I may be treading on old ground,but the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight change colour schemes on their aircraft while retaining the serial number occasionally,but do you feel that our museums should consider taking a leaf out of their book & adopting a similar practice?
After all IT would be nice to be able to see aircraft from different commands & squadrons represented.
For example, we have 2 B17’s & 2 B24’s masquerading as USAF aircraft, & 7Lancasters in bomber command schemes-why not have 1 of each in coastal command colours? There are 2 Sunderlands- lets have 1 in far east colours?
Instead of going to the expence of purchasing further aircraft to entice more visitors, why not reduce costs & repaint some of them,use removable vinyl code markings & represent some of the forgotton operators?
Likewise aircraft such as Hunters,Javelins & lightnings could be given a “makeover” just by applying new squadron colours over exhisting markings.
By doing this would we be destroying or enhancing history? Are we in danger of forgetting who flew what? I mean no disrespect to 609 Squadron but they have 2 Spitfires displayed in London,(& 1o2 FSM’s in their colours elsewhere) but one of those aircraft flew with 303 & 66 Squadrons.
There are a lot of commands & units out there that are over represented & far too many that have no representation whatsoever-to the uneducated eye you would think that only the USAF operated B17’s & Mustangs & the RAF’s squadrons could be counted in tens instead of hundreds.
By adopting this practice,imagine a veteran taking his grandchild to a museum for the first time & seeing one of “his,or his Sqn’s”aircraft represented in this way? I know from experience,that many a veteran has puffed up with pride just by getting close to a type of aircraft that they flew or worked on let alone it being in “his” colours.
So what do you say?
By: MishaThePenguin - 23rd January 2008 at 12:37
I strongly disagree with giving aircraft false identities.
Each aircraft has its own history, even if it is, at times a bit dull. Each should, where possible, represent its own history as much as is practicable. Hence, I like the TT Mossie at Duxford, and the TT Tempest at Hendon. Both are historically correct for the airframe in question.
Bruce
I quite agree with Bruce – I feel that by painting an aircraft in colours it never served in, you are almost passing off an aircraft as something it isn’t. My feeling is that museums are there to educate and presenting the truth about an aircraft is more important than making it look like something it isn’t. I would disagree though about the TT aircraft being dull!!! I think these are excellent examples of unsung roles which were vital but don’t often get considered in the preservation world. I actually like to see aircraft like this rather than the headline grabbing examples. (which may explain my fruitless efforts to obtain a jindivik for preservation!!!)
By: JagRigger - 23rd January 2008 at 12:03
OK – lets put a slightly different slant on this:
Currently in the RAF, most flying Sqns are run by a Wing Commander, with each flight on the Sqn run By a Squadron Leader.
Why not make each flight a mini Sqn? Get a lot more historic numberplates back in use……….
By: Bruce - 23rd January 2008 at 10:32
I strongly disagree with giving aircraft false identities.
Each aircraft has its own history, even if it is, at times a bit dull. Each should, where possible, represent its own history as much as is practicable. Hence, I like the TT Mossie at Duxford, and the TT Tempest at Hendon. Both are historically correct for the airframe in question.
Bruce
By: Peter - 22nd January 2008 at 19:56
Just an idea
What about putting markings of one squadron on one side and markings of another on the opposite side like how they have done with the Lightning at cranfield!
By: Lindy's Lad - 22nd January 2008 at 19:53
We are cautiosly doing exactly what you have suggested at NEAM – our Saudi Lightning F53 is being made to represent a local (ish) F6 in a rare scheme – if not unique. The scheme is completely wrong for the aircraft, but it makes an otherwise boring exhibit a little more public-friendly.
Here’s a few of my random thoughts…
Most museums will have a policy of something similar to ‘museum aircraft will be preserved/restored in a scheme worn by the particular aircraft’.
I agree that FSM’s can be made to represent any squadron, but I do disagree that RARE aircraft such as the Sunderlands should wear un-authentic markings.
Sally B is another good case – she is more widely known for wearing the film scheme she is in now, as opposed to the original markings she wore hilst in service. Would a re-paint into a completely different scheme partially alienate some of her followers?
Imagine the uproar if XH558 were to adopt a new sceme and represent XL319….
I agree in principle to the tempory markings thing – currently there are no aircraft representative of 55 OTU or 57 OTU of Usworth or Eshott….either would help our advertising…
Its certainly a good thread – lots to think about!
By: Radpoe Meteor - 22nd January 2008 at 19:36
I accept what you are saying,but no one objects to NX611 wearing 57 & 630 Sqn codes-she served with neither. I also accept that in some cases aircraft would have to be repainted to have effect-such as the green/grey/white c.command schemes.
But is the cost of putting a few vinyl markings on an aircraft such a great cost. Accepting both of our Sunderlands wear 201’s codes-it would not take a great deal of time & effort to cover the codes,roundels & fin flashes with removeable markings.
One thing we do have in our museums is a very high %age of duplicated aircraft,not all wear the same schemes,but in some cases we could, in essence, reproduce every colour scheme an aircraft type wore in service(with some surplus airframes)just by using the described method. ie there are at least 30-40 BAC Lightnings, around 70 Vampires,e.t.c. still preserved as cockpits or complete airframes.
By: Pondskater - 22nd January 2008 at 18:35
An interesting idea. There are two issues against it that spring to mind. The first is money: can museums afford to repaint an aircraft that doesn’t need painting (Flying aircaft will need to be repainted more often). The other is originality. Obviously you’re not suggesting that an aircraft which survives in original 60-year-old paint should be repainted, but often an individual machine is put back into its original colours and indentity.
For instance, the RAF Museum Sunderland is coded NS-Z – the same codes she wore when first operational with 201 squadron.
The IWM Sunderland is coded NS-F, because coincidentally she also first served (temporarily) with 201 squadron.
Unfortunately, neither served in the Far East but the devil in me want to ask why neither are in French colours, since they would not have survived had they not been with the Aeronavale – but I think the answer is obvious.
I do feel that Coastal Command is overlooked, but it is not a recent occurence and there is not likely to be a sudden change.
Sign In
January 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm