Warbird Information Exchange

Again, that's my point. Reading it here does not make it a fact.

I'm not bashing anyone. I can be dissappointed in the decision without hating the NMUSAF.

Chunks

airnutz,

Rowdy's Raider, the original CAF B-25, was not part of a trade for the P-82. Jack Skipper, et al., of the Yellow Rose, worked out a donation to Lackland (I am not sure that it was with the USAFM, but Lackland might have turned the B-25 over to them after they got it) by the CAF of the plane. This was done either in the last years of the '70's or the early ones of the '80's. I could dig through my old issues of DISPATCH to find the year for certain, if you would like. It had coverage of the B-25 being airlifted by a helicopter, sans outer wing panels. I believe Lackland gave them a surplus APU, that to my knowledge was never used.

_________________
Mike

How many of the US examples came out of India?

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

I remember reading about several such airplanes not being allowed to leave Australia, but the only one I remember specifically was an Me-109. For some reason, Bob Pruitt's ? comes to mind, but I'm not positive.

To have an embargo like that which prevents the free trade of aircraft is still silly to me. I don't consider those examples you gave as such "historically significant" airframes as to prevent their export.

To my knowledge 4 B-24s came out of India. Tallichets', Pima's, CF's, and I think one went to the UK. All but CF's were intact.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

You mean similar to the deal in the US where you can't import F86s & Phantoms etc from Europe ?

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

Certainly a lot of people on here who think they know better than a lot of other people.

How arrogant is that.

Randy, have you been standing behind the T38s, again ?

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

I'm not familiar, please explain.

Who are you addressing that to?

you havent presented any actual example of an aircraft denied export from Australia that was not historically significant?

The number of aircraft denied export from Australia under these laws is less than 5 to my knowledge, the legend and mis-information has grown well beyond that.

The AWM ME-109 was never "tested" in terms of its historical signficance as it was impounded and forfeited by the exported due to criminal falsification of its identity for export.

Bob Pruitts 109 wreck faced no such export limit, but it would have had to apply for export and be assessed.

The only two examples I gave that were actually denied export permits were the last surviving Australian built example of a DH Mosquito in Australia, and an Australian built DAP Beaufighter, one of only two complete examples surviving in the world. You may not consider them to be "historically significant" to you or be justified as being historically significant to Australia in "your eyes", but they are considered such by many Australian's and the Australian government, and thats really where it matters.

The "free trade" in warbirds is usually claimed to have a balancing effect, yet I dont consider a population of nangchungs, T28's and T6's in Australia to be a free and equal trade for historically significant aircraft being imported and painted up in spurolous and fake colour schemes and "histories".

To have free trade of everything, regardless of its cultural and heritage significance is silly and is not in fact the real world situation applied in most countries to all other elements of cultural heritage, Australia simply applies it to historical aircraft.

The effect of the Australian law would be to stop the last two Australian built Mustangs, Wirraways or Boomerangs being exported from Australia, a land mass equal to the continental USA, would you be so supportive of free trade if the US was down to its last 2 Mustrangs, lnclusive of an example in the Smithonian and NMUSAF - I suspect not??




The above quote is from an excellent paper describing Australia's moveable cultural heritage laws, and is well worth reading is you are going to argue against them from an informed and factual position.

http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/1999/~/media/conferences/artcrime/young.ashx

The United Nations UNESCO conventions uphold the principles as do Australian and other National laws around the world, including that of the United States of America - It administers U.S. responsibilities relating to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/index.html

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Chris, it is VERY important to bring up the Lackland bird because it is pertinent to this new debacle. It could very well be the fate that the CAF P-82 faces.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Basically:
You can import foreign built jet warbirds into the US.. but not domestic built ones that have been exported.

You could bring in a CAC or Canuckian F86, but not an NAA version.


Which should mean F104J's are fair game

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

I've read that Bob was going to sell the airframe, but ultimately did not due to difficulties in exporting the aircraft out of the country.



Fair enough, but I don't agree with your assessment. It's not like those planes are the first ones to fly in Australia or the first one to accomplish this or accomplish that or even set any records in. The Mossie and Beau, IMO, are not "historically significant" in parallel and in the same context to the examples that I gave above.



I never claimed it would have a "balancing effect". I just think it's the most healthy course of action over the long term. Will some countries get shafted over other ones? Yes, of course. But if you look at the long term preservation of the aircraft, that is what really matters. Capitalism works - even in regards to warbirds.



I never said that either. Cultural and historical significance does play a role, but in your examples, one can make an argument that virtually anything can be deemed "culturally and historically signficant". That is our only difference here - the definition of what is "culturally and historically significant". Your definition is more liberally applied and mine is much more strict and narrow. We both have differences of opinion. In the long run, neither of our opinions matter, as neither of us are lawmakers.



I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I would actually be o.k. with that. I wouldn't be happy with it, but I sure wouldn't make it a law for someone to prevent it from happening. Mustangs are a dime a dozen, and I don't consider them to be rare at all. They are also not in the same league as The Wright Flyer or "Spirit of St. Louis". If those 2 Mustangs were so "historically important" and valuable, then there are other means to make sure they stay in the country besides forcing an exportation ban. Either the U.S. Government, a National Museum, a corporation or a multi-millionaire could step up to the plate and offer a greater amount of money than what the exporter was getting to keep the planes in the U.S. If the money was not forthcoming, then that would prove to me that the aircraft was not as "historically and culturally important" as it appeared to be, thus supporting my viewpoint I talked about.

BTW, what does "Australia, a land mass equal to the continental USA" have to do with anything we are talking about? It has no bearing or relevance to what we are debating.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that is a stupid law also. I never claimed that U.S. import laws were perfect. They do need to be reformed to balance the interests of the U.S. government with respect to terrorism vs. the interests of museums and individuals who want to import warbirds which are no threat to national security.