Blimey this got deep!……..

I’ll second that 😮 I’ve tried to keep up.

Whilst I fall generally into the camp that believes “stunning” or “statement” designs deliver less accomodation per £ than a bog-standard “shed” I’m about to do a bit of “shooting my own foot” here.

I don’t think anyone has yet brought volume into the equation.

When I was involved in the design/building (yes, architects were involved and WE had the problem you sometimes hear about of them not listening to their Client) of The Sir Frank Whittle Jet Heritage Centre at MAM we debated long and hard about the two alternatives of use. First to cram as much of the collection in as possible (thus protecting more aircraft from the elements) or second to put fewer aeroplanes in and enable visitors to look at them properly (and be able to photograph them). We chose (for better or worse) the second option (although you may not guess that now).

However, aware that our “shed” – like most aircraft hangars – had a height greater than neccessary we not only built it still a little higher but called for the design calculations to enable (lighter) aircraft to be suspended from the roof beams. The extra height also allowed for an internal two-story section to be built later without loss of floor space. The budget was about £120,000 and provided 10,000 sq.ft. of floor space – thus about £120/sq. ft. (in 1987?).

The point I’m (eventually) getting to is that Cosford (and I haven’t been there yet), despite comments about aircraft being cramped/un-photographable, utilises it’s full volume. You can say the same about the AAM and (much as I dislike it and I have seen it) AirSpace.

Roger Smith.