Mark – I would dearly like to see the RAFM Beaufort restored to its genuine RAAF PNG markings and I dont think people would see that as being out of place as that is exactly what it is. Aircraft such as the Beaufort were a part of the direct Empire war effort and I think people would relate to it more.
As for the CASA -I still feel that her genuine markings are what would suit her best -I am hoping that the days of museums painting aircraft in spurious markings are coming to an end – the idea that by painting her for instance in a BOB film scheme could act as a kind of half way house isnt really that worthy. The use of the machines in the film was just a tiny part of the Heinkel /CASA story. I am not a great advocate that the IWM should spend large sums of money on an aircraft of limited historical connection to the U.K. To me the real story is the Spanish use post WWII and their exploits in North Africa.

David,

I support much of what you say, and retaining aircraft in their own identities and colourschemes is a valid display strategy, particularly when the aircraft is complete and has its own unique story to tell, but balancing that is the issue of the collection purpose and the role the aircraft is to play in the collection.

There is a valid role for replicas, reproductions and FSM’s in museum displays, and we accept those being put into the colourschemes and markings of the collections subject matter, as clearly they have no identity of their own, so I still consider the same can apply to a complete aircraft being presented in “representative” markings rather than its own.

The RAFM Beaufort in one of 5 surviving in the world, with the other 3 in Australia, 1 in the USA, all ex RAAF examples.

One of those in Australia is A9-13 / T9552, a DAP mark V and the oldest surviving example of the 5, it was built in Australia and joined 100 Squadron RAF in Australia as part of 180 intended to be delivered to the RAF from Australian production, although only 6 were flown to Singapore to try and defend from Japanese attack, and the remaining 59 built including this aircraft then tranferred back to the RAAF – This would have been the ideal one for Hendon to have acquired, displayed as itself as T9552 it would have fulfilled all objectives.

The example that the RAFM does have is an ex RAAF Mark VIII, but is very similar to the Bristol Mark II that it represents, the other 3 surviving examples are identical to it with the AWM and US examples being mark VIII’s and the Flying restoration in Australia being a mark VII but fitted with the centre-fuselage of a mark VIII effectively resulting in that outcome in anycase.

All 3 in Australia will be presented as Australian built RAAF aircraft in their own identities, the US example is assumed to result in the same outcome ands from my position the 5th in the RAFM being presented as a Bristol mark II in RAF markings is not a loss of the RAAF heritage but filling a gap of an extinct type in the UK, representing a type both built and operated by Britain.

I do contrast that with the RAAF Seagull in the RAFM which is best displayed as itself given its rarity.

In the USAF Museum there is an ex RAAF Bristol Beaufighter mark IC, A19-43, its main structure was recovered intact in Australia in the 1970s and the airframe saw operational service with the RAAF in PNG, It is one of only 3 surviving ex RAAF Bristol built Beaufighters, the other two are later mark XI examples one in the UK at Duxford and the other in storage un restored in Australia, while two ex RAAF DAP Mark 21’s also survive but tell a completely different story.

It is an example of the failures of Australia’s export laws at the time, and should have instead been acquired by the AWM and retained in Australia, instead it is displayed in the USAF Museum in night fighter colours as an obsecure type the US flew in Italy. Instead it could be displayed in its own authentic operational colours as an allied aircraft that flew in support of US forces in the Pacific against the Japanese and is of the type that Americans flew as night fighters in Italy.

and yes, the RAAF Beaufort in the RAFM could be displayed in its RAAF colours on the same basis, but its not the sole survivor, and there are equivalents remaining in Australia itself.

Museums need to balance using exhibits to tell the story they acquired them to tell, as well as retaining the provenance of the object itself, but there are a number of ways that can be achieved.

The CASA as a type is irrelevent to the UK let alone the remit of the IWM, but as an FSM of a He 111 it is a perfect acquisition, if they spent money on a fibreglass FSM of a HE 111 for a display it would be happily displayed in BoB german markings, I dont see the difference with the CASA.

Regards

Mark Pilkington