Duxford AAM

From then to now

Honestly I just despair sometimes. Just how many moaning nit picking people exist with an interest in aircraft? Do they really care to look back at what little was being done in the sixties compared to now in the UK?

Get some perspective and praise what has been achieved since then. Duxford has expanded far beyond what many dreamed of. Give credit to a relatively small number of pioneers who put in huge effort with little financial return.

It seems to be a national hobby to knock success , get positive , stop moaning and relish the sights and sounds at Duxford which in 1970 were just dreams.

Interesting views in this thread….my personal feeling is that a building should not detract from the exhibits is is displaying…..the AAM building does…but that is MY OPINION and lets face it…I am the world’s leading expert on my opinion!!

I do not wish to decry Duxford, but it has lost its way somewhat recently (displacing founding fathers EAG and building butt ugly design statement buildings on what was a delightful airfield and creating taboo-visitor free areas). Sure I know we need to embrace change, but not all change is for the better…we are into preserving aircraft, not creating wacky buildings.
To the poster who said that the AAM would not have happened if the building did not look like that…is that REALLY true?

They have in the most improved the museum, but part of the HLF is to make culture/museums more accessible….not sure that was done in this case (quite expensive to visit). It is amazing what a several smaller museums could do with those millions.

Still, Duxford remains my fav all round UK aviation museum

Michelf – I visited Concord at Yeovilton circa 1978 at the tender age of eight. If I had known then that it wasn’t actually a purpose built display building but a hangar pretending I would have protested most vigorously and suggested a trip to the seeside instead! Thanks for ruining twenty eight years when I enjoyed the knowledge that I had seen her safe and sound on display when infact she was in a building which now seems to be a charleton !

It was purpose built by a major civilian contractor after the arrival of the aircraft. A hangar is a building of course. I don’t think those working on 002 at the time were too worried about the semantics.

Michelf – I visited Concord at Yeovilton circa 1978 at the tender age of eight. If I had known then that it wasn’t actually a purpose built display building but a hangar pretending I would have protested most vigorously and suggested a trip to the seeside instead! Thanks for ruining twenty eight years when I enjoyed the knowledge that I had seen her safe and sound on display when infact she was in a building which now seems to be a charleton !

30 years ago my girlriend/exwife moved down here and, at weekends, we used to go on drives around the area to discover whatever gems were on offer.
One day, we were driving along the A505 when I spotted this gleaming, silver, B-17 next to the road at a tatty old airfield.
Having not seen a B-17 before, I was quite overcome, and stepped over the rusty old fence to have a look and take some pictures, sorry chaps, they are on slides.
I recall a few other airframes about that day, but can’t recall what they were.
Since then, Duxford has become a major museum and with the live side of it always being present, probably one of the best in the world.
Museums are inevitably going to develop and with the IWM not just concentrating on a/c but involving military vehicles etc as well, things were bound to change.
I don’t have any problem with Duxford, it’s just 20 mins up the road from me and I think that it’s stunning, and I feel honoured to be able to drive a few miles to be able to visit, and of course we have the the fantastic airshows.
This place is a living museum, and stuffing it all in a bunch of rotting T2’s wouldn’t work, the place has to develop in order to show our military heritage.

Ref Concorde 002:
The work started on Concorde 002 the day it arrived at Yeovilton and there was tremendous pressure to get the aircraft into public viewing condition internally ASAP after it was to be placed in the proposed hangar (then known as the Concorde Display Hangar).Thus an enormous amount was already done on the airframe over an extended period ,before it went under cover, by a largely volunteer team, (002 Sqn RIP ) with only the leader on the full time strength of the FAA Museum. The aircraft was the property of the Science Museum under the management of Margaret Weston and its placement at Yeovilton provided them with a much needed out station as well as being an additional attraction to the FAA Museum.

I like the diversity of buildings and displays at Duxford, it gives an example of how airfield architecture has developed from the wooden hangers of WWI through to the uber-modern design of the AAM.

I have 2 small kids, and I like to be able to show them the Hangers were my Grandfather was a Propulsions tech on 19 sqn in the late Thirties, and also be able to grasp the scale of the B52 when they are standing under a wing.
And who’d of thought that so soon after the years of secrecy around the SR71, your kids would be able to go right up to one and feel the ‘funny paint’

It doesn’t matter how fantastic a building is in concept and noble in intention – some people will always whinge…

A theory is a building that gets no complaints is an over-conservative failure.

[NB: This is NOT a comment about anyone here, or indeed intended to be about the buildings under discission.]

It doesn’t matter how fantastic a building is in concept and noble in intention – some people will always whinge…

Personally I love it – it allows a ‘grand entrance’ where you walk in and get a B52 right in your face, and then as you wander round you can see everything, wheras in a normal hangar, you have to shuffle around among groups of people just to see what’s ‘down the end’. Let’s not forget chaps that it is a memorial, so try to be polite with your comments as to it’s aesthetic appeal. It wasn’t built for ‘us’ it was built for ‘them’

It’s far enough from the traditional buildings to allow yourself a bit of day dreaming time travel as you wander round. I’ve been going there for over 25 years and I still never tire of it.

Keep up the good work Duxford!

Twin,

Sorry to go about this, but the HLF as an overall institution gets general guidance from the National team. As it was this team who approved Duxford’s application and in their eyes it is a success; guidance is given that aviation museums have potential, and are worht a detailed look.

To see that linkage, wait for a Lottery funded project to not realise its potential and note the effect on regional applications…..

SeaKing,

Sure the glass has been removed. It does not alter the fact that the Concorde Hall is a hangar; modified to allow daylight in. Subsequent changess are, from that perspective, irrelevant. These alterations stem from changing ideas on displays and exhbitions and from changing demands in preservation terms…not from the building itself.

Nor do they change a glazed hangar into a purpose built exhibition hall..

I have thought long and hard about this post and during last twenty four hours I have revisited a variety of IWM / Duxford related threads and there seems to be a very defensive response to anyone that comments on, or questions anything related to this impressive national asset.

In the past I have experienced positive feedback and support when dealing with a variety of people at Duxford, but IMHO this seems to have changed in recent years. I do however respect anyone’s right to defend their corner on forums like this and I do appreciate that difficult issues perhaps should sometimes be aired elsewhere.

That having been said I would hope that IWM / Duxford might moderate their apparent negativity towards aviation preservation items that are not IWM / Duxford related. There is a vibrant independent aviation museum sector in the UK, which largely thrives in spite of what I believe is a growing insular approach from some of the national collections.

IMHO all the national collections ought to be pursuing a more ‘inclusive’ approach like that that is being actively demanded by the Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] for the BAPC / Duxford National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative.

Inclusion / dissemination of ideas and information are also requirements of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council [MLA] ‘Hub and Spoke’ approach to regional museum associations and are actively encouraged by the HLF.

In the latest project that I am involved with the HLF have advised communication with the RAF Museum at Cosford and Vulcan to the Sky. In this case the HLF’s stated aim is to encouraging other groups to “tap into their Cold War themes and ideas.” When I eventually follow up this suggestion it could provide an interesting insight into the reality of inclusion.

The reason HLF gave for such an approach, was because they saw inclusion and co-operation with other like minded organisations as a prerequisite of a successful HLF project. So failure to engage in a meaningful manner might even threaten exiting HLF projects.

I believe that Michelf’s comments in post #25 about assumptions made and reference taken to the AAM by the HLF slightly misses the point. HLF obviously saw fit to make a grant to Newark for their display hangar; the justification for which I understand related solely to getting aircraft inside and that used the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR] as the main justification in the bid. In completing this project Newark put a Varsity inside [IMHO one of the most significant post-war training aircraft] and to date I believe this is the only one of the type inside in the UK.

The link below shows some progress on the restoration of this training aircraft

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene.htm

As for the influence of the AAM on the Newark HLF grant. As I understand the HLF grant situation Newark’s application – value circa £450k would have been decided by a regional HLF team, whilst the AAM application – value circa £8 million would have been decided nationally.

The common point of reference may have been the NAHR. I sincerely hope the nationals do not get their ‘rumoured plan’ off the ground of introducing their own aircraft listing scheme, news of which ironically came to light at the 150th BAPC Meeting, which coincided with opening Newark’s Hangar 2.

A change to a more open and less defensive approach from the nationals could I believe benefit all aviation preservation in the UK. Everyone should work together and not constantly snipe – yes I do appreciate this post could be construed as sniping, but it’s meant as a series of open and heartfelt comments, which I hope that it will be received in similar vein.

Agreed the Concorde Hall was put up especially for 002. However it is a hanger modifed somewhat to allow daylight in

What daylight?

As I mentioned above the glass went 6 years ago

The number one priority must be to get the aircraft under cover, otherwise they will corrode away in no time at all – take a look at the Victor, Shackleton, etc. To that end, I do not really care what the building looks like, it is the exhibits inside that are most important. A “period” building would not give the same (albeit limited) opportunities for photographing the exhibits by the way.

Duxford’s “period ambience” is what exactly? What it was like in the 1930s? That is without a hard runway and post-war modiifications to the control tower. Or the post-war period? Or what? We move with the times, and Duxford today is just a vital part of its history as any other.

By the way, “hangers” are for coats, “hangars” are for aeroplanes.

JonathanF,

Thanks for making it clear….
I thought my words were clear but Moocher disagrees…

The thrust of the arguement however remains… IWM set up shop… private companies arrrive…they must the there for a reason and its not the weather.

The sum total is then part of the attraction…

SeaKing,

Agreed the Concorde Hall was put up especially for 002. However it is a hanger modifed somewhat to allow daylight in…a bit like the Superhanger in that regard, which was erected to house the larger airframes, including Concorde; and allow work to be carried out on them under cover. Nobody accuses that of being a display building, although it is…

The issue is not whether or not is a display space…it is, but it was and remains a hanger…in its structure and expression…unlike the AAM, the Milestones of Flight or the Cold War buildings which are display spaces, designed for that purpose.

Whether or not they are beautiful/ successful/ a waste of money is irrelevant, they are concieved to that end and as such display a particular design and expression. It is that fact which sets them apart from hangers such as the one at Newark…again its a strucutre designed for one purpose being used for another…it may or may not work but that is what it is doing..

That is the heart of the matter. Here in the UK buildings like the AAM and Cosford are designed with that in mind… look to equivalents in the US and buildings like the NMUSAF at Dayton and NASM Udvar Hazy display a similar approach.. they are display buildings.. they may look like over grown Nissan huts but they do not look like T2s or current large aircraft hangers…or look at the Museum in Seattle…a great big glass box…or the NASM on the Mall…another highly glazed box…

As an interesting aside, the IWM uses the Anderson shelter next to the AAM as an example of a curved roofed, semi buried structure…a precursor to the AAM if you wish…

Michelf
Not wanting to get into any silly banter, but the Concorde Hall was built to house Concorde by the Science Museum, some conservation work was carried out on the airframe prior to the opening. Then after a few years FAAM bought the hangar from the SM and took down the glass wall at the front and extended the hangar forward to house the VSTOL exhibition in 1990,the glass wall was then put back in place, this stayed like that until 1999/2000 when the glass wall was removed and a set of doors fitted and the rest of the frontage was covered in metal faced panels to aid conservation and insulation. At the time of the 99/00 work Concorde underwent another period of conservation prior to the Leading Edge exhibition being opened. At no time could it be said that the hangar housing Concorde was built as a working hangar, unlike 11 hangar which was a working hangar when the FAAM took it over from the navy in 1964 and it became the first exhibition hall here at FAAM. All other buildings on the main FAAM site that house aircraft have since been built as exhibition halls.

I think michelf meant that it was home to one of the best static collections, and that this was one reason that private owners remain located at DX. That and the fact that they are provided with hangar space, in return for their invaluable contributions of a) keeping their “living” aircraft there and b) flying them in easy view of visitors.

Duxford as the enthusiast knows and appreciates it is a symbiotic set-up; to remove either side would drastically change things for the worse. That much is obvious.

Moocher..

Ever thought that the reason why the private companies are at Duxford is because it is home to one of the best collections.. they can get visitors to come and see and its worth every one’s while to have this co-location….And whilst that mutual benefit is there they will stay…

So its a pretty moot point.

Sad to hear your father in law doesn’t like it…I’ll remeber tho the families of the Veterans on the day of the Rededication…after the ceremony wandering thro the AAM, pausing at the B-24, the B-17 and like one pilot said.. it sure nice to see them inside…made better by being able to see them outside at the same time…he was more interested in remembering his crew than wheter or not Duxford wasn’t the same any more…

Or the Mustang pilot returning to Duxford for only the second time since 1944, saying brashly.. ‘I came for the Opening, I’m here for the Rededication… and if I’m still alive I’ll come to the next one…this place is so damn good…shame the rest is so poor’.

“The private owners make it one of the best collections” So don’t push me on that one.

I would like to offer my opinion on Duxford, after having recently visited and watched over the years the site develop into what it is today.

My post is only an expresion of my thought’s and that it should be taken as such and not meant to cause any offence to those more knowledgeable than me, here goes…

I agree/disagree with the AAM hanger…..it is a beutifull piece of structural engineering and is (to me) pleasing to the eye, as I wandered around to the entrance one cannot pass the memorial wall and not stop and take time to thank all those who gave everything for what we stand for today.
Once inside I am greeted with the nose of a B-52, looking down on this mighty bomber one has to wonder ‘where else can I see this?’, the curved walkway gives some excellent angles on warplanes that are in superb condition.
The hanger is not the best when it comes to photography but that to me as an amature is a challenge and I have to keep pinching myself as I walk round cosseted from the elements between a B17, B52, B24, B29 and an SR71 the list as you all know goes on.

There is some thing in there that creates ‘time compression’ and one certainly feels humbled to walk amongst these planes with seemingly unrestricted access and upon venturing back to the great outdoors I find myself missing several hours!.

The other hangers warant lots of attention to, where do I start?, the point is I visit Duxford knowing what to expect and that is why I go there.
I step through the gates and follow a time line mistifies me from the moment I arrive to the moment I leave…..flying Spits and Hurricanes, active restoration of very rare warbirds, Sally B, Airliners, V Bombers……the list you all know is endless beyond comparison.

I am patiently waiting the completion of the new hanger, to me it looks like it will be ideal for photography and give a superb home to airframes that require such space, has anyone stoped to think that once the 30+ airframes that go into it how much space will be freed up in the other hangers for yet more restoration projects and other such airframes that can be brought inside.

I could go on forever on this subject but one thing to me is clear, Duxford rouses so many emotions inside me that I itch all over until the next time I go, I for one spend the majority of my time there looking at the airframes and not worrying too much about the building they are housed in.

Regards

John.

Moocher..

Ever thought that the reason why the private companies are at Duxford is because it is home to one of the best collections.. they can get visitors to come and see and its worth every one’s while to have this co-location….And whilst that mutual benefit is there they will stay…

So its a pretty moot point.

Sad to hear your father in law doesn’t like it…I’ll remeber tho the families of the Veterans on the day of the Rededication…after the ceremony wandering thro the AAM, pausing at the B-24, the B-17 and like one pilot said.. it sure nice to see them inside…made better by being able to see them outside at the same time…he was more interested in remembering his crew than wheter or not Duxford wasn’t the same any more…

Or the Mustang pilot returning to Duxford for only the second time since 1944, saying brashly.. ‘I came for the Opening, I’m here for the Rededication… and if I’m still alive I’ll come to the next one…this place is so damn good…shame the rest is so poor’.

Seaking..

From speaking to the FAA museum, the Concorde Hall is a hanger structure with a glass wall. It was erected specifically to allow conservation work on 002 to be carried out inside and then displayed.

It is therefore a bit of both.. but like the superhanger it was a working structure adapted as a display space.

As Bruce has said, there is a difference between buildings in which to work on and view aircraft and one solely to view and enjoy them.. and their associations. The Concorde Hall falls mainly in the former…with half a foot in the later.

Rocketeer,

Without the AAM as designed there would have neither been an AAM or even possibly not an 8th Air Force memorial at Duxford.
It was the key to unlocking the sums of money needed and which continue to be needed to house the collection.
The presentation of the scheme to the key members of the organisation in the US was the watershed in getting the fundraising into gear.

So like it or not its design has made itself possible.

Replica WW1 or WW2 hangers are simply not large enough to cover Concorde, Vulcan and so forth, so they would need to be scaled up…making them no only fakes but ‘impossible’ fakes.

The quality inherent in the exisiting period hangers also far surpasses anything the IWM (or any other museum) can afford today. The brick work, the roof trusses etc would but the price into something in the order of twice the rate for the AirSpace on a m2 rate.. and no less space would be required..
So you would have to fake that as well.

So you would end up making an out of scale pastiche of a WW1 hanger to preserve sometihng that by the time the IWM took it over was not longer anything like the 30s and 40s station it was…

As for filming…perhaps…then again having to close sections of the museum to allow filming would not exactly be popular, nor would having to move the heavies off the display line…including Concorde and the B-52…

Its a compromise.. and one which was already well underway before the Superhanger was erected… like a hard runway and a missing bit of airfield..
You’ll find that the other side of the A505 is less affected, the ‘domestic side’ of the station.

David,

Its a tough call…especially modifying airframes to hang them….
However the standard on-wheels pose of aircraft is only one aspect of an aircraft.

The attempt to show how they might look in flight is to be lauded…
The discussion usually breaks into two.. aircraft enthusiats tend to not like it…damage, details hidden and so on.. the ‘average’ visitor however is far less concerned with that and welcomes the sight of something different than yet another WW2 fighter with its nose in the air… believe me there are those for whom a Spitfire/ Hurricane/ Mustang/ Me109 look all the same… and they really appreciate seeing the topsides or it looking as if its flying..

In this financial climate, appealing to the widest possible audience is essential…