Airspace

Just that the AAM was on time, I suspect AirSpace will be on time, and I believe cost control on the AAM was on target.

James

The whole sordid mess is going to be on 4 corners – ABC monday night at 8.30

John

What was the story with Wembly? Cost? Delay? This is a genuine question – not something I’ve ever been interested in, so I don’t know anything except the headlines – but an interesting comparison in mass-entertainment.

Interested in just Wembley or construction overspend in general..?

Not sure on specifics about Wembley, but probably the same as any other project in this day and age.

Very simplistically, it’s a culture thing as much as anything.

Client changing his mind can be a big factor of course….. :rolleyes:

Second one is again, a client related issue.

Putting in a fixed fee tender submission for the real projected cost would never get you the job, as the client (unless very enlightened) will look elsewhere to a cheaper bid, because someone will always underbid to ensure they get the job, with the intention of clawing back the extras in claims.

The best jobs these days are client/contractor partnerships where each has a vested interest. These tend to be the jobs with the least overspend.
Not many clients are that enlightened though :rolleyes:

Overspend of course yet to be determined.

What was the story with Wembly? Cost? Delay? This is a genuine question – not something I’ve ever been interested in, so I don’t know anything except the headlines – but an interesting comparison in mass-entertainment.

Kev,
Me thinks he was using Concorde steps again.

£23 million is one heck of a lot of money.

Yes, but in fairness it a pretty good cost for that type of project as a whole. Overspend of course yet to be determined.

But, to put it in some context…..BAA are currently spending that amount every 12 working days in building Terminal 5 at Heathrow……..

As far as i can see the buildings can be transient – that is they are there to protect the often priceless exhibits inside them – if Air Space means more aircraft undercover than rotting away then I’m all in favour- the further halo effect being the number of airframes refurbished to ‘modern’ standards of preservation or restored completely – which without the motor of airspace may not have taken place =- there would simply not have been the room – Anson, Mossie, Swordfish, TSR2 et al.

£23 million is one heck of a lot of money. I often think what benefit that £23 million would have given were it distributed, for example, evenly between each aviation museum in the country – say there are 500 (and I’m sure its more like 100) but for the sake of argument – £46k each. Imagine what those museums could do with that money – it would be a fortune to them! I know it would revolutionise our place. That said, DX is our jewel in the crown the envy of the majority of European enthusiasts – it must be right that on an aircraft preservation level (Politics notwithstanding) airspace must be applauded.

Further, private money has gone into it from amongst others – BAE Systems and theyare to be congratulated for their contribution to our heritiage IMHO

Just me penn’orth, off to read me flying boat book now 😉

All t best

TT

Damien.

You must have one huge set of stepladders…..

Regards,

kev35

Big b*gger, innit?

Yeah the diversity at Duxford is pretty much unique as far as i know. Personally i think some of the more modern buildings look kind of cool and make it more appealing to the casual visitor, instead of just seeing old buildings about. The design for the Airborne Assault building looks pretty cool to, and should get more visitors for Duxford, maybe some of you lot could have a go on the parachute jump simulator :p

Airspace could be good for Duxford, Although it gains another ‘Concrete Woodlouse’ It will be helping people understand Britains aviation heritage and help the younger generation become more enthusiastic about flying.

My first visit to the historic airfield was back in 1996 with my Grandad. I was overwhelmed by the size of the place. since 96 I have been a regular visitor and had to sets over Work Experience completed there. This hasmade my enthusiasm for avaition grow and grow. People I have met and worked for have helped me in ways to understand which I would never fo been able to do if I had not not asked or even chosen there to work. over the years I have seen Duxford become a haven (aswell as Old Warden) for unique collection of aircraft.

Duxford is always growing and tries to cover all the bases for every family member. Airspace will provide interest (hopefully) for the younger generation as well as adults etc. I hope in the future with possible move of parachute regiment museum more unique collection available exclusively to Duxford will become apart of this Historic Airfield. I welcome new projects to Duxford as the diversity helps people see the different areas of aviation.

Those plans were a much better idea than the new one, although i’m still for it, i was dissapointed to find out about the new building

I know I keep going on about it, and my views on architectural lunacy are well known, but the best thing yet designed to keep aeroplanes in is a hangar.

I agree with Kev and David, Duxford is an exhibit in it’s own right, but given it’s position as a division of the IWM, unfortunately it can’t remain in a time-warp. However, sympathetic developmnent doesn’t seem to have crossed anybody’s mind.

The attached pics are liberated from the Cosford website. Despite the new building being well underway, the old page hasn’t been deleted, although I suspect there’s no link to it now.

In my opinion, their plans were far better than the ludicrous building under construction. Following text is also directly copied from the same page:

“We aim to build an additional 14,300 square metres of environmentally controlled display space to protect and preserve up to 20 historic aircraft of international significance and provide a welcoming and accessible display for the public.

In keeping with Cosford’s hi-tech ethos and its prime location on the Wolverhampton – Telford High Technology Corridor, the main building is being planned to incorporate what will be Europe’s largest solar roof. This will enable the building to produce more non-fossil fuel power than the Museum currently consumes.”

Moggy.

“If aircraft are goping to be entombed so that generations less fortunate than ourselves can at least see the corpses then I feel it is our duty to preserve them to the highest possible standards.”

So does that preclude them from being preserved (expertly) in surroundings which enhance their display and add more to the history than buildings which often look sorely out of place?

“Duxford isn’t a preserved airfield. It’s a living museum, and the elements of WW1 and WW2 architecture preserved there will assume decreasing importance as newer buildings are added.”

Don’t agree. If that is your standpoint would you suggest some space age monstrosity located next to the Tower of London? How about putting Stonehenge under cover? Would those new buildings lessen the importance of the sites?

“Can you post some Cosford links/images to illustrate your point about your local museum please?”

Would love to but am restricted to wheelchair again without a pusher. And after three falls today, two in Morrison’s, do not really fancy trying to stagger round on sticks. As soon as I can I will post some from Cosford.

Regards,

kev35

Moggy -that doesn’t make sense! How can the pieces of WW1 and WW2 aurchitecture have a decreasing importance as newer buildings are added?
The importance of Duxford is as an airfield used by the RAF and USAAF -it’s
not historically important through the fact that we have built further buildings on it since. Surely the original will always triumph over added features but not of the period.

I think the Cosford exhibition will be great, sure the building isn’t that good but it means all V bombers will be in the same building, and aircraft like the Belfast, Vulcan and Victor will be under cover (I think this will make it the only undercover Victor). Also, it’s about time there was a museum with an area properly dedicated to the Cold War, seeming as most preserved aircraft seem to come from that era.

Isn’t that a bit at odds with your normal viewpoint about aircraft that are not airworthy being dead?

Er no :confused:

In which case would you rather have seen said £23 million being used for airworthy restorations?

Er yes :confused: but 🙂

… that’s a bit like the ‘hospital’ argument. The building of Airspace isn’t necessarily going to deprive the warbird restoration movement of that same 23 million, is it?

If aircraft are goping to be entombed so that generations less fortunate than ourselves can at least see the corpses then I feel it is our duty to preserve them to the highest possible standards.

Duxford isn’t a preserved airfield. It’s a living museum, and the elements of WW1 and WW2 architecture preserved there will assume decreasing importance as newer buildings are added.

The presence of TSR2 (Though how it qualifies under the ‘W’ of ‘IWM’ is a bit suspect) doesn’t in my view detract one jot from the magnificence of the Lancaster, Spitfire or BF109 crash-landing scene

The presence of new buildings doesn’t detract from the pre-war hangarage as far as I am concerned.

Moggy

Can you post some Cosford links/images to illustrate your point about your local museum please?

But then I don’t know as much about building landmark structures that maintain the correct conservation conditions inside for the protection of priceless heritage artefacts, despite being on a windswept airfield, as everyone else seems to. I’m just glad it’s being built.

Isn’t that a bit at odds with your normal viewpoint about aircraft that are not airworthy being dead? In which case would you rather have seen said £23 million being used for airworthy restorations?

I know little of what ‘Airspace’ is to be. I saw the construction work at Legends and was not overly impressed as it appears to me to be just another big shed. The inside of the structure and the use of the covered space it provides is what will determine whether or not ‘Airspace’ is a success. Bearing that in mind I will reserve judgement.

But the concept of the architecture used in the buildings currently being built to house our heritage is, to me a bit strange. I don’t look at the Land Warfare Hall, just its contents, which I find interesting and imaginative. I fail totally to see what were the ideas behind IWM North, the AAM I like. I do not consider it to be an eyesore at all, although it doesn’t fit in with the airfield architecture.

Cosford I am concerned about. Housing a collection which is to educate the public about the Cold War and preserve airframes and artefacts from that era in a space age building which, to me, adds nothing to the era which it is being built to house, seems a very strange use of the money required. I think it is the case that more and more emphasis is placed on the ‘look’ of the buildings which house our National treasures than the treasures themselves.

Regards,

kev35

That plastic looks like it could well be Tyvek which is used as a vapour barrier to keep moisture out once it’s covered up by cladding etc. I’d guess it’s part of the actual structure & not temporary.

Right, let us talk accountability.

When the original hangar was built it had an extra concrete area at the front in order for a planned extension.

What has happened is that the new hangar has ignored this original design feature or that the original design under estimated the potential expansion that would be required. (ie they got it wrong).

Along with the inaccessibility of aircraft in the AAM there are some serious management issues to be questioned.

If any of this had happened at a hospital or similar the media would have become extremely excited.

Regarding the question of cost. I have just had to foot an unrealistic bill (imho) for covering an existing conservatory with roof tiles. The bill before the builders start is for a British phenonamon which none of our historical predecessors had ie building regulations. If the same is true of the new hangar my sympathies are with the IWM. – I regard this issue as completely seperate from aesthetic design and practical use of the buildings.