Warbird Information Exchange

A question and a comment.

What is the Navy policy referenced in an earlier post? Does the USN block export of some or all warbirds of USN origin?

I think the US has lost its standing to claim these private warbirds as rare artifacts. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was the US that voluntarily destroyed most most of these warbirds.

How many B-17's were intentionally sent to boneyards andsubsequently scrapped? P-40's? P-51's?

Unless I misunderstand things, and I may, I am new, nobody has done more to cause a shortage of these planes than the United States.

Finally, I think if something is private property, it is private property. If the owner wants to fly it as a target drone, it's his or her business. It's their prerogative to set them on fire if it suits them.

I kinda like bringing planes to the US?

34

I cant really comment on the Canadian laws, but there has been no change in Australia's Moveable Cultural Heritage Laws, and they work quite well in terms of achieving the objective of ensuring a few examples of Australia's aviation heritage remain in Australia, either as representative examples, or as individual airframes of specific historical signficance.

The act limits the export of an airframe considered to be of individual national social/historical significance, ie Kingsford Smith's "Southern Cross", or where a type of historical significance is not preserved in at least two public collections.

Under this act Australia could easily loose all of its flying Boomerangs (2), Wirraways (6) and all of its flying CAC Mustangs(6) overseas through exhange rate advantages to oversea's buyers, leaving as a maximum legal requirement just 2 examples of each, (and those may be static?)

I would like to see the opinions of US citizens at some time in the future if the financial crisis resulted in an eventual transfer of wealth that risked no Mustangs being left flying in the USA and simply a total of two in the country in museums?

Or had national treasures like the Lindburgh Ryan (if it was in private ownership) simply being able to be sold out of country to the highest bidder with no limit or intervention by the Government on behalf of the people of the United States?

I think it is quite acceptable for a Nation to limit export of important historical objects from its shores, including aircraft, regardless of private ownership (by its own citizens or foreign purchasers).

I am not aware of any aircraft being lost to preservation or not in existance today, that was denied export permission from Australia?

The reverse is probably true, in that the Australian built Mosquito owned by a US buyer in the 1980's and left to rot in an open yard in Melbourne would have been unlikely to survive the shipping to the USA, or at the time been considered a viable "private" restoration and would be "as intact and preserved today" as the famed "Mexico City" Mosquito often reported in Air Classics in the 1970's.

Instead today that aircraft remains in Australia as the "ONLY" example in Australia of an AUSTRALIAN built Mosquito, fully restored and preserved indefinitely indoors in Australia's War Memorial.

The argument often made for open trade is the importing of aircraft to Australia balancing the exports from Australia.

However many of the "warbirds" imported into Australia are not of any great historical relevence to Australia, despite their interest at airshows and for joy riding.

We have @ 300 "Warbirds" operating in Australia, consisting of 33 different types, of which 122 have no relevence to Australian history at all, while a further 71 are examples of types with relevence but not actual airframes with any Australian provenance or links.

A further 92 are of direct Australian relevence or provenance with just 11 being imported.


types with litle or no historical relevence to Australia

@36 Stearmans
@5 L-29
@10 L-39
@11 Jet Provest/StrikeMaster
@34 Nanchungs
@14 T-28s
@4 Dragonfly's
2 Bosboks
1 B-26
1 Fiat G-59
4 Hunters
1 Spitfire XIV


@= 123 across 11 types

types with some historical association to Australia
but not airframes of any relevent individual service history
@4 L-5
@ 3 TBM's
@30 T6/Harvards
@ 4 "Sea" Furies (Bagdad Furies) (some came and gone)
@ 2 PBY Cats
@14 Birdogs
@ 2 P40's
@ 2 Vampires
1 Meteor
1 Canberra
1 A-20 (future)
1 B-25 (future)
1 B-25 - came and gone
1 P51 D
@ 4 Lim/Mig 15

= @ 71 relevent aircraft across 14 types

types with direct individual airframe association with Australia
1 Spitfire LF XVI
2 Beauforts (ex PNG) (static)
2 P-47's (ex PNG) - future
2 P40's (ex PNG)
2 Neptunes
1 P38 (ex PNG) static
1 Zero (Ex PNG) static

= @11 historically important example to regional/national heritage across 7 types


As compared with locally operated and sourced flying examples of types and individual aircraft of national or historic significance or importance

3 Avro Cadets
6 Wirraways
2 Boomerangs
6 CAC Mustangs
1 Beaufort (future)
1 Beaufighter (future)
1 Vampire
1 Neptune
2 C47s
1 Hudson
1 Spitfire HF VIII
1 Tracker
2 L-5
22 Winjeels
31 CT-4

@=81 Locally sourced relevent aircraft across 15 types

Since the 1960's when interest in Aircraft preservation commenced in Australia we have lost "at least" the following "Australian" historical aircraft:

1 Hudson (leaving 3 in Australia)
1 Farman Shorthorn, original airframe from CFS
(current only example in Australia is a part composite/reproduction)
1 Seagull V - last example in the world
1 Beaufighter Mk 1 (last example in the world)
1 Beaufighter Mk XI ( one of only two surviving)
1 Spitfire HF VIII (1 of only two Aust examples then in Australia)
1 Spitfire V
2 Wirraways'
1 Boomerang
1 Genairco Cabin Biplane
1 DH 84 Dragon
1 Avro Cadet
3 Zero's
1 Oscar
1 Anson (last "airworthy example")
Multiple Mustangs
Multiple Fireflies
Multiple Sea Furies
Multiple Spitfire "remains"

Attempted smuggling of Me 109G

The majority of these were lost prior to the introduction of the current laws designed to stop "last examples" of type, or "individually historic" or significant airframes from departing Australia.


We have a healthy flying Warbird population in Australia with some important locally sourced and imported examples and types, however many others are of little historical importance to Australia, (or perhaps elsewhere as well) and do not neccesarily equate to some of the unique aircraft exported and lost from Australia.

I think Australia's heritage laws operate quite well in the National interest of Australia in preservation of its heritage for future generations and do not overly inhibit free trade of warbirds (or risk their preservation) other than to restrict last examples of individual aircraft of significance.

I suspect most other nations and their populations would hope to achieve the same outcomes for their own heritage and future populations?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Can't comment on the Canadian, can you provide examples of Australian aircraft not getting the attention they deserve?

As well as Mark's comprehensive post, the Messerschmitt 109G in the Australian War Memorial was stopped from being exported; it is a historically valuable artefact with original paint, which would have been trashed by the restorer in question to fly. Probably with 'DA' on the side too.

Conversely the Oscar (now with Paul Allan) was preserved by an Australian private individual, restored in NZ before finding it's way to the USA. Again, best result, in all probability. Certainly a return to Japan wouldn't work for the best for that aircraft.

Meanwhile the prototype CAC Mustang was sold to the US due to a stupid restrictive Australian aviation requirement preventing its operation in Australia. Now it's just another tarted-up '51D', and a waste of an historic airframe.

On topic -
I'm always interested that "all my country's aircraft should be here" guys never seem to get the quid pro quo - all the types NOT native to them - say goodbye. What a dull world that would be.

Not only do you see different warbirds when you travel, you get to meet different warbirders and operations with the opportunity of trying new and interesting operations and stuff. There's no place like home, thankfully.

Just 2d.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I am greatful for the RAFM and NMUSAF respectively for preserving the Seagull V and Beaufighter Mk 1, and wonder their fates had they remained in Australia, but I do lament that Government collections in Australia, (including the AWM) hadnt been more active in building their collections at the time and didnt acquire these two for retention in Australia.

I agree things would be boring if we didnt have a warbird market, but also feel rare and significant examples should be in the land of relevance if at all possible, of course relevence can be in multiple countries, - where built, and where used, as in the Seagull V.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"