Rob,

My earlier post was simply to say that with the decision made by the City of Calgary the need to grill to Richard was a bit pointless.

This is why I ask how the City has the airframes listed not if they plan on selling them now or latter. maybe the first thing you folks should do is to make sure the City has listed them and if they wish not to then ask why.

Most heritage laws, particularly local government and State Government, have been framed around “built heritage” rather than “moveable cultural heritage” hence at this point they are filled with heritage buildings and places, and not cars and aircraft. This situation is slowly changing as those heritage “authorities” expand their roles and areas of knowledge and interest.

In Australia we have seen the B24 listed by the National Trust, and a number of aircraft are now under consideration for listing on the Victorian Heritage Register.

In Australia our peak Heritage List is the National Heritage List, however our moveable cultural protection laws, the ones which control exports, do not require an object to be listed on any heritage list to have it prevented from being exported. I suspect this is the same situation in Canada.

By the way it was explain to me was say I lived in Ottawa and want to purchase the Mossie I could being that I live in Ottawa there would be nothing that Heritage Canada could do to stop the sell.

Then I ask well what if I decide after a few years I want to sell it to say an American Collector they told me that under Heritage Canada Laws that it would be very hard for them to stop a private person selling there personal items.

Similarly the local/state or National heritage listings do not stop a current owner selling his object/place or building to someone else – even an “American Collector” – neither do our moveable cultural heritage laws, it is the prevention of export permits that causes the problem – not a prevention of ownership. Again I suspect this is the same situation in Canada.

I think the Heritage Canada answers you received do not in anyway undermine the likelihood that the Mossie would face export restrictions from Canada?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Ross,

the recently recovered Proctor Mk III G-AKEX appears to have suffered some fuselage damage in transit with photos posted in an earlier KP thread showing new holes in the rear fuselage and bracing added to avoid further damage, I wonder if in its current state it might offer easy access for all the photos you are seeking?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76545&highlight=proctor

Otherwise if you can confirm how the photos are accessed via inspection panels I can explore photos of VH-AUC at the Museum at Moorabbin, (or chase up access to DUL with Maurice?)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Rob,

I think you are a flogging a dead horse here, the current situation seems to be that the owners of the aircraft – the City of Calgary, have rejected the museum board’s proposal to sell the Mosquito, it is their property and therefore their decision.

(I suspect this is the stage the previous sale attempt reached, before also being vetoed by the City itself, – if the aircraft belong to the City rather than the Museum board, then a contract of sale cant be enforced on a body that has no rights of ownership.)

Richard has made it clear he was involved in the setting up of the museum, and available to assist in future operations, but that all of that is awaiting the museum’s AGM?, outcome of a City review into way’s the museum can be assisted, and the response to this decision by the current Museum board.

It is also clear that Richard has played a role in the opposition to this sale, but that is his right to do so.

I dont think Richard, or more importantly the City of Calgary need to defend their storage methods, or previous disposals? to justify them keeping their own aircraft?

In fact I think Richard has pointed to past sales being largely due to funding the operating costs of the museum rather than due to decisions on relevence to the collection, or capability to restore the aircraft.

What hopefully does come from this is a long term strategy and solution to the museum’s operations and restoration resources?

I would be perfectly happy to see the City of Calgary retain and restore both the Mossie and the Hurricane, and with the restoration offer from Nanton or additional funding from the City itself the museum would seem to be capable of achieving that.

The Calgary collection is quite impressive, covering:

WW1 with a replica Sopwith Triplane,

WW2 with Lancaster Mk X, Tigermoth, Anson, Harvard, Cessna Crane, Auster III,

Post War Military
CF100, CF101, Vampire, F86

Civilian Aircraft
Beech 18, Norseman, DC3, Twin Otter, and a couple of Wacos.

http://www.asmac.ab.ca/html/aircraft.html

The retention of both the Hurricane and Mosquito would seem to be quite relevent to the Calgary collection, while this Mosquito is of UK production, the type, along with the Lancaster and Hurricane, is one of three wartime production types built in Canada during WW2.

The same three types are also three of the most significant flown by Canadian EATS or “RAF” Squadrons in combat in Europe, regardless of where the airframes were built.

This particular aircraft also has an appropriate Canadian history relating to its important work in aerial mapping with Spartans, and given the other examples in Military finish, it would be quite appropriate, and refreshing to see it restored in its civil guise (and possibly the only Mossie to do so?)

I think a “restore and display” lease arrangement with Nanton, where the Mossie, (and the hurricane?) were both lent to Nanton under a bonefide project managed restoration by the Nanton Volunteers, and retained for display at Nanton for an agreed period of time – (20 years?) before return to Calgary, could resolve all of the concerns about storage, restoration, public access and display, and retention within the Calgary collection could be thereby achieved at a relatively low cost? to the museum and the City of Calgary.

Such “Restore,Retain and Return” loans between museums seem quite an appropriate tool to use.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

This is indeed great news, and the CAF deserve all our support for undertaking the responsibilities of keeping such aircraft in the air for us to all to see.

I know the CAF has copped its share of criticism over the years, and I am not in a position to defend nor judge them on those issues.

But from afar over here in Australia, and from my own point of view, the CAF is seen to do a wonderful job, and without its early efforts in the 1950s and 60’s I wonder how many of these particular aircraft would have survived and indeed what the modern “Warbird” movement would look like today had the group not existed.

While the 1960’s Battle of Britain film may have saved a number of Spitfires and spanish ‘109’s and He111’s for posterity and flying operations, and certainly re-envigorated an interest in these wartime aircraft, I understand the CAF played a major role in supporting the flying etc, the same I understand is true of the Tora Tora movies, and without the full size flying aircraft the movies would have been a poor presentation of their respective stories, and perhaps had little effect on the interest in Warbirds.

Despite all that and in any case, I feel that while others have since worked to establish flying examples of the B24 and B29 – and many other rare and exotic aircraft, it is certainly hats of to the CAF to have taken on both, and achieved it, and all the other aircraft, along with being a pioneer and flag ship to the warbird movement world wide, all on a volunteer, not for profit basis.

I certainly feel they deserve all of our support and thanks

I personally hope to get over when the B29 is back in the air, and visit Fifi, ‘Lil, and Gary!

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Mondariz,

One you could go looking for is a complete B24 sitting on a high mountain plateau in SEA (Indonesia I believe).

I saw it in on the net many years ago in a poor aerial photo and associated article, with its rear fuselage broken off and near by, but largely intact and remote from scrappers etc.

Since that time I have been unable to find reference to it or photos elsewhere, and wonder if leads to it can be found, and it be searched for via GE.

Does anyone else – (rob?) recall this wreck?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
This thread has been an interesting and thought provoking debate of the merits of using GE in aiding wreckology and recoveries.

There has been polite but vigorous debate about the issues, benefits and likely successes, all in good manners, and recognition that there is no harm in trying.

It is therefore dis-appointing to see a P3 pissing competition develop well away from the topic and debate of this interesting thread.

If a P3 was, or was not used in the Steve Fossett search, and its usefulness or otherwise is of little relevence here.

The reference to the Fossett search was in relation to the use of GE, and obviously it was considered a worthwhile tool to try and use.

It may or may not have “found” a wreck, or at least identified an anomoly? and it may or may not find a wreck in the Pacific.

It is simply another tool like underwater side scans, that may assist in the search for a known or suspected wreck.

It has its obvious limitations and it will be seen as to what true role it can play, but thankyou to Mondariz for creating an armchair debate, for armchair enthusiasts to consider an armchair method of becoming involved.

Hopefully our vigorous challenges and debate is not seen to be, or allowed to become a pissing competition.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Mondariz,

I think we all agree that if you restrict your search to areas where known losses are listed you may well find something new, but finding that wreck in the Russian wilderness via GE scanning would still be like finding a needle in a haystack IMHO.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The Japanese runway on Tarawa was parallel to the beach, the current one was originally only a taxiway. Can you see the coastal defence guns that are still in place on the eastern and western points of the island? I don’t have GE.
Paul

Perhaps then this is the real value that GE could be put to, rather than endlessly searching the wider pacific landscape, undertake a project to establish a website of GE images of Japanese and Allied airfields, with natural and “enhanced” images, and other support data as an online resource and historical record.

The “Enhanced” image could overlay the original layout of taxiways / revetments, runways, buildings, workshops, fuel dumps, repair yards. This would require a bit of work to use the GPS co-ords on the the GE images against accurate wartime scale maps, but the outcome would be of great use in a number of ways:

1. anomolies at the site could be interpreted relative to the historical land use, ie is it a building remains or possible aircraft part – your intended purpose.

2. Tourist or other visitors could orientate the current landscape against the historical landscape, adding to the interest etc of a visit, regardless of the purpose.

3. Forms an historical/ heritage study resource in its own right, ie understand where the historical boundaries of Clark Field in the Philippines, or Jacksons Field in Port Morseby PNG were, regadless of current redevelopment etc, even though there is no “warbird” recovery aspects to such information it is a valuable historical tool.

4. Provides an online historical and tourism resource for the Pacific Islands involved, who might then become a bit more actively involved in preserving some of the remaining relics? – perhaps even providing images of relics still remaining, (and helping to identify the anomolies found??)

The GE images, together with the mapped overlays could then be supported with historical photos of the base during the war and a short history of operations, creating an online resource for all of the above outcomes, and still creating the opportunity to trip over something of interest in the process?

Such a project may enlist far more helpers willing to take on research and publishing of individual “airfields” as their own projects, all on the one website.

I do agree with other comments that the existing “Wreckologists” have a fair idea what is out there, and know the hot spots to still look in, historically know where the dumps were, or where the scrappers didnt get to, I dont see GE being of much interest to them as they have access to local resources to undertake on the ground or in the air investigations.

But GE can be used to provide more information on the web on these battlegrounds, and to encourage further presevation of what is left.

Regards

Mark Pilkington