Duxford DH9

I have no problem SG and respect your views, I don’t necessarily agree. Got to admit it makes for a far more interesting existence than everyone agreeing.

I agree, disagreement is good for stimulating debate and a unanimous agreement policy would indeed be boring and like a government cabinet meeting!
So does anyone disagree……:D

I have no problem SG and respect your views, I don’t necessarily agree. Got to admit it makes for a far more interesting existence than everyone agreeing.

Sorry SG, I don’t understand why you are so incensed at the loss of the 163. I could appreciate your angst if it had been the last example of the breed; however doesn’t the UK still has 3 in museums, Cosford, East Fortune and the Science Museum. So its loss is far out weighted by the gaining of the DH9 and the knowledge gained by Retrotec from its restoration which will go a long way towards returning another one to the air.

Ian, sorry if I come across as incensed, as I am not; my view on what is more important, is as valuable as yours (or not as the case may be), I agree that Retrotec probably learnt much from this static restoration to aid them in a flying project, but that would have been the case irrespective of the buyer of the first DH9.

My concern is (as always) the way that IWM Duxford spends money that it doesn’t have, and the way that it goes about finding funding for various ventures; recently they sent out a questionaire asking former friends of Duxford why they had let their membership lapse; I’m sure that they filed my return in the bin, who knows someone might have actually read it before that.

I believe that IWM Duxford waste money; I am not saying that the DH9 is a case in point because it is not, but like another major force in the warbird arena, they don’t own their A/C,they haven’t bought one with their own money ,and as such they have no idea in real terms what anything that they have (for have read the nation has) is worth on the open market.

In terms of value for money – Newark is probably a prime example of value for money! A rough guess of eleven aircraft housed at a cost of £472,000 works out at £42,909.00 a piece. Included in this was the first Varsity to be housed undercover. Whilst the concept of aircraft being housed in something distinctly hangar looking doesn’t excite some of the more radical minded – it’s exactly the type of building that people tend to associate with aircraft!
As for Cosford – laudible as it is to get three V bombers under cover – it casts distinct doubt on it’s commitment to preservation when it can house two Vulcans but shows little long term interest in the future of the Lyneham Comet 2 or indeed some of the other gems which could fill holes in it’s collection.

Just googled 12.3 Million to house 17 aircraft = £723000 per airframe or part thereof

Airspace 25 million to house 30 aircraft = £833333 per airframe or part thereof

I was surprised at that – I thought it might be the other way round, given the more radical (and therefore – i thought- more expensive) NCWM vs effectively an enlarging of an existing and more ‘conventionally’ designed building.

An interesting comparison might be the number of aircraft formerly OUTSIDE now housed INSIDE by each museum (dont have the gen to hand) for a ‘true’ indication of ‘value for money’?

Not sure whether this is helpful or not, as previously posted I think any investment in aircraft preservation or display is worth celebrating nevermind £39million on two projects opening within a few months of each other.

TT

Andy, you didn’t want to be drawn on the “Duxford value for money debate”, but if you did , my question would be ; is £29m the sort of money to spend upgrading an existing building, to house just 30 A/C at a unit cost of £900,000?

My view is that the 163 is a rare enough type that it should have remained at Duxford, it is after all the “Imperial War Museum”, not the RAF museum and as such should be displaying axis A/C types, this is our heritage that they are disposing of.

I am far less concerned about profit (or not) made by a company, set up to make money (like all others) i.e not a charity; if the DH9 was actually sold to IWM for anything like £1m, then it is a pretty expensive static aeroplane, and one that (notwithstanding its rarity)would struggle to make that on the open market (in my view),as a trade, then its harder to see its net worth, or indeed the net worth of the 163.

Would I remove executive decision powers…. yes, along with some of those making them.

To pause from flagellating a sec, two points 1) anyone know how much NCW at Cosford cost (and that was constructed from scratch?) in comparison with Airspace….

Secondly, I think it must be pointed out that IIRC a chunk of the money was used to restore airframes FOR airspace, rather than just the construction of it….

rightio, off to get me birch branch again… toodle pip

TT

Sorry SG, I don’t understand why you are so incensed at the loss of the 163. I could appreciate your angst if it had been the last example of the breed; however doesn’t the UK still has 3 in museums, Cosford, East Fortune and the Science Museum. So its loss is far out weighted by the gaining of the DH9 and the knowledge gained by Retrotec from its restoration which will go a long way towards returning another one to the air.

Stuart – are you suggesting that executive decisions be removed from those who make them?

Andy, you didn’t want to be drawn on the “Duxford value for money debate”, but if you did , my question would be ; is £29m the sort of money to spend upgrading an existing building, to house just 30 A/C at a unit cost of £900,000?

My view is that the 163 is a rare enough type that it should have remained at Duxford, it is after all the “Imperial War Museum”, not the RAF museum and as such should be displaying axis A/C types, this is our heritage that they are disposing of.

I am far less concerned about profit (or not) made by a company, set up to make money (like all others) i.e not a charity; if the DH9 was actually sold to IWM for anything like £1m, then it is a pretty expensive static aeroplane, and one that (notwithstanding its rarity)would struggle to make that on the open market (in my view),as a trade, then its harder to see its net worth, or indeed the net worth of the 163.

Would I remove executive decision powers…. yes, along with some of those making them.

Dont ask me….I’m still flagellating….

TT

Oh for goodness sake what is going on…. I’m sure any possible ‘profit’ will be poured into the fuel tanks of the Nimrod, Spitfire and Hurricane during the course of the season. Well done to all involved, it looks great from the pictures, far better than when the elephants had it for company.

Yak 11, EN380, Xtangomike, Mark12, Ohope, Paul F et al – HEAR HEAR!

Stuart – are you suggesting that executive decisions be removed from those who make them?

What it cost to buy, restore and to acquire are wholly irrelevant. As long as each party is happy with the final bill – which we dont know, it really doesnt matter!

Of course it didnt actually COST anything, as it was traded for another aircraft….

Bruce

Isn’t the IWM owned by the country, the British tax payer? when you say “each party” do you mean salaried staff of the IWM,the British govt, or the people that fund it both directly and indirectly?

Oh for goodness sake what is going on…. I’m sure any possible ‘profit’ will be poured into the fuel tanks of the Nimrod, Spitfire and Hurricane during the course of the season. Well done to all involved, it looks great from the pictures, far better than when the elephants had it for company.

Absolutely Andy.My thinking exactly.

Andy read again, not my comments, straight from the Daily Telegraph.

Did I add anything extra?

Peter – The two comments were plucked, out of context, from the Daily Telegraph and placed side-by-side in such a way as to convey an obvious message to the reader – and not the message that was being conveyed in the newspaper! At least, thats my view. When I used the words “comments of this nature” previoiusly I should, more accurately, have said “posts of this nature”. I cannot imagine I am alone in thinking that there was a somewhat mischievous intent in the configuation of your post with its juxtaposition of two different parts of the article to achieve a certain effect! Andy

Many thanks to those involved in the recovery , restoration and preservation of these aircraft so that we can enjoy them , and a thank you also to those who took and put up the photos here for people like myself on the other side of the world to be able to enjoy them too .
Some of the people involved may well have deep pockets, without them many rescues and restorations would not happen , but the one thing that binds us together is a passion for aviation .

Beaufighter IV, I am not having “a go” and indeed I know you well and respect your work but I dont think comments of this order do anyone any favours. Mark 12’s comments were spot on. Andy Saunders

Andy read again, not my comments, straight from the Daily Telegraph.

Did I add anything extra?

A company is traditionally defined as a group of persons who organise themselves together to pursue a common objective that usually involves the carrying on of a trade or business for profit

I’ve highlighted a couple of points, I’m guessing that Aerovintage’s common objective is to Restore Vintage aircraft either to the air or at least display standard. Some remain within the the group of Companies to be flown, others to be traded on to fund other projects and others as bespoked projects for certain clients. As this is their “business” then I’m sure to a certain extent a profit is involved. I don’t know of many companies, outside of the Communist system, that operate on making a loss.

The DH9 is a credit to Guy, the team at Retrotec and a great addition to the IMW at Duxford. What should not be forgotten is that the Me163 may have gone west to fund this project, however Retrotec, Aerovintage and HAC over the past few years have put into the air several significant rare airframes such as the Nieuport, two Nimrods and Bristol Fighter. Not to mention two Spitfires with at least two more passing through their hands to bring other airframes to the UK. We should also not loose sight of the fact that the wheeling and dealing that has gone on, also presents the tantilising sight of a Yak 1 in the air over Cambridgeshire in the not too distant future, several more Hawker Bi-Planes, another DH9 and possibly a Heinkel 162. If along the way a profit has been made, I’m all for the free enterprise and the rewards it brings to my hobby and interest.

Yes, back to the original debate.

A very original, but in need of conservation (with all that entails) aircraft, in exchange for a restored aircraft (with all that entails)

For my money, I think it was the right choice – we have other Me163’s in the country which are:

a) Not a particularly significant combat aircraft
b) Do not represent OUR aviation history.

The DH9 now represents a host of forgotten and understated late WW1 and post WW1 designs which we will never see again. Ultimately, I feel history will see this as the right decision.

I should state I have no financial interest in either aircraft!

Bruce

[Of course it didnt actually COST anything, as it was traded for another aircraft….

Bruce[/QUOTE]

What was that then……….;)