A few thoughts about IWM Duxford

Clearly the activities and content of the IWM Duxford arouse strong passions among many of us. (See: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47123) I thought a short essay looking at some factors and other areas, plus some ideas might broaden the discussion a little and hopefully encourage us to look at the familiar in a different way. Nothing here is intended as a personal attack, and if you take it as such, I’d ask you to consider what ground you stand on and why before responding. I’m happy to debate, but I’m not interested in attrition or shouting. I do hope that we can manage some fact founded discussion.

I think what has to come first is that in my experience Duxford airfield has to be regarded as the premier vintage aviation site in the world. There are other places which do aspects better, but as a basket of lots of different activities, there’s nothing like it. And that’s the first problem; it’s not one ‘thing’ but many. It’s a great strength, it has a lot of ‘stakeholders’ and these, myself included, are a lot of people who are passionate about it but without a responsibility to direct the place. That allows us to be rational or emotional as we choose, and we are certainly are unaccountable for our preferences. Those running the museum, and those working for the IWM have an accountability and responsibility that is often forgotten by the rest of us.

Secondly it’s not even ‘just’ an airfield. It is a lot more than that. It is a museum operated by the Imperial War Museum and Cambridgeshire County Council, and the RAF sold its interest in the site, with no desire to retain a stake, in 1969. Back then the IWM, Cambridgeshire and the Duxford Aviation Society joined to set up the airfield we know. Initially, the IWM were primarily interested in a museum store, and their brief did not include active aviation use, though, luckily, the runway was purchased as part of the deal.

This is where the first divergence of belief can occur. If you wonder what was intended, you need only look to the Science Museum’s outstation at Wroughton in Wiltshire. It too is an ex-military airfield, bought with runway and hangars and used for storage by the Science Museum. Despite some excellent attempts to bring the place to life, with several airshows over the years, the Science Museum have gradually squeezed the active from the place and are currently looking at ripping up the runway to establish a new and strange concept – ‘Creative Planet’, worthy, perhaps but certainly misplaced at Wroughton. (See: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wroughton/creativeplanet.asp and http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/creativeplanet/pdfs/creativeplanet.pdf )

But back to Duxford. Though an airfield, from day one the IWM intended to use it as a store for all its large objects – tanks, trucks, boats and planes, guns and rockets; as well as the 1,001 other items in store on the north side that most of us aren’t even aware of. This mix has often been seen by the aviation enthusiast as a distraction from the aviation offering; but the IWM hold a brief covering all aspects of war, not just aviation, and the spread of technology encourages both visitors who otherwise would not consider it as a destination, and comparison among other types of technology and sacrifice in war.

An example is the wartime garden by the prefab hut. Both distinctly ‘odd’ on an airfield, but central to the IWM’s brief and complimenting the 1940s house project at IWM Lambeth. I visited Duxford with a teenage boy who was ‘gee whizz’ about the jets (he’ll grow out of it, I hope) but as a country lad, as fascinated by this wartime kitchen garden as the aircraft – not something you’d expect from either direction, and a lesson, I hope in illustrating that the wartime experience isn’t just Spitfires, but Spitfires, X-Craft and surviving the home front, among many other things. “Why at Duxford?” is the rhetorical question – well, because it’s one of the IWM’s museums, not just an aviation museum is an answer.

Several people are concerned at the ‘loss’ of ‘atmosphere’ at Duxford. This is, firstly, a reasonable concern, but I feel somewhat unrealistic in that those same people often are keen to see the vintage aviation taking place on the airfield. It is not the base of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, it does not belong to, or have a primary allegiance to the RAF; so while it might be nice to have it dedicated to the RAF years (usually we think of 1940 of course) the loss in all the other things that IWM (note, not RAF) Duxford contains is an unreasonable price. It’s also not possible to turn the clock back to pre 1980s. Duxford was never preserved as an RAF Base, but adopted as a museum’s store. There has to be a degree of compromise in achieving the objectives of a historic site with a modern museum job and an active, complex airfield.

If you want the atmosphere of an RAF Base, you can have it – there are a number either preserved as memorials / museums, or in current RAF use, or derelict. Take your pick. You’ll note how few offer the full airfield experience, and none the volume of flying vintage aviation that Duxford has. Should you be really passionate about the atmosphere of a pre1950s RAF base, you could even buy one. The airfield part of RAF Bicester was available for purchase and as an un-modefied, historic, pre-expansion period airfield is of more value than the developed (even pre-1969) Duxford.

Comparison with the Shuttleworth Collection at Old Warden is unfair to both places. The Shuttleworth Collection is an airworthy collection of aircraft (and roadworthy vehicles) at a grass airfield. None of the aircraft are larger than twin engined, and they try to avoid holding any un-airworthy aircraft. The IWM do not operate any aircraft, their brief is static preservation, and they have numerous aircraft with four engines and a large collection of boats and tanks. We are lucky that the two venues compliment each other, and co-operate as well as they do (though it could be better on occasion). Bigger isn’t just larger, it’s different.

What have the RAF done in terms of preserving a pre-50s RAF base? While the BBMF is an enormous tick in the ‘care about heritage’ box for the service, elsewhere they don’t score so well. The setting up of the RAF Museum at Hendon in the late 60s was a wonderful achievement, and while the choice of Hendon was a difficult compromise due to its lack of potential to remain active, it’s primacy as an historic London site for the organization made it inevitable. Sensibly, the RAF Museum was set up as an independent organization, not part of the RAF, and this has overall been to their benefit. The surrounding of the historic hangars of the museum by the white frills of the 1970s architects’ dream was as great a sin as is being levelled at the IWM planners today, with the bonus that the 30 year old RAF Museum gets dirty, thus looking bedraggled and it leaks on the archives – a fundamental failure, not just an aesthetic one. Oh, and there’s no flying there. Somewhat moribund then. Not to forget the RAF got rid of Duxford in the 60s.

Let’s for a moment consider trying to preserve or recreate something of what RAF Duxford was. When shall we pick?

A shortlist would perhaps look like:
The W.W.I site
The inter war period
1940-43 – RAF at War.
1943 – 45 – USAAF base
45 – 61 – Postwar RAF
67 – Battle of Britain Film site
69 – to present IWM museum, and venue for airshows, film and TV too long to count.

Most people who wish for something back then look to the 1940 airfield, quite understandably. With some compromise, that could be achieved. But how viable would such a one trick pony museum be? Would the private operators be able to use the site? The rebuilders? Almost all of them are in some degree not in keeping with a 1940s RAF base. Duxford was always, essentially, a fighter base. All large aircraft should leave…

And to pick one period from the history is to fail all the other periods. For any era one can put forward as being ‘the most important’ counter arguments can be put forward for other eras. Ignoring 1918 and 1943-5 in favour of 1940 (for instance) is simply not on.

So let’s be honest; there will be some degree of compromise, something some purists seem to be unable to accept. Perhaps it’s a matter of degree, but I find the fact that you can find items relating to all parts of the last century’s history at Duxford is a good thing. Of course there will be a debate about where the balance should lie, and that’s healthy, but polarized hectoring opinion helps no-one in constructive debate.

Few have argued for the modern history of Duxford, but the memorials to the latter day ‘Blenheim Boys’ and the modern glass memorial to the USAAF are to me as important a part of ‘Duxford’ as the Belfast hangars, or the 1918 chapel.

And that brings us to one crux of one of the arguments. That is: ‘Let’s put back the Belfast Hangar.’ It’s not happened to date, and I wonder why not. There are two factors that seem possible explanations to me. 1. Cost. In the UK, large amounts of wood are not really viable in a building construction. The woodworkers skills do exist, but the clients aren’t prepared to play the price in the UK for wood. Perhaps the money could (and one day may be found) but the second point in combination has stopped the idea so far (I believe). Size. A Belfast hangar (single, not double – there’s the 1918 Chapel in the other space) simply won’t hold a lot of aircraft, and certainly can’t hold many of the larger aircraft. The Sunderland won’t fit (The RAF Museum’s example had to go into a building not unlike the old Superhanger in size and design.) I believe the B-17 only fits without the wingtips, and few of the complete airliners would fit. In short, nothing built at Duxford in the last few years has been as small, and as of such limited use for significant cost. A recladed and re-erected T-2 hangar is a world cheaper in cost, and could be a viable alternative. I would grant that the transplanting of a Belfast type hangar from another location might be a good idea. Let’s hope it happens, but pound per square foot I think it may not be good PR value for money, and it cannot compare with either the AAM or the new AirSpace building or indeed the old Superhangar in volume contained. The cost benefit is a difficult argument without real world comparisons. Thanks to David Burke for the mention of the Bracebridge Heath Belfast hangars. What condition are they in? Whose are they? Learning_Slowly asked how much the move of the Hendon Belfast-trussed Graham White hangar cost – a very good question – anyone?

Questions of competence and ethics. I’m intrigued as to the immediate assumption by some of incompetence or unethical behaviour on the part of the IWM management. Perhaps some who are so quick to condemn, including ideas of ‘laughing all the way to the bank’ might care to detail some allegations? Bearing mind the laws of libel, of course.

You get what you pay for is an old maxim, and the pay for the staff in places like the IWM isn’t great, but it’s hardly awful. The executive level staff might seem handsomely renumerated until you compare them to the private sector. So are you going to go in for fraud in the museum business? In this case I don’t think so. But for those who like to believe Museum staff are bent or incompetent, the stunning arrogance of the British Museum gives ammunition to this argument.
(A complex story, with certain aspects glossed over but these websites give a flavour: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1337346,00.html
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=BritMus ). However I think it’s reasonable to ask for some evidence rather assuming failure. Accountability has also been mentioned. As I understand it, there’ll be a board of governors for the Museum, ultimately answerable to the general public – a pressure group would have an effect, ill informed venom from individuals will not. Questions can be asked that must be answered under the new freedom of information laws. Would anyone who has made such criticisms like to ask and present answers here, rather than believing their own worst speculation?

It has been overlooked, I think, that the development of a new exhibition (as the AAM and AirSpace has been) provides a greater impetus to the conservation and restoration work; there has been an acceleration on both occasions in work on aircraft, and the consequent costs of interpretive material and display gear is always much much greater than those outside the business expect. Like many aspects of the museum business it’s expensive because it has to achieve certain qualitative targets without compromise, and it’s a small, arguably monopolistic market place with few tendering for the business.

One of the complaints raised here is the big ugly building concern. If the museum and airfield is going to operate with large aircraft, then it’s going to have buildings bigger than T-2 and Belfast hangar size. What should they look like? Well, if it were a forces base, clearly a big hangar will do. But it’s not, it’s a museum, so it’s going to be a museum building. Aside from the aesthetic question, an airfield hangar and a museum building for aircraft do different things. A compromise between public access and environmental control is the primary balance required. The costs and requirements of heating ventilation and lighting are often a different level to that acceptable in a military hangar. Disabled access and emergency evacuation options also put another difficulty (and cost implication) in the way of the designers. Removal of aircraft is a third level requirement – though the AAM’s glass front was clearly too restrictive. A large building will probably be a high building, which is a major temptation to double stack the artefacts. Not popular, but it gets another 60% of the aircraft under cover for a small additional cost of hanging them. With a significant number outside at Duxford, this is a key concern for any museum which has to preserve its exhibits.

So we move onto the aesthetics. An assumption is made that the ‘peer group’ for IWM Duxford is other airfields. Perhaps, but it is much more in the world of museums than aircraft operation. To see what this looks like, I recommend having a look at http://www.24hourmuseum.co.uk/ and search for the trail called ‘Sculptured Structures’. You might like some or hate them all, but they are developing a modern range of architectural answers to modern problems. A society that has no cutting edge in its arts and architecture is moribund. Whatever your feelings about the buildings, I think there are a few things worthy of note. The largest new wooden building in Britain is in a heritage environment – and is utterly modern. (And gives some hope to the idea of the ‘new build’ Belfast hangar.) Many are new additions to old environments, and the only ‘aviation’ entry in this list is the American Air Museum. Remember aviation used to be thought of as the cutting edge? That le Corbusier regarded aviation as mobile modernity? (Awful architect, in my opinion though.) Clearly the aviation museum business in the UK has some way to go before it’s cutting edge.

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone can advance a piece of modern architecture that is loved at first sight that has stood the test of time? Both the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House were panned when built, but both are symbols of their respective nations, never mind just the cites they are in today.

Clearly there are issues, with the American Air Museum. As a piece of architecture, I quite like it. As a way of displaying aircraft it has several flaws, but the B-29, B-52 and numerous other aircraft are under cover. I’d say it’s too clever by half, as perhaps is the architect, but it is only by venturing we can learn. And the IWM have learned from some mistakes made in the AAM and are taking those lessons on board for the AirSpace project. I’d certainly ask for a refund on the fact that the grass isn’t adhering to the sides.

Kev35 asked for comparisons with the Tower of London and Stonehenge. Stonehenge is an ancient monument, not a museum with an active airfield attached, and a look at the issues with tourist traffic and the A303 will show that English Heritage are facing serious problems managing this world heritage site. The Tower is in London, so there’s quite a few ‘space age monstrosities’ near the site – the ‘Gherkin’ occurs for one. Incidentally, what point in the Tower’s history is the one we should take it back to – it has been under continual development as well.

Quite rightly, several people wondered at the apparent lack of clear vision for the future of Duxford; I presume this is in the matter of aesthetics of the buildings – a point I agree with – the mismatch between the three new buildings is quite remarkable. On the other hand looking to a sustainable future for the continuation of ALL the aspects of the museum and the airfield I think a good plan is evident – a western runway extension is highly desirable, but currently inadvisable with the current NIMBY pressure. Watch this space?

What of the idea of peer group of airfields or aviation museums? Well there are some, but many are outside the UK. New developments at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/udvarhazy/) at the National Air & Space Museum is a massive building, and alongside the Evergreen building (http://www.sprucegoose.org/). shows what can be done in the USA – costs for these buildings, though significantly bigger than Airspace in both cases, can give some idea of the proportional costs and issues faced – anyone care to comment from a position of knowledge? Oh, and neither are exactly airshow venues of the status of Duxford. Closer to home is the re-invention of the ‘Aviodome’ at Schiphol in Holland into the ‘Aviodrome’ at Lelystad (http://www.aviodrome.nl/english/). For those not familiar with the site – on recovered land, at an existing airport, a T-2 hangar with a massive new building as the main exhibition space has been built. But the really amazing thing is that the Schiphol terminal building, bombed to destruction by the Luftwaffe in May 1940 has been recreated in every detail with newly made bricks to the original specification. It’s aiming to be a major aviation venue, and it’s an impressive start.

I would like to thank those who have discussed and argued about Duxford with passion and reason, with the result, and as I hope here as well, that we can learn more about this magnificent museum venue. If I may borrow a final note from someone much closer to the business than I: “I don’t want to get into an argument on all this, it’ll be circular, it’ll go on too long, we’ll all fall out and we’ll end up not speaking to each other. It’s not meant to offend either, just treat it as food for thought.”