Cosford Photos For Those Unfamiliar…

David,

Sorry if I gave the impression that I found the F-15 ‘expendable’…I do not, however when the decision was made to locate the F-15 where is currently resides I questionned it..and the response I obtained was that it could be replaced if and when it did deteriorate.

As its inclusion or not was crucial to the re-organisation; its ultimate location was a decision made by the IWM.

As for the IWM North I think you would need to look at the overall funding for the redevelopment of the Salford Keys. This set the need for an architectural competition which was to deliver a distinctive building. It was not solely an IWM demand.

I think the aim to convey ‘conflict’ as a theme which has no obvious artefact base is a brave one and it could be that it was a misinterpretation of the ‘average’ visitor. Its long term success will show.

XH…

The AAM was designed by a team comprising of Foster and Partners as lead designers, with Arup as Structural Engineers, Roger Prestons as Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and DLE as Cost Consutlants.

The form and dimensions of the AAM were governed by the need to house the B-52. It defined the height of the building, the clear span required and the overall footprint.

In order to build the resultant form its geometry needed to be established and mapped out. The torus was the geometry that came closest to the ‘ideal’ form. A torus is a doughnut and the AAM is a slice from it. However the torus is the means to the end, not the other way round.

The Chris you mention was one of the engineering team responsible for the AAM and he was also part of the team for the Millenium Bridge. But not Cosford.

As for design types ‘walking off with millions with something they drew on the back of a fag packet’ may I suggest you re read my posts. You can build a pretty basic warehouse for relatively low cost… but by the time you match the performance of the ‘fag packet designs’ the cost is broadly similar…

So choices have to be made….and currently the results of those choices are coming out of the ground and proving to be controversial for a number of specialist observers…..Visitor numbers will however govern their success.

Michelf – What I do find disturbing is that you consider that having spent a large sum of money in getting the F-15 to the U.K it can be treated as ‘expendable’ in it’s role as a gate guard for the AAM . Would it not be far more appropriate to have spent the money on something significant to this country rather than something that will decline to the degree that it’s a Health & Safety issue?
As for visitors ‘misinterpreting’ the IWM North – maybe the various directors are ‘misinterpretting’ the average vistors desire to be stunned by landmark buildings as opposed to appreciating the artifacts contained within!

The AAM was not designed around the B52 the fact it was based on a slice out of a dounut fact chris somebody was the guys name that did the design for it, He also designed the millinium bridge in london the one that swings all over the place , guess where he got that design from . is guitar he plays looking at the neck and strings on it. not sure if he as anything too do with the cosford building but i bet there is something of his in it. what a eyesore looks like its falling over . when you see 100.000 sqft warehouses going up in a few months for a few million that would house lots more . its madness to see these so called design people walking away with millions for something they drew up on a fag packet from sitting down playing is guitar eating a dounut.

Jonathan,

It may be off topic… but it serves to share with others; who may be interested; the challenges faced by those who need to provide for the future of these artefacts…

Jonathan,

30C is still far warmer than I expected to hear…the long term storage vaults I have built are in the 4-5 C range with a couple of warming up rooms in which the objects transition… these were primarily for ancient fabrics and organics but metal objects were also placed there. These are storage, not work rooms. The labs were maintained a 21 +/- 1 C for restoration work….

R,

The IWM is very ‘misunderstood’. It is not a Museum in the same way as Duxford or Lambeth… its aim is not to present objects, it is to present ‘Conflict’ and use a limited number of objects to illustrate the theme…..
Hence its requirements were very different to one which requires wide open spaces and room for large numbers of large artefacts..it needs lots of space for explanatory boards, panels, themes and so forth…These are organised into different aspects of the overall theme, with objects carefully selected to illustrate that sub section.

What it is not is a collection of artefacts…

In that respect it does work after a fashion. I don’t think it needed that building to achieve its aims, but the wider political and cultural objectives do need to be taken into account…..which indicated that a ‘signature design’ was essential….

The display is actually very good if you approach it in the fashion it is intended…if you expect to see loads of stuff then inevitably you will find it wanting…

As I said, 30c and 20% RH is for purely metal objects and is essentially the dessication approach. I’ve made it clear that I’m not advocating the application of dessication to aircraft! This is normally only used on excavated archaeological metal, which requires either this, careful acclimatisation in more conventional ranges, or exact matching of its buried conditions for successful long-term storage. Any store also holding textiles or other organics would have to be in the circa 20c and 40-50% RH range. My aside about being too dry to work in was only in terms of going in, locating an object, and recovering it – say about 30secs to a minute. That’s enough to need a drink of water at 20% RH, I can tell you.

Anyway, this is way off topic. It was nothing more than a facetious reply to your equally facetious “if you want ideal conditions, put them in a hermetically sealed black box” response.

Jonathan,

30C is still far warmer than I expected to hear…the long term storage vaults I have built are in the 4-5 C range with a couple of warming up rooms in which the objects transition… these were primarily for ancient fabrics and organics but metal objects were also placed there. These are storage, not work rooms. The labs were maintained a 21 +/- 1 C for restoration work….

R,

The IWM is very ‘misunderstood’. It is not a Museum in the same way as Duxford or Lambeth… its aim is not to present objects, it is to present ‘Conflict’ and use a limited number of objects to illustrate the theme…..
Hence its requirements were very different to one which requires wide open spaces and room for large numbers of large artefacts..it needs lots of space for explanatory boards, panels, themes and so forth…These are organised into different aspects of the overall theme, with objects carefully selected to illustrate that sub section.

What it is not is a collection of artefacts…

In that respect it does work after a fashion. I don’t think it needed that building to achieve its aims, but the wider political and cultural objectives do need to be taken into account…..which indicated that a ‘signature design’ was essential….

The display is actually very good if you approach it in the fashion it is intended…if you expect to see loads of stuff then inevitably you will find it wanting…

I think one tank and a Harrier is all the hardware it can take as there are so many corners and turns.

I have yet to find anybody who thinks it is any good!

Don’t forget the Trabant! Think theres also one of those NFS trailers from WW2, apart from that, that’s it. What is actually there? I’ve never considered visiting before

Everything that has been said is summed up by the new Imperial War Museum North at Manchester. Another architects dream but totally useless for exhibits as they are so limited as to what they can hold in there. I think one tank and a Harrier is all the hardware it can take as there are so many corners and turns.

I have yet to find anybody who thinks it is any good!

Jonathan,

40 degrees F or C? 40C sounds wrong and as far as the other musuems I have built is wrong. But we were preserving more ‘organic’ matter, fabrics, artwork and such in that particular case, and certainly the majority were older than the IWM Collection artefacts… Agree with the 20% RH.

40F is ‘chilled’ in building terms as it needs permanent cooling…

All good points. Re ideal conditions, my stubby fingers hit the “4” rather than “3” on the top of my keyboard. With metal, assuming you can achieve low enough RH (I’ve read that 15 is even better, but impossible to work in), a higher temperature in the typical storage range (20 to 30c for most categories of object) does the trick. But that’s for purely metal objects; textiles would suffer in that climate, not to mention people! At those levels you feel the moisture being leached out of your skin.

Would it be possible to expand on the ‘damage caused by events’ comments in this thread? ,without naming specifics of course.
Were people climbing on the aircraft or something or was it a case of banners being hung and pulled down?
Alan.

Jonathan,

40 degrees F or C? 40C sounds wrong and as far as the other musuems I have built is wrong. But we were preserving more ‘organic’ matter, fabrics, artwork and such in that particular case, and certainly the majority were older than the IWM Collection artefacts… Agree with the 20% RH.

40F is ‘chilled’ in building terms as it needs permanent cooling…

As for the climate control I’m sure there is always room for improvement…balanced against the running costs and reduced flexibility…

The reason why I discount the AirSpace and Milestones is that whilst they will move the museography forward (although at Hendon its debatable) they do not address the visibility issue nearly enough. For many visitors the AirSpace appears to be a ‘renovation’ or refurb rather than a substantial new addition, which it will be. Hence the internal aspect will have to work even more effectively to prove its value.

The Milestones is really a ‘missed’ opportunity to create a standard setting display and collection. Whilst interesting and thorough it does not bring any new…in museographical terms, ideas of methods to the fore.

Events are tough and I have to admit I have differing reports than yours.. 😉 The damage limitation is serious and to be honest whether or not its sufficent is not for here.

The funding issue is interesting. Is the decrease in funding a result of the major projects or is it a result of an overall reduction in central funding? On other projects it was clear that funding was being ring fenced far more than previously.. ( say 10-15 years ago). In this new budgetting the ‘capital’ which is ring fenced to creating new spaces, infrastructure, attractions needs to be spent on a year on year basis, or the next year it is reduced. The operational budget is rarely if ever increased regardless of the increased demands of the above and the collections budget is cut year on year regardless, because it fails to deliver the politically visible result that the funders want…..Therein lies the rub…the collections are often the last to pass the funding pot, by which time its pretty empty…

Your point about the funding of more modest building as a storage/display vessel is spot on.. it is needed desperately…its would serve well as a the accompaniment to the AAMs etc in the larger museums and would serve as the best solution for smaller ones… but it is not a hanger…its more than that..it is a high intensity display where the visitor is treated to snap shots of the whole collection rather than a whole view of a selected part of the collection..

In terms of aircraft it would be densely arranged, even suspended airframes with relevant support equipment, with detailled information panels and signage to give a great deal of information…which would for many be anathema to their desire to have unobstructed views of entire pieces…

I agree that the ‘Carrier’ display at Yeovilton is a pretty good, especially considering its age…in museographical terms…I love it.. because it is a good recreation of the feel of an aircraft carrier deck…the noise, the bustle etc…It gives the visitor an experience that is unforgettable and one which is worth returning to the museum for…The down side is that there is practically no opportunity at Yeovilton to link the past with the present and there does not seem to ever have been one.. a failing I think which has had a cost. Nor does it have a sufficiently strong image or visual that people remember. The Concorde Hall was a great start, internally it has evolved but externally it not longer does the job.

In terms of the ‘aircraft enthusiast’ the carrier exhibit has similar problems to other flagship displays…the conditions for photography are not great..

Not yet been to their new centre but my guess is that its quite close to the more modest display storage area that is needed else where.

The LWH is similarly impressive, on the inside, but the outside does not do it justice, or the airfield…So whilst the interpretation of the material is great there not notion of the internal quality externally. This is no longer acceptable…as evidenced by the Darwin Centre which has an external expressin consitent with the quality of its interior…

All in all a difficult problem to resolve.

In order to preserve the aircraft in the best possible conditions they would need to be in individual chilled black boxes with only limited number of visitors per year and then only on certain climatically acceptable days….As were some of the exhibits at Silver Hill….

No. Best possible conditions for your visitor-free black box (which as we both know would fly in the face of a museum’s remit just as much as leaving exhibits open to the elements) would be something like 40 degrees and 20% relative humidity. Coming back down to earth, and as I understand things, IWM do not consider the current climate control to be adequate and are seeking to improve it post-AirSpace.

The balance between show and save is a very difficult one to find.

As for corporate events….damage to airframes and so forth…its a philosophical dilemma. The amount raised by such events in both cash terms and long term goodwill are very very hard to discount. They do contribute to the viability of the entire operation. That they are potentially damaging is not in doubt…nor is the ammount of money they bring in which is added to the budget of the museum as a whole, allowing the offer to be improved and attract a greater number of visitors. So another compromise needs to be sought…..

Points taken. Except that, as I’ve said to you before, the departments that directly look after and interpret the exhibits, receive *no more funding* due to large developments. In my experience, they receive a damn sight less each year – a pattern little different from a local authority museum that lacks the resources and clout to even attempt a big showy building. In terms of events etc, if these generated enough money to provide security to prevent abuse of exhibits, I would be more comfortable with their use as a fundraising tool.

The balance is being found. The creation the IWM North was the second phase of that, the Cold War at Cosford is the third phase… (I’m ignoring the Milestones at Hendon and AirSpace because they are too bland to count),

I’m afraid you can’t ignore Milestones and AirSpace purely on grounds of their not being amphibious landing craft-shaped (though many here would disagree). They are a step on in terms of the lessons learned and the attempt at interpreting the themes behind aviation, inspiring youth and so on. AirSpace is ambitious not just in terms of “star” exhibits and cost, but in what it aims to achieve inside. How your third phase facilities succeed at this remains to be seen. But to me, the very nature of high-capital high-profile means that some “mistakes” and criticisms (the valid ones) are very difficult to avoid. I would prefer more modest buildings, but as I’ve also said, I don’t have the creativity to come up with a way of funding an aviation equivalent of the Darwin Centre or something else collections-focused (I would prefer rather more interpretation than that, but you see what I mean.)

My personal favourite self-contained building in this context is the aircraft carrier experience at Yeovilton. Though not aviation related, I also rate DX Land Warfare for the way it puts virtually every exhibit in context.

Jonathan,

The heating/cooling issue is quite complex. It involves the overall temperature differences over the year and the daily temperature variation. Prior to the installation of the dehumdification plant and cooling loops both cycles were creating problems both in the airframes and in the building. The RH within the airframes was moving quite rapidly on the daily cycle as well as varying with the yearly cycle, this cumulative effect caused problems when it reached levels likely to cause condensation within the airframes…in both winter and summer.

The aim was to try to level out that variability, by reducing the total RH of the environment, which is pretty tough with the number of visitors, by reducing the delta T of the daily cycle ( and hence RH variation) and by a slight reduction of the overall temp, regardless of season.

From what I have been advised the amount of recorded and observed RH within the airframes has been reduced by these measures; along with consequent condensation; in that respect it would appear to have achieved the aims stated. That it does not create the best conditions imagineable for conservation of the airframes is clear, but other facilities within the AAM, like the cafe and the large number of visitors make this aim unrealistic.

In order to preserve the aircraft in the best possible conditions they would need to be in individual chilled black boxes with only limited number of visitors per year and then only on certain climatically acceptable days….As were some of the exhibits at Silver Hill….

The balance between show and save is a very difficult one to find.

As for corporate events….damage to airframes and so forth…its a philosophical dilemma. The amount raised by such events in both cash terms and long term goodwill are very very hard to discount. They do contribute to the viability of the entire operation. That they are potentially damaging is not in doubt…nor is the ammount of money they bring in which is added to the budget of the museum as a whole, allowing the offer to be improved and attract a greater number of visitors. So another compromise needs to be sought…..

From the point of view of the smaller museums the greatest problem that these large flagship projects pose is that they raise the standard very high, making their own efforts at fund raising more difficult, both locally, nationally and within the specialist sector. They simply cannot compete, either in the breadth, depth or quality of their offer.. and so monies are shorter and there are not obvious way so fchanging that. The Lottery Fund is extremely demanding in the standard and quality of submissions and Newark’s success is all the more outstnading for it; many others have not managed it. However the downside is that hilst there is a feel good factor about it the end result is an unremarkable hanger which offers little mileage for the donors….its appeal is limited.

Contrast that to the AAM, a design recognised globally as being at Duxford…and one that continues to bring in monies and visitors.

The balance is being found. The creation the IWM North was the second phase of that, the Cold War at Cosford is the third phase… (I’m ignoring the Milestones at Hendon and AirSpace because they are too bland to count), the next stage will be the creation of a building to house a BA Concorde…this will be the the demonstration of the power of the attraction…as its the general public who drive that display….

The support infrastrucutre for this will them hopefully allow most modest sums to be spent on restoration and storage hangers as the value of the artefacts will be explicit…and spending money to order to bring them to the best standard will be inevitable.

I too wonder how they will get the Valiant out- I don’t know, but I assume it was ‘built in’ when the Bomber Hall went up, like the Vulcan? One wonders how far a Valiant comes apart, and whether they’ll actually have to gas axe the thing to get it out the back door?

Valiant is already at Cosford and being reassembled. It was sectioned professionally by the RAF’s ‘Crash & Smash’ team at Marham when the decision was taken for it to move to Hendon. Therefore, like a giant meccano kit, I guess it was relatively easy for them to break it apart again.

SeaFury, did you take a shot of this also so that we can see if it’s almost complete?

JonathanF,

I understand your points and let me explain further….

There is a cooling system within the AAM…it was put in in Phase 2 when the shop, Founders Room and Cafe were installed. Its aim is to reduce the temp. differences over the year for the aircraft…not necessarily to create optimum conditions for visitors…
The heating system was installed in Phase 3 with the re-organisation…

And the glass is coated to reduce both solar gain and UV penetration…..

None of these are obvious… as they shouldn’t be.

Not as I understood the situation. But if so, then I’m afraid it isn’t working. Have you been inside any of the aircraft in say January vs July? Massive temperature differences. The “back” doors in the glass are frequently open; you can’t have true climate control with that amount of air and heat “flow”. Point conceded re the glass; I wasn’t aware of any such coating.

I agree that allowing visitors such up-front access is more problematic (witness the hand marks around the B-17 doorway), and one lesson that’s been learned from the AAM. It has the obvious upside, especially if you view airframes as “sacrificial” in some way (in which case, why are they accessioned at all?), of…well, allowing people access. It’s great to be able to duck under wings and inspect turrets, no doubt about it. And as you say, to stand next to the Fortress and see another one flying past. A bigger problem in terms of actual damage is the hosting of corporate events, but I’m not about to leap on the bandwagon and decry AAM as a whole – I think its a fantastic facility. But we have to acknowledge the real shortcomings of these developments, not just subjective judgements on the style of the building and empty claims that they are waste of money: you simply can’t generate funds on that order for “simple” looking-after of exhibits or the “common-sense” approach that so many here advocate. “Big” has its advantages, and in the current batch of buildings, it’s better quality of interpretation and engagement with the visitor, and the undeniable “pull” for visitors and funding parties.

New buiding designs

Sadly in Britain we suffer from a huge attitude problem where new innovative buildings are concerned. Architects and designers work to the clients brief,balancing cost against a myriad other considerations. When the final design is chosen it must pass planning authority scrutiny. Often at this point the voting is done by councillors with no idea of artistic concepts .That is when we often loose the chance to have innovative projects. Where new styles are built they are ridiculed by a vocal minority who want Britain to be populated by square boring blocks of glass and concrete.

I celebrate all the new designs as a victory ,we already have lots of preserved old buildings,give the new a place in Britain otherwise we will become a history theme park.

JonathanF,

I understand your points and let me explain further….

There is a cooling system within the AAM…it was put in in Phase 2 when the shop, Founders Room and Cafe were installed. Its aim is to reduce the temp. differences over the year for the aircraft…not necessarily to create optimum conditions for visitors…
The heating system was installed in Phase 3 with the re-organisation…

And the glass is coated to reduce both solar gain and UV penetration…..

None of these are obvious… as they shouldn’t be.

The flagship projects are a problem. The politics of museum funding has resulted in a shift to a populist philosophy, were every collection has to accessible to the general public and the money spent has to be seen to be spent.

A detailled, academic and historically essential preservation effort along the lines of the one carried out on the Arado/ Hurriance/ Serian by the NASM is basically invisible to the general public and therefore offers little ‘value for money’ in a populist view. Afterall a relativley quick and dirty cosmetic restoration would deliver the same visual appearance to the vast majority of visitors. Not the same to the enthusiast or historian etc.. but they are not in fashion’ at the moment.

In order to move from what was previously a specialist sector to a more general sector the museums were forced, by commercial pressures imposed by funding changes, to appeal to a wider audience..and part of that involves creating a publicity image. This is based on the overall ‘offer’ of a day out.. not just the aircraft.

In many ways this has put aircraft preservation on hold for a while, but has resulted in an increase of physical infrastructure never seem before. Once this wave of building is over then the funding may switch back to prodicing fanastic restorations which can populate properly concieved display buildings.

To be honest the point you make about encouraging the next generation of enthusiasts in aircraft and restoration is the most important one. If we do not attract them now then regardless of whether the aircraft is in a hanger/ wart/ flagship makes no differnce the museums will close.. or return to the dakr days of the mid 80s were even on a Saturday there were less than 100 visitors to RAFM Hendon per day…

In order to ge them in, get them interested the offer has to be viable alternative to Pc based gaming and so forth.

On the preservation front the IWM approach has been that ‘its better to display, show and share’ their exhibits… even if it means restoring them at some point in the future. Viz their choice to keep the F-15 outside and not inside the AAM…afterall there are plenty of F-15s around.. another will be fonud if needed.

Note that other than the SR all the aircraft are wearing ‘non-operational’ colours..both the F-111 and A-10 were repainted prior to delivery…so they are authentic services marking but not necessarily those they wore on opreations…

The B-29/ B-24/ B-25, Huey, Phantom, P-47 and U-2 are in non-original colours. The same with the B-17.

The SR does have its retirement colours…and they would appear to be the ones that it wore on operations…

So UV degradation of the colours is an issue that the IWM has taken a view on and acted accordingly.

On that subject having the cafe and letting people touch the aircraft are, in preservation terms, far more damaging than the UV or temp issues.

Similarly the interiors are subject to natural degradation… howver the risk due to having so many visitors is far greater than the UV. In order
tp keep them intact conditions of somewhere like 12 degrees C, 45 RH and pretty much total darkness are required for long term life. This does not tally well with mass visitor numbers.
That is not to say that visitors cannot be permitted but only in limited numbers. Both Wroughton and Udvar Hazy have these types of storage conditions in special units and visitors are permitted at times…

David,

The new Newark hanger was indeed very inexpensive…and as simple rain protection it is exactly what the museum needed. Bear in mind that getting aircraft under cover long term takes care of 85-90 of the preservation needs…

Spaces like this are essential in creating the basis for long term viable collections. They do permit aircraft to be ‘saved’ form certain scrapping and whilst displayed in less than optimum conditions this is a huge step. They are needed. However for larger, ‘national collections’ it is no longer accpetable for this type of unit to be ‘dressed up’ and pass itself off as a cutting edge, national museum which also needs to appeal to a global audience.

If you look closely at the Udvar Hazy Centre, the NMUSAF at Wright Pat, or the SAC Museum in Omaha; the buildings appear to be hangers, but on a scale never seem over here…they are display buildings first and foremost.
Their costs are similar to the AAM….the aesethics and display philosophy are different but the budgets are comparable….

As for cutting holes and suspending aircraft…it is great to see them form different angles and view points and prevents a photocollection of ‘similar shots’, regardless of the aircraft…but I know there are objections to modifying the airframe to permit this..

The Land Warfare Hall at Duxford is a different kettle of fish entirely. Here the decision was made to create a ‘total black box’ with no relationship wiht the outside. It was therefore possible to create whatever ‘diorama’ the curators wanted… be it of the WW1 trenches; of Normandy; of Northern Germany in the 1970s….with the lighting, sound etc effects as needed. As there is precious little need to make reference to the airfield this was completely reasonable.

I think the proof of what appeal to whom and why is to look at the NASM prior to the opeing of the Udvar Hazy Centre.
The Museum on the Mall is the worlds’ most popular museum…4 million per year….

Silver Hill, less than 10 miles away was a specialist, limited number otur based operation…based in hangers, tatty an dark and musty… but to the aviation geek a paradise, far more interesting an valuable than the Mall…

But its the Mall that permits the restorations to happen… the populairty of the collection was instrumental in creating UH…it was the populist visitor…the man off the street… not the specialist.

Alan,

I know what you mean and its a very different experience for them than for a specailist visitor.

But its view we must remember at all times, because it is the view that pays for them….not the enthusiast….we do nto pay for waht we see..we benfit from others paying for it..

And its not just the first time visitor who is wowed by the AAM…repeat visitors also get a kick out of it…

Rlangham,

A quick view of what the Science Museum would like to happen can be found under ‘Creative Planet’ on their website..

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wroughton/futureplans.asp

The AirSpace/ Cold War building programmes are possibly the culmination of this phase….

The Creative Planet is possibly the first of the next phase…or a potential general direction…if you do not like it then the best way of doing something about it is to participate to a greater extent to the income generation of the museums themselves….

And by way of reference we build sheds as well… if you take the base cost…and add the necessary bits and pieces that are inherent in the AAM, such as a dehumidification plant, finishes , display lighting etc etc the price comes in at something like £900/m2…( £450 for the basic shed, £300 for services, £200 for display lighting, finishes, equipment)

Add sufficient insulation and climate control and you are increasing the cost again…

I agree with much that you say, but I have to point out:

a) The AAM may have dehumidifying equipment and heating (unlike the Belfasts), but it sure as hell doesn’t have adequate (or indeed any?) cooling. Placing any other type of museum object in a concrete, glass-fronted, south-facing building without cooling would have been unthinkable. Yes, the “older” exhibits all have recent paint finishes, but what about the original finish on the B-52, the SR-71 and so on. Plus the upholstery and other interior fabrics in the older aircraft.

b) Re your earlier point about the AAM being designed to light itself with natural daylight; high lux and UV light levels are, as I’m sure you know, very destructive on a cumulative basis. Buildings like the Bomber Command Hall and DX Land Warfare are perhaps extreme examples, but the low lighting is a positive thing.

I personally like the overall design and effect, and have heard by far more positive comments from the general public about it than negatives. But as it was obtained at the expense of installing full climate control and UV filters to the glass front, I view it as less than 100% successful. Hopefully these points will be addressed retrospectively in the coming years, but high-capital projects like this really need stop putting collections (ie aeroplane) care on the back burner. Lessons are learned each time, I know, and I also know that it’s not for a lack of will or regard for our past that negative things occur. It has more to do with the complex financing and logistics of these “flagship” developments – they are the only current way to attract significant funding and PR to keep air/tech museums going, and yet inherently result in “value engineering” in order to provide the development on time and budget. In that context it’s easy to see why things like the above do occur, but it doesn’t make them right. That huge projects are a great risk to museum financial security, and sometimes to collections, must be considered and mitigated as far as practicable by the institutions with the wherewithall to make them happen. I’m sure that’s what’s happening with the current crop of developments.

Good point Alanl, personally I like the AAM, only chance i’ve had so far and probably ever will to crouch down right under the fuselage of a B17 and get as close as I want to the belly turret etc

{Quote}
I have sat in the café at the AAM and listened to conversations… an broadly they fall into two basic categories… the ‘anorak’ who is complaining that the aircraft are too crowded and they can’t get a good shot of the SR…’it’s the only one in Europe, don’t you know; you would expect the (the IWM) to display it better’ or some such comment, little realising that its because the IWM has the AAM that the NMUSAF have loaned the SR to Duxford….otherwise they would not have it at all..

The other conversation is from wives, kids, veterans who have soaking in the entire AAM, enjoying seeing the aircraft, the view, the sunshine.. whose reaction is..’this is nice, I can sit her and enjoy being here, I can see outside, I can see the aircraft and I can enjoy it knowing that the kids/ husband/ whatever, is able to wander around the planes, or better yet the B-17 pilot, having walked around the B-17 and seen Sally B taking off beyond the glass; enjoying a coffee and remembering his crew…commenting…’it’s a shame they are not here to share this, they would have loved it…’[/QUOTE]

That is an interesting comment that you have made there, that as enthusiasts,do we sometimes not take in the whole vista of say the AAM , because when we go in there we are concentrating say one or two particular types so we subconciously dismiss the rest of the airframes because we are so familiar with what is in there.
I bet most of the first time visitors are as you say blown away by the aircraft that they see in front of them and that they can walk around and touch them ,( something else to get the camera wielding enthusiast gnashing his teeth!) and in this respect it is very good, it brings aviation within reach of people and more importantly young people who will be the preservationists and pilots and engineers of the future.
Alan.
(I know what I meant to say anyway!)