Fate of Mosquito and Hurricane in Calgary

[co-joe]

They should just restore them to static state. Anyone can enjoy seeing them up close, less cost, and they can be kept forever. If we have to choose one, sell the Hawker and restore the Mossie. Just on sexiness alone.

[Beefitarian]

Sell it for now, buy another one when they're ready to fix it up? Maybe they shouldn't sell something that can not be replaced.

I personally think they should to be in storage behind glass while being prettied up. I'd rather see them restored to airworthy condition but don't believe they should fly. I know I'm unrealistic.

[Colonel Sanders]

restore the Mossie

I'm not sure how you could do that. Isn't it wood, with milk glue?

From a safety standpoint, you would have to replace all the milk
glue joints with modern (epoxy) glue, and that might require replacing
much of the wood on it. One hand-made piece at a time.

At the end of a hideously expensive restoration, I'm not sure how
much original hardware you would have left. Really, it would be a
replica with a dataplate that used the original as a template.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

[Beefitarian]

At the end of a hideously expensive restoration, I'm not sure how
much original hardware you would have left. Really, it would be a
replica with a dataplate that used the original as a template.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

Probably.

[robertsailor1]

i think that plane was built in the uk and used better glues at that time..me thinks but not sure

[AEROMONKEY]

It would be great to see the hurricane here in Thunder Bay where it was built. there were a lot of hurricanes built here during the war and the plant that made them is still in operation making rail cars. The hurricane is truly a part of our city's past yet there's pretty much nothing left here except photos.

[rigpiggy]

It's my Grand dad's Axe
Dad Replaced the Head
I replaced the Handle
but it's still Grand Dads Axe

[Colonel Sanders]

Yeah - you have continuity, but not originality.

That's necessary for a flying airplane, which must be
airworthy, but is not required for a static aircraft.

There are two different kinds of museums: flying
and non-flying. They really don't have very much
to do with each other, and often they intensely
dislike each other, because they're certain that
the other is doing it wrong.

[Beefitarian]

I think the risk of flying an airplane that can't be replaced is not worth while.

Having said that if you're "restoring" it with bolts from the hardware store and other things that are not right just to save money to make a static display. Once a certain level of that occurs you may as well just get a good film set building company to make a duplicate. I can apprecieate the Arrow replicas, what does it matter if it's not an origional if the scale is right and it's all correct looking. It's just a display.

I really appreciate the one of a kind originals at the Smithsonian that will never fly but partially because they seem close to restored.

[Tom H]

Colonel Saunders

There are two different kinds of museums: flying
and non-flying. They really don't have very much
to do with each other, and often they intensely
dislike each other, because they're certain that
the other is doing it wrong.

As Executive Director the Alberta Aviation Museum I can assure you of a couple of things.
1) There are more than (2) kinds of Aviation Museums, sure there's flying and non flying, but there is also living and dead, Museums that take their duty to the community seriously and those that are clubs as well as the variations in between.

In this day and age if your museum flys or not you better be a living museum and you better take your duty to the community seriously...or you won't be there long.

While you're at it (a museum that is) you best understand that you are likely the only way most kids are ever going to get near aviation in this day and age, so you have a responsibility to be a gateway to aviation for the young and the young at heart.

2) If there is a problem between flying and non flying museums it goes much deeper than what they do with their airplanes.
Our Museum until 2009 didn't fly anything, then we ran the Spirit of Edmonton program in 2009. Since then we have added another small aircraft and have (2) others coming on line.

Over the years though I have worked with Vintage Wings of Canada, the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, the Confederate Air Force and John Sessions Flying Heritage Group and we have got along famously and had great times together (and made a couple of buck to keep us all together). So flying and non flying do get along just fine.

As far as flying vs non flying
If it is an aircraft that has no specific historic significance (story of the specific aircraft) and a type that can be reasonably replaced...fly it if you that is your mandate.

But if it has a history that will be destroyed with the aircraft or it cannot reasonably be replaced as a museum it should be static and used to inspire and educate the next generation.

My opinion and experiences.

Tom H

[Tom H]

Beefitarian

Having said that if you're "restoring" it with bolts from the hardware store and other things that are not right just to save money to make a static display. Once a certain level of that occurs you may as well just get a good film set building company to make a duplicate. I can apprecieate the Arrow replicas, what does it matter if it's not an origional if the scale is right and it's all correct looking. It's just a display.

You work with what you have...the more funding, the more accurate and the closer to original. It's that simple. The public, the industry (with exceptions) and the government do not as a rule support our aviation history well in comparison to the arts.

So often museums have to make do in order to simply save a historic airframe, much less restore it.

Tom

[Meecka]

I think the risk of flying an airplane that can't be replaced is not worth while.

We currently have the ONLY surviving combat veteran mark 4 Hurricane in the world, as well as one of only 2 airworthy and flying Fairey Swordfishes, as well as other not so easy to acquire warbirds. Every time I see the strong reaction to one of our birds in the air, I find the "risk" immensely worthwhile. I personally find the idea of these beutiful machines sitting iddle behind glass, or even worse, rotting on a cement pad, or "pogo stick" very sad.

By the by, we are currently in the process of restoring an Mark 12 Hurricane, which was built in Thunder Bay to flying condition.

Just my 2 cents.

[Beefitarian]

I used to think that was the only way to restore a plane. After Hedly posted the video in another Mosquito thread of the Mosquito crashing in England. I'm not as confident they should fly.

I do believe that when they do it's a whole other level of existence and I agree it is so much better to see than the collection turning back into minerals at Langly.

[Tom H]

I think the risk of flying an airplane that can't be replaced is not worth while.

We currently have the ONLY surviving combat veteran mark 4 Hurricane in the world, as well as one of only 2 airworthy and flying Fairey Swordfishes, as well as other not so easy to acquire warbirds. Every time I see the strong reaction to one of our birds in the air, I find the "risk" immensely worthwhile. I personally find the idea of these beutiful machines sitting iddle behind glass, or even worse, rotting on a cement pad, or "pogo stick" very sad.

By the by, we are currently in the process of restoring an Mark 12 Hurricane, which was built in Thunder Bay to flying condition.

Just my 2 cents.

Well Meecka

First off say hi to Rob for me

To topic

Our Museum has the last existing Tiger Moth from 16 Elementary Flight Training School that was part of the BCATP on our airport. It is airworthy, but will not be flown.

If it was flown and destroyed it would end all connection to that part of our history and cannot be replaced. The aircraft may only be the tools to tell the story of those that made the history, but when you lose that connection you lose the ability to make the history real.

We will have a flying Tiger in the future...it will ether be one built form parts we can locate, one that is restored form a Tiger with no significant historic provenance or a replica.

In the air it will achieve the same results as the one on the museum floor, but not risk the history and the personal connection.

Beefitarian

I do believe that when they do it's a whole other level of existence and I agree it is so much better to see than the collection turning back into minerals at Langly.

I know the team at Langley and they do an amazing job with the very limited resources they have.
If you want to see that change then we need to change the public, industry, corporate and government attitude on our aviation history.

If we spent 1/2 of what we do on arts on our history it we be a game changer and places like Langley would be able to do a much better job.

Places like ours could go to a whole new level.

But till then it is a matter of doing what we can with what we have while fighting to get the funding to do more.

Tom H

[Kilo-Kilo]

Other than the remains of the Hampden, any of the aircraft outside at Langley can be found on pedestals as weather vanes at random airports across the land. When you look at the number of derelict private aircraft that litter the public ramp due to loss of owner interest, you realize how commendable the work is that the museum has accomplished to keep up their flying fleet of vintage pieces which are inside.

[cgzro]

As a pilot who is lucky enough to be trusted with a few old planes Im biased to flying museums but I recently spent an afternoon at the Museum of sci tech in Munich where they have a lot of cutaway stuff that you can wiggle and play with.

I think the static aircraft dispays need to add a bunch of hands on stuff to really educate and interest.
A pretty plane 10 feet away that you cant touch is nice but cut it open like the slice through the A320 in Munich. ... wow.

[Tom H]

Lets talk some more...
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=79622

[Beefitarian]

I do believe that when they do it's a whole other level of existence and I agree it is so much better to see than the collection turning back into minerals at Langly.

I know the team at Langley and they do an amazing job with the very limited resources they have.
If you want to see that change then we need to change the public, industry, corporate and government attitude on our aviation history.

If we spent 1/2 of what we do on arts on our history it we be a game changer and places like Langley would be able to do a much better job.


Tom H

I think it's nice for you to defend them but just like the planes on a pedestal. They are being killed by snow, rain and sun.