AirSpace at Duxford

Who cares? It’s a bus. A fast bus, yes, but just a bus. way to many civvy buses anyway.

Originally posted by David Burke
Lastly a fun one would be to find a nice long part of the dual carrriage way – remove the barriers and close the M11 on a sunday for a few hours and put her down on it.
Needless to say I am talking smallest fuel load with a fuselage stripped out. Probably not very practical but I bet they could do it in Sweden !!

That would do an excellent job of sectioning the airframe, the wings would be ripped off by the embankments as it came over the hill and you could make it into a convertable as it went under the A505 junction. 😀

If they did it in Sweden they would still have a problem getting it to Duxford, mind you after taking the lid off perhaps the passengers could row it across like a Viking Warship 😀 :p

I’m off to lie down, think I must have been out in the sun too long.

You’ll notice that advertising posters for Duxford tend to concentrate on the ‘History’ and ‘experience’ side of things rather than the ‘war’ side of things. Yes, I know it’s the Imperial WAR Museum, but it could hardly call itself ‘Europes Premier Aviation Museum’ (which it does) without the likes of Concorde. The airliners make it into a fully rounded museum, owned by the IWM.

If you want to overboard on the war thing, then scrap the Lightning, as it never fired a shot in anger.

No, no, no. Don’t scrap the Lightning, I was just making a point, I didn’t mean it:(

Willow

Don’t understand all the arguements, until Duxford becomes an aviation museum (or equivalent)………..airliners don’t belong at Duxford………the ‘war’ in war museum tends to cover the other exhibits. Yes I know………the airliners belong to DAS.
Nuff said:o 😀

Originally posted by robbelc

That Comet, no matter how coroded, was far more hostircial tha the Dandair one now there

I disagree. Simply because it’s an ex-military airframe does not automatically make it more historical. Even if it is a rare sub-type (yes, I know it was a C2R and therefore quite rare when new), sometimes individual histories count. The Comet 4 at Duxford was the first jet aircraft to cross the Atlantic with fare-paying passengers on board. Slightly more historic than the ex RAF machine, I’m afraid.

Don’t misunderstand me, I was appalled by the destruction of the Comet 2, as I am by the future, or lack of, for the Shackleton, but I just wanted to set the record straight about the Comet 4.

As an aside, Duxfords Concorde prototype has flown faster and higher than any other commercial airliner. Surely they cannot seriously consider dismantling this very historic aeroplane. The idea of using fuselage sections from the Filton example is a much better one.

Oh, and to anyone who says that airlines do not belong at Duxford, you could use the same argument when refering to the Land Warfare exhibition. And to the Lifeboat and submarines. And the prefab. And if you want to get really fussy, it also applies to types which never served there such as the SR71 or Tornado. Taking it even further, I don’t know of B24s or Lancasters being based there either!! But that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to see them there.

So there :p

Willow

She really needs to be flown into somewhere with the heavy infrastructure required to take her apart. My options would be
Cambridge first because of Marshalls expertise. Second would be Wyton with a civil team there to do the job. If they had anticipated this problem when shortening the runway for the M11
it would have been sensible to have the runway with an underpass. Lastly a fun one would be to find a nice long part of the dual carrriage way – remove the barriers and close the M11 on a sunday for a few hours and put her down on it.
Needless to say I am talking smallest fuel load with a fuselage stripped out. Probably not very practical but I bet they could do it in Sweden !!

The could fly into Stansted.

Just to add my couple of pennies on the Concorde issue,I don’t mind Duxford getting another one,as long as it doesn’t mean something like the Hastings getting elbowed out to make room for it.If the IWM are allocated a Concorde,I still wonder how it would be delivered.The prototype was flown in before the M11 was built,and I’ve been told that the runway would now be too short to accept the aircraft.Maybe she could be delivered to Cambridge Airport and then towed or dismantled??
I’m hoping that the preservation issues surrounding Concorde might do the UK museum movement some favours as a whole. When you think about it,there are only two or three museums in the whole country which could accomodate one indoors,and even then one of those already has a prototype.I’m hoping that this sorry state of affairs might make more people realise how serious the shortage of hangarage is at many of our smaller museum sites in the UK,and even some of the bigger ones.We live in hope…
I noticed someone made a mention of the condition of the Victor in an earlier post,and I can understand why.Reassuringly,the interior is in far better shape than the exterior looks.Her current rough appearance is due in a large part to a botched paintjob which was done about 10 years ago.The camo paint and the matt laquer that went over the top of it had different chemical make ups,and as a result the laquer has actually attacked the layers below and caused the mess we see today.It was apparently known that this damage would occur at the time the stuff was applied,but it was seen as the most expedient option at the time.
As for tri-gear Shackletons,the example at Newark is possibly our best bet for long term preservation.Despite being outdoors,she appears to be in excellent nick inside and out.I only hope that Newark can get thier hands on yet more hangarage for thier larger exhibits to safeguard thier long term futures.

Thanks for that Kev – I feel particularily sad for the Shackleton as a breed in the U.K . The RAFM had an example with the School of Technical Training at Cosford earmarked but as so many things she got sold. Maybe that was the ideal venue for one fitting in very well with the other aircraft in the collection but it wasn’t to be. Undoubtedly Duxford will continue to thrive but I see at least in my mind that Air Space is the way forward for them in terms of
moving away from the concept of a ‘war museum’ to an ‘aerospace museum’ in the way the American’s seem to do so well with the NASM.

David.

“I would like to be in a position in ten to twenty years time to show my son an example of British designed and built Shackleton. At the present rate of decline unless I take him to see an AEW .2 at Manchester it’s doubtful he will. Maybe ‘bright and shiney’ should win everytime ? Roll in a BA Concorde so we can marvel at the upholstery and look at the drinks trolly ! Who needs all that technical stuff?”

I’ve not been for a long time but surely Manchester is worth a visit in it’s own right? And as you say they have a Shackleton. Although I don’t think Duxford is the right place for a BA Concorde (interesting point you made about the IWM rebranding itself) if one is to go there perhaps it will provide a significant draw to the non-enthusiast public. Yes, we will go time and time again, but the extra income generated by people who find the Concorde to be a particular draw could perhaps then go to the restoration of aircraft such as the Shackleton, Victor or any other deemed to be ‘under threat.’

“I made the point of access rather badly – what I meant to say was that your wheelchair isn’t the thing making you disadvantaged in terms of access – the problem exists in the provision of getting you places whether it’s through a door way or up a flight of stairs.”

That’s what I was trying to say in my own clumsy way. I’m not neccessarily talking about access to an aircraft but access to be able to see it better. Same thing goes for other exhibits. One well known museum I have visited has real access problems to some exhibits, but in their defence I think it is something they are trying to rectify.

“The point I make of the ‘flyer’ is simple – is everyone in a wheelchair in the same circumstances or should we who are not in wheelchairs be open minded and not just treat yourself and others as a ‘group’ with exactly the same needs? “

A good point well made. And I don’t know how to respond. On a personal level I realise now I have not accepted the extent of the problems I have now or will have in the future. So I want all the help I can get. I don’t want to accept that I am excluded just because of something that wouldn’t have been an obstacle to me twelve months ago.

Regards,

kev35

Christ that took a long time to read through(dam PC breaking down this week)
On Concorde the prototype is enough. Its the Imperial WAR museum. No matter how much I like to see civil aircraft preserved its not within the museums remit. To recieve another Concorde seems like a short tearm public popularity measure to boost attendances. The prototype is enough. It is well looked after and if you painted it in a BA scheme and fitted it out with pax seats joe public would know no diffrence. I would rather see a Concorde preserved at Cosford( even shorter runway!) and at Heathrow than Duxford.
As for the Shack… this is one of the few nosewheel Shacks, in fact Shaks at all preserved, and I think its one of only two undercover(the AEW in Manchester being the other). It is an important type having served for about 30 years on some of the RAF’s longest flights. Yes its unglamorours to the public compared with a Spit. But if that was the case lets scrap everything that never fired a shot in anger.
It seems with the scraping of the Comet and the Convair Duxford seems to have a policy to scrap anything left outside. That Comet, no matter how coroded, was far more hostircial tha the Dandair one now there. Lets hope the Victor gets some well deserved attention in the near future.

The example I make is simple. A large British maritime aircraft
is perceived as less important than the huge effort required to bring a B-24 to the U.K . I wanted to see a B-24 years ago – I went to Cosford and saw one. How many of the museum visiting
public have heard of a B-24 ? I would like to be in a position in ten to twenty years time to show my son an example of British designed and built Shackleton. At the present rate of decline unless I take him to see an AEW .2 at Manchester it’s doubtful he will. Maybe ‘bright and shiney’ should win everytime ? Roll in a BA Concorde so we can marvel at the upholstery and look at the drinks trolly ! Who needs all that technical stuff?

I made the point of access rather badly – what I meant to say was that your wheelchair isn’t the thing making you disadvantaged in terms of access – the problem exists in the provision of getting you places whether it’s through a door way or up a flight of stairs.
The point I make of the ‘flyer’ is simple – is everyone in a wheelchair in the same circumstances or should we who are not in wheelchairs be open minded and not just treat yourself and others as a ‘group’ with exactly the same needs?

here’s an idea…

I feel that this post is rapidly developing into an emotionally driven debate. Although it is good to discuss these issues i feel that if it is to run any longer, we may be become counter-productive.
I think there is one thing we can all do starting from today…

Write out all your opinions and personal proposals for the development of AirSpace and send them off to Duxford. I’m sure if DX get enough of these letters they are bound listen.

Its just an idea!

thanx

Right, I’ll get me two penny worth in & retire to a safe distance!
First of all, did I get it right? are they knocking down the new hangar to build the mega super hangar????? If they are who thought that little idea up?
Secondly, The best idea for giving access to the inside of an airframe would be to lower it to the ground into a trench then with it well supported from below, even to the extent of flooding the trench with something that will dry hard, section it in half so anyone, disabled or not can see inside the aircraft with ease, by doing that It would allow two groups to benefit from one aircraft, why they have to be outside still on their U/C is beyond me. It is one of the most difficult things to get into & out of if there is an accident with a visitor.
I personally believe that no group or museum etc should be able to obtain complete aircraft to exhibit unless they can show the donator/owner that they have the means to keep the exhibit in good order, & that doesn’t mean every few years going out with some paint & a yard broom to paint over the problem.
If you want to see how museum exhibits should be displayed go to the Museum at Sinsheim, Germany, that is chock full of well looked after exhibits! The have also just received one of Air Frances Concorde’s that will look good next to their Concordski !

David.

“The crux of the debate is ‘you either have this or nothing’.
When did it become impossible to restore a machine such as the
Shackleton when it is possible to buy a Spitfire ,restore it and then exchange it for a Liberator which also requires restoration.
You then set out on the process of restoring the B-24 with a team of full time and volunteer labour. I would be very interested
to know at which stage the £1 million pounds mark would have been exceeded.
The cost of restoring the Shackleton could quite easily have been less than the cost of removing the glass panels
from the AAM to allow the B-24 in !”

Again I bow to your superior knowledge. But the Shackleton is still rotting away merrily is it not? It seems to me it is impossible for the Shackleton to be restored unless someone comes up with the money. I can’t comment on the IWM’s dealings but if it came to a choice between a Spitfire, Shackleton or B24 as you seem to be suggesting, I’m extremely happy with the B24 thank you.

” Regards my earlier post – well I stand by my comments.
The simple facts are that many aircraft are simply too difficult
for disabled people to get into in a museum enviroment . It doesn’t mean your disadvantaged because of your disability – it just means that it wasn’t a factor in the design.
If I was in a wheelchair I wouldn’t find that a discriminatory factor but simply a part of history.”

David, please, nowhere have I sugeested anything like that have I? I don’t expect to be able to access many airframes directly, I really don’t know why you’ve got this bee in your bonnet about that. Just try looking at every airframe with your eye level 2 to 3 feet lower than normal, and see if you feel you are missing out on anything. Let’s have more wheelchair accessible galleries where it is possible to get a different view of the airframe. That’s all. Where an airframe is accessible then open it up. I managed to get into Coventry’s Vulcan, up the access ladder with a struggle, and no I didn’t take my wheelchair, but surely there are ways that other airframes may be accessible without hacking them to pieces. Even if only to get an alternative view.

“It’s worth pointing out that being in a wheel chair isn’t
a way of restricting people.”

What a ridiculous statement to make. Of course it’s restrictive. How can you possibly think it not? Sit in a wheelchair and gain access to the upstairs of a building with no lift. Enter a public building up a flight of six steps with no assistance. We’ll make it simpler shall we? Duxford have very kindly provided ramps or slopes down to their hangars. Great. You try pushing yourself back up unless you’ve got arms like Schwarzenegger. Other obstacles such as doors which open out towards you are a work of art to manage. I couldn’t manage to walk through the Sunderland exhibit now. I’d like to see it again, can you arrange that for me? If I want to go swimming I have to travel miles to a baths that has level access and a sloping walk/stagger in pool. No, I see now, it’s not restrictive at all is it?

“I have an acqaintance who has flown the Atlantic a couple of times and flown to Australia.
He has flown fire bombers on ‘ops’ and indeed been in the right
hand seat of a 757 from memory. All of this once he gets out of his wheels. I have no doubt that at some stage in the future he will fly a warbird .”

And this relates to me in what way? I’m genuinely pleased for your friend. Who knows, in a few years time when I have probably experienced some level of amputation, when I have started to lose feeling in my other extremities, when my sight has deteriorated to the extent that I can no longer read, perhaps I’ll be able to do that.

“Whilst I am sure you will point out the disadvantages of being in a wheelchair….. “

What’s the point? You certainly aren’t going to listen are you?

“how does it compare with someone who cannot see but can only dream a Spitfire or a person who cannot hear the crackle of a Merlin at full throttle?”

My doctors suggest I should be able to answer the first part of your question in fifteen to twenty years time, if I’m lucky.

Regards,

kev35

Snapper – Bader did indeed have the ability to walk with his legs.
The comparison wasn’t of specific people but rather that the disability isn’t always that. The fact that someones legs don’t work at present doesn’t mean that at some stage in the future they won’t again. Research into stem cells is advancing at
such a fast rate that we will have the ability to heal parts of us never thought possible.
Bader had a Beech Travel Air in his last years that now belongs to a friend. He was able to use the rudder pedals but
the brakes were operated by lever – with the advances in weapons systems how long before some of this spins off so that
nothing is impossible in terms of control of vehicles to the less
able bodied.
As for hanging aeroplanes well maybe jet packs are the future for photographers !

“the simple facts are that men like Bader could fly a Hurricane with tin legs”

Now THAT is funny. Hilarious in fact. Why?

1. Bader had tin legs. They worked, and he could walk with them.

2. Kev has real legs. They don’t work, and he can’t walk with them.

Anyways, far too much animosity on here. Instead of arguing, we should all band together and search for Janie – lets leave no stone unturned.

Oh, and cut the Shack up to walk through – its bloody useless as it is. Don’t bother with another Concorde unless you do the same. If at all – it’s a civil bus, and they have too many Concordes there as it is. Hang whatever needs to be hung, safely and without irreversible damage – to save it from going the way of the Shack. Put aerial walkways that allow you to walk around the suspended aircraft. Put the Lanc on a perch, and use the B29 to Nuke Downing Street. Fit high powered daylight bulbs around the building so that people can get a good photograph. And don’t rip people off with the extortiante crap served in the ‘restaurant’.

Goodnight.

Kev – My perception is this. The Spitfire 24 has very little relevance to Duxford in terms of how far away it is from the earlier marks that were a feature of the airfield. On a comparative basis is it less important to the IWM than the Shackleton or more ? I use the Spitfire because I think that this comes
to the debate of value rather than history of the relative machines. Would a sectioned Spitfire be of more interest
to the public than a Shackleton?
The crux of the debate is ‘you either have this or nothing’.
When did it become impossible to restore a machine such as the
Shackleton when it is possible to buy a Spitfire ,restore it and then exchange it for a Liberator which also requires restoration.
You then set out on the process of restoring the B-24 with a team of full time and volunteer labour. I would be very interested
to know at which stage the £1 million pounds mark would have been exceeded.
The cost of restoring the Shackleton could quite easily have been less than the cost of removing the glass panels
from the AAM to allow the B-24 in !
Regards my earlier post – well I stand by my comments.
The simple facts are that many aircraft are simply too difficult
for disabled people to get into in a museum enviroment . It doesn’t mean your disadvantaged because of your disability – it just means that it wasn’t a factor in the design.
If I was in a wheelchair I wouldn’t find that a discriminatory factor but simply a part of history.
It’s worth pointing out that being in a wheel chair isn’t
a way of restricting people. I have an acqaintance who has flown the Atlantic a couple of times and flown to Australia.
He has flown fire bombers on ‘ops’ and indeed been in the right
hand seat of a 757 from memory. All of this once he gets out of his wheels. I have no doubt that at some stage in the future he will fly a warbird . Whilst I am sure you will point out the disadvantages of being in a wheelchair how does it compare
with someone who cannot see but can only dream a Spitfire
or a person who cannot hear the crackle of a Merlin at full throttle?

I made a post about my dislike of airframes being hung and now we seem to have moved on to a completely different topic about access.

Having worked with the phyisally and mentally handicapped I am fully appreciative of the problems that Kev35 is now experiencing.

It was not my intention to create any ill feeling and having helped contribute to this topic, I apologise if anything I have said, has been miscontruded.

I am even being convinced that maybe there is a place for hanging aircraft, but only as an absolutely, last option…

As for Bruce’s request ….

I’m open to ideas – what would you like to see in a typical museum to help you enjoy the experience more?

…I think this is an excellent subject but maybe this should be discussed in a separate post.

I think it is the responsibility of all of us who are involved with Museums to consider the problems of our disabled customers. There are a great many things we can do to make the experience much better for them, and also a number of things it would be very difficult to alter. Its a matter of striking the correct balance.

Kev, My wife and I took her disabled mother on holiday recently, and having pushed her around Scotland, I can start to see the problems you encounter every day. I’m open to ideas – what would you like to see in a typical museum to help you enjoy the experience more? Is there any one thing we can do to make your life easier?

And dont apologise – those of us who are not in your position will never understand what the term ‘disability’ means. It is right that you should fight your corner.

Cheers

Bruce