H.86s already in use were never modified to improve their safety. This lack of communication may have caused a number of later accidents including at least one of two further fatal disasters in commercial service. The mid-air break-up of Qantas’ VH-USE Sydney in a thunderstorm near Brisbane in 1942 with the loss of nine lives was possibly unavoidable, however the fin was found almost a mile away from the main wreckage, which was burnt without an investigation being carried out. The accident involving MacRobertson Miller Airlines’ ex-Qantas aircraft VH-USF at Geraldton on 24 June 1945 most likely was entirely avoidable had the AaAEE report been communicated to Australia[3]. On its first commercial flight for its new owners after military service, the pilot and a passenger were killed in a classic loss-of-control accident while taking off with a heavy load in gusty conditions.
Another D.H.86, VH-USW (the former Holyman Airways Lepena), was bought by MacRobertson Miller Airlines at much the same time as VH-USF and was the last of the type to fly in Australia. MMA sold the eleven-year-old aircraft to an English company late in 1946; it was abandoned in India in an “unsafe state” while on her delivery flight. Edgar Johnston, the Assistant Director General of the Australian Department of Civil Aviation, then had it scrapped at Australian Government expense to make sure that it never flew again[4][5].
The Political and Commercial Consequences
Following the first three fatal Australian D.H.86 accidents and a forced landing to VH-USW Lepena on 13 December 1935 (a Friday) when the pilot believed his aircraft was about to break up in mid-air[6], the Australian Government temporarily suspended the type’s Certificate of Airworthiness. This caused outrage in Britain as it reflected on the whole British aircraft industry. In fact, the D.H.86 had approached the limits to which traditional “plywood and canvas” aircraft construction could be taken, and was obsolete compared to all-aluminium stressed-skin aircraft like the Boeing 247 and the Douglas DC-1 that were already flying before it was even designed (and the immortal Douglas DC-3 had its first flight just four days after the forced-landing of VH-USW). Under pressure from Holymans and other companies, the Australian Government rescinded its ban on the import of American aircraft during 1936, and for the next 25 years most large commercial aircraft imported into Australia were of American manufacture.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonConfirmed this morning – no stay of execution. Albert Pierrepoint to visit Southend Airport. G-BEPS is to be scrapped.
The good news is that the spare engine (expired) is to be donated to a museum (possibly Duxford – they get first refusal). More good news is that before scrapping the cockpit section will be carefully removed and the North Essex Transport Group has first refusal. They are only 40.9 miles from Southend Airport. They also have the experience in moving large objects (steam trains and carriages, etc).
Phillip, having earlier questioned your campaign to save BEPS, I do wish to congratulate your efforts in promoting its situation and the opportunities it provided, causing the owner and interested museums to explore those opportunities, and apparantly resulting in a future possible engine and cockpit display rather than only scrap metal. – well done
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRecently in Norway a British couple were stopped and arrested at customs attempting to leave the country with a van load of WW2 aircraft parts recovered from a crash site which they did not have permission to recover.
Hopefully the Whitley parts were recovered for re-use not scrapping, is there any link with this story from Norway of a van full of parts?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThis does not seem to be an ex RAAF Cat, it is an amphibious Cat, either a PBY-5A or Canadian built canso?
It seems to have a 5 digit number on its fin/rudder reminscent of the USN Bu no’s, it looks like a “41334” but this doesnt allign with a USN Bu number for a PBY-5A, perhaps its a USAAF number for a PNV or Canso as an OA-10?
The white paint scheme is similar to the OA-10 colours?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonWhy do you want to save it?
Just because it is there?
One flying, one preserved under cover. Its a pretty good result out of ten aircraft built in total.
Bruce
I would agree with Bruce, a 20% current survival rate of the type is pretty good, especially with one under cover for long term preservation. If it becomes a stripped hulk without internals, engines and undercarriage, (and where would replacements be found other than the current owners recovered spares?), and without them what is the purpose of its preservation?
(I think the Concorde is probably the “better” preserved type with near 90% preserved, and perhaps that is far too many?)
I dont think its the obligation of KP to step into the mix, if there is a bonefide museum with a place to put it, resources to get it, and need to have it, surely they would have already be in negotiations with the owners long ago.
It is sad to see an aircraft lost to scrapping, particularly if its one of a few survivors, but not everything can be saved, or is worth saving?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThat is a problem with large public collections, they collect so little and much of what they do hold is not on display and slowly deterorates.
I personally know over 150 owners of vintage/warbird/historic aircraft – these are privately owned. Most of these aeroplanes would have long dissapeared if not for these private owners.
Take my own example, My Tiger Moth (A17-300) had not flown from its days in the RAAF until I rebuilt it and put it back in the air in 1982. My Proctor hasn’t flown since 1962 and sometime in the distant future it will fly again after the rebuild is completed. Neither of these aeroplanes would have surrived if their future had depended on some public-owned instution.
The Proctor owned by the National Museum of Australia VH-FEP (Fred Edmunds Proctor) is it on display, it was rebuilt to flying condition involving several thousands of hours of work by Fred. I think that FEP may be a bit like my rebuild in that a lot of non-original material was introduced. How does that fit with a collection policy of public-owned national bodies.
The Moorabin Aircraft Museum has a Proctor (VH-AUC), it is a Mk.1 done up as a a Mk.5 that was once owned by the RAAF. Now a Mk.1 and a Mk.5 are very different aeroplanes structurally.
Off on leave for a week to work on my Proctor and get ready for the QVAG Festival of Flight at Watts Bridge airfield (in a week’s time). Hope to catch up with a couple of you there.
JDK – Have we met?? You seem to know a lot of Australian vintage aeroplane history that I do.
cheers
Ross,
The Moorabin Aircraft Museum has a Proctor (VH-AUC), it is a Mk.1 done up as a a Mk.5 that was once owned by the RAAF. Now a Mk.1 and a Mk.5 are very different aeroplanes structurally.
The colour scheme on AUC was a compromise to allow it to be displayed at the RAAFM Point Cook in the late 1970’s when Ken Baird first completed it as there was no undercover display space for it to fit at Moorabbin at that time, the presentation’modification is only skin (paint) deep, and will be rectified eventually when time/resources permit.
You are correct that without the efforts of the private restorer/enthusiast, many of the remaining examples would not exist, and in some cases, such as yours – are brought bake from death’s knell.
The issue of this thread is more to do with airframes that in reality are new construction based on little or no original parts from the subject airframe.
There is nothing wrong with these airframes, (or yours) claiming provenance, when there is openess and transparency as to what surviving parts existed at the commencement, and what parts are re-used, and which are reconstructed, it is this aspect that creates the problem.
You are publicly doing that with your airframe, and it obviously holds the provenance of the original, that cant be said for many other apparant recreations.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAs far as I recall, DK379 was lost when the tail of the torpedo came off and struck the tail of the aircraft. My reports indicate recovery of wreckage, including engine from 8ft, two weeks after the crash with wreckage to BDSR whatever that is/was!
BDSR? = Boscombe Down Salvage & Recovery Unit?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHello Allan, I am sorry, your link does refer to Mr Wakefields aircraft which indeed does look inspired by a Curtis design (and has similarities to Duigan’s 1910 pusher as well).
I have never been made aware of this aircraft until now, and have never heard of the Avro-Curtiss type.
The seaplane I am thinking of is the Lakes Seabird, which was built from the Avro-Duigan.
My contact is with the grandson of S V Setty, India’s pioneer aviator who was an engineer trained in England and worked with A V Roe from 1911 to mid 1912, he was involved in the design of the Avro-Duigan as well as the Avro E/500, before returning to India. His grandson is trying to resolve what designs he did work on, and records are scarce, and over this same time Alliott Verdon Roe obviously continued to play a major role in the designs, and Roy Chadwick was also working at the site from 1911 as A.V.Roe’s personal assistant.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThere were other aircraft which came from A V Roe’s works at around the time. One was an “Avro-Curtis” which, after being test flown on land, was fitted with floats to become Britain’s first sucessful floatplane and named “Waterbird”.
As the name implies, the design was based on the sucessful Curtis floatplane. I’ll see if there is any info about who at Avros did the dsign work on it.
Allan
Waterbird was a rebuild of the Avro-Duigan, I am not aware of any such Avro-Curtiss, and yes John Duigan had previously built his 1910 pusher biplane as the first Australian designed and built aircraft to fly.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonSo am I right in thinking that the centre section of KB941 has now winged its way to Aussie?
Yes Peter, as stated above in my earlier post, this item is now located at Moorabbin, with the Lincoln RF342, it is the same item we exchanged some PM’s about last year.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
