B-25 C wrote:
RareBear wrote:
Maybe the Collings Foundation is finally going to publically acknowledge that they don't really have the world's only flying B-24.
Walt
Well maybe the Collings Foundation
Has the only flying B-24J that was not converted from something else!
I would agree that referring to the Collings aircraft as the only flying "B-24J" would remove the inference that the CAF aircraft is not one.
I dont think Collings should get too carried away with the distinction, as I am not sure their aircraft is anymore a "B-24" than the CAF aircraft?
Strictly speaking the Collings Foundation are operating a former RAF Liberator GR VI originally KH191 of the RAF and IAF, It was obviously ordered/planned as a B24J 44-44052, although never delivered to the USAAF or served as such, on that technicality is it really a B24J or a Liberator GR VI?
(Were there British equipment installations in the Liberator GR VI that varied from a B24J in the USAAF?)
I therefore personally dont see any difference in that situation to Ol'927 being planned as a B24A but delivered to the RAF as an LB30.
They are still both B24 types as far as I am concerned, with their own unique histories, but able to represent the exploits and heritage of the wider type.
I think for most enthusiasts Ol'927 or Diamond Lil is a B24/Liberator, although many of us know it more technically as a LB30, I dont think the CAF has ever tried to hide its own history, nor should they, as they have every right to be proud of the aircraft, their efforts to preserve it, and what it portrays.
In regard to both the Collings Foundation and the CAF, I have the greatest admiration for their efforts and outcomes.
I do however cringe at certain marketing efforts to attract visitors and sponsors, but I dont think these are aimed to belittle the efforts of others, but simply to ensure their own activities continue to exist.
In Australia our only B24 restoration is often billed as the aircraft or type that saved Australia from Japanese invasion, whereas history would probably place that credit with RAAF Beauforts/Kittyhawks and USAAC aircraft in 1942/43, rather than a RAAF B24 delivered in 1944, but its obviously not done to belittle other collections or museums, or preserved aircraft, but to simply create a marketing differentiator to attract visitors or sponsors.
The issue of the Collings Foundation "advertising" as the only flying B24 is one for them to deal with, and live with, I am not sure it causes any great loss to the CAF in any case.
If the Collings Foundation feel they need to market their B24 as the only one flying so as to keep it flying then I dont have a problem, eventually an enthusiast, determined journalist, interested Joe Public or corporate sponsor will stumble over the CAF and Ol'927's existance, and in that case it only shows the Collings advertising in a poorer light.
So long as they are not making the claim to denegrade the CAF or Ol'927 it doesnt really matter.
I personally dont think Collings would loose many visitors/supporters if they advertised it as one of only two B24/Liberators flying in the world today, but so be it?
In the end however I hope we have at least two, (ie both of these) B24's flying for us for many more years.
Both are representing different configurations of one of the most important aircraft of WW2, they compliment, rather than compete with each other in my humble opinion.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
