Warbird Information Exchange

Q. What is your opinion about recovery vs. leaving where the war left them?

A. Very simple. If aircraft relics are recovered they have a chance of survival. If they are left in situ they will, with no shadow of doubt, corrode into the ground if they are not scrapped, bulldozed, or burnt first. The exception is relics in the sea. I am not aware of any process that is within the bounds of economic reason whereby an aircraft can be recovered from the sea and preserved indefinitely, let alone restored to airworthy condition. In that situation I believe it is usually best to leave them in the sea, where they are more likely to survive for a few more decades than if they are dragged ashore. Again there's an exception --- relics from the sea may provide parts for use as patterns that cannot be found elsewhere, or small parts such as stainless steel items that are still recoverable. Another exception may be where there is literally unlimited long-term funding to decontaminate and preserve an aircraft recovered from the sea.


Q. How do you feel about recovering and buying wreckage for private museums?

A. I have much more faith in private collections than in national/public collections. Private collectors who invest time and money in aviation acquisitions rarely let the results of their investment deteriorate. If they lose interest or have to "bail out", the relics are usually sold to others who, in turn, look after their investment asset. (Souvenir hunters are in a much more undesirable category, because their souvenirs are often thrown out when they move house, lose interest, or die. They are not true collectors).

Public collections, on the other hand, have an odious record. This includes government and air force collections and the majority of "committee-run" museums, where the integrity of an asset in terms of its original paint and systems fit and even its existence, depends on the politicians or board members in charge at the time. The American, Australian, Belgian, British, and New Zealand national and/or air force aviation collections all have disgraceful histories of asset destruction and degradation of historical material. And I am talking about the 1980s and 1990s, not "ancient history". Sure, the national collections of those nations have improved their acts in recent years, but suspicion remains because indefensible crimes of asset destruction and "rewritten history" still come to light. Often these events result from the actions of uninterested "time-servers" in positions of authority, where a private individual interested in aviation history would never have acted in such a manner

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The American, Australian, Belgian, British, and New Zealand national and/or air force aviation collections all have disgraceful histories of asset destruction and degradation of historical material. And I am talking about the 1980s and 1990s, not "ancient history".

As a Kiwi, I'm suprised to see a comment like this - but then I am not well informed about our national collection's policies or activities in the 80's and 90's. Can anyone shed any light on what he may be specifically referring to? (Of course there's the recent destruction of the RNZAF air combat capablity, but I'm not yet convinced that our A4's constituted "historical material" - although that was part of the "official" reasoning!)

But in regard to the US Airforce "loaning" out aircraft left and right - they have a fairly rigorous set of standards to meet to be eligable to recieve a aircraft to display. We are trying to meet these requirements in Wendover but being a almost totally volunteer operation it is a bit tough.

Dave

Things may have been different if they had tried another approach to John Smith , instead of knocking on his door and demanding he give 'their' aircraft back
You are correct in thinking the ex Vietnam aircraft is via the RAAF.

Dave