I would like to make some comments regarding some discussions taken place earlier on this forum regarding Britain’s Aviation Heritage.
Statement: Britain’s National Museum and English Heritage are not taking the responsibility for the preservation of historic objects and sites as a result of government policy.
After the end of the Cold War (the last 15 years +) Britain has been overwhelmed by aeronautical equipment and sites that were disposed of, this provided an enormous opportunity for National Museums and English Heritage. This period where many of the last true British aircraft were disposed of, as a result of defence cuts and outdated equipment was combined with the loss of most aviation industry that was largely kept rolling by defence contracts is now coming to an end.
Many of the famous research sites were shut down, of which by far the most important (from an aeronautical point of view) was the Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough. Other highly important sites were Royal Aircraft Establishment Bedford and the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock. Only at Farnborough some of the highly important buildings were saved, as a result of non-government lobbying!
What did the museums do during this period?
• The IWM developed the American Air Museum at Duxford, highly expensive, not very functional and not good for the long- term preservation of aircraft (light, humidity, temperature etc.). Followed by the Air Space building (again highly expensive trying to turn something old into something not quiet useful, therefore sponsored by BAE highly experienced with such projects!).
Many of the aircraft that now enter the Airspace building are corroded airframes that have been restored (repainted) over and over again after many years outside. The amount of money spent at Duxford for restoring aircraft and then put them outside again, to corrode again is enormous! Hardly any aircraft at Duxford is in its original appearance!
• The RAF Museum did an OK job of looking after its collection, and now at least some important airframes will enter the Cold-war building (again a rather expensive designer building), other opportunities were missed.
• The Science Museum (officially they hold the National Aeronautical Collection)
almost stopped collecting, and don’t see themselves responsible anymore for the Science and Industry collections, this is a serious problem. And if you see their future plans (Creative Planet at their Wroughton storage facility) it makes you wonder!
• Probably the best development is the Cobham Hall of the Fleet Air Arm Museum this modern facility preserves aircraft as they are for future generations and costs only a fraction of the aforementioned developments. This is what preservation is about, put them inside and leave them, no massive restorations which take away the originality.
• English Heritage tried but was forced to follow Government decisions to down-grade many MOD structures and sites and only list sites that are not obstructing commercial interests.
Of course compromises have to be made and not everything can be saved, but current museum policy is to run National Museums as a business, with only one goal, visitors, therefore many museum directors (not all) are only interested in commercially exploiting the collections, and therefore many non-sexy but highly important objects are not collected.
The view now is that local museums and trusts complement the National Collections, but this is not working and is purely a way for the National Museums to dispose of there responsibility.
Two examples:
1. There is not a single intact production Concorde that has a future in the UK! Unless they get one under cover soon. Aircraft outside do not last! (the one in Scotland is cut-up!). Not to mentions the rest of Britain’s civil aircraft rotting away at Duxford and Cosford, no future!
2. The enormous collections from the former RAE were hardly looked at by National Museums (although the IWM took a large section of the photographic collection, because they are commercially attractive), the vast majority of material was saved by the Farnborough Air Sciences Trust. And the fact that now at least some of the highly important buildings at Farnborough are still standing is the result of the same group.
Many of the non- national collections who play an important role are struggling to survive.
Britain could until relatively recently show its complete aeronautical history through fantastic sites:
• The balloon sites at Farnborough and the Royal Airship Works at Cardington (recently demolished, the large sheds have an uncertain future).
• The pioneers at Larkhil, Brooklands and Eastleigh.
• Schneider Trophy history at Calshot.
• The testing sites at Farnborough, Bedford and Pyestock.
• The countless military sites at Netheravon, and all the others.
• The factory sites at Hatfield, Brooklands, Kingston etc.
Although some have been preserved many have been lost, and others will go.
It is interesting and good that museums are looking at new ways to attract people and display history, but not at the cost of the collections. The big word is accessibility, and it is used as an excuse to create strange building, collections need functional buildings.
Britain’s beautiful aviation heritage is stuck between those living in denial about Britain’s lost greatness and those who want to tear the country loose from its traditions and history like the current Department of Culture.
Instead of long-term policies it is interested in short-term popularity: supporting the Vulcan to the Sky, popular, but if it survives the display seasons, it will rot away at Duxford.
Other examples: Wembley, Olympics, etc.
It is not just the Aeronautical Collections; all the collections that displayed Britain’s past greatness: Science, Industry, Military and Maritime heritage are suffering as a result of this highly alternative viewpoint.
This is the revenge of a 1960’s generation!
I hope that future discussions will concentrate more about the long-term survival of Britain’s Aeronautical heritage because I think that we as enthusiasts can pressure/urge (in a positive way) the National Museums and organizations like English Heritage to take their responsibilities!
So next time someone starts complaining about the EU and increased burdens to fly historic aircraft (as many of you believe are coming from Brussels) but are more likely a result of the rather fatal display seasons in the UK, maybe ask your National Museums and English Heritage what they are doing to preserve nationally important collections and sites in Britain.
Chris
PS: Aircraft outside do not last!
By: TwinOtter23 - 24th February 2006 at 11:05
A society of enthusiasts could help steer people towards museums or other activities in their area that need help. Just as the BAPC network groups now, the society could help focus individuals.
To summarise my various posts on this and the Society for the Protection of Aviation History threads.
Please do not under estimate the time, commitment and paperwork involved in becoming a properly constituted Society that will be required if you are to be taken seriously as a campaigning group.
Perhaps the existing structures / museums provide the quickest and cost-effective route.
By: wv838 - 24th February 2006 at 10:04
A society of enthusiasts could help steer people towards museums or other activities in their area that need help. Just as the BAPC network groups now, the society could help focus individuals.
By: badger617 - 23rd February 2006 at 19:54
You say support your local Museums, what about Museums with with groups already set up . Why not just join them.
By: MishaThePenguin - 23rd February 2006 at 17:59
This is the kind of thing I’m coming to the conclusion might be complementary to the good work that is already being done in the preservation movement and harness the mass of support and goodwill from the vast majority of ‘casual’ enthusiasts who aren’t in the position to donate huge sums of money or be a regular volunteer at a museum… but might like to help out now and again and in general.
Whilst this all seems a good and laudable idea – I think the best way to support issues like this is throught the support of your local museum. You don’t have to volunteer regularly and can do almost anything to support their work. That way you are also tapping in to the BAPC which (as David has gone to great pains to try and point out) is an organisation to support those other organisations carrying out the preservation work.
If everyone here supported the smaller institutions and helped to drive their development (and believe me you would be able to make a difference) we will see a lot more aircraft preserved in a more sytematic way rather than the “I like X so we must preserve them all” approach. As TwinOtter writes – there would be a lot more to this than you may expect.
By: TwinOtter23 - 23rd February 2006 at 10:50
So the BAPC is of little use to an induhvidual then. Apart from the H&S aspect.
No indiviudals can become members.
Another initiative I forgot is the National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative, check out http://www.nahsi.org.uk
By: wv838 - 23rd February 2006 at 10:41
So the BAPC is of little use to an induhvidual then. Apart from the H&S aspect.
By: TwinOtter23 - 23rd February 2006 at 10:35
I would like to answer some of wv838 questions and in so doing raise a few points that need to be considered, I do appreciate that these also cross over onto the separate Society thread.
I believe that BAPC membership costs £30 per year.
Membership would give you the benefit of learning from the experiences of other museums / groups about:
1. Becoming a registered charity and all the legal / financial obligations such status brings.
2. Perhaps becoming a limited company to limit the liabilities you may otherwise personally incur if something goes wrong with the society / group.
3. Advise or offer group savings on insurance premiums incurred from being a properly constituted organisation.
4. Lobby and advise on planning issues, simply placing an aircraft on a piece of land brings many implications for change of use, planning approval etc
5. Offer advice on the Health and Safety obligations such a group would need to comply with.
6. Offer advice on the Radiation Protection issues that are now coming to the forefront and may have even been expedited by recent issues with the scrapping of cockpit Vulcan XL391.
On the face of it forming a Society is a great idea, but please recognise it potentially raises far more questions than it may help solve.
I reiterate thoughts from an earlier posting. I would urge everyone to focus their efforts in supporting their local independent aviation museum.
The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.
By: wv838 - 23rd February 2006 at 10:10
WV838 – The Blackpool Vulcan didn’t need lobbying to save it. It needed a business minded individual or group to systematically dismantle her into anything that would sell leaving just the cockpit . Following from that if you have made a good job of it the scrapman will give you some cash for the scrap – the group gets a Vulcan cockpit for free. Far easier to enter negociations with the owner rather than the scrapman.
Here lies a problem. The average individual doesn’t have the knowledge or resources for such a proposal. This is why a collective would make life easier. See, if you had been a member of such a collective, your ideas above may well have been put to good use.
As for your Sea Hawk – there is no reason why you cannot form a group to help restore her and apply to join the BAPC. You could even form it on the basis of one other helping you with the restoration.
None of my local friends are aviation minded. Few friends know which end of a screwdriver to hold. The hours I work on the Sea Hawk are generally at very unsociable times. Why spend money on BAPC membership (how much is it?) when I could be spending what few spare pounds I have on parts? Give a presentation on ‘838 just to prove I’m worthy of membership? What can the BAPC do for me?
In terms of being Pro-BAPC – I am even handed – I dislike the notion that the BAPC is there to save every waif and stray from the scrapman when the council’s true purpose is to help preservation as an entity and not be partisan by helping to save one aircraft for a group when it could be directly in competition with another group. I have one clear view – we need preservation done well of aircraft which are worthy of preservation – we don’t need endless duplication and the view that everything outside will in someway magically survive the ravages of nature.
The BAPC are more of a ‘network’ provider. A collective of singleton enthusiasts could only enhance that network. Endless duplication? Like Concorde perhaps? 😀 I do agree however that aircraft outdoors are on a long slippery slope to the coke-can-factory.
By: XN923 - 22nd February 2006 at 22:06
David,
Would you be ‘In or ‘OUT’ David??
The scheme could be relatively simple, a website run by volunteers where people could register for a fiver and in return museums local to the individual could post times and places when volunteers were needed. The central funds could be used at the discretion of those registered to the site by email vote etc??
I would like to hear more of what other people think so I’m going to take a back seat for a while to see what interest there really is in a ‘Society for the Protection of Aviation History’
This is the kind of thing I’m coming to the conclusion might be complementary to the good work that is already being done in the preservation movement and harness the mass of support and goodwill from the vast majority of ‘casual’ enthusiasts who aren’t in the position to donate huge sums of money or be a regular volunteer at a museum… but might like to help out now and again and in general.
I’m going to draw up some aims and objectives for such a scheme and come back to the forum when I’ve done so. If anyone would like to contribute to the formation of these ideas, please feel free to PM me. Thanks to those who already have.
By: MDF - 22nd February 2006 at 19:42
David,
The 748/748MF prototype was just that, a prototype of a successful range of airliners that were built well into the 80’s. I agree that the Dart engines were not ‘cutting edge’ but I think they sold a few, and that construction was just a standard ‘failsafe’ design tested to 100,000 hour of flying. Below for interest is a photo, originally I believe from Harry Holmes’ book and clearly it would make an uninteresting exhibit. How many Concorde prototypes are preserved? and how many were sold? How many Hastings are preserved Vs number built etc.
We could argue the numbers game till the cows came home!! But the thread is not about that, it’s about how much better the preservation movement in the UK could be if institutions such as the BAPC were able to tap into the enthusiasm of the average enthusiast. Clearly from your posts so far you are closed to that notion. Others can clearly see the potential and hopefully more will indicate that if the right scheme could be developed they would be ‘IN’
Would you be ‘In or ‘OUT’ David??
The scheme could be relatively simple, a website run by volunteers where people could register for a fiver and in return museums local to the individual could post times and places when volunteers were needed. The central funds could be used at the discretion of those registered to the site by email vote etc??
If 30,000 registered, how many square feet of undercover area would £150,000 each year create????
I would like to hear more of what other people think so I’m going to take a back seat for a while to see what interest there really is in a ‘Society for the Protection of Aviation History’
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2006 at 19:00
MDF – Getting away from the facts again! The prototype 748 was very much an Andover by the time it was burnt at Benson. Not representative of a 748 or indeed in very good condition by the time it met it’s end. The 748 wasn’t ground breaking in terms of technology or sales – however we do need to preserve one and one of the ideal candidates would be a former Queens Flight example .
As for the Jetstream – there are two at Cosford – one and a half at East Fortune – a T.1 at Newark and numerous others either flying or in use for technical training.
How many exactly do we need to preserve and is the initial design work by Handley Page more significant than Scottish Aviation nee BAe deciding it would go better with a pair of Garratt’s ? The prototype JSSD is a gutted hulk at Birmingham – would it be worthwile to scrap another Jetstream to make the prototype whole again but totally unoriginal.
By: MDF - 22nd February 2006 at 18:46
I think WV838 and XN923 are getting the picture but I’m suprised no one has queried DB’s asertion that 2 of the UK’s better selling aviation prodicts were not significant enough to be worth saving?
So how is the average enthusiast going to be encouraged to donate a fiver and a few hours of their time? The other thread on this subject may be a better place to discuss that?
Maybe people could indicate on this thread if they would be ‘IN’ or ‘OUT’ of such a scheme? I’m IN, anyone else??
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2006 at 18:44
WV838 – The Blackpool Vulcan didn’t need lobbying to save it. It needed a business minded individual or group to systematically dismantle her into anything that would sell
leaving just the cockpit . Following from that if you have made a good job of it the scrapman will give you some cash for the scrap – the group gets a Vulcan cockpit for free. Far easier to enter negociations with the owner rather than the scrapman.
As for your Sea Hawk – there is no reason why you cannot form a group to help
restore her and apply to join the BAPC. You could even form it on the basis of one other helping you with the restoration.
In terms of being Pro-BAPC – I am even handed – I dislike the notion that the BAPC is there to save every waif and stray from the scrapman when the council’s true purpose is to help preservation as an entity and not be partisan by helping to save one aircraft for a group when it could be directly in competition with another group.
I have one clear view – we need preservation done well of aircraft which are worthy
of preservation – we don’t need endless duplication and the view that everything outside will in someway magically survive the ravages of nature.
By: XN923 - 22nd February 2006 at 11:46
What I and other are saying is that more is available – a lot more. US.
Hear hear!
By: wv838 - 22nd February 2006 at 11:36
The BAPC is an umbrella organisation . I cannot see it needing to be a society to save every Vulcan that is about to be scrapped!
I never suggested that. However if, for example, Blackpool Council/HLF/Whoever had received letters/emails from a thousand enthusiasts asking that the nose/cockpit be preserved and that there were (are) a bunch of volunteers willing to take care of it, they can hardly ignore it.
By all means promote preservation in whatever way but the reality is that the BAPC works well for it’s members – individual members can join – if you form a group or society by all means . The BAPC is not there for individual owners who wish to restore something and then sell it on when they get bored with it – hence why the group or society membership is favoured.
The point is – there are bucketloads of individuals out there who, if organised, could make a huge difference and make the work of the BAPC et al a lot easier. I think you’ll also find that the real enthusiasts are not in this game to make money – and many in fact never truly see themselves as owners of an aircraft but merely as custodians. I work with a group on the Jetstream project – great. But I’m on my own with my Sea Hawk. How can the BAPC help me? How can I help them? I’ve made many more friends and contacts through work with the Sea Hawk, and that is all wasted.
As for the website – do not by any means consider that the BAPC is doing nothing because the website isn’t updated! The membership and ‘updaters’ are more than likely doing something connected with preservation not talking about what they have done!
I never said the BAPC isn’t doing anything either but educating the public is vital in order to obtain their support (vocal and financial) and so maybe the BAPC should be telling everyone what they are doing.
I’ve spoken to a few like-minded enthusiasts and they all see the BAPC as something of a ‘corporate’ entity. The enthusiast on the ground is a large and valuable resource that is being horribly wasted. I really think we either need a simple society for enthusiasts or suggest to the BAPC that they need to change to accommodate them.
I’ll state this once: I know we cannot preserve anything with a roundel on it, even my dog understands that. But then I also don’t agree with the attitude that one restored example of an aircraft is sufficient either. A Concorde at somewhere like the excellent Brooklands museum is of little use to people living in Scotland. An enthusiast will travel, Joe Public won’t and we need Joe Public on our side.
It is obvious that you are very pro-BAPC and I’m not knocking them. What I and other are saying is that more is available – a lot more. US.
By: XN923 - 22nd February 2006 at 11:21
The membership and ‘updaters’ are more than likely doing something connected with preservation not talking about what they have done!
No doubt true, but in this information saturated age failing to keep the public informed like this can be taken as a lack of interest in what joe public or the average armchair enthusiast thinks. Rightly or wrongly, failing to provide information on your progress will be taken as evidence of lack of progress, and people will take their interest and money elsewhere. Part of this comes back to the need to mobilise people according to whatever skills they have. I would be useless at stripping down an airframe but could make myself useful liaising with the local media and developing communications for people who can. Perhaps the preservation movement, or some parts of it at least, needs to start making full use of the information age, for it is in this way that the RAFM and the IWM will take all the ‘pie’ and leave none left for the local museums and individual preservationists.
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2006 at 11:10
WV838 – The BAPC is an umbrella organisation . I cannot see it needing to be a society to save every Vulcan that is about to be scrapped! If you look at the statistics
the last ‘preserved’ Vulcan to be scrappped was in the early 1990’s at Cardiff. Applying that to the whole it could be over 180 years before the last Vulcan is scrapped ! That’s if they were all outside. The reality could be even longer!
Now great whilst it is for enthusiasts to lament the loss of everything lost which has a roundel on it – the actual impact on British aviation from military aircraft is completely out of proportion in terms of numbers of types preserved compared to civil types.
By all means promote preservation in whatever way but the reality is that the BAPC works well for it’s members – individual members can join – if you form a group or society by all means . The BAPC is not there for individual owners who wish to restore
something and then sell it on when they get bored with it – hence why the group or society membership is favoured. As for the website – do not by any means consider that the BAPC is doing nothing because the website isn’t updated! The membership and ‘updaters’ are more than likely doing something connected with preservation not talking about what they have done!
By: wv838 - 22nd February 2006 at 10:49
I think XN923 sums it up nicely there. The BAPC doesn’t seem to be geared up to accommodate the individual enthusiasts (maybe it should!) and a quick look at their web site hardly shows them as being too active. (Under Construction – dated Oct 2004).
There exists a nationwide network of enthusiasts who, acting as individuals, seldom achieves more than to complain on forums like this one that another aircraft has become saucepans. This is a huge wasted resource. If we all got together we’d have the power to make a difference. Whether we do this by forming a new society or by having an existing organisation like the BAPC change to accomodate us – I don’t know. It is certainly worth exploring.
The internet has provided us with a quick and easy way to spread news, contact people and organise ourselves. I think we should be taking more advantage of it. As a widespread group of individuals without the often cumbersome mechanics of a large organisation – can move quickly. There has to be something in this.
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2006 at 10:40
MDF – There doesn’t appear be to anything in my thread about ‘having it both ways’ regards the fate of airliners in thirty years time . The quote was that if we have five BAC-1-11’s outside – in thirty years time they will be decrepid – If we use the NAHR and aim to preserve the significant ones out of the breed and get them undercover we might succeed in long term preservation.
As for your other points – the VC-10 in RAF service has totally eclipsed
BA’s use of the type. Duxford has a BA VC-10 – are you seriously suggesting that the RAFM should ignore the possibility of acquiring a pristine example
of a ‘C’ or ‘K’ when it goes out of service? Is the BA use of the VC-10 more significant than even the twenty six years of service the RAF examples have had since BA retired them?
As for your other points – the AVRO 748 prototype was converted into the 748MF which effectively was the prototype Andover . This was burnt many years ago – how significant in the overall scheme of things has the 748 been? It could be argued that it’s more important to preserve an example which has some social history or a particularily interesting service history.
Similarily the J.31 prototype G-JSSD from memory is in use for fire training
at Birmingham – in reality is it a ground breaking design or a reworked Handley
Page design from the 1960’s with new engines and avionics.
As for your last note – the BAPC has been in the forefront of many preservation successes – the disposal of airframes amongst member groups isn’t a new thing . It allows for rational debate rather than knee jerk reaction
which has no connection with reality. The Cosford collection as it stands is world class – do you really think that retaining a collection of airliners for which there is no money to maintain or house is going to continue that reputation in the long term? Your notes on the Vulcan are also slightly off beam – the Cosford Vulcan was flown in – it’s therefore very intact and representative of the military service of the breed . The Bruntingthorpe Vulcan is a return to flight in civil hands . Are you seriously suggesting that
it will be totally representative of the type sans equipment which will be deleted for it’s non military role?
By: XN923 - 22nd February 2006 at 09:58
The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.
Then how to render this assistance becomes the issue. It’s been pointed out that one large voice is better than lots of individual, competing voices when it comes to preservation. It also depends on your definition of working well, what you mean by ‘saved’ and what your views on preservation are – as I’ve said on the ‘Society…’ thread, there will always be some objects of historical value that slip through the net. It is up to us as enthusiasts to make sure that the holes in the net are as small as possible. Maybe this can be done by supporting a museum but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that something akin to a helpful but powerful pressure group ‘coalition of the willing’ (with apologies for the political connotations of that ghastly but not entirely useless phrase) with a bit of cash behind it and the clout to put on the record what enthusiasts want to see saved and how is needed.
Sign In
February 19, 2006 at 3:02 pm