Blackburn Beverley at Fort Paull

I have no idea what the type of ground is like at Fort Paull and with the necessary drainage required the costs would be huge, but its an alternative to a traditonal hangar!

Clay, and not much higher than the River Humber’s high-water mark about 50 yards away.

Just for interest’s sake, here’s XH124 at Hendon in April 1989.

Interesting (if sad) to hear about the Southend museum hall becoming a roller rink. The RCAF Memorial Museum (now NAFMC) at CFB Trenton (now 8 Wing RCAF Trenton), conversely, was first housed in what had been the base curling rink!

That’s a fascinating idea about making a subterranean hangar for the Fort Paull Bev…

S.

The thought of the Beverley in full Court Line livery is truly mind boggling! I wonder if they had a meeting to discuss whether it would be the orange, pink, turquoise or purple base scheme?

Just a completely left-field thought about putting the Beverley under cover. As everyone has said, a traditional hangar would need to be massive and would overshadow (probably) everything else on the site. I remember climbing up into the tail of one at Abingdon or Benson years ago and I couldn’t believe how tall it was.

So, if you can’t put a structure over it in a traditional sense, why not dig down and make a ‘pit’ to put it in, or some sort of cave, then put a roof structure over it. I have no idea what the type of ground is like at Fort Paull and with the necessary drainage required the costs would be huge, but its an alternative to a traditonal hangar!

And no, I haven’t been drinking, yet!

Excellent joluqa video of XB259 being reassembled on the Army Museum of Army Flying site, taxying & flying, and a look around the flight deck here, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=103408

Going by the previous shananigans of ‘preserved’ Beverleys lets just be grateful that this one, the only one, is well looked after.

Under cover would be ideal… but surely where she is now gives the airframe hope and some sort of a future.!

indeed so. Yet ironically, I suspect she gets more TLC where she is than she would have in certain ‘more suitable’ locations…

I agree with that also michelf. I think we should also add to that, that there was a chance for the aircraft to go to a more suitable location but none were interested.

A pretty fair summary that Michelf! 🙂
Fortunately where she is there’s a team looking after her, doing what they can.

the important thing being that all the improvements and additions were done while the fort was in the military service of this country, unlike those at Dx. I think that was the point Ben was trying to make which I concur with.

Agree that the majority of the additions (and removals!) are post military service. In order to accommodate its new role.

Arguably Duxford was closer to its original condition when this started than Fort Paull is now but that is a digression.

It might be good to sum up what is going on…

1) The Beverley should be covered in order to provide a more secure future.
2) The current location in Fort Paull may not be the most appropriate location for a covered Beverley….

So the options are getting limited (by £££ primarily)…and the status quo is maintained…with the Beverley remaining outside.

Well i certainly wouldn’t of complained, as it might have meant that i got to see a Beverley actually flying.

The articles in Aeroplane Monthly are late 2004-2005 and are worth a read.

Incidentally, this aircraft is ex-Court Line Aviation, who bought it to use if they ever had to ferry RB.2-11s around for their L.1011 TriStar fleet in the mid-1970s. When I wrote Colours in the Sky, I got to know Ed Posey, the MD of Court Line Aviation pretty well along with the legendary Bill Amrstrong of Autair/Court and goodness knows what else fame. One day we got to talking about the Beverley and it seems that there was all sorts of problems getting it placed on the UK Civil register after it was ferried to Luton, but in the meantime there were plans that if it HAD gone on the register it could well have been painted Court Line pink with white wings and a polished name down the side of the fuselage!

Now what a sight THAT would have been!

including the threat – or not – of salt-laden air affecting airframes!
That’s one argument I’m not going to touch – but it’s worth looking them out for a laugh!

I didn’t think there was any doubt that salt laden air accelerated the corrossion of most metals used in aircraft. The “Heinkel” and Beverley in particular suffered very badly at Southend even though they were some way inland but it was firmly believed that their proximity to the sea had been a major contributor to the problems. The same was said to be true of the Reflectair collection when it was at Blackpool.
If this is correct then the Beverley at Fort Paull is vulnerable but at least she was saved from the threat of the scrapman and is being looked after by an organistaion which seems to care.

the important thing being that all the improvements and additions were done while the fort was in the military service of this country, unlike those at Dx. I think that was the point Ben was trying to make which I concur with.

Yes Duxford is an historic site but it is certainly not preserved in the condition it was at any time in its RAF history. Making it not a preserved ‘item’.

Agreed…..but then by the same standard Fort Paull is not ‘preserved’ in anything like its original state…Its a mish mash of ad hoc additions conversions and changes as required. That I’d argue is far more important than any original state…

It is not a question of could it be done it is a question of should it be done and the answer is no.

I agree it is matter of opinion…

Yes Duxford is an historic site but it is certainly not preserved in the condition it was at any time in its RAF history. Making it not a preserved ‘item’. It is not a question of could it be done it is a question of should it be done and the answer is no.

Possibly – double points for airframes inside; also a lot of other factors to consider e.g. status of owner – properly constituted organisation, local and national significance etc

In the 2010 edition of the NAHR XB259 is listed as a Significant Airframe – moving it under cover would move it to National Benchmark status.

Blimey that’s interesting, so would the benchmark Shackleton at Duxford be downgraded if it moves back outdoors?

There was a huge ‘handbags at dawn’ series of articles and letters in Aeroplane Monthly at the time the aircraft was moved to the current site including the threat – or not – of salt-laden air affecting airframes!

That’s one argument I’m not going to touch – but it’s worth looking them out for a laugh!

I agree with most points being raised here from both sides, however I think one issue here is that the Beverley is a benchmark airframe (hopefully T/O can confirm?) and is the sole survivor of the type…..

In the 2010 edition of the NAHR XB259 is listed as a Significant Airframe – moving it under cover would move it to National Benchmark status.

This is a very different situation to say Duxford, where the airfield is not the preserved `item`, it is a place to put preserved items. Hence Airspace, American Air Museum etc. Fort Paull is the preserved `item` which happens to have other things (Beverley) inside.

Hmmm.. Duxford might disagree with your view… and my own work with them suggests the IWM and Cambridge Council view Duxford as a historic location…

I do not disagree with your point of adaption, conversion and supplementation of historic buildings/ areas for modern use (for example I would like to see Buckingham Palace converted in to a hospital or the land sold for offices to pay some of the deficit) just not in this case.

OK, pretty clear and very different from ‘it cannot be done’..