A new approach in saving our heritage?

Tin Triangle – spot on. Its exactly what we need to see if we are to see the preservation sector continue to flourish. Smaller museums need to be able to spend more of their time on fewer airframes, and lose those that are already adequately catered for elsewhere.

Its a mistake I freely admit to when I was making acquisitions for the DH Museum – at the time, it made sense to me to acquire as much as I could to improve the ‘stock’ of the museum. However, when, at one point there were only about 6 of us looking after the entire collection, I should have heard the alarm bells. Thankfully, numbers recovered, but there are still more airframes than there are people to care for them, and this is repeated in many other places. Unless a building scheme can keep pace with conservation, much of what we do could end up being self defeating.

Bruce

Clearly not an MOD disposal, but I think a valid illustration as to how a rare airframe can slip through the net; at the time I wasn’t a member of this forum, and indeed knew less people in this sector of the preservation movement in general; I didn’t particularily want the B2, or have an actual plan for it, but it did seem a real shame to lose it, I even located what I believe to be the original engine for the airframe, although the “owner” wasn’t very approachable on that subject!

Stuart,

Is the B2 still in your possession??

PM….

Sadly there will always be items that fall through any system.

WADR the cited example of the Lyneham Comet illustrates that something is sort of working with MoD / RAF disposals. As with the St Mawgan Shackleton, museums were aware of its availability; condition surveys existed and groups based decisions on whether or not to pursue the airframe on what that report contained and the size of the task they faced.

In the end at least part of that airframe survived.

Outright rarities are no longer scrapped, they turn up at auction or are offered by an establshed dealer and head off all over the world..Mosquito,Tempest,Civilian coupe ,Moths and Tiger Moths,Sabre,Hurricanes,Spitfires.

Stuart’s example with the Blackburn kind of illustrates the point that only desirable or practical outright rarities get snapped up and head off all over the world.
The Lyneham Comet was a case in point, there are fewer Comets than Tempests, and this was the only survivor of its variant, but at the outset a Comet has less sex appeal than a Tempest, and in part due to years of neglect and a rather hurried disposal it became a far less practical proposition anyway.

It’s the rarities that are hard work to move and house, or those that didn’t have a Boys Own annual war career that are still trickling away by the decade. David is undoubtedly right in that the UK sector could do with taking a more joined-up approach to preserving these sorts of aircraft (the Shackletons, Valettas, HS Dominies, HP Heralds of this world) for the long term, and rationalising and reducing over-preservation. Some aircraft are undoubtedly over-preserved compared to others, there are a huge number of Canberras, Vulcans, Lightnings, Vampires, Hunters, Nimrods, Jet Provosts, Whirlwinds and Harriers in UK museums. It would be good to imagine a situation where, say, for the loss of a few Hunters and a Vulcan or two, or at least a few Super Mysteres, Vampire T11s and T-33s, we could fully safeguard the five remaining Victors and three Scimitars, ten Javelins or eleven-ish Shackletons; or get a VC-10 undercover.

But when you realise that this would involve museums relinquishing aircraft to others that are better placed to house them, or scrapping commoner aircraft to make room in hangars for rarer ones, and endless movements of aircraft around the country, you can see that it would be like trying to herd cats. The numbers of aircraft in preservation are undoubtedly going to diminish naturally over time towards a more sustainable level, and sadly as part of this I’m sure I’m going to see quite a few types go extinct in my lifetime.

David, exactly; they could do no worse than a more regularily updated version of wrecks and relics, afterall Ken Ellis was aware that said airframe was in my possession.

The situation with the Blackburn was clearly not desirable. However if something is in the hands of a private owner there is little that a group like the BAPC can do unless they are alerted to that the fact. Possibly the limitations of the BAPC register is that it tends to list the airframes within preservation -the aircraft outside of it don’t get listed from recall and the is always the posibility that airframes will escape preservation. How you would collate that information is open to debate -however where its a case where there where limited numbers built it wouldn’t be massively complicated.

Clearly not an MOD disposal, but I think a valid illustration as to how a rare airframe can slip through the net; at the time I wasn’t a member of this forum, and indeed knew less people in this sector of the preservation movement in general; I didn’t particularily want the B2, or have an actual plan for it, but it did seem a real shame to lose it, I even located what I believe to be the original engine for the airframe, although the “owner” wasn’t very approachable on that subject!

You make a valid point Stuart; but was this a MoD disposal, which I thought was part of the main premise by the OP?

I regularly deal with airframe offers made to NAM (on average about one per month) and a large number are declined; if that happens I always try to make a suggestion of an alternative location.

That’ll be why I had to drop everything, and drive into the wilds of Cambridgeshire one Saturday about 8 years ago, to collect the Blackburn B2 fuselage that had passed into the hands of a scrap man (including all of the paperwork and an oil painting!) that was scheduled for the chop as the property had been sold, and the new owners wanted shot of it, (and all the old furniture piled on top of it)

The scrap man (who obviously had a heart) had tried for weeks to place it, but no one was interested; no one, that is that he knew, I dare say dozens would have taken it on if they were aware of the airframe and it’s plight; isn’t that where the “co- ordinating and enabling” comes into play?

Well said Twin Otter

Outright rarities are no longer scrapped, they turn up at auction or are offered by an establshed dealer and head off all over the world..Mosquito,Tempest,Civilian coupe ,Moths and Tiger Moths,Sabre,Hurricanes,Spitfires.

But then what do i know..see later post by Stuart ! I should have said ” Most outright rarities ” Having just seen a prog on BBC TV which showed self confessed Toffs and how they behave I should have allowed for common sense not being common.

Having slept on the topic and considered the situation, I don’t feel that there is too much wrong with the UK’s aircraft preservation scene, which I suspect is one of the more vibrant ones around the world.

While the loss of any airframe is perceived by some as being a disaster, I don’t think that situation arises on many occasions in the UK; and especially not when you look at the number of airframes that are already in collections.

The Shackleton at St Mawgan has attracted some comment, but in all fairness it was offered to museum’s first, as was referenced on the thread. The fact that no group took up the challenge perhaps reflects a more pragmatic and realistic approach to what is after all a big challenge.

Likewise there has been discussion about a certain Phantom, which is currently in the hands of a trader in Suffolk; at least the airframe has not been scrapped and I’m sure it could make its way into preservation if a mutually acceptable price can be negotiated.

By its very nature as a members based organisation, BAPC is unlikely to ever achieve the critical mass it needs to act as a rapid response unit as proposed by the OP.

“This aim will be pursued by the Council as a representing, co-ordinating and enabling body”.

Or, “we don’t actually do anything”, to use Google translate…….

As with all things the key to success is to find the right individual, or group for a specific task, that almost certainly means casting the net wider than the BAPC does.

The BAPC as such acts as a parent organisation for aircraft museums. It has a fairly simple structure and gets its strength from co-operation between members. There is no overwelming need for a ‘rescue’ organisation for aircraft . The availablility of aircraft has been in steady decline for many years due
to a reduction in the size of the armed forces and civil types seem to hold a lower attraction to many groups.

What is really needed is for groups to realistically look at what they have – evaluate if they are really within their collecting policy and if not take bold steps to put them where they really should be ! There are examples of groups holding sole examples outside – machines totally outside of their collecting remit and a host of other odd ball machines where you need to head scratch to understand its relevance!

British preservation needs to be preserving less aircraft better even if that means exporting -scrapping or parting out aircraft to complete other examples.

So yes whilst ‘international rescue’ is an interesting idea for preservation – what really needs to happen is for old attitudes to change and a greater understanding of co-operation in preservation.

Malcolm, you are of course right about the need to protect the individual, but regardless of the small print I personally haven’t seen any action from the BAPC.

There is a case to be made for bringing the plight of various airframes to a wider audience, just circulating the details around existing museums, isn’t enough; everyone has to start somewhere, many of these at risk A/C have been saved (or else might have been) by someone outside the loop.

In fairness I suspect that much of that bureaucratic hyperbole is due to the fact that as an incorporated body, or whatever the term is in the UK, they are bound by the regulations that allow incorporation so that individuals holding some position are protected from litigation in the same way as a company’s directors are protected.

That obviously is an UK organization – in the state of Victoria, Australia wherein I live the organization of which I am Secretary is an incorporated body and we have broadly similar rules in our constitution. There is nothing sinister or duplicitous in the rules of incorporation – they are designed so that a volunteer office holder is protected from losing their house or whatever in the event of the organization being sued or targeted by people who may bring vexatious litigation. The rules are there to offer protection if you are innocent but equally allow for malfeasance to be punished.

Typical of so many organisations; 1 – 3.9 is their mission statement, 4 – 15, terms and conditions……..

George , have a read at this link and i think your idea is already in use…http://www.bapc.org.uk/html/constitution.html

I assume he means BAPC

Welcome George H, I have a question; who or what is BAC?

My own view is that it simply needs a change of policy that allows/encourages the MoD to exercise common sense instead of adhering to rules that are sometimes patently ridiculous. The CAA is much the same. I think it’s a British thing 🙂