Warbird Information Exchange

I am hoping one of you guys can help.I believe that the me 109 in Australia was sold to a buyer from the uk in the late 70's packed up and sent for export. The Australian customs stopped the export and returned it to the museum.

Can any of you tell me who the buyer was and what the reasons for stopping the sale and export were.

Many Thanks

Buyer was Doug Arnolds' 'Warbirds of Great Britain' . Customs stopped the export due to false documentation which tried to describe the aircraft as something it wasn't [ ie less valuable ].

Dave

Thanks Dave

Hi Ben

To add a little detail to which I was a small part.

The aircraft was refused an export order as it was of historical significance as was a Spitfire (which did get exported illegally) and a CAC Mustang which was also held up. Various complex and vague heritage legislation prevents the export of various artifacts from Australia and this coupled with the fact that a very dodgy exercise was carried out in this case saw two of the three aircraft intercepted prior to export.

To my view the legislation is only unevenly applied so some aircraft which should have been stayed here haven't and some have which were of less importance have.

The Me109 is on display at the AWM and the Mustang wound up at Point Cook RAAFM but was recently traded to a collector in Victoria as they still have two!!

I feel this legislation should apply to the Kingfisher and Vengance in Western Australia but it will be interesting to see if this takes place.

I might add that I do not necessarilly think this legislation is a good thing all the time especially given the haphazard application in the past. I would prefer some sort of arbitration process in each case.

My view only.

Kindest regards
John

you are not alone John. I also think the kingfisher and vengeance should stay especially as the RAAF museum has neither and I too think the legislation needs a rethink.

_________________
Jeff

Re Aust. export restrictions, the provisions of the Australian Moveable Cultural Heritage Act (1986) essentially were designed as just that, a restriction rather than a blanket embargo, and that restriction is designed to allow the local market, access to the artefact before reading that it left in a container the day before. Every country has some treasures that the people would prefer to stay where they can still see and enjoy it. Australia went through a period of having the eyes picked out of the vintage/warbird market with the last examples of some machines being sent off-shore without the local market knowing they were even for sale. That has all changed now, the global vintage/warbird scene is far more balanced than it used to be and the legislation is, in many cases, redundant. The Kingfisher and Vengeance in Western Australia are cases in point in which these very rare machines were listed as APO's (Australian Protected Objects). If there was no interest at all from within Australia, they would probably have been allowed to be sold off shore. Much has been said about the Australian export embargo but the reality is that most old aeroplane export applications have been granted and many Aust aircraft have left for other shores in recent years to match the other interesting aircraft coming in.
The Bf 109G-6 around which this thread began, is of course now on display at last in the new ANZAC Hall at the AWM, Canberra.
Cheers,
GMO

Was Spitfire MV154 an illegal export?

I thought it was just an 'imaginative' description of the content of the container that reflected exactly the last entry on the aircraft movement card.

With the influx of Spitfires to Australia from Thailand, South Africa and the UK at the time of the Me109/Mustang debacle, it was projected that if the then legislation as written was applied 'ad infinitum', and the intake rate maintained, all the Spitfires in the World would be land locked in Australia by 2015.

Another problem seems to be the legislation to restrict/ban the movement of historic artifacts out of certain states - particularly Northern Territory. There are Spitfire wrecks there that now have Aboriginal significance that cannot be moved. Lost on me I am afraid.

You have to take a balanced view here but you can't welcome Warbird imports on one hand, piecemeal, and restrict exports on the other.

PeterA

I agree that absolute rulings are absolutely crazy, but it is also true that most of us complain about aircraft leaving our respective countries and welcome those leaving other countries for ours.

Gregory

I can remember seeing this aircraft back in 1995 when it was still disassembled and stored in the Treloar Warfare Technology Centre (the annex to the war memorial).

I knew the history of how there had been an attempt to smuggle this aircraft out of the country with a P51 under a description that listed the inventory as 2 P51s, apparently only a sharp eyed Customs official, who was a warbird aficianado stopped the export.

But the thing that struck mw when I saw her was that apparently as part of the attempt the ME109 had been covered with some sort of silver plastic finish which there were still scraps of on the airframe when I saw her, notably on the spinner and propellor blades.

regards

Tom

Sharp eyed Customs official? Who is kidding who?

I seem to recall at the time that it was staked out and the several movements of the aircraft locally within Australia were being monitored constantly by a suspicious and respected historian.

PeterA

Hi to all on this thread

Well this has the potential to stir things along.

Firstly I believe that the Spitfire was illegally exported because it was done under fraudulent circumstances and in the light of the later court case this was borne out. I don't believe that it shouldn't have gone to the UK just that it was done wrongly

Secondly I conceed that the export legislation is not a good solution as Peter you quite rightly point out a lot of Spitfires came and went so I have no real problem with that. What riles me is aircraft such as the 109 that is still here and the Oscar which was the sole surviving complete aircraft to attack Australia and left the country. I believe as I said the solution is to look at each case on it's merits and determine what should happen.

I have for instance a view that the Vengance could leave if a good home can't be found here as we already have an example with Harold Thomas. The Kingfisher I would not allow as it is the last known Australian example and is of "signifigance' as such.

I also argee with most of Graham Orphan's coments except that I still don't think we have got it right about individual aircraft as stated above the Oscar should not have gone and the other Oscar remains that turned up in the UK were perhaps aircraft that should have stayed here as well as the Zero at Duxford and perhaps the Mk1 Beaufighter (on rarity not Beaufighters in general as I think the one at Duxford was fine).

All of this is opinion but on anyone looking at it objectivly must wonder about such a system and how some of the outcomes are arrived at.

Anyway just my opinion.

Kindest regards
john parker

_________________
Air Vice Marshall
Sunshine State Air Farce

John,

..."should have stayed here" - here being Australia?

Surely the recent influx to the UK of Oscars for the Hunt brothers are from the Kurile Island - Russia.

PeterA

Peter

I believe John was referring to the Oscar that 'went' from the AWM to Steven Greys' TFC.

Dave

Didn't Robs Lamplough export MV154 as a "40' container of used aluminium sheets and strips"? I know when I look at the scrap aluminium in my shed I 'imagine' that it is a Spitfire.


Rob, Governments do this all the time. Can you drive your own car in Maine without the Government granting you permission first?
Governments have a duty to not only protect their citizens, but also protect their cultural heritage and history. One way that governments do this is to restrict the movement of items with historical significance. I think the Australian approach seems reasonable. If such an item currently in private hands becomes available, then the local market gets first crack at it. If the locals value the item enough, they will cough up the cash to keep it. They can do this either through paying out of their own money, or convincing the government to use taxpayers funds (still their own money) to keep it in the country. It's the 'putting your money where your mouth is' principle at work.
In addition to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act there was a fund created called the National Cultural Heritage Fund which was supposed to buy significant items as they became available and move them from private hands into public hands. If I recall correctly, no money was ever allocated to this fund, and no items ever purchased. This is where the system falls down.

As for the Bf109 being exported as a P-51, that was not the case. The Bf-109 was sprayed in Spraylat for protection (which gave it a silver finish) and was being exported as "aircraft parts", which seems a valid description considering that
a: this was the common description for disassembled aircraft
b: the aircraft was a hulk, or at least significantly distant from being airworthy
c: the aircraft had been sold as scrap by the AWM
d: the aircraft had never flown in Australia
e: the aircraft never had a civilian identity
f: it was illegal to fly ex-military aircraft in Australia at the time, so it could not have been registered as an aircraft anyway.

Customs were alerted to the export by local historians, concerned that an item of significance was being exported. Advising Customs that some skullduggery was afoot with regard to exporting the Bf-109 as a Mustang (which I understand did have the correct paperwork for export) resulted in Customs seizing both aircraft.

It is worth noting that the Bf-109 still does not meet the criteria as an aircraft that would be denied an export certificate. To meet the criteria it would need to have an association with an Australian event or personality. The Bf-109 might be 'representative' of an aircraft that meets that criteria, but this particular individual aircraft does not.

To those that decry the potential export of their favourite aircraft type from their chores, I suggest you initiate (or join) a campaign to raise the necessary funds to purchase, maintain and display the aircraft before someone else does.

Wow, that went on way longer than I expected.

Sorry.

Brett

Brett

It is my understanding the 109 was sold as there was no space for it at the AWM at the time , I haven't seen any reference to them regarding it as 'scrap' . As far as it being relevant to Australia , perhaps the AWM might want to swap it with Black 6 at the RAFM which was captured by Oz troops...then again , it is one of the few ..if not the only , Luftwaffe aircraft extant today that has totally original paint work...so IMHO it would be a raw deal ;-0

Dave