Big restoration project in the UK, why will this never happen?

Another apporach to try to understand the dilemma faced by museums is visitor stimulus per m2 of enclosed space….

Clearly a collection of well known smaller aircraft is going to generate more than larger, historically important, yet unknown airframe…

The focus for the last 10 years has been on infrastrucutre improvements to museums…..viz AAM and AirSpace at Duxford, new wntrance at Hendon, new display hall at Cosford, new hanger at Newark, refurnbed hangers at MoS, all partially funded by the Lottery.

Conversely there has been relatively little increased funding for Conservation programmes and Restoration work.

The major museums have therefore focussed on increasing visitor numbers and expenditure in order to generate additional revenue for the Conservation side of affairs….

The new phase of building will aim to cover the remaining externally located Concordes sowe will see new display building in Manchester, Brooklands and Filton going up in the next 2-8 years.

The other major museums, having focussed on infrastructure will return to a Conservation/Preservation focus for the next few years….

Sadly unless a musuem of wealthy individual funds a resotration the more well known and ‘fashionable’ aircraft will always get priority over the others, rare or not….

A Shak is nowhere near as sexy as a Vulcan…even if it needs its turn indoors…

Also note that whilst Duxford is primarily viewed as the IWM, the airliners are ‘owned by the DAS, not the IWM…different beasts…Concorde and the Comet are going into AirSpace because of their historical value in the GLOBAL history of aviation…not because they are IWM’s planes.

Even at Duxford physical space is an issue. The south side of the airfield is currently NOT avalaible for building…nor is the land beyond the Land Warfare Hall…the only Space left is that between the AAM and the LWH, and even then they are reluctant to lose all the event parking that this provides….

Heyho…

I quite agree with you in respect to both of these aircraft and agree that yes something should have been done many years ago. But without making any excuses for anybody, I can only say what I see, both aircraft have a supervised volunteer crew regularly working, and the are doing a very good job, the shackleton inside looks worn, yes, but very authentic and most importantly dry, as both aircraft are fitted with de-humidifiers. It is a good start and I would hope that as weather improves further work can be carried out on the external surfaces.

I have been lucky enough to have been in both in the past 6 months and was extremely surprised by the condition, it is very early days but I would hope that with the releasing of Conservation officers from Air Space projects, more time can be devoted to these valuable airframes.

Problem is IF you can get hold of a large airframe you will need a large area to store and restore it.Unless you live on a large land area or have a very good council that will agree to planning permission and have access to volunteers ,equipment and money,oh and time,you are pretty much batting off the back foot.
Places like Duxford have alot of the above but it still takes years and years to get projects done.

Airspeed – I think in fairness Duxford is a victim of it’s own success. Large aircraft don’t survive well outside and the Victor and Shackleton show this. The Shackleton this year has been outside thirty years whilst many other types have been acquired since and housed. There will always be the problem of what to preserve but types like the Shackleton MR.3/3 are decidedly on the endangered list in the U.K .
There will never be pots of money to house everything – I am sure with the departure of types like the Draken and Sabre there will be space available eventually to house some more of the British types.

Large aircraft, both Civil and Military, have even larger appetites for money and available labour.
In an ideal world all the aircraft on external display at Duxford would be indoors, but think of the floorspace requirements, even for a basic “shed” the costs would astronomical, plus you have to sell the idea to money men and sponsors, to do this you are likely to have to start to theme the display areas to present it in a saleable package and with this costs rise and so on.

Labour is a readily available resource particularly in the volunteer sector and the necessary skills do exist, but what you have to remember is, that a volunteer is likely to only work one day a week, which equates to only about ten weeks full time per year, hence jobs take longer to complete. Inevitiably on larger aircraft they work outside, this causes delays, then you have holidays etc and the time available reduces quite significantely. You then end up with the Forth Road Bridge Syndrome, in having to repeat work already completed. Very frustrating trust me.

I don’t know what to suggest as a solution but I can assure you that all the large aircraft at Duxford are looked after, what you see on the ouside does not necessarily reflect the whole story.

It is unfortunately the same problem everywhere on the continent with ex-Eastern block aircrafts invading the available surfaces leaving no room for aircrafts more closely related to the local aviation history.

Moggy -I feel there is the possibilty of the IWM at some stage in the future rebranding itself. Indeed in this politically correct age the very word ‘Imperial’ has different interpretations to what it used to. The Air-Space term I feel opens the museum up to new concepts and that is not totally bad. The idea of encompasing Commonwealth machines allows for a lot more interesting items to be added to the collection.
As for the space ‘bit’ – our contribution to space is fairly limited from the point of veiw of military effort – our most successful programme has been the Skylark sounding rocket which carried out it’s last launch last year.
Regards your points JDK – the notes on the Spitfire was purely a means of showing what can happen with exchanges and to also add a little detail to something
which was at the time quite shrowded. The Hampden has now been in the U.K for something like thirteen years ! How time flies.

Yes the treatment of civil aviation as a poor relative of military is dis-heartening at best. I have always been saddened by the fact that to my knowledege not one ex-Imperial Airways aircraft survives (someone please make my day and prove me wrong!).

Probably my greatest fear is that in 25 years time there will be no VC10s, Tridents, Brittanias etc left. For example I believe two whole Comet 1s survive (Lyneham and Cosford – although thinking about it the Lyneham one might be a Mark 2) and both are outside. Surely this is one of the most historic of all British aircraft? and yet they are both consigned to the ‘car park’ whilst aircraft of questionable relevance to the UK are often safely hangered – Ok rant over, but please, can we have an ‘Air Transportation Museum’ to ensure the survival of some of the UKs greatest aeronautical achievements.

Steve.

Is the idea aviation preservation or just WW2 preservation? Its 6 years versus over 100 we’re talking about here.

I suppose somebody should point out that the actual name of Duxford is ‘The Imperial WAR Museum’.

Mind you this opens up the discussion as to why there are so many warplanes at Cosford whilst there are airliners rotting at Duxford.

Moggy

Denys

I quite agree. Duxford and Cosford both have a fine collection of civil types and they should be brought inside too. Most of the flying done in the 100 and a bit years is civilian.

The Yorkshire Air Museum have done some redressing of the balance and have some general aviation types too.

I agree with JDK the proliferation of museums in the South mean it is easier to go for the “smaller options” in terms of collecting. Also a large airframe needs a lot of space to be indoors and if left outside will consume alot of time and resources to keep up to a respectable standard. “Smaller” types can be rotated on a restoration programme and more “processed” in the same amount of time.

As I’ve mentioned above. A large airframe needs a large building and that attracts large investment costs in designing, getting approval and building it. You can fit a larger number of smaller aircraft in therefore better business sense too for many of the museums with small budgets.

The trouble is with all the muesums in the Southern part of the UK means the other museums in the Northern part of the UK get overlooked. How often do you hear of these museums on these boards? Most of the time it is Duxford and Old Warden to a lesser extent. Whilst they are fine museums/collections we don’t hear much of the others in reality do we?

Just my initial 2d

Just sticking my kiwi colonial oar in guys.

The earlier comment about the density of museums is obviously right but what was missed was the density of similarity. When I was in the UK the other year I’m sorry but I got bored with seeing all the same types in museum after museum. And all so accesible given your excellent rail system.

The other point I’d make is that if you look back over the other posts on the thread do you notice that all that’s mentioned is military aircraft and WW2 at that (Vulcans excepted).

Sorry guys but you’re missing the big picture..what about Hermes, Tudors and the like? How about concentrating on getting the Duxford airliners under cover before worrying about another WW2 type. While you’re focussing on wanting one of everyone of those bombers and fighters of 39-45 there’s another 61 years of aviation to be dealt with.

Is the idea aviation preservation or just WW2 preservation? Its 6 years versus over 100 we’re talking about here.

(ducks for cover grateful of southern hemisphere remoteness affording protection)

HP57 – There is a distinct lack of imagination – determination and the will to see new and interesting aircraft on display. The Air-Space hanger for instance will feature the CF-100 as an example of Canadian production and the Lancaster B.X. With a little more imagination people could maybe see an example of a Caribou or Chipmunk on display. Likewise Australia with the veteran Jindivik of even a Nomad would broaden the scope somewhat. The whole concept of Air-Space is fine but for the sake of a few extra pennies some interesting Commonwealth aircraft could be acquired.

And a Bollingbroke – but, otherwise, I’d agree. A Jindivik would be a particularly appropriate item, as it was a major Anglo-Australian collaboration.

As for your thoughts JDK – the Hampden was brought out of Russia and put on display in Tim Moore’s garden .She was swapped by her Canadian owner for an RAFM store Spitfire which I believe was SL542 . The full details of the IWM D.H 9 deal are not known as yet.

Thanks for the correction on the Hampden history, but so what? The point is the result. Both museums have, recently, acquired significant British bomber aircraft, which disproves Cees complaint. The DH-9 deal is in the public domain, BTW. If you want to know more, there’s the freedom of information act to invoke with the IWM. 😉

I would argue though that the D.H 9 as a type whilst built in large numbers was only in service for just over a year in WWI and it was quickly replaced by the more capable D.H 9A. The Halifax as a type completely eclipses the D.H 9 in terms of it’s significance.

You know, I’d worry if we agreed. If I came up with any list, you’d have to adjust it – thanks! 😀

The Halifax is a vital type. I’m not privy to the rationale of the IWM’s decision process, but I believe the IWM feel W.W.I is under-represented nationally as against W.W.II, and thus have a good W.W.I collection. Remember without the men and machines of W.W.I, there would have been no W.W.II as we know it. I’d also suspect the DH-9 is a best alternative to having the more important (but unobtainable) DH-4, the great warplane of that series. Be that as it may, Blodnock’s point is a good one in the other direction – it’s not just about missing British W.W.II ‘heavies’ but a lot more than that.

So, Cees, if you look for the half empty glass, it’s there – just above the half full bit!

The halifax would be a great aircraft to have restored but it was mentioned hear in detail that if this was to happen, you would lose alot of the authenticity when the restoration was complete.
I would be pleased if Hendon would replace all of the missing parts on her that were there when she was raised up and fit some of the missing panels and glass to make her more presentable as she was when the aircraft was discovered..

the vulcan is a big restoration project….or is that a bit modern?

HP57 – There is a distinct lack of imagination – determination and the will to see new and interesting aircraft on display. The Air-Space hanger for instance will feature the CF-100 as an example of Canadian production and the Lancaster B.X. With a little more imagination people could maybe see an example of a Caribou or Chipmunk on display. Likewise Australia with the veteran Jindivik of even a Nomad would broaden the scope somewhat. The whole concept of Air-Space is fine but for the sake of a few extra pennies some interesting Commonwealth aircraft could be acquired.
As for your thoughts JDK – the Hampden was brought out of Russia and put on display in Tim Moore’s garden .She was swapped by her Canadian owner for an RAFM store Spitfire which I believe was SL542 . The full details of the IWM D.H 9 deal are not known as yet. I would argue though that the D.H 9 as a type whilst built in large numbers was only in service for just over a year in WWI and it was quickly replaced by the more capable D.H 9A. The Halifax as a type completely eclipses the D.H 9 in terms of it’s significance.

It’s a good question Cees.

While I’d agree with jeepman, I think there’s another factor in place which could be looked at as ‘saturation’ or perhaps ‘hunger’. The (southern) UK has more vintage aviation in a smaller area than anywhere in the world. While we might want to see more types preserved or rebuilt, there’s a vast array of important and historic types already on show.

If you live in the southern UK (as I did) there’s more than enough existing activities to take all the time you may have – and little incentive to strike out on your own, or start up a new project.

Conversely, if you look anywhere else, there is a comparative lack of vintage aircraft in a lot of space, and to get their toys to play with, or the representative type that’s missing the otherwise un-distracted people get stuck in.

Canada’s a big place and the excellent collections there are widely spread. Trenton has, IMHO been put on the map by the Halifax rebuild, in a way that nothing else in their collection could do.

While the USA looks like it has ‘lots’ of vintage aviation, when you factor in the country’s size and population, it’s clear that there’s a lot of space and spare time – which, with money and attitude, means we’ll see a lot more interesting stuff being done in the USA for many years yet.

Germany and Australia have huge gaps of many, many vitally important types in their histories – so there’s a greater incentive to fill those than there is in the UK. Again, there’s a strong enough economy to support the hunger and will.

Why is the IWM or RAF Museum more interested in acquiring dubious aircraft types (mostly non-British) rather than trying to look for restorable sections or airframes such as Stirling, Whitley etc.

Hmm, your prejudices are showing. You may wish to adjust your dress. 😀 It’s not so much that the RAFM and IWM are collecting ‘dubious types’ but are [i]also[/i] meant to be showing a lot more than a neat line-up of ‘British’ aircraft. Britain, like anywhere else, has an aviation history that simply cannot be understood on a mono-national basis – national level collections have an expectation to put their work in a global context.

It’s just a more extreme example of the situation in Holland – if the Aviodome and Soesterberg ‘got rid of’ all their non-Dutch aircraft we’d all be the poorer – many of the types in these excellent collections make best sense in a Dutch context. Without the Dutch, the (American) DC-2 would only ever have been an interim design, not a world record holder.

Frankly, these museums would waste cash by ‘searching’. But believe me, they keep a close eye on what’s going on, and if something interesting that does fit their criteria pops up, it gets a serious looking over – witness the Hampden bought by the RAFM and the DH-9 bought by the IWM – both types arguably more significant even than a Halifax (certainly rarer) in the history of British bombers.

Just how I see it!

Why is the IWM or RAF Museum more interested in acquiring dubious aircraft types (mostly non-British) rather than trying to look for restorable sections or airframes such as Stirling, Whitley etc.

Cees, you’ve hit the nail on the head there. It’s a mystery to me too. :confused:

probably five letters, rhymns with honey, starts with an “M” – particularly for the major museums

but conversely look what can be done – eg Skysport, Historic Aircraft Collection, Airframe Assemblies, Assault Glider Trust, to name but a few with hopefully the Stirling and Whitley groups building and collecting the necessary foundations to do excellent jobs.

Jeepman’s Law states that any such project probably needs just four elements to succeed
Money + Willpower + Skilled Manpower + Original material and/or plans

Lack any one and the result may be compromised