mark_pilkingtonAs I said…..for me the only replica would be built with original materials by the original method…
…but does that mean we can’t consider using modern technology to help us get there?
The use of scanning of individual parts in 3-D to create accurate plans may be of worth if automating production? of milling of castings or parts.
The 3-D scanning of folded and rivetted parts would be of questionable value in my mind as against dis-assembly into its component parts.
Again modern technology such as use of laser cutting of sheet materials may be of value in volume production, however there is a lot of work to program up such information to translate it to usable information, and the cost and time to do so would not be justified against the existing methods of manually tracing the existing individual part and then determining the flat sheet requirements, fold radii etc, to build it for a one or two example “production” run. slow, but cheaper and probably easier.
The scanning of the external 3-d dimensions of a Skua wing etc are of little value in the rebuilding of it, it is the dimensions and assembly of the spars, ribs, intercostals, stringers and skins that create the external dimensions, and without these accurately understood and replicated the external dimensions are no use other than to create a fibreglass mould.
I am not aware of any major restoration having or requiring access to the 3-d external dimensions of wings or any other airframe sections for other aircraft, that have been critical to that restoration?
Datum points on spars and main frames, are critical to “jig” and locate the structure as it is assembled, and 3-d scanning might provide that dimensional relationship? However if access of the original part exists to “scan” it, it is still quicker, cheaper and perhaps more reliable to simply jig around the original part, and then remove it from the jig.
As said earlier it is the accurate assembly of the structure results in the external shape, and I cant see modern technology changing that process? perhaps for composite modern designs, but not for this method of design/construction aircraft?
As commented by others, the critical issue at the moment is to wash and preserve the remains regardless of the future use as pattern, or display as-is,
if the airframe is integral enough to set it up to undertake 3-d scanning its probably integral enough to be used to create a jig directly, avoiding the cost and complexity of 3-d scanning, and that process would probably still leave it largely unaffected, if handled gently.
However the dimensions/construction details of the centre fuselage and wing centre-section is the information missing from the other wrecks, and can only really be accessed through dis-assembly of this example, and duplicating the internal structure.
Its condition seems well advanced in dis-integration in any case, and dis-assembly would not preclude re-construction as an approximate of its current wrecked condition, but that would seem to be a waste of time, the best outcome remains use of this frame as pattern and basis of a full static restoration while it is integral enough to provide the patterns.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThat is just what I am suggesting, I think 3D Laser Scanning technology has reached the point where combining scans from multiple points, both interior and exterior, can build up an almost complete digital model of the airframe; skin, frames, stringers, rivets, everything.
I would have no interest in fibreglass; for me the only replica would be built with original materials by the original method…..the only problem being that we don’t know what the original method is!
While the scanning technology itself may exist I dont think the software could exist that permitted a 3-d multipart complex object such as an aircraft to be scanned intact, and then contruction details such as stringers frames rivets to be identified, interpreted and referenced into blueprints etc, you might get a 3-d drawing of the entire structure but no meaningful engineering data that would equate to dismantling and using each part as a seperate pattern, or allow an accurate reproduction of all the individual parts to be produced.
There would be some many “internal” or hidden details that could not be “scanned”.
At most you might be able to “mill” out of solid a 1 to 1 trench art replica or full scale mockup, but you might as well just build a cardboard cutout, or print off a large photo, as the outcome would not be a restored Skua?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonsuch scanning might be useful if you planned to mould a fibreglass replica but would seem to of little value if you did not know accurately the structural frame and intercostals etc that sit below the skin, the outcome wouldnt be a restored Skua it would be a full scale model?
the structure would need to be dismantled and duplicated rib by rib etc to extend any technical provenance to the new metal outcome being a real Skua?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonInteresting recovery.
It looks to be in a similar condition to that FW190 that was raised a few years ago.
So – should they use the parts to restore a currently extinct type, with the attendant loss of large amounts of original material, or should it be preserved ‘as is’?
Thoughts anyone?
Bruce
I applaud the successful recovery and congratulate the team involved, however in regards to Bruces question above, I believe the best option is to use this airframe as a template and source of viable parts for a composite restoration of an extinct type, perhaps with this airframe being the identity basis? but obviously with substution of better structure from other remains or even new duplicated parts from patterns.
While I do support display option of recovered airframes “preserved – as found” such as the Hendon Halifax ( a fresh water recovery), and am not sure I would support destroying intact heritage to “fully restore” such an airframe, even it is the prospective sole survivor, I am not sure that is even an option here?
My position on this one is based on the apparant condition, as shown by the original underwater photos of an “intact” airframe and the subsequent “out of water” photos at the earlier link which certainly seem to show the remains suffering extensive and acute corrosion and great risk of continued disintegration.
I personally doubt it could be “preserved “as is” for an indefinate period, as it seems the rivets (magnesium?) have disappeared due to corrosion and much of the structure such as fuselage frames/skins, wing trailing edge, rear fuselage section seen in the many photos has already disintegrated under its own weight in the short trip so far in this recovery project.
I am not suggesting any errors or faults with their procedures, but simply that we seem to be witnessing the approaching “knee point” of WW2 salt water recoveries, as salt water and oxygen, (even at this depth and cold temperature) attack the lightweight metals to the point that the “intact” airframe is really just an oxide remanant, with little strength to survive long term.
Perhaps this level of deterioration relates to the particular materials and construction of the Skua? as there have been recent salt water recoveries of JU88 and JU52 airframes or the Italian P40F with sufficient structural integrity to be preserved or restored? without much loss of original material, but that doesnt seem likely in this instance?
The condition of the Skua does not bode well for the other current complete airframe recoveries such as “57 Rescue” of a salt water Halifax, the hoped for / mythical Stirling recovery or the plans to recover the Sunderland mark 1 at Pembroke the proposed “Chaplin recovery of the Miami Devastator? or the USN/Tighar recovery of the Marshall Island Devastator? They may be in a similar condition already, or fast approaching it if they are left for too much longer.
The rapid change in condition from apparant “intact” submerged airframe to an obvious important artifact but suffering dramatic corrosion raises the question of future successful recoveries of airframes from salt water, even if only for static restoration and display, (as against much earlier salt water recoveries of the Rabaul Zero’s etc when corrosion was minimal and parts cleaning rather than remaking or substition was required.)
Use of its parts for restoration, or pattern, towards a complete representative “composite” example of the extinct tpye would seem to be the better outcome than attempt to preserve an airframe ‘as is’ that has already lost its recognisable shape through disintegration, and will seem likely to continue to do so.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI assume your after Peter himself? rather than a copy of his list?
But for those interested I have recently downloaded a copy of the list from the web at this html:
http://www.crossandcockade.com/files/UK%20ENGINES.doc
An excellent and valuable reference document, like the similar airframe register document by BAPC and a resource that would be worthwhile in Australia and elsewhere.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss,
I have seen some of the items that came out of that Archerfield hole and it was certainly a treasure trove, but not a bunker of dis-assembled fighters.
I recently re-visited the dump at Tocumwal during Easter which is also bone dry due the drought, unfortunately while there is still lots of parts left in the dump, the quality has reduced since my first visit in the 1970s due to submersion in water of the remaining parts, and the dry exposed “good” parts being well picked over for many years.
Despite that, I was still able to find many recognisable parts, suitable for trinket display or in some casess possible repair into a static display? including:
lower section of a Tiger Moth forward fuselage
Beaufort undercarriage doors
Avro Anson fin portion of fuselage frame
Wirraway undercarriage retract ram mounts, and wing casting
Wirraway centre-section gun camera mount
B24 Waist gun mount
B24 engine dishpan baffle
Mosquito exhaust shrouds
Avro Anson? or Mosquito? Trailing Aerial tubes
Vengeance? rollover truss
most of these parts have been dumped as the steel residue after the aircraft parts have passed through the portable smelter.
There is still a lot of parts out there, but the chance of wartime aircraft in their packing cases hidden in former military bunkers is a different issue to these smelter dumps and similar residue on former military airfields, and the existence of one does not ensure the existance of another.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtontime to Lock this Thread?? and wait for further developments?
We seem to be in the realms of speculation and gossip again, which will do the project no favours.
Flipflopman above has always been very good at spreading news about the Vulcan, and although he is no longer a member of staff, he has explained the issue very well.
It seems perfectly clear that the aircraft can operate quite happily for some while without embodiment of this mod. If the aircraft doesnt receive the necessary financial support to enable it to fly this season, its a moot point. If the level of support is such that it wont see the projected 10 year life, its still a moot point.
I think if you want to see the aircraft flying, make the donations, and let it get some time under its belt. Only then will we see if the project can be sustained.
All the gossip is doing the project no good whatever. I sorely wish we could have an accurate report from someone at TVOC, which will put paid to it. I fail to understand why TVOC cant make public comments that scotch the rumours as they come up. However, experience has shown that the vast majority of the gossip is just that – with no, or very little foundation.
Bruce
I would agree fully with Bruce, although concerned over the ability to raise the level of annual funds, and now the prospect of future modifications and having contributed to such concern in the thread, I believe that after 344 such posts its time for us to let the TVOC achieve what ever it is capable of achieving.
The project is too far advanced to benefit from hindsight of “better spending of the Lottery money on other aviation outcomes”, and those who have donated will need to judge the final value for money themselves.
But as I said in one of my earlier posts on this thread, although obviously a UK preservation movement concern, failure of the Vulcan project can have ramifications well beyond England, and it is hoped that it does secure the funding being sought.
Ongoing speculation by us all is only dissuading further donation and corporate support, and perhaps then becoming a self fulfilling prophecy.
Despite your view of the projects management so far, I am sure “failure” could only be considered a waste of investment and effort and a risk to future such ambitiuous projects and public fundraising to support aviation heritage in the UK and abroad.
Hopefully the project will secure funding, its failure will be greater than “just” the loss of the last flying Vulcan.
I would therefore suggest we consider “locking” this thread until further outcomes occur of either successful fundraising or sponsorship, further flights, or a substansive statement from TVOC as I think what can be said, has been said.
I continue to hope TVOC and the project will be successful.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAnything is “possible” but many things are “improbable”
I wont complain if a squadron of dis-mantled WW2 aircraft are found and recovered from a bunker, but I’m not going to spend money or time digging for them.
Having said that I recall as a teenager in the 1970’s disbelieving as I was being told of a B24 fuselage surviving here in Victoria stored under a pile of timber, only to be astonished in the 1980’s when the one now at Werribee was recovered from a farm house in Sale, “from underneath a pile of timber!”
I also recall the late 90’s in Melbourne when someone dug up a container of hundres of thousands of dollars buried in the garden of a Melbourne railway station, believed by police to be a drop off point of drug payments? It was covered in the local newspaper, and the next day a reader, who had decided to have a search around his own local station found a second canister with similar large amounts, he was apparantly later awarded the canister and cash as unclaimed lost property – strangely no one ever came forward to claim it?
So while I remain sceptical, I wont begrudge others spending their time fossacking, it keeps them off the streets at least – smiles.
regards
Mark Pilkington
(oh and yes, just to proove I’m not making it up! here is the story of the canisters!)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/lstories/lr990713.htm
Joycey Tooher: Well that’s true. The Crown usually rewards honest finders, and it may do so by giving them the value of the coins, or if it’s got a lot of these coins, it may not need them and just return them to them.
Damien Carrick: With this juggling of possessory rights, how does it work when we’re not talking about treasure trove, when we’re talking about say, cash?
Joycey Tooher: You might recall the case of money found at Balaclava Station in Melbourne in January 1996. The person found $200,000 stashed in a plastic drum on land adjacent to the Balaclava Railway Station. The money was handed in to the police, and a few days later, someone else who’d heard about this remarkable find, went looking in the same place for more money, and believe it or not, found another $200,000 hidden in the same way. The second person also handed the money to the police.
Now the land on which the money was found belonged to the Public Transport Corporation, and at the time of finding, these lucky finders had no permission to be on the land, so they were technically trespassers . But nevertheless, they got to keep that money. The true owner of the $400,000 never claimed it, and under the law relating to finders, the Public Transport Corporation as owner of the land, had a better entitlement to the property but it chose not to contest the finders’ claim.
mark_pilkingtonThere are plenty of smelter remains or holes used as dumps, such as the one in Brisbane or the one in Tocumwal, which have yielded trinkets, but none have shown to be storage bunkers with complete dis-assembled aircraft.
The broken wings site lists some possible reasons for storing such dis-assembled aircraft, (copy/pasted below) but a number of these seem very unlikely,
Why were the aircraft buried?We’ve developed five different theories as to why the aircraft were buried. Some are as they’ve been described to us, whilst others are our own theories based on research material.
The first is purely for posterity, to preserve the aircraft for future generations.
The second, the Brisbane Line theory. Let’s just suppose that the Air Force, as part of a long term strategy, were instructed to conceal a number of aircraft in the ground in case of a full-scale Japanese land invasion, or in case of future threats to Australia. With Oakey sitting so close to the supposed Brisbane line, what better place to conceal brand new Spitfires than just near Australia’s last line of defence.
Third, a stockpile for use years after their burial in case of a nuclear attack on Australia.
Fourth, demobilisation. These personnel had just lived through World War II. After six years all they wanted to do was go home, back to their families and get their lives back on track. Going home was so tantalizingly close. The only thing stopping them was clearing out the base. And the quickest way to fix that was to dump the aircraft and leftover parts anywhere they could.
And fifth, that the company behind the scrapping of aircraft at Oakey, Austral Bronze, was facing a contractual obligation and simply had to get rid of the aircraft as quickly as they could to meet their looming deadline.
Of course there’s a chance that there were a number of different teams burying Spitfires at different locations for different reasons. Until we locate an aircraft, the reasons behind its burial will remain a theoretical one.
if stored for posterity or preservation why werent they later recovered by those who put them there?,
If the risk of invasion and defence of the Brisbane Line remained, and Defence stored them, then why store a handful? and why store them dismantled on the intended battle line thats risked being run over, and not down south on an airfield in a state of readiness?
A stockpile of a few dismantled spitfires to guard against future nuclear attack??? please!!!
RAAF members or contractors dumping them down a mine to clean up the base in a hurry? why?? scrap aluminium had a high value in those days, if you had to get rid of it within a contracted period why not move it off site and scrap them later?, (and wouldnt the base guard question the trucks departing the site? if such a contract was really being scrutinised?)
Like proving a negative, these legends will live on fore-ever, like a religious faith or UFO’s and area 51, with the aircraft in the mines just waiting to be found, “like the lepricorns pot of gold at the end of the rainbow”, once you find it, you will proove it exists, and the in-ability to find it doesnt proove it doesnt exist, only that it hasnt yet been found.
Until they turn up I will remain very sceptical of this story.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonFYI,
again, no endorsement of it by me!
Mark Pilkington
Here’s a little more info straight out of an “informant report”, take it as we have, as an unverifiable claim…
It is but one tiny piece of the puzzle we have been solving.
“I visited the Bundaberg site in 1998 (XXX-X). Now the D.O.D/D.E.O didn’t know where the entry location (That goes for most locations), So It was up to me to find the location. I spent 3 months searching the Bundaberg airport grounds for an entry point, The only hints I had was that an airport worker in 1977 had found a way in through a drain when his Jack Russell chased a rat in there and in 1996 or 1997 two men found there way through a air vent in a paddock near XXXXXXXXX. The men were arrested for trespassing on commonwealth land and the air vent was blown in.
So I spent a good 3 months looking for a way in. Finally I found a storage drop-off report from 1980 saying that on the 15-06-1980 32 crates of SLR & Ammunition were to placed in to storage at site XXX-X via end Runway run off Entry and the last report from site XXX-X was it closure on 01-11-1980. So I looked over & over the end run way (with planes zooming 10 feet over head). Then one day while exploring the XXXXXXX I came a sixer (tripped) in to a depression in the ground. I thought “This is odd” this depression was a perfect 1.5 X 1 meter rectangle and I thought to myself “About bloody time”.
So I rang my supervisor and said “I found it but I need dig it out” he replied “well go down to the local hardware store and buy yourself a shovel”. I said “What really” he replied “Yep I’ll get you a van for cover and someone to help you”.
So 2 days later this old fella turns up with a council van and we get to work, took us 7 hours to dig this thing clear. We walked in and it was like a blast from the past. The first thing I saw was a old jeep, then I turned to my left in amazement an whole ww2 war bird just sitting there. I was like kid in a candy store, I walked past the plane and pointed my flashlight to the right and there was two planes with there wings folded and no tails, there was a clipboard on the wall referring to the planes.
Then my eyes peeled open it said A6M-52 (ZERO). The clipboard detailed the runs and specs like max speed, weights, ceiling and weapons. I was in shock what were ww2 jap zeros painted in U.S colors. I asked the old fella about the planes. He said he had “helped in removing jap aircraft painted in u.s colors from a place called eagle field or something like that”.
So we walked down more and found a pair of wings to my left, to my right and further up just aircraft parts. I walked back down turned right and there’s this corridor with 7 rooms.
Room 1 was full of ammo, same for rooms 2&3, Room 4 had 20-25 50 Cal. Browning Heavy Machine guns lined up across the wall and then 60 crates of 303 lee Enfield 10 to a box, Room 5 40 creates of bren guns 5 to a box and 50 crates of 303 L-E, Room 6 had 100 crates 8 to a box and a heap of ammo, Room 7 same as rm 6.
So walked out and to our left to see what past the jeep and there’s a row of old hospital privacy screens so we pushed open these screens and there’s a wall of bombs stacked all the way up to the ceiling. The old fella said “better not light up then ah” so we walked down this wall of bombs (They were fat as 44 gal drums) to the end and there’s these huge crates. I said “what do think is in there” he said “Planes”. OK then. When we were about to leave he said “wait I forgot something” he runs back with 2 ammo boxes and I said “come on put them back” he said “when are they gonna use them”.
So we fill in the hole and he drives me back to the hotel, just as I get out he said “Oi here use as a doorstop” He hands me this 6 pound solid shot I said “thanks & goodbye”. I never saw that old fella again. So the next day I faxed my report and flew home.”
For more information on the Bundaberg saga, see our old Australian Bunker Project page on Bundaberg:
mark_pilkington.
I note the TFC Beaufighter is no longer listed on Provenance Fighter Sales although I know they approached an acquantance of mine to buy it for operation in Australia last year (yes he could afford the price tag, and no he isnt buying it), and at that time it was still listed on their website.
At the time the Fighter Collection seemed to publicly confirm the intention to sell it and not aim for operating it themselves.
I would assume now that Provenance have removed it from the website as they are no longer selling it? and I also assume that ownership has returned to TFC ( did it actually ever leave their ownship?) although I was told directly by Provenance that it was their aircraft?
As the Fighter collection is still proceeding with the restoration does this suggest it will now be completed and flown in the UK?
Is it still on the market via another broker, or for sale directly from the Fighter Collection, with work continuing to progress at a low key/priority.
Anyone know the current situation?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonthanks Don, Dave and James,
Don, the validity of the P1935 serial number as an AS Oxford lends weight to Dave’s view that it is Oxford, while ADF-Serials is an excellent resource, it is not always complete or infallible, but at this stage I would agree it is the primefacie evidence at that P1935 did not come to Australia, however it is possible that fuel tanks were swapped during a service into another aircraft, or perhaps P1935 was reduced to spares and this tank shipped to Australia as support spares?
Anyone know the RAF history/ fate of P1935?
James pictures however does raise questions over the “Oxford” identity, the Duxford Oxford is supposedly a mark I, as were the Australian service aircraft, yet James picture clearly shows electrical senders adjacent to the filler, which would rule out this tank, other differences are the oval shape of the tank in James photo is “longitudinal” with the filler at the front, where as the unknown tank has its oval section apparantly in the “lateral” axis with the filler at the front.
I had therefore assumed that perhaps different tanks were introduced in later Oxfords? even though James picture is a mark I as was P1935? however on consulting the Air Data publications “pilots notes for Oxford I and II”, I discovered the rear page “figure 5” shows a “simplified fuel system diagram” identifying the Oxford had two main tanks, each of 49 gals, and two auxillary tanks, each of 29 gals.
Apparantly the main tanks are in the centre-section while the auxillary tanks are in the wing outer panels.
Subject to James locating photos of the aux tanks to confirm/deny, I would agree with Dave on the tank being from an Oxford and strongly suspect the tank is a 29 gal Oxford Auxilliary Tank, and most likely originally fitted to P1935?
For those interested it is currently for sale on ebay in Australia – (I recall the B24 group at Werribee were collecting Oxford parts towards a future restoration.
thanks for the detective work
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonNow, to answer your somewhat vacuous comparison with 1960’s culture. The majority of people if asked about it, would have spent the period enjoying the Beatles/Stones, the mini skirts and car, Bond, and the E-Type Jaguar and would of course remember those as 60’s icons.
However, let me assure you that to those who were serving in the Cold War era it was frequently a decidely ‘uncold’ war. Although, not on the scale of WWII losses, the sacrifices (and boy there were lots!) of those who spent their days awaiting Armaggedon or actively preventing it, were just as real and just as bloody!
That is why the Vulcan is viewed with such affection. It represents an era of largely unsung sacrifice by those who served so that those who played safely at home had the freedom to express their views any way they wished.
A small quotation, source unknown:
“Freedom, for those who fought for it, has a flavour the protected will never know..”
And that my friend is why you are so very wrong, the Vulcan is an icon, equally relevant to representing a generation as is the Lanc, Spitfire et al! That is why to my generation the sound of 4 Olympus in a Vulcan is the sound of freedom, just as much as the Lancasters Merlins. It reminds me I am still here because she stood guard over me and mine for so many deadly and dangerous years when good friends were lost that we might be free!.
Your not serious are you Bullshooter??
The Vulcan IS an iconic aircraft to aviation enthusiasts and certainly to her crews, but not to a whole generation, nor to the wider general public regardless of age.
Its certainly not in the same league as a spitfire or lancaster, and its certainly not an iconic aircraft to the wider 60’s generation who in the main were rejecting the war culture let alone its images.
In fact the Huey chopper of Vietnam is more likely the iconic and recognisable military aircraft image to that generation, but still unlikely to be held in any fond appreciation.
While the “Cold War” was real, and an important political situation to be defended, it was not open conflict, and was not touching the general public’s lives, and hence is being lost into the history pages along with its images.
The Lancaster, Spitfire etc will live on in the general public’s mind well beyond the Vulcan.
Hands up those who have built a Lancaster or Spitfire model, keep your hand up if you have built a Vulcan model?
Hands up whose kids are building models? and keep your hand up if they have built a Vulcan model?
It was an impressive design, and having been fortunate to see one visit Laverton Australia in the 1960’s it is an impressive machine to see in the air.
I do hope this project succeeds for the efforts of those involved, but I am concerned it doesnt have the general public or corporate appeal its business case may have assumed?
If England was trying to fly the last airworthy Lancaster or Spitfire I am absolutely convinced corporations and the general public of all ages would rally around those causes, (in fact overseas citizens of the Commonwealth would also contribute), it seems clear from the current fund raising difficulties that the same is not true of the Vulcan, and alternative strategies need to be considered, such as colourscheme advertising, if a “red bull” Sea Vixen was an attractive billboard more so would be the Vulcan?
Unfortunately the Cold War “deterent” just doesnt attract the same patriotic support from the corporates or general public, despite the service, and even sacrifices of the servicemen involved, or their fond memories of aircraft such as the Vulcan.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss,
For us to gain aeroplanes to our area means that other areas are losing theirs. Thus I see a problem with laws that prevent the free flow of historic aircraft amongst owners and between countries.
Those in an affluent society, able to afford and buy what they want from others, always support free-trade, however the attitudes change when economics change, and the benefits flow off in other directions.
In the 1970’s in a period of hyper inflation, a significant number of aircraft left Australia’s shores, with the aircraft following the economic tide.
As I understand it, the QVAG was originally formed due to the concern of the loss of historic aircraft from Qld, and from Australia in the 1970s?
The role of Heritage Laws created from the same concerns are to try and ensure the most important heritage aircraft (flying or not) or the last surviving examples are retained in Australia for the benefit of future generations.
Private ownership is an important part of heritage preservation, and I am not aware of any aspect of the heritage laws in Australia that act against that situation other than limiting export from Australia of certain historic aircraft.
I am also not aware of any arguments put forward in the thread above that was against private ownership, other than the arguments being put forward by some that the sovereign rights of a private owner should over-ride the law making rights of a Nation or Government to limit export of certain airframes- (a view that seems to not recognise the laws intrusion into many aspects of our lives from registration, licencing etc)
However individual private ownership is a transient situation, there are a number of Australian Private collections that have come and gone and overall the retention of flying historic aircraft in Australia (or in any given geographic area) relies on a relative economic strength against other areas within the Country, or overseas interests.
The current strength of individual vintage aircraft ownership in Qld reflects a healthy and growing state economy and population growth, as compared to perhaps a reverse situation in states such as South Australia and Tasmania. While I am sure QVAC fosters and encourages private ownership it is the individual’s hip pocket, and the relative number of such interested and affluent individuals, that creates the outcome in Qld today.
Australia has @200 flying Tigermoths, @40 flying Austers, @ 7 flying Mustangs, in a population of just on 20 Million people, our exchange rate is roughly 50% of the UK pound and 90% of the US Dollar, as you know 4 years ago our exhange rate was nearly 50% of the US Dollar.
Our population at 20 Million is approaching 40% of the UK, but just 8% of the USA, and in some ways interest in aviation is still stronger in the USA per head of population, meaning that our aircraft will always have ready buyers overseas, subject to price and transport costs.
Luckily for us perhaps the Tigermoth and Auster are not in as great demand in the USA as they might be in Australia and the UK, and Australian Mustangs also have some type of certification issue in the USA that seems to result in some blurred identities over there?, and reduces interest from those purchasers.
Good economic times in Australia, high disposable incomes, job security all result in relatively high prices for such aircraft, and that coupled with the even exchange rate and high cost of transport makes our aircraft less attractive to overseas buyers than similar aircraft in the USA and UK.
However in harsh economic times in Australia, with high unemployment, low incomes, tight liquidity and low exchange rate, our aircraft would be easily snapped up fby overseas enthusiasts, as was done in the 1960s and 1970s, and private ownership alone would not protect against that outcome, if our collective hip pockets couldnt compete with overseas buyers.
The open market export of original and historic Australian aircraft is not really balanced up by the import of Nangchangs and Luscombes, other than from an airshow variety point of view, or purely from a count of numbers.
As you know from the QVAG ‘s / Australian Flying Museum’s own experience with the intended airworthy restoration of a Neptune, there are some aircraft restorations that are beyond the typical private individual’s hip pocket, and therefore “not for profit” collective groups such as HARS become the successful model.
The preservation of static aircraft in museums is an equally important task, there are many historic aircraft that are too valuable to be risked in a flying accident – Kingsford Smiths Southern Cross as an example, ( and the proof in the pudding being its flying replica’s near loss to a landing accident and still not yet restored).
Even beyond those unique airframes, museums provide a continuous educational, preservation and display experience for the public with more common airframes that is only available at times of fly-ins and airshows from the privately owned aircraft.
Our museum at Moorabbin holds a Gipsy Moth, Tigermoth, Proctor, Desoutter, BA Swallow that would all be snapped up by members of the QVAG and successfully put back in the air, however without the action of the museum many of these would not have survived today, and without the museum only enthusiasts could hunt them down to the private hangars to view them at times other than during airshows and fly-ins.
Few schools attend airshows and fly-ins, as compared to the many schools who visit our museum on a weekly basis to learn about Australia’s aviation heritage.
Public, or “not for profit” ownership of static display museums are the normal ownership structures as few private individuals have the interest or motivation to invest in a static aircraft, or to forgo future financial return through eventual sale of the aircraft.
I also enjoy and support the restoration of aircraft to flying condition, and it is largely the private individual owner, and the open market trading of such aircraft that lift the sale prices, and therefore the values of such aircraft.
These values, even ascribed in “potential” to unrestored wrecks, drives projects such as the recovery of Swamp Ghost, Glacia Girl, or the “deep” restorations of the Dragon’s by the Challinors or Ki-61’s etc by Murray Griffith at Wangaratta.
These outcomes would not happen if the “market” didnt place high values on these aircraft, if it wasnt for the “warbird” and “vintage” flying aircraft movements many of the wrecks would still be rotting away, in jungles or on farms, and never recovered, even for static display.
Unfortunately that same market value can price “locals” out if their incomes and hip pocket cannot compete internationally, hence the Vietnamese exodus of Bird-dogs and DragonFly’s in the 1980’s, and the lack of private warbird owners in that country?
Public or NGO operated Museums, and the private individual owner all play a role in preserving our Aviation Heritage, and I think both do a wonderful job, each has their place.
However there is no need for every aircraft to be restored to fly, (nor for it to happen in our lifetimes), the Calgary Mosquito is effectively preserved from the elements for the time being, and in safe hands for future restoration to either static display or flying display, whichever its owners choose to do.
Without the actions of the Calgary City in acquiring and storing the aircraft for many years, it is quite possible this Mosquito may have been lost many years ago like many of its brethern, such as the Mexico City Mosquito, and quite nearly VH-WAD referred to above.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss,
I am not aware of any aircraft ever being impounded and left to rot by Australian Customs?
The only recent WW2 fighters impounded were the CAC Mustang and Me109 impounded by customs when the owner attempted to export the ME109 illegally as a “mustang”, both aircraft were impounded and later forfeited, the 109 is now in the AWM and the Mustang was with the RAAF Museum but was later traded with Graham Hosking for the Avro 504K and SE5A replicas’.(The Mustang remains in undercover storage for future restoration at Tyabb Victoria.
Two aircraft that were left to rot following export denial (again under earlier laws than the current Heritage Laws) are:
the Australian built PR40 Mosquito VH-WAD “Quokka” which had been stored in the open for many years in Perth and was later stored in Melbourne at a transport yard in preparation for export to the USA. It remained in the open and poorly braced during the 1970’s after an American owner was denied export (prior to the current laws but on the same basis). That aircraft was abandoned by its American Owner, suffered fuselage fractures due to falling off its stand and was eventually auctioned by the Transport company to recover storage costs – the aircraft was purchased by the AWM and underwent extensive restoration by DH Australia, and is now restored and on display at the AWM. It was the last remaining Australian built Mosquito in Australia, one of just three Mosquitos of any type remaining in the country and in my opinion was justifiably refused an export permit, (as it would under current laws).
Given its very poor condition at the time, and the apparant financial resources of the purchaser, and restoration technologies of the time, I suspect this airframe would have disappeared into a pile of firewood not unlike the celebrated Mexican Mosquito that graced “Air Classics” around the same time.
The former Marshall Airways DC-2 VH-CDZ ( a former KNILM dutch airliner which evacuated to Australia during WW2) was purchased on behalf of the Confederate Air Force with registration N8486D reserved, but again this aricraft was denied an export permit in the late 1970s under earlier laws, and became derelict under a planned Australian Wing of the Confederate Air Force. It is now owned by International Air Parts and stored under cover for long term restoration – At the time this export was denied 3 other former RAAF DC-2s existed in the Marshall Collection, althoough all were in much poorer condition and none had flown since WW2, were as CDZ was complete and had flown into the 1950’s. in my opinion it probably should have been permitted to be exported at that time, and under current law would probably have done so. (Ralph Cusack much later sold his former RAAF/Marhall A30-14 to the Dutch Dakota Association and a successful export was undertaken.
More recently in the 2000’s – and under the current Heritage Laws:
the Moorabbin Beaufighter was denied an export permit when the then committee sought to sell it overseas, an outcome I was personally involved in, and fully supported as it was the most complete of only two Australian built exampled surviving at that time in Australia.
and the former Terry Brain Avro Anson VH-BAF was denied an export permit, but that was overturned on appeal and the aircraft successfully exported to NZ, a decision I would support given the excellent static examples in Bull Creek, Camden, Tamworth and the South Australian Aviation Museum, despite it being the last airworthy example in Australia, it was a hybrid airframe of Mark I fuselage and mark XIX wings and tailplane.
As I said, I am not aware of any aircraft being left to rot by Customs? ie in their possession? nor am I aware of any aircraft which have been denied an export permit and have not eventually been preserved? or survive today in Australia? due to being subsequently left to rot.
Obviously the Mosquito came very close to not surviving due to inappropriate storage before, and after its export was denied, however that was due to its private owner and his contract with the transport company.
Unfortunately at this time NO Australian heritage laws can compel someone to protect or restore a heritage place or object, and listing can only prevent someone from intentionally destroying it, but those laws can not protect against neglect.
While I enjoy and support flying vintage an warbird aircraft, I do also support export limits on historic aircraft leaving Australia, that doesnt mean none can go, but does ensure they all dont go, and certain examples can never go.
The open “warbird” market has delivered some interesting aircraft to Australia’s shores, but many more “historic” have left Australia, the following ‘one offs’ probably should not have been permitted to be exported – the “Cabin” Genairco with Kermit Weeks, the Bristol Beaufighter Mark 1 (operational service with 30 Sqn) and Spitfire Mark V (operational service in the Defence of Darwin with 54 Sqn) with the USAF Museum, the Farman Shorthorn (operational service with the CFS at Point Cook) with the Canadian National Aviation Museum, the Seagull V (last surviving RAAF Seagull V) with the RAF Museum etc, few of any of these are flying?
The imported hordes of Nangchangs, Trojans, Harvards, UTI 15’s, L29/39, Bird-dogs and DragonFlies are not really historic aircraft of any relevence to Australia, they are enjoyable to watch but hold no place in Australia’s aviation heritage at all.
Even the flying Canberra and Meteor imported and based at Temora have no true Australian service provenance, despite their markings and colour schemes, nor do the HARS Constellation or PBY, although as types, and the markings they portray, do have a place in Australian aviation heritage.
However true heritage is far more than just “paint” skin deep, and is worth retaining “in the flesh” for future generations, otherwise we could survive with just paintings on the wall and high resolution JPEG’s on our screens, and let it all go overseas next time our economy hits the Banana Republic status.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
