Warbird Information Exchange

Should warbird aircraft be sold overseas if the owners want to sell or should aircraft be made to remain in their country of use with incountry owners or just put into retirement - museums?

Many people are fond of their own warbird fleet in their own countries but every now and then - more often nowdays - they are sold to overseas interests..

Many US and UK warbirds are always going back n forth ...

Well, they are private property once purchased, aren't they?

Not if the USN own them LOL... USAF seems to be ok with private buyers..

I know that some countries, Australia and Canada for two, have had restrictive policies on the sale of in country warbirds. The end result of that has been fewer opportunities for some Australian or Canadian warbirds to get the attention they deserved in terms of restoration and exhibition. Policies may be different now but the impact then was genuine. The UK/US example is a good indication of what a laissez faire policy can do. Aircraft have been going back and forth to the point that some US/UK operators prefer shops in the opposite country to restore different types. The Fighter Collection routinely sends aircraft to Chino and who wouldn't want to get a Hurricane or Spitfire restored in the land of its birth? In the end there are more aircraft restored and on exhibit than ever before.

In the end no government should have the power to tell any private citizen what he can or cannot do with his private property regardless of historical value. The USN policy is a different kettle of fish and relates directly to hundreds of years of admiralty law. It appears that the Navy is developing a more enlightened approach but still not near what the USAF has done. However the Navy sees aircraft salvage as the foot in the door to someone salvaging its lost warships for profit. Do you want to be the CNO who has to explain to family members why the skeletal remains of their loved ones are being displayed and sold on the internet or in some Backwaterstan?

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I disagree.......

In terms of history, you are only a holder of something. A P-51 should out live several owners and as such should stay in the USA.......

What if 50 years from now, the last P-51 was in a museum in Berlin?

Want to take the family to see the Liberty Bell, (not B-17) and its in Japan.....

While owners can do what they want with their property, I see no problem with export of historical artifacts outside of their country of origin

Now, when the govt steps in and makes a decision (which they should in this case), you have a different situation). Try and move Egyptian artifacts out of their country and see what happens.

Of course you start down a "slippery slope" here. What is significant? OK, can't ship a P-51 out... How about a helmet?

Can really be a mess.

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

What about the countless P51s, B17s etc that fought in the air over Europe during WW2? When veterans or their family return to bases in the UK wouldn't it be nice for them to see a P51 or whatever fly over as a salute?
In the part of the UK where I live there are far more former American bases than RAF so therefore its fitting that there are appropriate aircraft around. Besides which they are privately owned.....

Just send the data plate restorations to Europe

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Now let me see.

In to the data base.

Number of Spitfires/Seafires in the USA.....33

Hmmm.

PeterA

ps

...including unique sole examples of the MK VII and Seafire 47.

Jack's right actually. If you've got a genuine cultural artifact and its owner really is a custodian of a piece of national heritage then there is a good argument for limiting what he can do with it, like any other piece of significant cultural property. But many warbirds may not meet that standard, even if their owners sometimes puff them up as if they do. There's no reason not to allow free trade in artifacts of minimal historical significance.

August

There's the money line. If a country wants to keep an artifact, they can purchase wanted artifact.

Otherwise who would decide. Last time I recall a government deciding what was best for an artifact, two giant Buddha carvings got destroyed.

There was a similar argument when Rockefeller Center was sold to some Japanese investors.

Wasn't there an English castle that was sold, taken apart and shipped overseas? I consider that a crime, even though it would be neat to go see it. But, they bought it, it was theirs.

Was moving London Bridge okay with everybody? Not for the buyers though, from what I read, they thought they were getting Tower bridge.

We'll also take the ones where the identities have been swapped if you like.

So does that mean we would not have been able to bring the Dottie Mae back? Or do we ship all foreign aircraft out and bring all US aircraft back? Lend Lease?

_________________
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Benjamin Franklin, American Statesman, Scientist, Philosopher

I don't think anyone likes to see any historic aircraft leave their shores, be it museum pieces or airworthy examples.

In the case of the latter, I think it's actually quite healthy for the historic aircraft scene, and gives people the chance in other countries to see types they might not have been able to see for a long time, or at all!

I know often owners of historic aircraft have themselves said that they don't actually own them, but are just its 'Custodian' or 'Keeper', but the fact of the matter is they paid for it and pay the bills all the time it’s under their care. So if they decide to sell it on or trade it to someone overseas at a future date, then that's their right to do so and no one else’s business.

Looking back through many years worth of Flying Legends DVD's & videos, it is quite sad to see many of those much missed aircraft that were based here and are now overseas with new owners/operators. But on the other hand, it's a nice thought that someone on the other side of the world can experience the sight and sound of a new type or different Mark/Model to the more common ones they are used to. And who knows, maybe in a few years down the line we might see some of them back here again under the same or different ownership.

One thing you do realise though when discussing this subject is just how lucky we all are to have people who are willing to not only put huge amounts of money into buying and restoring historic aircraft, but also the large amounts of time (aircraft don't look after themselves and the types of aircraft we are talking about are often quite complex to maintain), so ourselves and future generations can enjoy the sight and sounds of history for hopefully many years to come, even if they are in the eyes of some ‘Replicas’, ‘Reproductions’ or ‘Data Plate Specials’.

Cheers

Paul

...to end all flying except commercial and military!

What a kettle of worms this topic is...

I can understand both sides of the argument.

It is always great to have airplanes stay in the country of their production or operation because it's a very large part of that nation's history. Like mentioned before, another example is that it would be a shame to see the last example of a Canadair Tutor not residing in canada. Then again there are several in museum's across Canada, but how about a flying one? There's one in civilian hands in Washington State (never seen it live. Only in pictures).

I'd say it is a country's right to prevent its historical artifacts from leaving their soil.

In Canada the rule that restricts the export of Historical artifacts was designed to prevent the export of native art in particular, but eventually branched out into several different fields of study. Warbirds fall into the technological and/or military history category.

Given that an airplane is old enough, and that it had a significant enough history, it could be deemed historical. That being said, it is all determined by a committe in Ottawa. And the process that an airplane (or any other historical object) would go through is that a buyer would make an agreement with the seller to purchase it (like any transaction), but then if the object being sold is to be moved out of Canada and is observed to be historical in any sense, it can be passed to the committee in Ottawa to determine if indeed it is historically Canadian. If so, the committee will block the sale of the item for a period of time (usually 6 months) and they will notify all certified Museums of the impending sale. The 6 months given will allow these museums to determine if they want the artifact, and then fundraise to purchase it. If they are able to raise funds to purchase the artifact at the original selling price, then they would be able to purchase it, and keep it in Canada.

If no certified museums in Canada want the artifact, or simply can't raise the funds, then the original sale out of Canada would be deemed acceptable and would proceed.

This is what happened with the Connie out of Toronto, which is now being taken much better care of in the USA.

As a note, a certified museum is one that can prove that they would be able to properly perseve and display the artifact for the general public to see and that the artifact would not suffer any deterioration or damage while in their possession. They have to continually prove they can do this to be able to keep the artifact.

The whole point of this rule in Canada is to prevent wealthy foreign collectors from snatching up extremely historical objects from Canada and keeping them in private collections that most people would never see.

The amount of wealth in Canada compared to the USA is very slanted. There is and has always been a great fear of Americans buying up all our cool historical stuff. Look at the dozens of P-40's that were bought up by fred Dyson after WWII and taken down to the US. There are clearly other cases, but that is a very big one. The wealth in Canada simply doesn't compare to that in the USA. Or maybe I should say the amount of ridiculously rich people (millionaires) in Canada does not compare to the amount in the US, and probably England, Hong Kong, etc, etc.

It makes a lot of sense for aboriginal artifacts to be protected like this, but then it gets grey with warbirds.

Then there's the other side of the argument.............

I think in some circumstances the sale of airplanes out of Canada is a good thing. I say that while biting my tongue to avoid my patriotism coming out.

Let's say that a DeHavilland Puss Moth that served its entire life in Canada as a bush plane was to be sold out of Canada to a foreign collector. It's a shame that such a historic and rare airplane has to leave Canada, but considering its historical significance, how come the darn thing hasn't been restored to its former glory IN CANADA??? It's the money.

In most, if not all cases like this, the airplane would eventually be beautifully restored and brought back to life, and it would live better than it had been and probably still would be, if it were to remain in Canada.

So, when considering the benefit to the actual artifact, it is often better that it be exported from Canada than to stay in Canada. That of course, is speaking for the artifact. As for the world, now the world will get to see the artifact at airshows wherever it were to end up. Thus, it would tell the story of its history to more people than it would if it were to stay unrestored in Canada.

Sorry for the long-windedness of this response, but I hope it's shed a little bit of light on the reason for such regulations in Canada, as well as showing my double-sided feelings about the topic.

Cheers,

David