Fancy a new job – RAF Museum, Director General

Kev, common sense has very little place in the process of applying for money to build new museum space. Unfortunately function loses out to a fashion statement every time, as other museums have found out. I may be wrong, but isn’t the hangar at Newark the only lottery funded new aviation museum space (Airspace being an extension of an existing structure) that’s managed to secure funds for a building that wasn’t an architectural statement?

Not quite hitting the target there….the scale of the application (in £ terms) does play a major part in the criteria used. So the criteria for the AAM were different than for Newark…. to say nothing of the time difference between them.

You may also take into account the need the IWM had of raising matching funding from private/ corporate donors for this memorial to the US airmen. People like Georgia Frontiere would have been less impressed with a ‘hanger’…and that the USAF Museum would not have allocated an SR to the IWM had its home been the Super Hanger…

Certainly the fund raising that was done was because a private individual (Georgia) thought the building was a ‘fitting tribute’ to those who gave their lives. Without this the IWM would not have been able to build anything for the American collection, at least not for the moment.

On the one hand I can appreciate that the people assessing funding applications aren’t necessarily au fait with the future demands of aviation museum space and they have a desire to create “landmarks” with the money they hand out. However, I feel that the balance of style over function tipped so very far towards style with the new building at Cosford and with the AAM at Duxford. Both are striking buildings but neither provides any real flexibility for change – just look at the expense of installing the Liberator.

Based on the AAM the evaluation used the brief developed by the IWM…allied to achieving the museuographical/ curatorial standards expected of a national collection as well as financial criteria and yes the ‘publicity’ value as part of its evaluation. They were the ones who let the IWM ‘set’ the standard for the type of space that aviation museum could create…no AAM = no Cosford, no Milestones of Flight (no loss there), no glass wall to the BoB..no Newark funding…

The point you make about style over function is interesting. But it is heavily biased by what you think is ‘function’; which is/ was clearly not the view of the IWM. First off its a memorial, not just an aircraft museum..it had to create a new and unique visual link between the exhibition space and the active airfield, allowing active aircraft to be seen from the greatest possible number of places within the collection. That set a few key parameters for the basic concept, functions that no previous display space need to take into account.

Its form is simply the tighest possible skin that can enclose the volume required by the airframes that the iWM wanted to include in the AAM. A ‘box’ would have created space that was simply not required…it was therefore ‘wasted’ space. The material was the lowest cost (both capital and operational) envelope to keep the water out and the climate in for medium term preservation…(the lack of heating/ cooling/ humidity control initially was due to shortfalls in the initial fund raising). A steel hanger, like the Superhanger would have been more expensive.

The AAM’s form, material etc is a very rational, logical and sensible solution to the challenge set by the IWM.. it is however not necessarily the ‘obvious one’ but that does not diminish its ‘sensible and functional’ nature.

Remember also that none of the individual airframes in the AAM are of unique historical interest (save the SR which is a record setter)…they are representative ones…This permits a different approach to the preservation/ conservation issue. Thus the large south facing glass wall and associated UV is not as relevant,, a repaint is not ‘damaging’… temperature fluctuations are less damaging.. certainly if the designed cooling is installed it would be greatly diminished.. although the dehumdification has helped this as well.

As for the cost of dismantling the glass wall; the need (i.e. how often did they envisage changing the display) to allow such large movements was established by the IWM, and the comparison between the capital cost of creating an opening large enough for something like the Liberator (note also that the SR was installed, others rehung, a new entrance door installed, an additional door in the glass wall, an second handrail installed to meet the new DDA legislation (not required when Building control signed the building off), refinishing the ramp, repainting the floor and walls was done at the same time….) versus dismantling the wall within the first 5 years and again 10 years later favoured the solution that was actually designed and built.

As for change/ flexibility.. I guess that being able to bring in and rehang airframes such as the T33 or in the future the F105 through the doors is not enough?

It would be interesting to see which other large airframes the IWM could reasonably and rationally acquire that would fit into the AAM collection… (the F-14 was not acquired because it was not really relevant to the US Forces in the UK…).. an F-16.. fits…A-10..got one, F-111, got one, F-15.. got one and deliberately not installed as it serves a greater purpose whilst outside.. F-5…fits, C-130? KC-135? Neither of which were discussed as potential exhibits…a B-47 would be nice.. but are there any around to acquire…no need for a P-47, P-51, C-47. So I think the IWM got it about right…a churn after 5 years years and perhaps one in another 10…if needed.

I’m not sure that this situation is likely to change anytime soon. I know of at least one very well thought-out application that was refused on the basis that it simply catered for the needs of the museum and integrated well with its existing buildings without making any bold “architectural statements”. It’s a case of falling into line or doing without the lottery handouts under the current regime.

There you are quite correct. The Lottery is for ‘exceptional’ development…and sadly it depends on what else is in the running at the time. The AAM was alone in asking for funding at the time….now the competition is far greater simply because more people/ organisations are applying for funding. Being good is no longer enough.

But going back to the thread title…the role of the Director of the Museum in establishing the overall tone and vision for the collection is crucial… Duxford would not be where it is without Ted Inman’s passion of the museum…it would be different….perhaps better for some, worse for others…nor would Cosford have the Cold War building without Dr Fopp….other areas may not have been ‘let go’ as much, but again can everyone be pleased all the time?

For research i visited this museum with a friend who loves aircraft but in his 32 years has NEVER visited Hendon. We went round the museum, my friend liked the Graheme white hanger, but after wondering round and getting into the Bomber hall, he commented how dark it was and then stated It’s not like other museums it feels dead you can’t even smell the aircraft they’ve been grounded so long. This museum should be at the Forefront of Aviation museums in the UK but it is not. Granted there is a childrens education area, what they could do with is tours INSIDE some of the aircraft for example the Lancaster, which todays generation would then get a feel for what the older generation went through. These should be guided tours only. Looking at aircrat alone does not stimulate the mind. The other thing is that the gallerys should be open they are always shut, the mezzanine floor in the battle of britain hall was shut again so i couldn’t show my friend the fighter command uniforms and medals. Having had a good 2 1/2 hours going round it reminded me of what could be done opening the galleries and the theatre would be a start, and as a previous poster said that 70’s facade doesn’t do the museum any justice.

Not sure why Cess, I thought you were building your own!:p

I would better not apply for the job then,

My first task would be to have W1048 fully rebuilt
:eek::rolleyes::cool::p;):D:diablo:

Cees

There used to be a fairly easy availability, at Cosford, but try getting at some of the airframes, now. Spitfire cockpit? “Sorry, radioactive, you know.” I thought that one of the staff was going to have a heart attack, because I dared to lay my dirty hand on “his” aircraft.Edgar

And that just shows how subjective it can be, on a very recent visit to Cosford I was invited to stay behind for up to two hours after closing so as to be able to access what I wished in the service & experimental types hangar, also had very good cockpit access, yet during the day on other occasions I have been told off by security for having a tripod leg over one of the little fences.

I do think that Hendons research and library facilities are excellently staffed, I have never had any problems requesting and then getting information, and always quickly and politely.

That’s all very interesting but you have not commented on other posters criticisms of the way the museum is run and how it is presented. It would be useful to hear your views on those aspects.

Unlikely, because my views are exceedingly subjective, since I visit museums for the purpose of research, not to be entertained, but I do realise that there’s a need to attract the casual visitor, not just the dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast. For that same reason, I don’t believe that I have the right to have a go at other posters’ views, since their requirements are likely to be completely different from mine.
I don’t like murky areas, but I don’t have to pay the electricity bill. I loathe this modern idea of hanging airframes in mid-air, since I can’t get at them (especially the cockpits,) and that applies to the Science Museum, IWM & Duxford, in equal measure, but I don’t have the job of shoe-horning the exhibits in.
There used to be a fairly easy availability, at Cosford, but try getting at some of the airframes, now. Spitfire cockpit? “Sorry, radioactive, you know.” I thought that one of the staff was going to have a heart attack, because I dared to lay my dirty hand on “his” aircraft. During a visit to Cosford, a few years ago, I noticed that a particular exhibit was missing an item, and knew that we had enough redundant spares, at work, to make one up. We sent it to the museum, and never received so much as a thank-you.
Edgar

Talking about the architectural aspects of the museum – every time I visit I think about the possibility of tearing down the horrible 1970’s facing/extension and returning the WWI hangars to their original appearance – I think many people are simply unaware of the historic structures that remain shrouded behind what is now a very dated looking facade. Of course many of the functions of the modern building would somehow have to be re-located but this could be done in a much more sympathetic way.

and have you tried to find somewhere within easy walking distance of the museum?
Edgar

Some good points there Edgar – although now there is a very nice bar/pub that does good (although not cheap) food just down the road – five minutes walk.

I agree with you on the archive staff – always very helpful to me on my frequent visits.

It seems, from these threads, that many are unaware of what happened when the museum was first envisaged. Back in 1976, at a symposium, John Tanner told me that he’d received a solemn promise, from the GLC (and we all know who used to run that organisation,) that the airfield would remain untouched, so the plans were that Hendon would be a live airfield, run on similar lines to Duxford. The GLC reneged on the promise, hence the huge estates that you now see, so the museum has had to (try to) adapt to a completely different system. As for it being far better, if moved to Cosford, it takes me 45 minutes to drive to Hendon, and 2 hours to Cosford, so don’t expect me to agree with that view.
It would appear, too, that my approach must be completely wrong; whenever I arrange a visit to the museum’s library, the staff are unfailingly helpful, and courteous, with one girl perfectly willing to flog through 66,000 references, in advance of my visit, to look for suitable references.
As for the “kids” running around the place, try visiting your local supermarket, and you’ll find out-of-control little darlings, over whom you can trip, at a moment’s notice. Also, believe it or not, there is a need for the human body to take in refreshment, during the day, especially liquids, so dispensing with the cafe probably wouldn’t sit too well with the authorities, and have you tried to find somewhere within easy walking distance of the museum? Today’s children are tomorrow’s keepers of our heritage, as well, remember; alienate them, and museums will become ghost towns.
Edgar

That’s all very interesting but you have not commented on other posters criticisms of the way the museum is run and how it is presented. It would be useful to hear your views on those aspects.

Kev, common sense has very little place in the process of applying for money to build new museum space. Unfortunately function loses out to a fashion statement every time, as other museums have found out. I may be wrong, but isn’t the hangar at Newark the only lottery funded new aviation museum space (Airspace being an extension of an existing structure) that’s managed to secure funds for a building that wasn’t an architectural statement?

On the one hand I can appreciate that the people assessing funding applications aren’t necessarily au fait with the future demands of aviation museum space and they have a desire to create “landmarks” with the money they hand out. However, I feel that the balance of style over function tipped so very far towards style with the new building at Cosford and with the AAM at Duxford. Both are striking buildings but neither provides any real flexibility for change – just look at the expense of installing the Liberator.

I’m not sure that this situation is likely to change anytime soon. I know of at least one very well thought-out application that was refused on the basis that it simply catered for the needs of the museum and integrated well with its existing buildings without making any bold “architectural statements”. It’s a case of falling into line or doing without the lottery handouts under the current regime.

Depending on your interpretation of ‘new aviation museum space’ IIRC there are more projects than Newark e.g. the original Duxford Super Hangar; Elvington’s T2; and Dumfries & Galloway.

My personal views on ‘functional aviation building space’ are well documented on here, just use the search facility to find several discussions about Airspace and Cosford.

I am extremely proud to have been a major contributor to NAM’s successful HLF Application and I was also a member of the volunteer based team that oversaw its implementation. 🙂 Every time I enter Hangar 2 at NAM I’m reminded of an interesting comment made by a local Museum Service representative whilst we were working on the project… “You’ll never get Heritage Lottery Fund money for putting aeroplanes in a shed!”

It’s a nice feeling to prove someone wrong. 😀

NAM received excellent guidance and support from HLF and they continue to do so in relation to other projects on the horizon. However as I recently posted on other threads about these parts, the 2012 Olympic pressures are putting a severe strain on their ability to fund capital projects; and your project has to be exceptional if it is going to secure funding.

It seems, from these threads, that many are unaware of what happened when the museum was first envisaged. Back in 1976, at a symposium, John Tanner told me that he’d received a solemn promise, from the GLC (and we all know who used to run that organisation,) that the airfield would remain untouched, so the plans were that Hendon would be a live airfield, run on similar lines to Duxford. The GLC reneged on the promise, hence the huge estates that you now see, so the museum has had to (try to) adapt to a completely different system. As for it being far better, if moved to Cosford, it takes me 45 minutes to drive to Hendon, and 2 hours to Cosford, so don’t expect me to agree with that view.
It would appear, too, that my approach must be completely wrong; whenever I arrange a visit to the museum’s library, the staff are unfailingly helpful, and courteous, with one girl perfectly willing to flog through 66,000 references, in advance of my visit, to look for suitable references.
As for the “kids” running around the place, try visiting your local supermarket, and you’ll find out-of-control little darlings, over whom you can trip, at a moment’s notice. Also, believe it or not, there is a need for the human body to take in refreshment, during the day, especially liquids, so dispensing with the cafe probably wouldn’t sit too well with the authorities, and have you tried to find somewhere within easy walking distance of the museum? Today’s children are tomorrow’s keepers of our heritage, as well, remember; alienate them, and museums will become ghost towns.
Edgar

Thinking the unthinkable, but would it be prudent to look for a new site??

It’s not so much ‘unthinkable’ as not a good idea from the catchment point of view. It’s notable that the IWM, RAFM and Science Museum all maintain outstations (which have been developed to varying degrees) but their footprint in London is crucial. While Hendon is very ‘outer’ London, it’s a location that the RAFM can’t afford to give up for visitor numbers.