What's on at Air Force Museum of New Zealand
Latest from the museum
Support
Home For Heroes
Join us in building a forever home for New Zealand’s C-130 Hercules and P-3 Orion – icons of service.
For more than half a century, these legendary aircraft carried our nation’s courage across the world – in peace, crisis, and discovery. Now, they need a home worthy of their legacy, where their stories of service, innovation and humanity will continue to inspire.
Learn More
Birthday Parties
Mission: Best birthday ever
Zip up a flight suit, grab your dog tags, and dive into a fully hosted birthday “mission”. From air & sea adventures for preschoolers to rescue and cadet challenges for older children. Our Programmes team runs the activities, the children get awesome photo moments (and party bags), and you can add catering through our café.
Book a birthday party
Exhibition
The Mighty Hercules
The Mighty Hercules exhibition is on in the Cochrane Gallery upstairs in our atrium. Come and visit and learn all about this extraordinary aircraft.
Learn More
Update
Overseas visitor charge
A $15 entry charge was introduced for all international visitors to the Air Force Museum of New Zealand from 31 March 2025. Tickets available online or from our Welcome Desk on arrival.
The charge is required to cover rising costs and to contribute to our new $20 million extension to house the newest members of our collection – our historic Hercules and Orion aircraft.
Learn More
Our Aircraft
Explore AircraftMore to explore
URGENT CLARIFICATION: In an unlikely turn of events, we’ve been alerted to growing confusion about the differences between the De Havilland DH86 Express and the Mitsubishi Express, so we’re stepping in without hesitation to clear the issue up.
The confusion is unsurprising.
As well as sharing a name, these mighty steeds from De Havilland and Mitsubishi were both purpose-built transporters with striking designs, impressive cargo and passenger carrying capability and more than a little engineering flair. They were both a little light in the tail which could result in ‘burn out’ in less experienced pilots – or operators looking for fun.
They both served in the RNZAF and, as you can see, are virtually identical to the untrained eye. So, we’ve prepared a handy three-step guide to allow you to tell them apart at a glance.
The first, and arguably most obvious difference, is in their engine configuration. Mitsubishi went for the safe design option, powering the Express with a 1.8 litre inline four-cylinder Sirius engine producing around 80 horsepower and with a top speed of more than 125km with only the bravest or most foolhardy driver at the wheel.
The De Havilland Express had much more firepower. It came fresh from the factory with four (yes four!) DH Gipsy Six engines producing 200 horsepower each and a heady 800 combined. These four beasts were capable of propelling the Express at up to 267 km/h.
The second difference is in the indicator light configuration.
The De Havilland Express came with a conventional landing light/navigation light/position arrangement but sadly lacked indicators for sudden changes of direction which no doubt caused many a pilot to come unstuck in heavy traffic.
The Mitsubishi Express came with easily recognisable port and starboard indicators that flashed nice and consistently, until a bulb blew. These made changing lanes easy, and there was a hazard light mode as a bonus.
The final difference – and you will kick yourself once it is pointed out – is in the passenger capacity department.
The Mitsubishi Express was reasonably capacious, with room for three crew up front on the flight deck bench seat and the ability to squeeze in up to six average sized baggies (equivalent to three Loadmasters) or eight tall and thin Air Cadets stacked long ways at a pinch, and with safety thrown to the wind.
By contrast, the De Havilland Express had much more satisfactory arrangements for passengers. The long-range version could seat up to 10 passengers with a pilot and navigator up front, but the short-range Express could take up to 12 passengers as well as two crew.
So there you have it. Never confuse your Expresses again.
You’re very welcome!
#urgentclarification #dehavillandexpress #mitsubishiexpress ... See MoreSee Less
Comment on Facebook
Ones is a gorgeous example of design and function working harmoniously together using materials available for its time, the other is a four engined Dragon Rapide
Another often missed point of difference are the cargo doors. While both platforms had the port side cargo doors, the Mitsubishi also had a rear cargo door, which, depending on load configuration, enabled rapid loading and unloading, especially pax. With the Mitsubishi Express, LAPES trials were undertaken and were proving to be particularly effective, but were cancelled after complaints from the mothers of the Under 9s Soccer team.
The L800 4wd was fricken awes in a dark grape purple
Could the Express van lift its rear wheels if the stop pedal was pressed very hard and quickly? Or could the name sake aircraft lift its rear wheel as well ?
With the Mitsubishi if you dumped the clutch with steering at full lock you could lift a front wheel in the air and almost Tip it over especially if you were facing down hill.
Getting a Mitsubishi van up to 80kph was taking your life in your hands
Dad transplanted a Sigma GSR engine into his L300 as it just didn't have enough legs for his towing needs😂
I've never heard of the flying one, tbh. I'll keep an eye out at the traffic lights. Or am I still confused?
The confusion is understandable given that Mitsubishi also make airplanes including many used on the Tokyo Express.
air cadets stacked longways 🤣🤣🤣
Thanks, again, AFMNZ for a very clever and witty dialogue. Love it.
An absolutely beautiful treatise 😀
Thank you so much! I was completely confused until now … 👍😁
Another masterful explanation. Ever grateful for these handy guides!
What was the maximum takeoff weight and how far can each fly?
About the same performance off road
Ah! This is useful information. One is thin skinned, noisy, bumpy and will probably be fatal in the event of a sudden unplanned halt against a wet fag packet, the other is an aeroplane. Thanks!
I'm confusing DH 90 with the common dragonfly, can you help me?
View more comments
YOU CAN'T PARK THERE MATE! Today's entry dates back to November 1994 when No. 14 Squadron Aermacchi NZ6460 completed a wheels-up landing on the runway after suffering an engine failure on take off from RNZAF Base Ohakea.
The pilot was unhurt - and did a brilliant job of parking the Macchi in difficult circumstances.
The engine failed after it ingested a metal object, resulting in a flameout shortly after take off.
The story has a happy ending. The Macchi was repaired back in Italy and went on to fly again. It now takes pride of place in our museum collection - so come and have a look!
The RNZAF bought 18 Aermacchi MB-339CBs in 1990, and all of the aircraft were operated by No. 14 Squadron at RNZAF Base Ohakea.
The Macchis were retired in 2001 when the Government disbanded the Air Combat F#youcantparktherematektheremate ... See MoreSee Less
Comment on Facebook
That was a long day, was on day shift, went back to work when the crash alarm went and helped out night shift in the hanger while they sorted out the accident.
They should have been kept to train against ours and foreign troops and navy in the anti air role. Or perhaps offered pilot training to friendly countries in our vast open spaces and generated revenue to keep them.
Watched that happen…well the takeoff part, from the rear seat of the next Macchi waiting g to depart!
Fun fact - that engine serial number VL680009 suffered two FOD related engine failures before it has logged 100 flying hours. After the wheels up landing it arrived at ERS, Woodbourne for repair with 99.1 hours from new. The thread form from the loose fastener was clearly visible in many of the aluminium compressor blades.
They were just lucky that the aircraft I witnessed being eyeball to eyeball with its pilot and flying a few metres above a large macrocapa tree did not crash into the tree and two houses that day. As I was grateful not to have witnessed fully although l will never forget the look on the pilots face through the cabin window of the Air Mac flying so so low off the ground in Northern Taranaki.
The metal object was a 5mm screw from the intake lip - worked loose and drawn forward around the curvature into the engine intake by the mass flow at take off power. The start of a long investigation but as noted a happy ending for pilot and chariot. Kept COTW busy!
I was the President of the Court of Inquiry. As Neil Hygate has noted a fastener (screw) on the outside of the intake lip came loose, moved forward and was ingested. We were initially very surprised when the missing screw appeared likely to have come from the rear of the intake (6” or so), but information from Macchi 326 operators (RAAF and SAAF) revealed this had occurred before on their fleets. High thrust and low-ish speed provided airflow conditions that meant the screw moved forward and not to the rear. The 1st stage compressor in the 326’s variant of the viper was much more forgiving of FOD down the intake than the viper powering the 339’s!
Fly the Herc's and the Orions for 50 years, fly the Macchi's for 11 years, now that is really efficient Labour Government. Remember that later in the year people, who you can trust and who you cannot.
Thought it might have been a buccaneer going through a drive through there before my eyes adjusted.
Yeah remember saw TV news.
This image warrants the caption 'Only when needing to use full thrust to taxi did it occur that he'd not put his landing gear down.'
Interesting, looks like it is attempting to operate at or just above the usual altitude used by the Buccaneer.
And 'apparently' asking the flight line SNCO for the phone number for the TV news channel isn't the correct response Aaron Carr
Remember being on base and hearing it. As one of a few off duty fire crew we responded on the Hino fire tanker. I think one Unipower firetender lights blew whilst responding. I’m pretty sure there was a RAAF 707 flying at the time that night. Correct me if wrong? Always wondered if the outcome would have been didn’t if the gun pods weren’t on? Loooking for an expert answer there?
They were trainers for the Skyhawks. One used to land at Whenuapai every Wednesday with the mail from Ohakea. There they had Carabous, pc3 Orion's or sub hunters and Hercules. Practically rewired the whole base, built a new HiTech telephone exchange with filters and U.S staff working with us. The hangers and then the same with Hobsonville.
grew up in bulls, i use to love hearing them screaming around the sky
How many strikemasters did we have?
Nice looking aircraft but I like the Strikemaster better. John McCormick
Difficult to taxi with full afterburner.
Good skills
David JG when do you get a post?
Isn't that the same reason another Macchi crashed into water in Auckland not long after? I think there was a technician in the back seat. I remember seeing the HUD tape of it.
Graeme Hill
How capable were the 339s...? Wiki suggests that they are quite a capable weapons platform beyond their main training platform. Did our kiwi maccies ever carry AGM-65S or sidewinders for training?
They should’ve just retired the Skyhawks and kept the Macchi’s
View more comments
⚽GO THE ALL WHITES VOLUME II! As the All Whites stare down the challenge of taking on Egypt in the World Cup today, we wanted to inspire the boys with some archive shots of the hardest looking teams in the equally famous RNZAF Conquest Cup competition at RNZAF Base Wigram in 1981.
The beautiful game has never looker tougher. For the record, RNZAF Base Auckland won that year.
If you want to have a look at our extensive catalogue of football greatness, go to: airforcemuseum.co.nz/photographs/
and put in football as a key word.
#WorldCup2026 #football #AllWhites ... See MoreSee Less
Comment on Facebook
Remarkable … got a cousin and my brother’s RNZAF best mate in those pics.
Those were the days! So many great memories of hard games and players :-)