Owen wrote:
You refer to the "Navy pay-
ing three times as much to restore something".
Please tell me more about this. Which aircraft
were involved? Who was the restorer? Did you
get to see something with the amounts involved?
I really want to hear more.
My statement was not intended to be taken literally as I was not referring to any particular restoration. My point was intended to be one of logic- the longer these planes stay underwater and are subjected to further deterioration, the less of the aircraft is there (or is restorable), hence an increased restoration cost.
Owen wrote:
I don't doubt for a minute that there are more
P-40B/Cs that will emerge, probably from Russia.
However the point I was trying to make was that
the ONLY current flying example almost left this
country and subsequently in a collection that was
not open to the public.
Yes, but would it have been better for it to remain in the remote tundra in Russia? Then virtually nobody would have seen it, not even Paul Allen- the situation with the lake/ocean birds now.
So what if they get exported! Why deprive people in other coutries from seeing these aircraft? Should we send all the Zeroes back to Japan and all the Spitfires back to the UK? There is a natural ebb and tide as these aircraft change hands among collectors.
Owen wrote:
I really can't agree with you that a lot of people
aren't "willing to travel to see a display of static
aircraft". NMNA annually is the number two or
number thtree tourist attraction in Florida. Annual
attendance for the last several years has been
just under a million folks.
I've never been there, nor have I been to any of the Collings Foundation home bases. But I have seen both the Collings B-17 and B-24. They came to an airport near me. How many people see the Collings aircraft in one year? Probably 500,000 in one week at Oshkosh?? The Planes of Fame tour allows those around the country to see a P-38, a P-40, and an FG-1D that they normally would never get to see. I saw the EAA B-17 flying from Long Beach airport last month while I was walking across the street at work. Can't see the NMNA from there...
The point is that the NMNA is GENERALLY available to poeple only in the region, and I'll bet that the NMNA is not a primary venue to draw tourists to Florida. Maybe it is a good location for the NMNA, but I doubt that people go there and then decide, "What the heck! Since we are at the NMNA, we might as well go see Mickey!"
Owen wrote:
Your turn,
Owen
I apologize if I have sounded argumentative- that was not my intent. I am very passionate about this topic, as are you and Rob. I think that it is important to get all the points talked out so that a united front can be formed to change the policy into what we want.