Bye bye P-82... :-(

[Chunks]

My statements have all been based on facts that I have either read her

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

[bluehawk15]

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.

[ZRX61]

Sorry of off-topic, but didn't the Air Force also ship off a B-24 to England instead of the museum at Willow Run were the B-24 was built? I wonder what the thinking was not to keep her at "home"

And That!!!!burns my a Double s up every thime I think about that

How many of the US examples came out of India?

[warbird1]

"where warplanes that were not even used are not ever allowed to leave the country" - so which particular aircraft examples do you have, to back up such statements.

Unfortunately, such un-imformed "throw away" comments become legend and then "fact" with no relationship to the truth.


regards

Mark Pilkington

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.

[RickH]

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.

[ZRX61]

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.

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

[Randy Haskin]

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

How arrogant is that.

[RickH]

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

[warbird1]

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.

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

I'm not familiar, please explain.

[warbird1]

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

How arrogant is that.

Who are you addressing that to?

[Mark_Pilkington]

"where warplanes that were not even used are not ever allowed to leave the country" - so which particular aircraft examples do you have, to back up such statements.

Unfortunately, such un-imformed "throw away" comments become legend and then "fact" with no relationship to the truth.


regards

Mark Pilkington

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.

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??

Almost every country has laws to protect its cultural heritage. But the effectiveness of these laws is significantly shaped by the pressures of internal economics and international markets, with the result that legal protection and the possibilities of legal action have very different
consequences in different locations.

At root is the market inequity of so-called ‘art-supply’ countries and ‘art-market’ countries. These euphemisms are a dry economic way to describe the dynamic created by rich nations whose citizens want to own art products and poor nations whose citizens can sell items harvested from their local environments.

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

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

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.

[ZRX61]

I'm not familiar, please explain.

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

[warbird1]

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

[warbird1]

I'm not familiar, please explain.

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

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.