|
Post by beagle on Feb 29, 2008 19:44:49 GMT 12
[quote author=sniff . [/quote]
Which would you rather see? Glad-wrapped A4's or an impressive flying display...[/quote]
I think the B757 is doing a very good job regards noise and handling of aircraft at airshows.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 29, 2008 20:14:27 GMT 12
I wasnt suggesting we keep glad wraped A4's . " The more you keep , the more you pay " - I totally agree , thats why I suggested only 1 flying . The instructional airframe ones would be part of the normal training budget ( does it seem so wrong to use A4's instead of Devons ) ,and the museum ones would cost nothing ( except the inital capital writeoff - which now seems to be comparitivly small ) . Love the 757 display - but even just one display fighter would be awesome . ( I do realise there is a fair bit of wishfull thinking in this reply :-) )
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 29, 2008 20:47:09 GMT 12
Lets face it, they are never going to fly in New Zealand again unless some overseas buyer takes them in a 'as is where is" condition. As Don had mentioned earlier, the test rigs and such to bring everything back up on line would be almost cost prohibitive, if they were able to get them working. Yes use them for instructional airframes, say about 4-6 with the rest going to musuems etc.
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Feb 29, 2008 20:57:49 GMT 12
You are right, but the 'cost' means there is 'hurt' elsewhere in the RNZAF.
Other than a benefactor, it aint going to happen, otherwise it already would have.
Write-off wont be an option until capital value equals zero, or the cost of current caretaking outweighs capital value. Obviously, the beancounters still see a return.
In the meantime, the air force is bleeding.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 29, 2008 21:07:51 GMT 12
Think your more realistic than me Beagle , ( you dont see any airworthy ) but I agree that I'd rather see them remain in the country , instructional , museum , whatever , but lets not give them away
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 29, 2008 21:17:33 GMT 12
Geez, Lumpy, be generous please and donate NZ6255 TA4K to the Nowra Naval Museum as is. This one used to be RAN TA4G side number 880. You might hear more about this if the sale to anyone does not go ahead. Does not matter if the unseen bits are missing (for security or technical reasons) but if from inside the cockpit and from outside if it looks like it is now then that would be a terrific exhibit to show what happened to it over in NZed. Cool idea or what? ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 29, 2008 21:21:21 GMT 12
Actually , part of the reason I think we should keep them is that I wonder if the guys who scraped all those P40's , P51's ( and even Harvards ) , ever thought that they would ever be economic to return to the skies ?
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Feb 29, 2008 21:22:57 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 29, 2008 21:39:02 GMT 12
Flynavy , that is EXACTLY , the sort of thing Id prefer they get used for ( ok , I said in this country , but for you guys , Id make an exception ) :-)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 29, 2008 21:41:45 GMT 12
f '57 looks pretty ship-shape! Unfortunately it does not look as good in person. It really needs a fresh coat of paint. I think there are still plans to make it the new gate guard at Ohakea.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 29, 2008 21:57:55 GMT 12
Any one remember playing on a Vampire in a kids playground ? Perhaps a Spitfire on a pole in Chch .I could live with an A4 gate guard .
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Feb 29, 2008 21:59:05 GMT 12
Just like classic cars the longer you hold onto them the more valuable they become (over time)! I bet there are a lot of people who rue cutting up old WWII aircraft now
After all our Skyhawks are 'classic status' now surely?
My earlier point is $45M NZ is next to nothing when compared to money wasted elsewhere in the economy and with the Air Force forking out for the continued storage costs etc wouldn't it be better that these fine aircraft that have served NZ well are given good USEFUL homes that mean they can CONTRIBUTE!
From the suggestions put forward so far....
1) GTU as instructional airframes to replace Devons. This would give RNZAF guys a more modern aircraft to work on and keep these aircraft in tip top condition. It would also allow the current aircraft Devons/Strikemaster to be sold off to Museums/Collectors
2) Donate to Museums. Whether it be Australia or NZ the benefit here is WE THE GENERAL PUBLIC will get to see these aircraft up close and personal (after all it is us who paid for them in the first place!)
3) TA4K's. Consideration be given to keeping them flying as a fast jet training with Army/Navy and homeland security (they could also put on displays for airshows etc). In order to generate revenue then (if the government is that cash strapped then offer joy rides in them as a reasonable cost!). The other alternative is to lease them to a private operator (NZ Based) whilst remaining in Government ownership for the same use. We have some of the best scenery in the world and least populated skies (not to mention best weather and thrill seeker reputation) and I for one would be happy to pay a reasonable sum for the 'ride of a lifetime'!
I just don't believe selling them off cheap to anyone who comes knocking is the best solution here! By the time you take all the sale and storage costs off the sale price we will have got noting in capital return on these aircraft (I bet Goff and Co won't be sounding off about that when they 'announce' confirmation of the sale?)
Just my opinion......
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Feb 29, 2008 22:23:11 GMT 12
tfly I like 1 & 2, but I cant go along with 3. It's a cost that the Air Force cannot sustain. Someone else needs to step into the breach. Will it be the government? NOT A Tiger & Harvard, I can live with, they are classic, anything high-maintenance means the current aviators go without. That is why the 626 doesnt fly any more. And thats why Warbirds - et al - do a remarkable job!
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 29, 2008 23:28:59 GMT 12
A question would be why are there so few Skyhawk warbirds flying in the States? I don't know the answer but finding some details may help you with why it probably is not a good idea to keep them flying - just for the heck of it. Unless someone with deep pockets - like the Temora Aviation Museum - would be a prime example in Australia of an institution with the clout (like the Collings Foundation in the USofA which keeps a TA4 flying) that could handle that issue.
So what I'm saying - two trainers to Australia or whatever the nabobs come up with but at least two Skyhawks. One for Nowra and a good 'un for flying at Temora. Cool what? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Feb 29, 2008 23:39:23 GMT 12
If its a storage issue I'd be happy to accommodate one in my garden shed! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Mar 1, 2008 0:12:52 GMT 12
your garden shed can wait , I will build a purpose built hangar ( so long as they can get one past the corner of the house ! ) :-)
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 2, 2008 16:20:43 GMT 12
and the museum ones would cost nothing ( except the inital capital writeoff - which now seems to be comparitivly small ). The Skyhawks remaining book value was written off in financial year 2001/2002, so there is no "cost" to the RNZAF in giving them away or retaining them for use as instructional airframes. The cost of keeping one airworthy as part of the RNZAF Historic Flight would be significant, but doable in my opinion. There are still enough Skyhawk people around Ohakea to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Mar 2, 2008 19:53:29 GMT 12
Thanks for that Don , I had no idea they had already been writen off the books ( but obviously the Govt are still hoping to recover some capital by selling them ) . Im also pleasantly surprised that you consider the idea of keeping one airworthy , as doable . I have no idea of the cost involved , but as I said , I do see benefits in the areas of PR , recruiting ,and general moral . As part of the historic flight , one wouldnt need up to date armourments etc , just be airworthy , so as to be able to put on the occasional public display .Surely even some of the maintainance would be good training , and so could come from that budget ?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 2, 2008 21:08:55 GMT 12
As part of the historic flight , one wouldnt need up to date armourments etc , just be airworthy Actually you would, if you wanted to carry smoke for your display, or tanks to get you there, the racks would need to be serviceable (an armament function) and they would need serviceable (ie not life expired) explosive cartridges fitted. Also the seat (part of the armament system, kind of) would need to be serviced, again the cartridges would need to be purchased for this. That's just our side of things, I'm sure the avionics and aircraft also has many lifed items that would require ongoing ILM servicing, the support and knowledge, tooling and spares for which no longer exist (well the spares exist somewhere...we just can't get them). I'm not sure that Don's assertion that Ohakea personnel could support an A4 is correct. There are a few armourers around still that have the experience to look after the aircraft, and I'm sure the same is true for av, acft and S&S, but I know that we just do not have the spare capacity to do the work. From an armament standpoint, there is no seat bay and no carrier bay. I'm one of the last ones who worked in both places up until Aug 2001, but I simply wouldn't have the time (my authorisations have all lapsed anyway - as has everyone else's). As an example, currently I am running the hoist bay, and servicing the Iroquois hoist fleet on my own, and one other is working on the hooks. There is just no manpower available in the real world to support an A4 at historic flight. OLM would not pose too much of an issue, but I think that across the board, ILM would be a real show stopper. Most of us would be prepared to put in quite a bit of our own time to see it happen, but people move on and that kind of attitude would eventually be lost. There would need to be a substantial maintenance commitment made, both in manpower and spares, and I don't think that would be viable in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 3, 2008 6:49:43 GMT 12
If one was kept airworthy in Christchurch, I'd gladly give up my weekends to work on it. There would be others down here too. I suspect the same would happen at Ohakea if there aren't enough current serving people to look after one. Once the initial DLM servicing to get an aircraft airworthy again is complete, the maintenance after that would be manageable by a group of volunteers. Even if one can't be saved to fly, at least have it in a state to engine run and high speed taxi it!! It would be quite a crowd puller at open days I imagine. Of course this is all academic if the RNZAF wouldn't support the concept (which I doubt they would given the constraints Phil and others mention). I have already discussed this with the director of the RNZAF Museum and it isn't their policy to have aircraft that can be engine run
|
|