Warbird Information Exchange

I do agree with that. I wish there were more people that were high positions that were educated and cared about what museums and private owners were trying to do.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Bob Pruit's ME-109 has already been exported from the country and is now in Germany, its no example at all of these laws being silly or not working?

Its more likely the sale price suffered from the additional cost to transport from Australia.

Bf 109G-6
410077
Germany
CR
<°+ tech off Stab
IV/JG 54
RK+FY
VH-BFG
Raised from Lake Swiblo in Russia 1992. Ex Tuchino AFB Moscow, to Canada then Australia and now finaly in Germany. Reported for sale.



I dont think you have proven that the law is silly? nor evidenced anything but your opinion.

International (UNESCO) and National Lawmakers in Australia (and indeed the US) have drafted the laws that your opinion is dis-agreeing with, I am simply arguing and evidencing in support of the laws they have made.

I think those laws seems to operate quite conservatively, I still havent seen any actual evidence of aircraft denied export that havent been correctly assessed as culturally significant?, rather than your own opinion on their relative significance, and general opposition from a idoligical point of view?

Yet you do seem to recognise a narrow group of aircraft that ARE of cultural significance, he first to fly etc such as the Wright Flyer etc.

Cultural heritage is not derived solely from being the first one to fly or to have set records, otherwise all of our museums would be empty of most of the aircraft they hold, and we wouldnt have forums full of people admiring and restoring them.

Given only FIVE aircraft have ever been denied export permits under these laws, its hardly evidence that "virtually" anything can be deemed "culturally and historically signficant", , an Australian export permit applications are assessed by idependent and qualified assessors who determine the significance.

Obviously if Bob Pruits 109 was able to be exported without problem, and the Beaufighter was denied export, then they are not considered to be of equal significance to Australians and under this Australian law, and thats the context that matters, and evidences their successful application.






Which is why such laws exist, internationally, (and even in the USA)

In Australia we have a Government fund that can be used to acquire moveable cultural heritage at risk of being exported, to bring them into public ownership.





If Australia was the size of Rhode island then perhaps preserving two or even one example of historically significant airframes might meet the need of the local population, in terms of educational and heritage access.

Having a law that protects retention of two examples of an important and significant type to Australians in a land mass of of 7,617,930 square kilometres (2,941,300 sq mi) for a distributed population of 20 million Australians is quite relevent to the debate and indeed hardly liberal or over generous.

If we all lived in the one place in the world, or alternatively could travel without limitations financially or otherwise, then we could let all of the aircraft reside in the USA, and the rest of us could simply come and visit them on holiday, cultural heritage laws aim to keep significant cultural heritage from being traded off to the highest bidder, and simply shifted to the wealthiest societies.

Capitalism is fine and delivers many benefits as against alternative economic and political models, but as the recent GFC showed markets cannot be successfuly operated totally unregulated, or purely for the benefit of the richest players in the game.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

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

So what will be confiscated next?

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

Protecting it from who? Evil collectors? What about the NMUSAF? Maybe the P-82 needed to be protected from them.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

quotin 'dis

Australia has a moveable cultural heritage law that requires the export of historic aircraft to be approved, and allows for the denial of export if the aircraft is considered significant to Australian culture and history, AND there is not two similar aircraft preserved in public collections in Australia.

Such a policy allows for many aircraft in Australia to be bought and sold on the open market, (and if applied to the Lackland B-24 from a US perspective would have allowed it to leave to the UK on the basis of the preserved examples elsewhere in the USA.

The Spitfire Vb now in the NMUSAF, swapped for the Lackland B-24 came from Australia, the NMUSAF Beaufighter also came from Australia (and in my opinion should have been denied an export permit, however the AWM's mark II was considered an equivalent spitfire despite the different technical and operational significances (one being a European war veteran the other being a Defence of Darwin veteran.)

The Oscar now in Paul Allen's collection came from Australia, and was the sole intact example, and a war prize captured by Australian's in PNG, (in my opinion that should have also been denied an export permit.)

The only surviving Australian built DH Mosquito in the country was denied an export permit and is now fully restored in the Australian War Memorial.

A mustang and ME-109 were impounded by Australian Customs and forfeited due to customs fraud, the ME-109 had not had an export permit applied for, or assessed, it was being smuggled out disguised as a mustang. (in my opinion the ME-109 was delivered to Australia as a war prize, was the sole intact example in the country, and should have been denied an export permit had an application been made)

The number of aircraft denied an export permit from Australia can be counted on one hand, and includes the Moorabbin Beaufighter, which was correctly denied an export permit.

"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[/quote]

Mark, the incident of the Mustang/ME109 was Doug Arnold (Blackbushe Airport) involved in that? I recall he got into some trouble with Customs about trying to get an aircraft into England in a crate marked as machine parts or something like that.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

I could be wrong, but I thought that the law prevented Bob from selling them to the first person/organization that he wanted to sell them to. Remember, I wasn't positive about this aspect, but just remember reading about it.



I wasn't trying to "prove" that the law is silly. I thought it was fairly clear from the outset, that the position expressed was purely my opinion. I was not writing a legal brief to "prove" anything.



UNESCO laws are well and good intentioned, but unfortunately many countries violate them and don't enforce them. In a perfect world, UNESCO would save ALL of the world's heritage, but unfortunately that is not the case.



That's good to know. What 5 aircraft were they and when did they happen? I was under the impression that it was much, much more prevalent in Australia.



I don't know if that's a fact. I seem to remember Bob having problems exporting it initially to the first intended buyer. I really wish DaveM2 could pipe in here to set the record straight.






So what you're really saying is that it is more of a matter of accessibility? You mentioned about all of the aircraft residing in the USA. I have never espoused that viewpoint. Remember, I supported the Lackland B-24 going to Duxford.

Again, I'm not saying that every single aircraft or artifact should be up for bid. Some obviously should be retained in their national country of origin. I'm simply saying that our definitions of what is "culturally significant" differ. I have no problem with the non-significant cultural heritage "being traded off to the highest bidder, and simply shifted to the wealthiest societies", as you say.

FIFI, unfortunately, IMO.

No protecting "it"/"them" from export overseas, the law has no impact on private ownership in Australia, or flying versus static preservation, or "Evil collectors" (am one myself?)

smiles

Mark Pilkington

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

Gary,

I cant recall the specific person involved so I wouldnt like to link Doug Arnold to it without independent confirmation.

A UK owner was apparantly exporting a CAC Mustang and the ME-109, with both listed as Mustangs, customs impounded both, and they were forfeited.

The 109 is now in the collection of the AWM, (where it had been stupidly disposed from in the late 1950's by a Curator whose interest was army heritage, and scrapped a combat veteran Beaufort, a Japanese Sally, the first Wirraway and a Hampton Bomber.

The CAC Mustang went to the RAAF Museum and was then swapped to a local collector for a replica SE5a and Avro 504k

There was an earlier illegal export of a mark VIII spitfire to the UK listed as scrap metal.

And yes obviously export laws arent needed - smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

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

Thanks Mark. I know I read about Arnold getting busted by Customs back in the late late 70's early 80's somewhere in the aviation maget-zine world. I literally met his head in May 1980 at the Blackbushe airport, I was interested in seeing his B-25 (9115Z) he had stashed in a hangar, and wanted to photograph 9494Z that was looking abandoned on the field. Arnold stuck his head out between the hangar doors, gave me the run of the place, except for the hangar he was in. I could tell there was a Spit in there, but he wouldn't let me visit that one. Interesting feller he was.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Well, this makes me happy, there's a country in the world where customs officials know the difference between a Mustang and a Me 109.

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

I believe the B-24M in the Canada Aviation Museum collection is also an Indian veteran, making it a total of five.

I've always been rather annoyed that the Lackland B-24 went across The Pond, and would have rather seen her at Willow Run. But now that I think about it, if she had come to Yankee, she might very well have been lost in the 2004 fire.

I'm only joining commenting in this thread as a B-24 fan. I'm not gonna touch the F-82 debate with a ten foot pole!

SN

Six or eight B-24s are ex- RAF then Indian Air Force, according to the Warbird Directory. Two reported as stored in 2001, plus the RAF Museum example, Pima, Weeks, Canadian Aviation Museum, Collings, and the Indian Air Force Museum.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I plan on keeping away from WIX for awhile and for USAFM BS reasons just like this. It pains me the current problems the warbird movement faces and it is too much for me to have to read about it on a daily basis.

Its just too upsetting and unthinkable what the USAFM did. I'll stick working at Geneseo. Perhaps I'll delay my first visit to the USAFM the rest of my life.