Done

Mark Pilkington

Malcolm I’m not sure what your point is?

The “G” is supposedly not historically important itself?? due to problems in manufacturing quality, yet its not appropriate to display it in the colours of a “D”?

If the G is a Curtiss built D with only the cockpit paint being the identifiable difference its still an original WW2 P47 razor back Thunderbolt and I see no problem in putting it into combat colours even if it didnt fly in combat itself?

There are many P51’s flying in combat colours that never flew operationally, the same is true of many B25Js and N’s flying the warbird circuit?

If a warbird collector chooses to buy such an aircraft and display it in more colourful or “type representative colours” that really up to him, its his money, and while most “Warbird” collectors dont want to historically compromise their pride and joy too much, but they dont have the same ‘heritage” obligations as a National Collection? or Museum?

In fact there are many “mascarading” aircraft in Public and National Collections in any case.

Many warbirds go through various ID’s with a coat of paint and changes of owners in any case, much as is done with the BBMF Lancaster regularly, it creates the variety and interest along the airshow fence.

In regard to swapping a P47G for a Hurricane, again that would seem to be the owners perrogative, and it might simply be a fact a “new toy” or acquiring old “favourite”, I wish I had such problems to deal with!

regards

Mark Pilkington

Oscar,

While there was a lot of interest in the outcome of the Lincoln coming to Australia, that did not translate from wishes of “good luck” to cheques in the post or “money in the bank”, despite ongoing calls for donations.

Perhaps some people were holding off assuming their funds were’nt needed as others would donate, or perhaps there was a view the project wouldnt succeed and their funds would be wasted, but in either case many funds offered initially, never actually arrived.

While we received the generous support of a few individuals and groups to allow us to reach the first installment amount, the rate and level of donations did not give our committee confidence the second installment could be raised in the time line committed.

Consequently our group was unable to meet the deadlines set down in the agreement with the owner, of first installment of deposit by end of September 2005 (and extended to October), and second installment by end of January 2006, and consequently we withdrew from proceeding with that arrangement as it would have resulted in the first installment of the deposit simply being forfeited outright.

Our option to purchase has therefore expired, and others have now been making bids from elsewhere for the Lancaster and Lincoln seperately to remain in the UK or go elsewhere other than Australia.

We have put an alternative proposal to the seller in the hope to extend our payment periods more in line with the level of fundraising support shown so far, however at this stage unless that alternative proposal is acceptable, and the level of donations dramatically increase, it is most likely this project to recover the Lincoln to Australia will not proceed.

Our Group in that instance will be refunding the moneys so far donated, rather than issuing receipts for tax deductable donations.

It is most likely the future of the project will be finalised one way or another by the end of March.

The equation remains as before, if people are interested in supporting this outcome then the only way it will be achieved will be through hip pocket support.

This problem exists for all such projects, if Australian Aviation Enthusiasts want to see a Lincoln preserved in Australia this is the last opportunity for that to happen.

Thanks to those who have financially supported the project at this time, and thanks also to Bruce for surveying and photographing the components for us.

Please feel free to cut and paste this information and email it widely.

regards

Mark Pilkington

DONATION METHODS

Cash/Cheque/Money Order Donation within Australia

Donation by mail of Cheque or money Order,
Please post with details of your name and address for tax receipt

OUR POSTAL ADDRESS FOR DONATIONS:

Avro Bomber Preservation Association Inc
PO Box 176
LARA 3212
Victoria AUSTRALIA
Please provide details of name and address for donation receipting.

Over the counter at ANY Westpac Branch
Donation of Cheque/ money order or Cash by Account Deposit

Anyone can complete a normal Westpac Deposit form and lodge over the counter in any Westpac Branch, complete the deposit name details as well as filling your name and address and amount deposited on the Deposit Slip Butt, and when stamped on deposit, please mail the deposit butt stub to our postal address to allow us to match deposits in the statement to your donation for receipting purposes. See account details below!

EFT or Bank Transfer Donation within Australia/Overseas

Electronic Funds Transfer by online banking “Pay Anyone”,&“other bank “over the counter

For EFT Please cut and paste copy of online transaction receipt into an email to: [email]avro_bomber_assn@hotmail.com[/email]

For Other Bank over the counter, please request Bank transaction statement and post to our PO Box 176 in Lara 3212 Victoria Australia.

OUR BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS

BANK:
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
360 COLLINS STREET
MELBOURNE 3001 Victoria AUSTRALIA

ACCOUNT NAME:
AVRO BOMBER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION

BANKING NUMBERS:
BSB NUMBER : 033065
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 255339

Oscar Duck and all

At this stage the project is stalled due to an “underwhelming” level of donations being received, despite the significant donations by a small number of people we did not reach our fundraising targets.

We are however still in contact with the seller and we are hopeful that the recent coverage in many magazines etc might lift the donations, and that many earlier promised donations may still yet materialise, but without the donations and support of the wider population of Australian Avation Enthusiasts this rare opportunity will be lost.

For those who do take an interest in this project, please cut and paste these details, circulate this to as many friends/collegues as possible, and consider making a donation, your efforts can make a difference!

(Thanks to Key Publishing and the moderators for tolerating this campaign, Thanks also to Bruce Gordon for his significant support on the ground in the UK)

Thanks to those who did donate, we have not yet issued tax receipts due to the uncertainty facing the project at this point.

If we do not gain sufficient support in this fundraising drive to reach the deposit target or be confidently able to proceed to full purchase, we will not proceed and return all moneys to the donors.

If we do proceed we will as a registered charitable institution issue receipts to all donors and continue with ongoing fundraising towards our second instalment and 12 month progressive payments.

Future fundraising will open up to lower donations below $50, and pledge payments based on $1/day arrangements.

We would welcome anyone collecting monies on our behalf and ask that they use the attached form to record the names, addresses and details of donation amount and forward these records and payment to us urgently by any means available.

The simplest method of lodging a donation to us, is to make an over the counter or online EFT transfer direct into our Bank Account.

Over the counter bank deposits of cash, cheque or money order is available to any person by simply entering any Westpac branch and completing and lodging a standard manual deposit slip, please remember to identify any donations with your name and provide an email or postal copy of your records of transaction so we can return unspent monies, or provide a tax certified receipt of donation!

Westpac Branches are normally open until 4.30 – 5pm weekdays and many are open until 12 midday on Saturday, please take the opportunity to make a donation this coming Saturday morning 24th of September before we loose this wonderful opportunity.

Please call or email if you propose an alternative payment method such as Paypal?

regards

Mark Pilkington
Chairman AH 61 3 – 52821847
Mobile 0418 174 957

WEBSITE
http://aarg.com.au/Avro_group.htm

ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD
http://groups.msn.com/AvroBomberPreservationAssociation/_whatsnew.msnw

DONATION METHODS

Cash/Cheque/Money Order Donation within Australia

Donation by mail of Cheque or money Order,

Please post by last mail on Thursday 22st of September to provide time for delivery and cheque clearing of funds into the Association Account.

with details of your name and address for tax receipt

OUR POSTAL ADDRESS FOR DONATIONS:

Avro Bomber Preservation Association Inc

PO Box 176

LARA 3212

Victoria AUSTRALIA

Please provide details of name and address for donation receipting.

Over the counter at ANY Westpac Branch
Donation of Cheque/ money order or Cash by Account Deposit

Anyone can complete a normal Westpac Deposit form and lodge over the counter in any Westpac Branch, complete the deposit name details as well as filling your name and address and amount deposited on the Deposit Slip Butt, and when stamped on deposit, please mail the deposit butt stub to our postal address to allow us to match deposits in the statement to your donation for receipting purposes. See account details below!

EFT or Bank Transfer Donation within Australia/Overseas

Electronic Funds Transfer by online banking “Pay Anyone”,&“other bank “over the counter

For EFT Please cut and paste copy of online transaction receipt into an email to: avro_bomber_assn@hotmail.com

For Other Bank over the counter, please request Bank transaction statement and post to our PO Box 176 in Lara 3212 Victoria Australia.

OUR BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS

BANK:
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
360 COLLINS STREET
MELBOURNE 3001 Victoria AUSTRALIA

ACCOUNT NAME:
AVRO BOMBER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION

BANKING NUMBERS:
BSB NUMBER : 033065
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 25 5339

Mark 12,

I agree the B24 swap was an excellent outcome for everyone, I think the American Air Museum at Duxford is a very appropriate display given the role of US forces in the European theatre, in fact I’m surprised the US Government didnt simply put US owned aricraft on permanent exhibit, it really is “their” museum?

(perhaps thats tha answer in PNG as well for the US Government to recover rare specimans’ like “swamp ghost”, B-24, etc, restore them and create a American Air Museum in the South West Pacific theatre??)

Obviously Australian museum’s had their chance to object to the export of Ian’s mk V and to seek the heritage funding of its retention, so I am not complaining about the end outcome, perhaps more at the internal processes in Australia where the opinion of one expert can have such an impact without review or question.

There have been a number of strange exports from Australia as John points out, however the main issue is that the bulk of transfers world wide are finding homes for aircraft in either static or flying condition which promise more long term care and preservation, and is also resulting in a market where parts and wreckage previously written off as worthless are finding value and use.

regards

Mark P

Mark12 and Setter

I had a lot of exposure to MV863/A58-246 over the years and assisted Ian Whitney recover it from storage at Pearce Dunn’s Warbirds Museum in Mildura in the 1970’s and assisted at times and witnessed its restoration at Point Cook and other sites including Ian’s own workshop.

Many of the rear fuselage frames and skins were patterned from Ian’s previous work on Peter Sledge’s ex SAAF mark IX restoration where appropriate, and the aircraft started as an intact fuselage tub and set of wings as stated earlier, that had been collected by Dick Hourigan from the Nhill area in Victoria.

I consider the rebuilt aircraft retained the provenance and ID of A56-246 given the amount of original fuselage and wings in the project, however it was interesting to the note that the expert examiner (from the AWM I believe?) used for the export permit, considered it was not sufficiently original to deny it an export permit from Australia.

Given it was one of only two restored Mark V ex RAAF aircraft left in Australia, with known service in the defence of Darwin, it was quite surprising that it was not recognised for its true worth, and was permitted to be exported, even worse was the indignity of having a combat veteran of the SWPA and RAAF end up in the USAF Museum to impersonate a European American service record.

It would have been far more appropriate for it to be denied an export permit, and the Heritage protection fund used to purchase it for the collection of the RAAF Museum.

Although I consider this aircraft did have provenence of its identity, it did carry a significant amount of new metal frames and skins that probably amounted to over 60% of the fuselage by length if not weight?

I would agree with John that there are a number of “rebuilt” aircraft that are more correctly “new manufactures”, with some P40’s now only utilising the two fuselage longerons from original manufacture and new metal in both frames and skins, and now near new wings being built, the P51 “productions” has already got to the point where a near new metal aircraft is being produced, while obviously new wood mosquito’s are now a reality as well.

I really dont think the argument of grandfathers axe with 2 new heads and 3 new handles holds up for that item’s provenance, let alone aircraft?

There are the Yaks, Oscars, FW190’s and Me262’s which are wonderful recreations of long lost flying types but clearly not in any way “originals”.

Clearly for many years (in the US particularly) there was a transfer of aircraft ID’s in the Mustang and Sea Fury rebuilds for what ever reason with much confusion as to how many aircraft could either be consumed, or utilised in various rebuilds, creating uncertainty to the true identity of some restorations.

The Warbird “Industry” we all enjoy has taken the role of historic aircraft restoration out of the “toys for the boys” environment of simply painting up a civilianised ex-military aircraft, into the realm of accurate, and meticulous “recreation” of equipment fitout, and complete “rebirth” of some types.

However that same industry needs to mature into a full heritage participant by documenting the level of “original” restored versus “new build” parts for both safety regulators and as information for future generations and owners.

In regard to a flying aircraft, I dont believe the low % provenance will cause too many flying aircaft to be “under valued” or “unable to trade” on behalf of their restorers or owners, the same can be said of the new build aircraft such as the Me 262’s.

It will however put a higher premium on those aircraft still carrying most of their original parts, either in static or flying condition, but so it should.

There are many aircraft composed on refurbished parts sourced from different airframes and restored to carry the id of the fuselage etc, and these would carry significant provenance because of that and remain as an “original” aircraft of its type, but perhaps not really carrying the full provenance of the fuselage’s own history?

But to put forward a 30 to 50% new metal aircraft ,even A58-246, as “all original” would be misleading, to put a near 90% new metal aircraft as an “original” that has been “rebuilt” or “restored” is certainly “fraudulent” if compared with the treatment of original art works etc in other restoration/heritage industries, even the automotive collections.

The “Warbird” industry needs to adopt and strengthen its compliance with these standards to ensure Firefly’s with Lancaster Engines and cowls, and P40’s with T6 tailplanes are a thing of the past!

I am not sure how this can be self regulated? but perhaps there is a need for the industry to develop some guidelines and appropriate terminology?

I know there is agreed Museum/Arts world terminology for:

Conservation/Preservation
Restoration
Replica
Reproduction
Full Scale Model

These are referred to In the recent book on the history of the British Aircraft Preservation Council as well as the book on aircraft restoration published by the curator of the Smithonian.

Perhaps, what we are now seeing is the need for a term and definition of:
“Recreation” with a % content of original parts or ID? to cover what is effectively re-manufacture? of whole types, or individual examples?

its an interesting debate and topic.

regards

Mark P

Dave,

I think there are two suttle differences between the treatment of modern (ww2) aviation wrecks and the Mary Rose in terms of war graves, firstly the Mary Rose is over 400 years old, so family links are distant, but it also comes from a period where crew records, or even family/society records makes it difficult to confirm any such links,

Secondly the Mary Rose is being conserved and preserved in its entirety inclusive of the crew remains in an archealogical approach, where as the current approach to war grave wrecks is often to liberate the parts for restoration and use in rebuilds where the orginal identity of the parts may become lost and the links to the crew who were lost in the fatality are lost totally, or to rebuild the aircraft the aircraft to fly with significant new metal etc simply to transfer providence, rather than preserve its true history intact.

I think in time aviation wrecks will be subject to similar approaches when most of the war related generations (peer, and direct decendants) have past, but then the wrecks will be of more interest as time capsules rather than just spare parts and in any case of little use for that purpose as unfortunately by that time much of their structures will be rotted away, as has half of the Mary Rose?

Again there is a need for the NHAC to revise its own policy on recovery and display of viable objects before they become cost prohibitative.

regards

Mark P