B.A Collection at Cosford

One cannot but agree Roger. The problem they seem to have is one of large object storage with good accessibility to the public. For years they were desperately seeking a suitable outstation which they lacked, hence Concorde 002 having to go to Yeovilton. Their plans at Wroughton some years back incidentally included examining the option of just conserving airliner fuselages. Doesn’t that ring a bell?

The oddity of the inclusion of the Hawker Cygnet in the RAFM is, I believe, repeated by Alex Henshaw’s provision of his papers and a replica Mew Gull.

I do not know what lies behind his decision (although I will shout as loud as anyone of his greatness and desire he is knighted) but the Science Museum – the, so called, National Aeronautical Collection, should have been the home to a Henshaw Collection.

Roger Smith.

[QUOTE=Consul]The above is useful clarification …. see also my post of 26th – surely this also means that the Cygnet G-EBMB is out of place and could perhaps be put up for disposal at some time –

I shudder when anyone mentions disposal – seeing the EEP1 in a scrap yard makes you shudder. How was that allowed?

Shuttleworth would be logical albeit static.

The Cygnet was of course part of the so called Camm Hall part of the collection when RAFM opened and was seen as a bit of an oddity at the time. I suspect that anybody who cares ro look into the sponsorship side of the formation of the Museum might possibly find the answer 🙂

……………….
“The purpose of the Royal Air Force Museum is to collect, preserve, display and provide for scholarship, material relating to the history of the Royal Air Force, its predecessors and air forces associated therewith, and aviation generally where a link with the Royal Air Force is established, for the public benefit in perpetuity.”

That’s a pretty definitive remit which largely excludes the BA Collection.
………………..

kev35

The above is useful clarification …. see also my post of 26th – surely this also means that the Cygnet G-EBMB is out of place and could perhaps be put up for disposal at some time – if the only link with the RAF is that it was designed by the same designer who led the team which designed the Hurricane? The Cygnet was for a light-plane competition and never was intended for, nor did it operate with, the military. I appreciate however there is a difference in its staus in that (so far as I’m aware) the airframe was donated not loaned.

Interesting also, that in more recent years, when the RAFM loan aircraft OUT from their collection they have stipulated that they must be kept in good environmental conditions and under cover (e.g. Oxford when at Newark, Hunter and Meteor at Tangmere). Shame that BA didn’t take an even longer-term interest in the care and survival of the machines they put on an eventual RAFM site; but some of the intricacies of the title of individual airframes are only now getting a wider airing and explain some of the politics that maybe sealed their fate?

Yes David I know the history of the Museum the Vickers Viscount was the first to arrive on 17/04/78 although it is sad about the demise of the BA collection I was more saddened about the aircraft that moved out of Cosford and down to Hendon over the last 2 years.
The bottom line to all this is BA pulled the plug over 4 years ago as far as money and manpower and the RAFM has neither the money or manpower to look after them so what do you do just let them rot away.
I guss the RAFM was possible waiting for BA to come back and it never happened.

The change occured in 1979 at the same time as the arrival of the VC-10. The Britannia and BAC-1-11 amongst others arrived later.

Good point David, hadn’t thought about that. But the Museum in Barbados is being built to house Concorde. Their remit will not change. The same can be said of the AAM. The policy will not change to the extent that the AAM Museum will suddenly have to house US biz-jets or airliners.

The change from the Aerospace Museum (when?) to the RAF Museum probably began the slow process that has led to the photographs I took today, wouldn’t you agree?

Regards,

kev35

Kev – The guys in Barbados are building a hangar for a BA aircraft they don’t own – namely a Concorde. Various other groups have the same problem in the U.K – i.e to house aircraft they don’t own. Specifically Concorde’s but there are a large number of aircraft on loan to U.K museums which have required funding projects to house . The AAM being an example in the case of some of the U.S aircraft.
The situation with the 707 is regrettable – whilst it might well not be within the remit of the RAFM to preserve one – the bigger picture is of a steadily declining type in the U.K in any form and the reality is that the 707 had a truly global impact as a type. Those who wish to view a Comet and Boeing 707 together as airliner icons will now have to make the trip to Seattle where the enlightened museum there is ploughing vast numbers of Dollars into our heritage.

David.

In the wider view, we are not privvy to all the negotions between BA and RAFM since BA withdrew their support. When did BA announce that withdrawal? I agree that the RAFM is not entirely blameless. But we have to accept that the RAFM’s remit is as below. Copied directly from Document RAFM/DCM/2/6/3/1 Version 8: December 2004.

“The purpose of the Royal Air Force Museum is to collect, preserve, display and provide for scholarship, material relating to the history of the Royal Air Force, its predecessors and air forces associated therewith, and aviation generally where a link with the Royal Air Force is established, for the public benefit in perpetuity.”

That’s a pretty definitive remit which largely excludes the BA Collection.

Times have changed and the RAFM are trying to move with them. BA Can now certainly be said to put profitability before heritage.

Regards,

kev35

badger.

I think you are seriously underestimating David’s knowledge of the intricacies of the arrangement between BA, the RAFM and now Boeing. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what David has said about the 707 and VC-10. However, if these two airframes were on loan from Boeing, who had the final say on their fate? Were Boeing even consulted? None of which absolves BA of their responsibility to and for the Viscount, 1-11 and Trident.

David said in a previous post….

“BA did indeed ‘abandon’ them four and a half years ago at Cosford . A museum that in the case of the VC-10 had been perfectly happy to have it on display for twenty two odd years and have the maintainance carried out by another party whilst reaping the gate tolls. I am sure there are plenty of museums who would have jumped at the chance of such an arrangement for that length of time – indeed many museums would have put the extra revenue in the bank and housed the aircraft .”

But the title of three of these aircraft remained with BA and two with Boeing, didn’t they? They were never titled to the RAFM? In which case, why would the Aerospace/RAF Museum sanction a building programme to house airframes it doesn’t own?

David also stated…

“The Boeing 707 was offered within the BAPC about a year ago and that is in the domain of BAPC member groups.”

The British Aircraft Preservation Council. Why was the ‘availability of the 707 not aired more widely at that time? It appears that events are now coming to a close at Cosford with an undue degree of haste. Was that really necessary? And why didn’t the constituent groups of the BAPC make a combined and determined effort to do something about the 707 when they were first informed it was to be disposed of?

Regards,

kev35

Badger – the collection of BA aircraft at Cosford was started before the RAFM at Hendon took over the station collection as was Cosford in 1979. The VC-10 and Boeing 707 were acquired around the time of the change but were on loan from Boeing.
For over twenty five years the 707 for example has been public view. During that
time some serious thought should have been gven to her long term future and indeed the level of relevance to the RAFM . However now we have a RAFM collection which can stand large duplicates like two Vulcans and a Milestones of Flight gallery which is somewhat wide of the mark by purely featuring combat aircraft.
There is no problem with changing a collecting policy – I dislike the notion that BA is entirely to blame in the current postion. BA’s remit has always been the provision of airline services – if these aircraft were being scrapped as a collection at Heathrow
I could have some disquiet at BA but in this case the collection at Cosford was very much RAF lead. Maybe the time to alert the public to the plight of the airliners was four years ago rather than in the months preceeding the launch of a glossy new display building.

David the RAFM is not the first Museum to have a collection Policy change or will it be the last, you for some reason seem to be be trying to blame the Museum for all this. I take it you are trying to tell us BA are not to be blamed, just remember these are BA aircraft it was BA who decided their fate regardless what what facts you try to drag up out of the past.

BA did indeed ‘abandon’ them four and a half years ago at Cosford . A museum that in the case of the VC-10 had been perfectly happy to have it on display for twenty two odd years and have the maintainance carried out by another party whilst reaping the gate tolls. I am sure there are plenty of museums who would have jumped at the chance of such an arrangement for that length of time – indeed many museums would have put the extra revenue in the bank and housed the aircraft .

And what did BA say when you offered them the same communication? BA abadoned them four and a half years ago. See my earlier post, they just want rid of them at minimal cost and if they can paint the RAFM in a bad light while doing so I’m sure they’ll be delighted.

Regards,

kev35

…..and clearly it proved to be a good decision not to give them a Concorde.

I have just had yet another email from RAFM which refuses to accept that three BA aircraft are to be destroyed. It reiterates that they are all just being “moved”! Its like talking to a Government Minister. You end up concluding they must actually believe their own garbage.

Fine. I’ll just chop off the cockpit of the Valiant and see if they think that’s a good act of preservation.

Regarding RAFM. Under the late John Tanner the push was evident to become “more” than just an RAF Museum ,in the absence of a National Collection or policy. Under Michael Fopp the direction is seeming to be returning to that a more focussed existence. He can best speak for himself of course, but I do recall his concern in a conversation some years ago regarding the continued justification for retaining some exhibits, the Do 24 for example. It subsequently went to the Netherlands as I recall. Incidentally has anybody actually taken the issue up on site with Al Maclean?

There’s no way you can prove it but I suspect that the BA Collection’s future at Cosford died the day they decided not to send a Concorde there

…………….The point here is simple. It is not within RAFM’s remit to preserve civil airliners, except those once operated by the RAF……………
Bruce

Interesting point. Although the ownership and maintenance responsibilities re the BA collection have been aired well enough here – the broader question of the RAFM’s “interest” in civilian aircraft and their general “remit” is relevant. Although BA not the RAFM has responsibility for these airliners – the RAFM has precedents of accepting and preserving civilian aircraft. The Hawker Cygnet G-EBMB is an example. In the early days shortly after Hendon museum was opened they used this airframe in a themed display of machines designed by Camm and they still have the aircraft.

I recall the RAFM mission was changed to embrace not just the history of the RAF. Indeed of more recent years the creation of the Milestones display, the display of the donated American Moth Corpn. DH.60G Moth G-AAMX, the intention to display Mowhawk G-AEKW are just examples of this broader policy. I know that the RAF operated some DH.60s (but not this variant) and that the Mowhawk was impressed during WW11 – but the Lindbergh connection (rather than its impressment into RAF colours for a period) is the driver for the latter as an attraction to the museum.

When it’s convenient for a theme or seen as an icon then the RAFM has in the past been prepared to adapt – particularly if such airframes were donated.

The Boeing 707 was offered within the BAPC about a year ago and that is in the domain of BAPC member groups. She was a machine on a long term loan from Boeing – the other machines bought-back by Boeing largely met their fate in the Arizona desert.
The why’s and wherefores of who painted the BA aircraft at Cosford is largely irrelevant – there was clear support for the activity at Coford through the use of equipment and facilities to carry out that work. I find it convienient in the extreme to promote the view that the events of 9/11 have a direct bearing on the funding of the collection- it could be argued that if four years ago the facts had come to light some real effort could have been put into alternative means of funding the collection indeed
a tiny amount of lottery money could have gone a long way in providing future protection for the airframes.
I could actually argue that with the RAFM saying that these airframes don’t come within their remit – is there really any justificable reason for keeping the Britannia 312F
when as a type it’s close to the RAF variant but as an ex freighter is money wisely spent on this machine ? If the RAFM is intent on tidying up their collection – all’s well
but maybe the time is now to really explore the options – do they need duplicates of
large types like the Vulcan when they haven’t managed to acquire and house a Hercules C.1 which has had a far greater impact within the RAF.