Straight-up question. I fully expect to get flamed W, but hey I asked.... eh?
I was leafing through the latest edition of Australian Aviation, and while normally a tome of level headed and even handed reporting, I had to put the mag down for a short time before reading-on at one stage. I don't have the page number, but refer to the caption underneath the picture of the imported Naval variant of the HARS L1049 that we are being told that we "must support" or forever lose.
Why
must we support it?
It is an airframe itself that has no significance or ties to Australian aviation.
It is not even a "same as what used to fly here", being a muchly different airframe in so far as build/wt/window shape/fuse length etc etc.
It is operated by an old boys club who would have anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot know that this aircraft is the most significant airframe in the air (just) today.
To be viable, why not conduct paying pax joyflights (much like what Jack Curtis is doing with the Daks at BK), and invest the money into the airframe etc? Charging 5 bucks just have a squizz inside while on static display, and having the cockpit off limits to everyone is no way to win new friends to HARS.
OpsN reckons and sez: You wanna have the general public pay for your personal retirement toys, then give the public something in return instead of a cold shoulder and a bad aftertaste in their mouths after dealing with you.
While I agree in principle with the concept of what you are trying to acvhieve in the long run, and yes I will admit to not having been exposed to the 'Connie' for a couple of years now (due to being in another part of the country that never sees your aircraft, but only a few hours flying away from the 'action centres' - read: Airshow cct), more value by the general public is given to the types of operations (such as what goes-on at Temora etc) that get the general public to interact with those who let the public get up close and personal with aircraft that actually are a part of our country's history and past.
Or has the attitude changed at HARS in the past few years? Besides, the editorial content of the magazine that the picture I descibe was contained within perhaps could have remained more neutral and not made such a judgement.
Flame away people.