Aviation museums – Would less Aircraft be More?

My .02 cents as an enthusiast from the USA.

– Rarity is a huge driver for me to visit. I will go out of my my way to see a sole survivor, a rare aircraft, or something I have never seen. So in that regard less is more.
– I actually enjoy the “charm” of an old dusty, dirty hangar, a boneyard, or the like. Chino has a charm, the USAF annex, the now condemmed Rhode Island museum building…you can feel the history. I dislike squeeky clean places- feels like some richs guys trophy room (old Santa Monica museum for example)
– If a real hanger is not an option I am am fine with a tin shed. I would rather see money spent on getting aircraft out of the elements, than fancy architecture.
– I do not photograph so could care less about lighting or placement. I am fine with the dim lighting at the USAF musem if it keeps the aircraft in better shape for generations to come.
– Open cockpits or proceedures trainers are great.
– I do like a small placard that talks about the aircraft in general, and especially about the specific airframe displayed- where it served, where it was recovered from….
– Docents walk a fine line. They can be a huge asset for casual visitors, but as an enthusiast I prefer to be left alone- I have been hounded by a lonely docent at a few places, and no I didn’t want to hear their stories….
– I recognize that places need to attract more than just enthusiasts, so I can understand the need for a snack bar, bright lights, games/rides, gift shop, side attractions etc, but personally none of these matter to me.

Must get to Newark one day. We passed it again in September, on our was to a wedding in S.Yorkshire.
Very frustrating not being able to stop.

hi, morning,
From a enthusiasts point of view up to 3yrs ago I visited a museum if in its general area on holiday etc, but since retirement I’ve made a point of visiting museums specifically for its contents and not because I’m in the area. I would visit these again if in their locality but if their contents were rotated( if they have any in store) it would make me consider that special trip again, Cosford, Hendon and Yeovilton have reserve collections and spring to mind, look at Cosford when the MBCC is open. I would always visit Cosford but the excitement of a new item.Even “smaller” museums have the stored or under restoration items, that might tempt repeat visits, extra to the general public I think visit them like myself pre retirement if passing or on holiday at the whim of the mrs or kids,
Its all down to people through the door and spending money…

regards,
jack…

Hi Ewan
Great link, took me a while to read it all! I notice you have 50 reels of motion picture film, if you ever want to watch some of it I have both 16mm and 35mm film projectors available.
Paul

I’ve just set a hidden page on our website (for now) that lists our collection policy which you may like to have a look at. While not related to RAF of course it may provide relevant ideas etc for those wishing to put a policy in place etc etc.

Going for Accreditation early 2016, still 100% volunteer and proud of it 🙂

Link for the page http://www.aarg.com.au/policy.html

Cheers

Basically as Jagx204 states Museum Accreditation exists and I would encourage any voluntary museum to consider taking it up; yes it comes with strings but it does open up opportunities for grants etc., ~Alan~ but only for certain aspects of any operation.

Info in here http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/accreditation-scheme/

Only a quick response for now as I have some urgent information to compile for NAM’s current project relating to new waste treatment system, toilets & café – sadly limited grant opportunities for these at present! 🙁

And the corollary of that thought is whether or not a set of enforced criteria would disadvantage smaller, poorly funded museums, struggling to do a good job but with very limited resources. In my limited experience there is a gulf between some of those falling into the category I have mentioned and the large much better funded regional museums.

What is the advantage to a museum, in adhering to those standards ?,
other than making it a nice experience for visitors. External funding ?

Is there a code of conduct or some such instrument to which all (aviation in this case) museums and collections are compelled to adhere to?

No Private collection is compelled to adhere to anything. However the current Museum accreditation route is run by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, for those who wish to.
The MLA’s Accreditation Scheme set nationally agreed standards for UK museums. To meet the requirements of the scheme, museums must demonstrate that they achieve clearly defined standards relating to governance and management, services for users, visitor facilities and collections management.

You will find a number of ‘Volunteer Run’ Museums have adopted this standard.

This is possibly one for Twin Otter and others working or volunteering in Museums and collections. Is there a code of conduct or some such instrument to which all (aviation in this case) museums and collections are compelled to adhere to? Would some kind of document such as this be beneficial? I see the potential benefits of some kind of ‘benign dictator’ whose role would be, perhaps, not to govern the preservation movement, but rather to mentor and provide assistance to those requiring it. Perhaps if a set of criteria or standards were introduced so that everyone was, so to speak, on the same page, it might give support and motivation to those museums who are troubled by a lack of financial security and possibly a lack of volunteers. Perhaps such an instrument might be prepared/used to safeguard the operation of, particularly, the small museums who might otherwise struggle?

Just thoughts at the moment and I may well be barking up the wrong tree, but, if such a code of conduct existed, what would those involved in museums like to see included? What might help you to make your particular museum more appealing? What support (other than obvious injections of cash) would benefit your organisation?

For the enthusiast, what would we like to see happen? What are our baseline expectations or minimum standards we would like to see museums aspire to?

And Finally, again Twin Otter springs to mind, would the BAPC be the right people to be looking at this?

Regards,

kev35

I think there is much to be said for the ‘Less is more’ concept with aircraft museums. Now I would not have said this ten years ago when I still lived in the UK, but here in Australia it has become a real eye opener. There are museums here with only one aircraft inside! And they are some of the best I have been to. Sometimes it is the rarity of the aircraft itself as in the Bristol Monoplane at Minlaton, or the Vickers Vimy at Adelaide. My current favorite is the Tiger Moth at Narrandera, which I came across by accident whilst on a road trip a couple of years ago. A tiny building next to the footy oval containing an excellently thought out display of RAAF training there during WWII.
I am sure there are others hidden away in this massive country.

I think some of the bigger museums struggle for money, space and volunteers. So there are always going to be trade offs.

Steve

Whilst writing another thing occurs to me. Winter opening verse Summer opening. Could a museum collection close from mid November until early March and still expect to pick up business again in the Spring ?
There have got to be cost savings by not having lighting / heating, paid staff on seven days a week , 52 week of the year ? OK income will be reduce to nil, but how much would a collection loose in three months. Advantages might be that some exhibits could be moved around the site, or placed in storage where they are better protected from the winter weather. Could some maintenance be better carried out whilst closed.

Hello me again.
Whilst I do not under estimate the cost, time and effort required to move aircraft around a site or to place aircraft temporarily outside might encourage repeat visitor and thus increase footfall ?
The Gatwick collection has been mentioned earlier in this thread and their new display building will be most welcome for the longer term preseravation. But next time I visit Gatwick airport will in bother to call in if all I can see outside are the same two or three large airframes ? Maybe not compared to the last couple of years when having seen that xyz are working on the Hunter. To maintain interest I hope Gatwick can regularly move aircraft outside, not just for one off private photoshoots, which I understand can be profitable, but just to allow the public to see them. The summer months outside can be that bad for aircraft preservation.

….. I recommend such locations because they offer something for everbody, a good cafe also helps. (I assume Newarks plans are based on this premise) …..

Good cafes etc. can provide a valuable source of revenue to help support the core activities of any museum; and yes that has been part of NAM’s recent considerations.

NAM’s cafe apparently defies most normal ‘business-models’ for such facilities in the heritage sector and has been used as a case study of good practice by several advisors / consultants. Much credits goes to the staff and volunteers who operate it!

Sadly grant support for such facilities and even the basic requirements of providing good toilets is very difficult to secure. As a consequence plans have to be adapted and different options pursued, which can be challenging.

At the end of the day you keep striving to move forward and eventually you’ll get there. NAM’s latest progress in such matters is covered in here!

Duggy proposes an interesting idea.
I have visited most UK aviation museums, some many years ago and when time / location allows I will visit again. Some collections I visit again because I am passing their local area with friends / family who have not been before and it is on my recommendation they should stop by and talk a look. I recommend such locations because they offer something for everbody, a good cafe also helps. (I assume Newarks plans are based on this premise) Other museums have been visited several times but my main reason for making a repeat visit is exact what Duggy proposed, something has changed, something new, or as was the case with Duxford this year a normally in accessible airframe is photographable, even better if outside. IWM were to be congratulated for advertising the dates when B-24, etc were likely to be outside. So sad that that can not happen again considering the building design. Another good example of a repeat visit was YAM at Elvington, where a photographic ‘night shoot’ of the Halifax mean the opertunity to see the aircraft outside. So if the museums can offer more then I would visit more.

A very interesting thread.
You can never satisfy everyones “cup of tea”.
One persons favourite is anothers nightmare.
Instead of looking at it as a Museum why not look at is as a business, even if admittance is free in some cases.
I like a word called Rotate every 6 months or even every year
What I am saying make space , sell the product, and then the next time you Rotate show somthing else, but show & sell it well.
Display is everything, so instead of having a dull dreary place.
Brighten it up make it loud & attractive, & then as I said Rotate so there is always something new.

The downside is wome sanker will ask where is this ??
Of course you could then send him to some hangar full of aircraft that are waiting to be Rotated on the display floor full of dust!
My 2 cents.

I thought this was interesting from Robert’s original posting…..

“Aircraft in appropriate sizes of buildings. Too many times I have been unable to appreciate an aircraft or equipment because of the restraints of the original construction of the building it was displayed in.”

Perennial problem, especially when faced with bigger aircraft. When we move – somehow we will figure a way out to have a display of the Beaufighter and Beaufort side by side, and then also the DC-2 and DC-3 in a similar alignment. What we do though is have a mockup with scale models that we move around so we can assess what can work and what won’t – saves heaps of time and labour and gives us a chance to visualize what it should look like.
Of course the best laid plans etc etc !

I thought this was interesting from Robert’s original posting…..

“Aircraft in appropriate sizes of buildings. Too many times I have been unable to appreciate an aircraft or equipment because of the restraints of the original construction of the building it was displayed in.”

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and in the case of Cosford, this makes an absolute mockery of the use of landmark architecture. When the NCWM was opening it was touted as the only venue in the world in which to see the three V Bombers displayed together. The truth is that you can only see parts of the three V Bombers at any one time. It is almost impossible to get a totally unrestricted view of one of these aircraft let alone all three. I think East Fortune will turn out to be an example of the sympathetic, and to me appropriate, display of airframes when they reopen fully next Easter. A World War Two airfield in which airframes and artefacts are to be displayed in original airfield buildings. For me it can’t get much better than that.

Regarding the duplication of types in various musea, has that been such a bad thing? Perhaps the ‘preservation’ of a multiplicity of less obscure types has given more opportunity for people to become involved? There are both good and bad aspects to this I expect. And perhaps some groups and individuals have failed in this area over time. But equally others have flourished. I don’t expect all airframes at every museum I visit to be pristine, what I do expect is for the staff to be knowledgeable and approachable and for there to be some indicators, however small, of progress. Does it bother me if the aviation preservation movement as a whole loses the odd Vampire or Mystere along the way? No, but it would worry me if airframes of national significance were lost.

Regards,

kev35

The very fabric of the environment you visit can have a huge impact. Of particular note, obviously, are Hendon, Duxford, Old Warden, places in which the location can not be separated from the collection. The RAF Museum located anywhere other than Hendon, a place synonymous with the growth of the RAF, is to me unthinkable. I really like the idea of all musea explaining their reason for being, and linking that to a collection policy. I think that would be a huge step forward.

True, though I guess over here we have not been around long enough 🙂 The Museum group’s original and still current mission statement is “To acquire, preserve, restore and display Australia’s rich aviation history” so in a way we could really be plonked anywhere – some would suggest being on the original Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation factories site, but thats a bit of an industrial quagmire.

Personally, I am not a fan of landmark architecture.

I came around to it a while back, when wanting to attract visitors (I’m coming from the Museum’s perspective here) you do want to have something that stands out if possible. A hangar is great, but sometimes you need an additional facade to draw them in at the front. That’s what I am investigating at the moment for our new Museum. Agree the aircraft themselves are fine in a hangar though, makes sense really 🙂

What do we ant to see inside Musea? Personally I like the story telling aspect, I like interactivity, I like things which motivate people to want to learn and discover more. It is the future. I’m guessing that most of us on here are the wrong side of 40 and anything we can do now to encourage younger generations to develop an interest has to beneficial to the preservation movement as a whole.

Agrees, there are many stories to be told and they need to be preserved for future generations. Interactivity does not always have to be playing with touchscreens and flashy buttons. Sometimes as I mentioned earlier, letting the visitors sit in the cockpits and experience things is exactly what they want. The Viscount is a perfect example. Walk in from the rear, there are storyboards with photos and memorablila at the rear, then moving forward you can sit in one of the half dozen rows of seats (oh my the legroom !!! – sadly not original seats, they are from a BaE) and then through the walkway towards the cockpit – illuminated displays behind perspex of mannequins in the different hostie outfits of the era, then onto the cockpit which has heaps of the indicators, lights and dimmers working. And the fire alarm bell which has seen a few jump out of the pilot seat! Is this a security risk or theft risk? Of course, but you have to relax things just a little and put an element of trust in visitors, not everyone coming in wants to pinch something. Most of the visitors are families etc. Plus the notion of damage has been surprisingly reduced since we turned the lights on, kids are actually wary of pushing things, thinking it may actually start up 😀 But the younger ones are coming in and showing a real interest in restoring and working on the aircraft. We have gone from two or three people doing things on a Saturday to up to 40 on good weather days, and at least eight or nine of them are under 18.

An interesting point was raised about a benign dictatorship. I thought the BAPC had some kind of National Register to record the significance of each individual airframe. Perhaps some kind of framework could be built around that

Interesting you mention that. Without getting into too much backstory, there has been a push over the last couple of decades to found a National, government funded aviation Museum, based on a report from 1974. However successive governments have shown little interest and while the plan has been raised a few times since, it’s dead in the water and will not get going. Reason being is that each state has its own functioning aviation museum that is operating well and has it’s own specific collections. Not one of them are going to give up any aircraft to go into a national collection. Politics aside, these museums founded the Aviation Museums National Network and we have an annual forum to discuss many things. One thing we support is the funding by government but in a decentralised manner, ie if you wish to fund, do so but allow us to divvy it up among ourselves. That of course raises a whole load of other questions for another time, but we are trying to work together to achieve this goal.
As to the register, the ANMM have also commenced a National Significance Register based on our most important aircraft in our collections.Our Museums former Secretary had looked into getting a couple of ours on the State Register, however we threw that idea out after discovering if that went ahead then we would need a permit to drill out a rivet….. ah bureaucracy!

Great discussion though, lots of food for thought from both sides of the story 🙂

Proud to have used this in ‘anger’ to secure funding to get aircraft into a hangar! http://www.bapc.org.uk/html/nah_register.html 😮

….. and nice to see you posting again kev35! 🙂