Don't wait up for the phone call, Hellcat. Can't see why I'd want to phone you. You seem to have missed I said your post was "a reasonable point", yet you've gone off on a wobble. Sorry about that.
Meanwhile, back to more worthwhile discussions on the topic:
Dan Jones wrote:
I'm a Canadian and live only about an hour and a half away from the museum. I see nothing wrong with the Mossie going to someone who will restore and preserve the airplane. If it stays where it is nothing will ever be done with it, and if it is it's very likely to be done by well meaning but unskilled hands, and we all know what that means. Airplanes like this change hands and countries all the time. If it goes to England, or the US or Down Under now it is just as likely as not to be found in Mike Potter's hangar in Quebec ten years from now, happy, content, and dripping oil on that nice clean floor.
My two cents - fire away.
Hi Dan,
No argument, but there's two presumptions - one that a purchaser will restore it (likely, not certain) and that 'If it stays where it is nothing will ever be done with it' - taking a long view, that's almost certainly wrong - something
will be done with it eventually.
Fair comment over restoration quality issues, but I'd suggest that those bad old days of poor quality restorations in situations like this are behind us - however, I do agree with your other points - though I'd love to see it in Spartan's colours (not that military scheme would be any less interesting).
bdk wrote:
Tom H wrote:
If history is for the highest bidder what does that say about where our society has gone...
That we attach a high value to history?
Is that a bad thing? People that pay a lot of money for things generally wouldn't stand for them deteriorating and losing that value. Would you use a rare antique postage stamp to mail a letter?
It's an interesting debate. One of the reasons national collections exist is so important artefacts can be kept there (whither bought, donated or otherwise acquired) for the nation. Sometimes they get called 'the nation's attic' or the safe house.
Most of history has been full of items being taken by force (in war) or bought for a cash price. If it's regarded as 'above' that, then it should be kept safe.
I'd suggest that the history of Canadian mapping can be well represented by a Mosquito in its Spartan colours. Recognition in preservation of secondary uses of military aircraft is coming.
Quote:
So what is better in everyone's mind, leave the Mosquito where it is, unseen by the masses because it is "well preserved" in it's (run down, worn out & civilianized) current state or sell it so it can be restored and displayed so tens of thousands can see it? How is history served if nobody even knows that the artifact exists?
Obviously it would be better to see this aircraft on show, ideally restored, and (perhaps) airworthy. I'd say again that there's nothing wrong with having an aircraft in store. Most of the world's history is 'in store', because we can't dispay it all. It's the best scenario in a finitely funded worlds.
That said, there's too few Mosquitoes on show and definitely too few flying. But, on the third hand,
whatever happens here, we should see a couple of fliers in our lifetimes.
K225 wrote:
We also have Edward VIII Fox Moth flying restored in New Zealand.
Keep it clear of the American divorcees, or it'll have to lead an offshore life!:D
K225 wrote:
A great number of the warbirds flying in North America have benefitted from the expertise developed in Canada.
At Vintage Wings the current Hurricane restoration has relied on the expertise of great people in the UK and the USA as well as Canada. The centre spar is currently being rebuilt by a skilled craftsman from El Salvador.
The P40 being restored down in New Zealand is a real beauty as is the Corsair done in the US. I recently talked with a wonderful gentleman from Australia who had come to see the Chipmunk under resoration. He was thrilled to see it being done as he had flown this very aircraft.
What is as important as the aircraft themselves is preserving the skills needed to restore these wonderful machines. Does it matter where in the world, I think not.
Absolutely, and with exceptions, we are lucky that if you are prepared to travel, there's a world of great vintage aircraft to experience. If you must sit on your hands, a fair amount will pass you, in time.
Richard Woods wrote:
Heritage is something that really does me in. Here’s why.
Take the Lancaster as an example. You have some 430 odd aircraft that was built in Canada, but nowhere near that number saw service. The first one flew on ops in late 1943 with the war being over in may 1945. Over 10,000 Canadians died in bomber command, in seven years of war. So all the survivors now are painted up as veterans of this conflict, with the 20 years of saving lives and patrolling the northern skies, is being painted out in favour of kill markings, mission indicators and roundels.
THIS, not the movement of an aircraft is a loss of heritage.
Great point. There's something difficult about choosing 'famous' over the less so. Heroes are a great place to start to learn about ordinary people doing extra-ordinary things, and the less famous are (I'd argue)
just as important here.
For instance the NMUSAF has a B.35 mocked up to represent a PR.XVI. Nothing wrong with that, it's been well done, but it never was a PR.XVI, and the RAAF Museum owns the only survivor of that mark, whatever 'ringers' there might be out there.
Richard Woods wrote:
Who knows, such is life it could end up back in Canada in a few years…
Indeed!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
