[quote="JohnB"][quote="quemerford"]This is starting to feel like a TIGHAR thread; can anyone explain the issue with these Spitfires and/or Reevers? I'm not too good at Cryptic.[/quote]
I questioned some of their PR stuff, whoever does their posting here and in the other forum seem more focused on self promotion than warbird history.
As an example, [i]every[/i] post began with the group's name...every time. Hardly subtle and more like TIGHER than the low key approach taken by Vulcan or many other recovery groups.
Also, awhile back they were trumpeting a new B-17 "project", which I [i]undetstand[/i] is really nothing more than a box of parts (I would submit a box of parts may constitute a Spitfire project, not so a B-17 or other large type).
I don't know anything about their Spitfire projects...
However, based on an article in [i]FlyPast[/i] a year or so ago, they did a lot of work recovering a B-25 from some report place, so I'll gladly give them credit for that.
That's one more hulk than [i]I've[/i] recovered!
I wish them luck with it and hope they're on good terms with the B-25 specialists at Chino...they'll need a boxcar full of parts.[/quote]
Hi JohnB
sorry for missing this earlier but I have focussed on responding to the posts by Forrest.
I am not familiar with TIGHAR and their media practices but I do agree with some of your comments. Thanks for acknowledging our work on the B-25 which, if some do not know, was abandoned and rotting away prior to our (Reevers) recovery of its remains. The aircraft had been sold and was stripped of all its internal parts and fittings. The owner at that time was restoring another B-25 in South America and that was the most economical way for them to secure parts. For us it provided a great opportunity to bring a B-25, albeit incomplete, to Australia. A very touchy issue for many Australian Warbird enthusiasts, who feel, quite rightly I think, they had been robbed of a very nice B-25 that had been brought to Australia, added to the flying circuit then sold off without input, it seems, from any interested groups here. So Australia has gone from having a partial B-25, aka Hawg Mouth in the Darwin Aviation Centre to having our B-25J, Hawg Mouth and Mississippi Dream, being the wreck we recovered and a genuine Dutch Australian combat Vet. And I think this is the point I am trying to express here and please do not think I am trying to big note Reevers or something, just telling it how it is. We have and do communicate with the group at Chino and they played a very important part in getting our B-25 ready for its unveiling in 2017 when we combined that release with the celebration of the 75th year of the formation of the Dutch-Australian 18th Squadron, so we owe them a few beers.
So taking this point and applying it to our other efforts, including the B-17 'project'. You are correct in that the contents of this project would not fill a trailer, a semi trailer. It would fill a 20 foot shipping container tho and the term project maybe a cultural difference than anything else. Our B-17 project is to collect as much of this aircraft type as possible with the intention of displaying it or making it available to an Australian based B-17 historical group. So we are applying the same principal here as the B-25. In Australia at this present time, as best I know, there is no effort being made to establish a B-17 project here despite the type playing a significant role in the defence of Australia and despite there being quite a number of wrecks in our region. So our 'project' will continue to grow as we locate, recover, take possession of donations for etc. But we can say that we have provided the foundation for a potential rebuild project. This takes Australia's B-17 status from zero to, well something more than zero.
With regards to my responses to the Spitfire debate I can finish with this, a number of years ago, when I was a very new to this warbird recovery stuff I foolishly believed all collectors where nice people. I "loaned" some MkV Spitfire items to a well known collector here, so he could have them identified. This included a data plate bearing the serial of the aircraft. I know now I was dumb. Luckily for me you can identify a Spitfire from several locations and in several different ways. Please note I am not a Spitfire fan but there is a principal here. After requesting the return of my items, I was told "no" a deal had apparently been struck which was news to me. This was not the last time I did something dopey but I have learned. But this gets to why we or I am reluctant to publish specifics about our collections. We've had the old "no pics no plane' statements thrown at us and we can deal with that. We have also experienced having recovery sites stripped by people who have followed us and sadly we have been robbed by people who subscribe to the rule that possession is 9/10's of the law. In one case we had to take a colleague to Court to recover costs because they stole from us. But when people step into the public arena and make veiled statements about our activities etc, we must respond as I am sure many others here would agree because if you don't, then the written word, if not challenged, will become fact.
I would also like to point out that a search of this site will furnish other examples of dumb things not to do and other examples of people having issues with data plates etc so I know I am not alone.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
