Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:49 am
Maybe I'm oput of line with the business acument statement with respect to the locals- that should be directed towards the government and their planners.
I guess my point is that they don't have the infrastucture to support tours to the old wrecks or even the maintenance of them. Better to get some cash now then try to sell piles of aluminum oxide powder later. Just like in any third world country though, ownership is never clearly documented. Everyone lays claim to try to get their piece of the pie.
Had they the infrastructure and political stability, airplane wrecks would never be a significant draw. If anything the draw now is people looking to do recoveries, searching for MIAs, etc. which isn't much and declines with time.
It is the old time value of money calculation at work again. Do you have a few tour guides making money showing a few people a year around for a few remaining years until they disappear, the artifacts being less recognizable and less of a draw as time goes on, or do you sell them now for a (relatively speaking) windfall?
If they could get their act together they could have an island paradise filled with tourists. Old decaying aircraft, of which even I have a limited interest, do not provide a sufficient return on investment in the scheme of things to even bother with. A clean beach with a few well placed huts a la Gilligan's Island would attract far more investment.
I guess my point is that they don't have the infrastucture to support tours to the old wrecks or even the maintenance of them. Better to get some cash now then try to sell piles of aluminum oxide powder later. Just like in any third world country though, ownership is never clearly documented. Everyone lays claim to try to get their piece of the pie.
Had they the infrastructure and political stability, airplane wrecks would never be a significant draw. If anything the draw now is people looking to do recoveries, searching for MIAs, etc. which isn't much and declines with time.
It is the old time value of money calculation at work again. Do you have a few tour guides making money showing a few people a year around for a few remaining years until they disappear, the artifacts being less recognizable and less of a draw as time goes on, or do you sell them now for a (relatively speaking) windfall?
If they could get their act together they could have an island paradise filled with tourists. Old decaying aircraft, of which even I have a limited interest, do not provide a sufficient return on investment in the scheme of things to even bother with. A clean beach with a few well placed huts a la Gilligan's Island would attract far more investment.
Last edited by bdk on Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:56 am
bdk wrote:I guess my point is that they don't have the infrastucture to support tours to the old wrecks or even maintenance of them. Better to get some cash now then try to sell piles of aluminum oxide powder later.
Fair points, bdk. However, I believe that Swap Ghost was better off where she was than where she is now. The main risk to Swamp Ghost was souveniring by westerners, not environmental decay. The calculations of the recovery viability was wrong - not a surprise to anyone who has ever tried to recover something like that, and I don't see a good outcome from here. No criticism, just observation. Again, questions are clearly easy, answers not so...
Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:08 am
If the Swamp Ghost is in some shipping containers or otherwise protected from souvenir hunters and the environement I disagree. I don't have any information as to the security of the aircraft. Clearly the aircraft would be more secure had it been exported.JDK wrote:Fair points, bdk. However, I believe that Swamp Ghost was better off where she was than where she is now.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:11 am
Good arguments, JDK. I guess it just all boils down to the cultural differences of Pacific Islanders versus Western cultures. I know that money has no meaning to some cultures. It just kills me to think that the natives there have these false hopes that economic historical tourism will happen for an infinite period of time, just because some Westerner told them so. Even if they were to keep all of their relics and never let any go, do they really think there will be any interest in them, whatsoever, in 100 years, when there is nothing but a few rusted fragments that used to be an airplane, ship or tank? As time goes on, and the "Greatest Generation" and baby-boomers die off, there will be less and less interest in World War II. This will directly translate into less people interested in going to a third world nation to see "history".
I think in a lot of ways, some of the natives there are seriously short-sighted in their thinking. Sure, those relics may get a few curious on-lookers or visitors for maybe 20 more years, but after that they will have nothing, due to nature taking it's course on man-made objects.
Since the natives seem to not be interested in money, why doesn't some entrepreneurial recoverer offer something else, like goods or services or bartering? Obviously, food, shelter and water are the primary sustenances for those people who live a hard life. Why doesn't someone offer to build them a flour mill, or a water desalinization plant, or a rice processing plant, etc. Things like this might support a local village for many generations - far longer lasting than historical tourism. I wonder which the villagers might like more - a rusty, delapidated airplane, or an infinite supply of fresh water? Just a thought.
Yes, I realize that money doesn't drive the world, but things that make daily survival possible do.
I think in a lot of ways, some of the natives there are seriously short-sighted in their thinking. Sure, those relics may get a few curious on-lookers or visitors for maybe 20 more years, but after that they will have nothing, due to nature taking it's course on man-made objects.
Since the natives seem to not be interested in money, why doesn't some entrepreneurial recoverer offer something else, like goods or services or bartering? Obviously, food, shelter and water are the primary sustenances for those people who live a hard life. Why doesn't someone offer to build them a flour mill, or a water desalinization plant, or a rice processing plant, etc. Things like this might support a local village for many generations - far longer lasting than historical tourism. I wonder which the villagers might like more - a rusty, delapidated airplane, or an infinite supply of fresh water? Just a thought.
Yes, I realize that money doesn't drive the world, but things that make daily survival possible do.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:07 am
no thousand dollar armani suits worn by those tv reporters, all in t-shirts & hawaii shorts!!
Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:36 am
Good post!
That's true. I was thinking more about having money isn't much use if you get robbed, can't spend it or the bank robs you or fails. Not many ATMs in the mountain passes either.
- as against losing it now because some westerner just grabs it and runs. Or cuts a deal with some governmental type and takes it.
A scenario is there's a wreck on a hillside, between two groups. Both have taken visitors to see it, for a reward. One day it's not there anymore because group 'a' have removed it for a westerner, where they got paid... Group 'b' aren't going to be very happy - no 'plane, no tourism, and nothing for them cash, work or barter. This does happen.
Heard of a chap called Hannibal? Napoleon? Washington? While W.W.II is very live in our memories, it's 'just' another bit of history. It'll be remembered in artifacts and by people, just like the Crimea, Bull Run, et al. Think of the value to the remaining artefacts from these periods. By the way, I've a great deal on this war elephant relic.
On top of that, most cultures have a strong cultural memory. PNG isn't going to forget W.W.II quickly, and their memories and accounts might not fit with ours too easily either.
Doesn't mean their history isn't important to them. Besides, I'm not betting on what PNG will look like in 2120.
Maybe. Like bdks point about a winfall now that's true enough. Remind me; how many US (or Aus or UK) governments really plan to beyond their elected term?
You've put your finger on it. This has and does happen. Sometimes officially, for instance with the RAAF recovery of a number of A-20 / Boston wrecks, returning one restored aircraft to PNG (when the museum's ready) in return, AND a good deal of local 'good works'; and also privately where western groups have done just the kind of things you mention. However, there (usually) needs to be some government tax / bribe for the 'officials' above the locals...
I'm no expert on PNG, I'm just speculating on a little knowledge - but there's been some good points been made here, folks.
warbird1 wrote:Good arguments, JDK. I guess it just all boils down to the cultural differences of Pacific Islanders versus Western cultures. I know that money has no meaning to some cultures.
That's true. I was thinking more about having money isn't much use if you get robbed, can't spend it or the bank robs you or fails. Not many ATMs in the mountain passes either.
It just kills me to think that the natives there have these false hopes that economic historical tourism will happen for an infinite period of time, just because some Westerner told them so.
- as against losing it now because some westerner just grabs it and runs. Or cuts a deal with some governmental type and takes it.
A scenario is there's a wreck on a hillside, between two groups. Both have taken visitors to see it, for a reward. One day it's not there anymore because group 'a' have removed it for a westerner, where they got paid... Group 'b' aren't going to be very happy - no 'plane, no tourism, and nothing for them cash, work or barter. This does happen.
Even if they were to keep all of their relics and never let any go, do they really think there will be any interest in them, whatsoever, in 100 years, when there is nothing but a few rusted fragments that used to be an airplane, ship or tank? As time goes on, and the "Greatest Generation" and baby-boomers die off, there will be less and less interest in World War II.
Heard of a chap called Hannibal? Napoleon? Washington? While W.W.II is very live in our memories, it's 'just' another bit of history. It'll be remembered in artifacts and by people, just like the Crimea, Bull Run, et al. Think of the value to the remaining artefacts from these periods. By the way, I've a great deal on this war elephant relic.
On top of that, most cultures have a strong cultural memory. PNG isn't going to forget W.W.II quickly, and their memories and accounts might not fit with ours too easily either.
This will directly translate into less people interested in going to a third world nation to see "history".
Doesn't mean their history isn't important to them. Besides, I'm not betting on what PNG will look like in 2120.
I think in a lot of ways, some of the natives there are seriously short-sighted in their thinking. Sure, those relics may get a few curious on-lookers or visitors for maybe 20 more years, but after that they will have nothing, due to nature taking it's course on man-made objects.
Maybe. Like bdks point about a winfall now that's true enough. Remind me; how many US (or Aus or UK) governments really plan to beyond their elected term?
Since the natives seem to not be interested in money, why doesn't some entrepreneurial recoverer offer something else, like goods or services or bartering? Obviously, food, shelter and water are the primary sustenances for those people who live a hard life. Why doesn't someone offer to build them a flour mill, or a water desalinization plant, or a rice processing plant, etc. Things like this might support a local village for many generations - far longer lasting than historical tourism. I wonder which the villagers might like more - a rusty, delapidated airplane, or an infinite supply of fresh water? Just a thought.
You've put your finger on it. This has and does happen. Sometimes officially, for instance with the RAAF recovery of a number of A-20 / Boston wrecks, returning one restored aircraft to PNG (when the museum's ready) in return, AND a good deal of local 'good works'; and also privately where western groups have done just the kind of things you mention. However, there (usually) needs to be some government tax / bribe for the 'officials' above the locals...
I'm no expert on PNG, I'm just speculating on a little knowledge - but there's been some good points been made here, folks.
Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:46 pm
JDK wrote:I believe that Swamp Ghost was better off where she was than where she is now. The main risk to Swamp Ghost was souveniring by westerners, not environmental decay.
From an internet source:
4 Years ago a grass fire came within a half mile of where Swamp Ghost was sitting. Over the past 25 years quite a number of aircraft have been lost to grass fires including 2 P-40s, a P-400, a B-24, 2 Beauforts, 3 Zeros, a Jill and a Tabby just to name a few.
Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:35 am
Hi bdk,
Sorry, missed your post. Just checked my Pacific Wrecks book (1970s). The B-17 crash-landed in a Kunai grass swamp, hence the name.
It was a remote crash landing, and an inaccessible aircraft - at least for a period you could only get to it by landing a helicopter on the wing, and the fuselage was half full of (fresh) water.
It had several bushfires pass over the area between W.W.II and today. In the 1970s, halfway in between it's 'loss' and now areas of the metal were as good as they were when they left the factory. The nature of the burn in a swamp is probably why. The greatest damage then was from western visitors taking souvenirs, and most of them couldn't even find it. A good number of aircraft were actually found after controlled native-started kunai burnoffs to keep the snakes down.
I don't wish to discuss the risks the a/c currently faces on an open forum, but they are greater than it has had until it's removal, IMHO. It is neither under-restoration, properly stored or where it was crash-landed.
The list of 'lost to grass fires' is a red herring; I can't imaging they were in the same micro-climactic setup - how many were 'restorable' when lost?
One of the (other) problems wit the aircraft there is that anyone with first-hand knowledge offers a polarised view, with about as much dispassionate analysis as is evident in US party-political debates. All the known names, such as discussed here and elsewhere have demonstrably cherry picked 'evidence' to support their view.
You've not quoted the internet source (I'm sure for good reason) but the majority of sources on the subject are highly biased.
Risk isn't (of course) the same as actual damage or loss, but the current scenario helps no-one except those thriving on wharf theft and graft and corruption. Hardly a good situation. It certainly won't last another 50+ years where it is now. It might've where it was, or something with the ID might have been flying in the future. It's not good.
Regards,
Sorry, missed your post. Just checked my Pacific Wrecks book (1970s). The B-17 crash-landed in a Kunai grass swamp, hence the name.
It was a remote crash landing, and an inaccessible aircraft - at least for a period you could only get to it by landing a helicopter on the wing, and the fuselage was half full of (fresh) water.
It had several bushfires pass over the area between W.W.II and today. In the 1970s, halfway in between it's 'loss' and now areas of the metal were as good as they were when they left the factory. The nature of the burn in a swamp is probably why. The greatest damage then was from western visitors taking souvenirs, and most of them couldn't even find it. A good number of aircraft were actually found after controlled native-started kunai burnoffs to keep the snakes down.
I don't wish to discuss the risks the a/c currently faces on an open forum, but they are greater than it has had until it's removal, IMHO. It is neither under-restoration, properly stored or where it was crash-landed.
The list of 'lost to grass fires' is a red herring; I can't imaging they were in the same micro-climactic setup - how many were 'restorable' when lost?
One of the (other) problems wit the aircraft there is that anyone with first-hand knowledge offers a polarised view, with about as much dispassionate analysis as is evident in US party-political debates. All the known names, such as discussed here and elsewhere have demonstrably cherry picked 'evidence' to support their view.
You've not quoted the internet source (I'm sure for good reason) but the majority of sources on the subject are highly biased.
Risk isn't (of course) the same as actual damage or loss, but the current scenario helps no-one except those thriving on wharf theft and graft and corruption. Hardly a good situation. It certainly won't last another 50+ years where it is now. It might've where it was, or something with the ID might have been flying in the future. It's not good.
Regards,
Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:07 am
No question its best chance for survival is neither where it is OR where it was, but in the hands of someone who will lovingly restore the craft.