The 'Touchy feely' effect

Lots of very interesting points being made here and I can certainly see the value of the touching experience but at what point do museums decide what is acceptable to touch & what isnt ?
If for example you have a modern(ish) type that you put on display straight off of squadron service without any form of restoration and you allow people to touch the airframe, over the years you could potentially end up with the surface being eroded “a la Flak bait”.
As BSG75 mentioned it, i’ll use the SR71 at Duxford as an example of this. This is an “unrestored” airframe (as far as I know) but can be touched.

I’m completely in favour of touching if the aircraft is robust enough,provided you can prevent schoolkids bashing the living daylights out of it.I was delighted to be able to stroke the Sunderland at IWM Duxford and discover that the metal felt about as substantial as my Granny’s biscuit tin .

First thing I used to do when I got on the flightline and the jet I did my first ride in was there, was go over, touch the canopy or nose and say hi. It’s a sentimental thing 🙂 I can image for some people being able to touch an aircraft in a museum is part of the magic. Flak bait is another thing though as that is the original wartime paint and should be protected. But most useum aircraft are restored/ repainted anyway, so…

Just like I like being able to watch aircraft fly I also like being able to get close to aircraft but I have never been into touching them more than is necessary to get into the aircraft. But, there are some aircraft that really need to be protected and people not allowed to touch them and Flakbait is an excellent example. I saw her about 5 years ago and the amount of paint damage that I saw from my previous visit 20 years previous was amazing. Those types of aircraft are truly windows to the past and if the damage is allowed to continue within the next 20 years you will have a bare fuselage….and that will be a crime.

Circus6

Tristar/Dc-10 either way it should be hands on when its not.

The phantom is the Alcock and Brown one i have a pic of it somewhere painted as such from about 77 i belive feel free to correct me if i’m wrong?

but still i do think it should have the canopies open unless its painted back into the Alcock and Brown scheme then fair play on keeping it closed, i seem to recall that when it was first displayed the canopies were open. Perhaps they could have the platform against the Tornado? Besides it being a 617sqn machine whats that particular Tornados historical importance?

As for the Phantom being retired 17 years ago its just begining its retirement when you consider that some of the stuff there will be 100 years old soon.:)

Oh and just incase you were wondering my one and only visit to Hendon was truly awfull..The upstairs area was closed as was the Bomber Hall, the Battle of Britain Hall we were rushed through because they wanted to close. The Grahame-White Factory was brilliant as was the Milestones of Flight and to top everything off my camera broke:mad: so you can probably understand why i’m not a fan of Hendon. To be fair though i might go back one day but it wont be anytime soon.

As for Hendon hands on in a DC-10 cockpit that was covered in plastic so all you could do is look and a Vampire? or was it a JP that you could sit in but again covered in thick plastic so you cant touch anything admittedly they have a lot of original WW2 stuff in there but they’ve also got nearly new stuff as well. Take the Phantom for instance. Platform up the side of it so you can see in the cockpit but why do they have to have the canopys closed? having them open would give a far better view.

Give me Duxford with a hands on policy every time it gives me a feeling of sattisfaction and a longing to go back. Unlike Hendon were one visit is one to many.

Quid 41,

It’s a TriStar simulator, not a DC-10 cockpit (or more correctly, flight deck). The Phantom is historically important (please feel free to research its history), so keeping the canopies closed to prevent the ingress of FOD is a good way to go to preserve the interior. As for “nearly new”, the Phantom Fleet was retired 17 years ago…and in the field of aviation, that’s quite some time!

As for your other points, I concur, hands on is good for non airworthy exhibits and where there is more than one example extant.

How many people have touched the U-2 in the AAM? I did before it was strung up from the ceiling and was absolutely amazed to find out that it felt like leather,(just the paint i know) but how many people have never touched it and will never know what it feels like?

How many of you have taken the time to read the graffiti on the B-24 that would be impossible to read if it had barriers all the way round it. How many first time visitors to Duxford see Sally-b sat on the apron and wonder what it looks like inside and what it feels like to touch….then they get to the AAM and they can find out.

How many want to touch a Spitfire or Concord or Vulcan or stand under a wing of a B-52 marveling at how big it really is?

Long may this practice continue with it the extra numbers through the doors keeping the place open for the likes of you and me.

As for Hendon hands on in a DC-10 cockpit that was covered in plastic so all you could do is look and a Vampire? or was it a JP that you could sit in but again covered in thick plastic so you cant touch anything admittedly they have a lot of original WW2 stuff in there but they’ve also got nearly new stuff as well. Take the Phantom for instance. Platform up the side of it so you can see in the cockpit but why do they have to have the canopys closed? having them open would give a far better view.

Give me Duxford with a hands on policy every time it gives me a feeling of sattisfaction and a longing to go back. Unlike Hendon were one visit is one to many.

An essential part of a museum’s ‘visitor offer’ when accommodating visually impaired guests!

It can be very rewarding to see their reactions when being allowed to touch an exhibit. 🙂

Getting touchy-feely

I think people should be able to touch exhibits – as long as it is safe for the person concerned and, of course, the exhibit.
It’s an unfortunate paradox that the ones people most like to feel are the most fragile, such as a fabric covered biplane with rigging wires everywhere.
However, in this case, it should be made possible for folk to touch. I remember being thrilled and astounded at how taut and apparently strong a doped fabric wing was and how tight a tensioned rigging wire was too and this really added to the understanding of these low-powered, often insect-like craft compared to the heavy metal jobs.
Likewise. the heavy metal is also a joy to behold – be it a steam engine or an F-4 Phantom – and it helps those who are genuinely interested, not just in the form of a machine but how they are put together.
As an engineer of sorts I get a huge buzz from feeling how well the parts are crafted together and how the whole structure is designed to be thrust as quickly and as easily through a gas medium (air) as possible, whilst performing a meaningful task – be it an airliner or jet bomber.
In my book, touching exhibits is an essential part of the learning process and as long as the exhibit is set up to be able to accept such treatment, it should be allowed commensurate with the health and safety of the toucher and item.
I had thought that, in these enlightened days, where rope barriers were supposed to be a thing of the past and people encouraged to get hands-on that those responsible for the exhibits would ensure that it is OK for people to get touchy-feely with exhibits, in a controlled way. Labelled or not, people will touch anyway because they are interested. All we need to do is make sure that this process is of maximum benefit to the person and minimum – or no – risk to the exhibit. Easy really!

I’ve got nothing against being allowed to touch parts of restored planes that can be touched, having a tactile connection with the exhibits certainly enhances the experience for me and the best exhibits have always been the ones I have been allowed to get inside. However contact between people and delicate parts of aircraft should not be allowed, I’ve seen the damage done first hand. Contact with original paint work should never be allowed, the damage to flak bait is witness to this; it is interesting though to see how much people want to get contact with exhibits, it obviously adds to their experience in a museum, perhaps curators should try and allow this is a non damaging way.
Matt

Airframes indoors at the museum of naval aviation at Pensacola are all accessible. It was a pleasure to be able to walk freely around them without being told off by a man in a hat as happened to me at Hendon some years ago, when I stepped over the barrier onto hallowed ground without realising.Also made for better photos.

What I say – I’m a toucher. 😮

I had my hands on the SR-71 last week at Duxford, imagining it at hight and speed over Korea, Vietnam, Egypt…… call me wierd but I find it very inspiring at times, and very thought provoking to have tactile contact with a living piece of history.

In that case, Flak Bait should be preserved with no skin contact…… I guess it should come down to the individual custodians recognising what they have and protecting it appropriately.

Valid point “Lindy’s Lad”, although “Flak Bait” is still in original unrestored condition so what has happened to that is criminal.
I suppose it was the way I was brought up but I have never been a member of the “bang it with your fist to see if its real” brigade.

Given that the airframe has been restored (Mary Alice), are the parts which are being touched original? Probably not – so is it worthwhile having to touch up a bit of paintwork every few years or at worst replace a panel or two in order to make the visitor feel as if they are allowed almost unrestricted access to a rare aeroplane?

In my view, minor repairs are a small price to pay for visitor satisfaction, and therefore sustainable revenue. If it was and absolutely unique and somewhat delicate aircraft, I’d have second thoughts – access like that to something canvass covered would probably not be a good idea.

Would the American Air Museum at Duxford work as well if it only had half the aircraft, all of which were behind obtrusive barriers?

Well, thats my thoughts anyway…..