It's an interesting question, but without a simple answer, IMHO. Much of the speculation here's a bit inaccurate, or misleading, though some is heading in the right direction so I'll try comment where I can.
It's not really easy to give a clear answer, but I've been giving it a bit of thought, so here goes an attempt!
First point is very few types actually survive in significant numbers - if you consider that most successful warbirds were built in their thousands there's only a few - B-17, B-25, T-6 and P-51 survive in numbers counted in hundreds - most types survive in less than a hundred, and most of them in less than 50. That's quite appropriate, of course; they were built in a hurry, to do a job and were as already said, mostly obsolete by 1945, so they were turned into cans which were the next tool needed.
Second point is most surviving warbirds never saw front line service, or were produced after the Allies were winning. Much British production was consumed fighting the war - with the young men in them.
Third point is, as touched on, a secondary use is vital to bridge the danger period of primary obsolescence between being new and being worth preserving. While there were many available British bomber types for freighting etc, postwar, the western world was very much on a US engine and airframe landplane standard; British equipment wasn't preferred where a choice was possible.
Many of the 'obvious' reasons don't stack up when closely examined.
Quote:
Speculation
1. The British economy didn't have the need, or couldn't support them after the war?
Britain was effectively bankrupt by 1940. The US made a profit from the war. Loans from the US and Canada and Lend Lease were part of the answer, but in 1945, Britain had to 'export or die' to earn foreign currency. While there was no direct effect on aircraft recycling, there was no room for things not earning their keep. Even food was hard to find, rationing continuing to the 50s
Quote:
2. No civilian use, or difficult to convert to cargo types?
All three heavies, the Lancaster, Stirling and Halifax were converted to airliners or freight aircraft during or after the war. (The Lancaster begat the York, as well.) However Britain agreed to let the US produce dedicated transport types while Britain continued with military aircraft during the war. Britain couldn't produce airliners or transports as well as the crucial fighters, so for instance Fairey's four engined airliner that looked like an early Constellation was killed off in 1939 after getting to model wind-tunnel testing. The Connie and DC-4 as well as the C-47 were there to airliner and freight streight after the war - the British types were either conversions of inferior. The efforts of Britain's Brabazon Committee are a fine example of how wrong they could get post-war civil aircraft needs - only the de Havilland Dove was a significant success.
Quote:
3. Obsolete? Remember, they were first generation design four engine types as the US B-17 and B-24 were. Most of which were scraped after the war. Where as we kept the B-29 until about 1955, which was a second generation four engine type.
A good point about the generations, and the Lancaster's improved version, the Lincoln was produced in reasonable numbers. However they all served on in various roles after the war for at least five years.
Most surviving Lancasters are either French maritime reconnaissance examples, or Canadian, also used for maritime reconnaissance.
Quote:
Many of them where made from wood. Could that be a reason too?
Only the de Havilland Mosquito was made of wood. There were others with a wood component, but not major. Despite the expectation, a properly maintained wooden aircraft should have a significant life-span - certainly enough to match a metal aircraft's depreciation period. British light planes made from wood (Percivals and Miles) were grounded in the 1960s in Britain and Australia, and many scrapped due to glue issues. However that didn't apply to the bombers. Mosquitoes had a worthwhile postwar career in Canada, the UK and Australasia, including in Canada and Australia mapping much of both countries (Lancasters and B-17s also mapped Africa, and several survivors owe that second career to their current existence).
Quote:
I think they used the Wellington as a trainer and the Lancaster as a bomber for a while too. Remember the late 40's and 50's was an era of fantastic advances in aircraft design, as an example the jet engined aircraft. They also had some B-29s called the Washington, all were stop gap until the jet bombers came out.
Indeed, the last surviving Wellington is an ex- training aircraft. The Lancaster was replaced as a bomber by the Lincoln pretty much at the War's end and later supplemented by the Washington (B-29). Most Wellingtons built were consumed by the war, like Blenheims, as they were front line in 1939. On the US side, bear in mind the rarest Lockheed is the Hudson - the most widely used by different air forces - but in the tough, early days and they were used up.
Quote:
A few of the US bombers escaped the post war scrappers because they were suitable for civilian purposes such as fighting forest fires. Perhaps there wasn't a need for such aircraft in the UK.
There certainly wasn't and isn't!
So that generally stands up as one reason. Also, both B-17s and Lancasters survived because they were used as test airframes, for things like engines.
Quote:
Fortunatly we had Bill Larkins doing a fantastic job photographing and documenting many of our surplus fleets in AZ and CA. I have never seen any similar kinds of photos (at all!) of the vast surplus fleets of RAF A/C in the UK.
Because there weren't any. (The only example I can think of is a photo of lots of Airspeed Horsas in outside storage, rotting.) Generally the retired aircraft were reduced to produce and scrapped as soon as they were no longer useful. The US is the only country which has been able to park up large numbers of aircraft in a desert environment for possible future use. Most other nations don't have the facilities, or ability to lay up such things.
Quote:
The UK economy at the end of the war was in pretty rough shape, compared to the US and Canada. This had 2 results: the government down sized very quickly, with an emphasis on getting quick cash. This means a lot of aircraft were melted down very quickly, or sold to foreign governments
Correct, but worse than 'rough shape'. Even today most people don't realise how shattered the UK's economy was by the war's end.
Quote:
The other effect was a lack of free cash amongst the Brits, even the upper classes. Even if the government would sell a whole Lancaster, nobody had the money.
Pretty true. It had cost a lot, for everyone. I don't know average figures, but most Americans' lives in 1945 were far more 'comfortable' than the Briton's. Likewise those in the rest of the Commonwealth were better off.
Quote:
I suspect the government attitude towards registering warbirds didn't help. Even today, when Brits have the opportunity and the money, you see a lot of British owned warbirds on the US and South African registers.
I don't think registration was an issue at all; there were many ex-military aircraft registered from 1945 onwards in the UK, for various purposes. Certainly 'flags of convenience' registrations were not to avoid UK registration hassles in the UK up to the 1950s. There were several British based fighters and a couple of bombers on the US civil register in the 1980s, but they went onto the UK register when the CAA cracked down on it. There have never been any British based warbirds on the South African register I'm aware of.
I presume you mean the South African based ex-British jet fighters and bombers at
Thunder City, but they cannot fly those types (Buccaneers and EE Lightnings) in the UK on any register, a slightly different issue. The last flying Mosquito was owned by BAe (as was) and registered on the British Register. The Lancaster PA474 is a Royal Air Force aircraft and is therefore retaining its RAF serial. If you were able to find and restore a British bomber type to flight the UK CAA would be a challenge, but also the least of your problems.
Quote:
The farmers would then strip the airframes of useable parts and then use the metal for sheds, roofing, etc. Quite resourceful really, but not good for the preservation of warbirds.
UK farms are much smaller than those in N America and Australasia, Africa etc. While some aircraft bits were used on UK farms, there's less 'junkyards' where big aircraft bits can be left undisturbed on that little island so once bits were cannibalised, as common in the US and Commonwealth, fewer 'big' bits survived into preservation.
Quote:
The reason any former RAF/RCAF a/c ended up with the Indian AF is because of provisions in the original Lend Lease agreement between the USA & GB. A/C that were combat losses did not need to be paid for and the RAF/RCAF rendered many US supplied a/c unuseable at the end of the war...or so they thought. The Indian AF resurrected many of them.
Not quite correct as I understand it. Aircraft had to be returned or destroyed; 'combat losses' wasn't the deciding factor. To avoid the trouble of returning them (and I don't think the US was that bothered about having them back) many were destroyed; sometimes by tipping them over the sides of carriers, smelting, or rarely, damaging and leaving - The RAF in India left what they thought were thoroughly and deliberately ruined B-24s which the Indian Air Force were able to resuscitate. When they were retired, most were donated to museums - I guess about half the surviving B-24s are ex-IAF, and this shows the importance of a second 'life' to get from primary use to preservation.
Just some random thoughts, hope that helps, and I'm happy to be corrected!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
