Duxford HE111

Mark – I would dearly like to see the RAFM Beaufort restored to its genuine RAAF PNG markings and I dont think people would see that as being out of place as that is exactly what it is. Aircraft such as the Beaufort were a part of the direct Empire war effort and I think people would relate to it more.
As for the CASA -I still feel that her genuine markings are what would suit her best -I am hoping that the days of museums painting aircraft in spurious markings are coming to an end – the idea that by painting her for instance in a BOB film scheme could act as a kind of half way house isnt really that worthy. The use of the machines in the film was just a tiny part of the Heinkel /CASA story. I am not a great advocate that the IWM should spend large sums of money on an aircraft of limited historical connection to the U.K. To me the real story is the Spanish use post WWII and their exploits in North Africa.

David,

I support much of what you say, and retaining aircraft in their own identities and colourschemes is a valid display strategy, particularly when the aircraft is complete and has its own unique story to tell, but balancing that is the issue of the collection purpose and the role the aircraft is to play in the collection.

There is a valid role for replicas, reproductions and FSM’s in museum displays, and we accept those being put into the colourschemes and markings of the collections subject matter, as clearly they have no identity of their own, so I still consider the same can apply to a complete aircraft being presented in “representative” markings rather than its own.

The RAFM Beaufort in one of 5 surviving in the world, with the other 3 in Australia, 1 in the USA, all ex RAAF examples.

One of those in Australia is A9-13 / T9552, a DAP mark V and the oldest surviving example of the 5, it was built in Australia and joined 100 Squadron RAF in Australia as part of 180 intended to be delivered to the RAF from Australian production, although only 6 were flown to Singapore to try and defend from Japanese attack, and the remaining 59 built including this aircraft then tranferred back to the RAAF – This would have been the ideal one for Hendon to have acquired, displayed as itself as T9552 it would have fulfilled all objectives.

The example that the RAFM does have is an ex RAAF Mark VIII, but is very similar to the Bristol Mark II that it represents, the other 3 surviving examples are identical to it with the AWM and US examples being mark VIII’s and the Flying restoration in Australia being a mark VII but fitted with the centre-fuselage of a mark VIII effectively resulting in that outcome in anycase.

All 3 in Australia will be presented as Australian built RAAF aircraft in their own identities, the US example is assumed to result in the same outcome ands from my position the 5th in the RAFM being presented as a Bristol mark II in RAF markings is not a loss of the RAAF heritage but filling a gap of an extinct type in the UK, representing a type both built and operated by Britain.

I do contrast that with the RAAF Seagull in the RAFM which is best displayed as itself given its rarity.

In the USAF Museum there is an ex RAAF Bristol Beaufighter mark IC, A19-43, its main structure was recovered intact in Australia in the 1970s and the airframe saw operational service with the RAAF in PNG, It is one of only 3 surviving ex RAAF Bristol built Beaufighters, the other two are later mark XI examples one in the UK at Duxford and the other in storage un restored in Australia, while two ex RAAF DAP Mark 21’s also survive but tell a completely different story.

It is an example of the failures of Australia’s export laws at the time, and should have instead been acquired by the AWM and retained in Australia, instead it is displayed in the USAF Museum in night fighter colours as an obsecure type the US flew in Italy. Instead it could be displayed in its own authentic operational colours as an allied aircraft that flew in support of US forces in the Pacific against the Japanese and is of the type that Americans flew as night fighters in Italy.

and yes, the RAAF Beaufort in the RAFM could be displayed in its RAAF colours on the same basis, but its not the sole survivor, and there are equivalents remaining in Australia itself.

Museums need to balance using exhibits to tell the story they acquired them to tell, as well as retaining the provenance of the object itself, but there are a number of ways that can be achieved.

The CASA as a type is irrelevent to the UK let alone the remit of the IWM, but as an FSM of a He 111 it is a perfect acquisition, if they spent money on a fibreglass FSM of a HE 111 for a display it would be happily displayed in BoB german markings, I dont see the difference with the CASA.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Mark – I would dearly like to see the RAFM Beaufort restored to its genuine RAAF PNG markings and I dont think people would see that as being out of place as that is exactly what it is. Aircraft such as the Beaufort were a part of the direct Empire war effort and I think people would relate to it more.
As for the CASA -I still feel that her genuine markings are what would suit her best -I am hoping that the days of museums painting aircraft in spurious markings are coming to an end – the idea that by painting her for instance in a BOB film scheme could act as a kind of half way house isnt really that worthy. The use of the machines in the film was just a tiny part of the Heinkel /CASA story. I am not a great advocate that the IWM should spend large sums of money on an aircraft of limited historical connection to the U.K. To me the real story is the Spanish use post WWII and their exploits in North Africa.

I don’t know if this is a contribution worthy of forumites consideration but I admit to being somewhat confused.

In my time with OFMC, I remember Mark being really excited by the acquisition of this Casa. A lot of time and trouble went in to getting the thing to Duxford in the first place, due to it being restorable to flight status. Moocher has already posted about the three weeks he spent disassembling it in Spain and his opinion then was of an airframe that would take a lot of work, but could be returned to the air over time. Mark and Ray both considered the airframe to be a valuable “trader” at the very least.

I don’t understand why the wing spars are now considered to be so badly corroded they couldn’t support the weight of two Merlins! Having said that, I have not personally looked at the thing in 10 years, but assume its sojourn under cover in recent years could not have rotted the airframe THAT badly.

Interestingly, nobody here seems to know what IWM’s position is on this aircraft. Has anybody asked them? What I do know is that they wanted this type specifically for a very long time. I was standing next to Ray at the Southend auction when he turned and apologised to the IWM representative present for withdrawing from the bidding at £20,000. They were sorry too, but quite understanding. My assumption therefore, is that one way or another, they do intend to restore it to exhibition status eventually. Like everything though, money has to be made available first.

The arrival of the La9 at OFMC put any Casa restoration on the back burner,
but even the idea of turning preparatory work over to volunteers from Tiger Squadron were shot down by Mark on the grounds that he felt a full, professional restoration was more appropriate.

I guess all I’m saying guys is that perhaps we should give the IWM a break and assume they know what they are doing.

Oh, and finally, I do also remember Mark saying it was built to take Merlins, not Jumos.

How about thinking outside the box a bit and doing something more interesting, interactive with the aircraft.

If the airframe is in poor condition with spars needing expensive replacement how about sectioning the airframe or making it an interactive walk through. By using a prefabricated structure to support the restored components perhaps in an open or exploded view. Imagine being able to walk through the aircraft, hearing the sites and sounds of it in flight. The crew talking. Hear it on it’s bombing run. Listening to fighters engaging etc. If the airframe is too small then just display in exploded form a bit like the U-Boat museum example in the North of England.

If you think about the Helicopter at the FAA museum (or indeed the carrier itself) or the B17 in Kermit Weeks museum they use a similar idea. Sometimes a collection of dusty old airframes is boring and needs something else to make it come alive.

I think this would be a great hit with kids.

To those purists who think it’s a good excuse to destroy a good airframe remember it’s in a dismantled sorry state and not very historically significant. A BoB Battle Weary 1-11 you wouldn’t do this to. But a knackered ex Spanish version with no hope of restoration I say go for it.

It depends entirely on the level of detail and the decisions made about the construction methods and materials; a replica would cost millions.

Perhaps the easiest way to produce a relatively convincing ‘full scale model’ is by taking moulds from an original (Spitfire say) and making a fibreglass model; this method probably wouldn’t be suitable for an He111 and the cost of making a ‘Spitfire’ made this way runs into ten-thousand pounds plus (others on this forum will be able to advise more accurately) and that is for small-scale production runs rather than a one-off.

Anyway, what would be the point; it would never be better than what the IWM has already got?

I could see the point perhaps with a Do17 but again it wouldn’t be cheap and it would attract much criticism I would imagine.

Easier to recover a genuine example and have it rebuilt.

Just out of interest, I wonder how much it would cost to build an HEIII from
scratch ? If only from outward appearance.

Does it really matter that it saw any Luftwaffe service or if it has the ‘wrong’ engines? Many of the aircraft in museums never served in the schemes that they are painted in and it is impossible now to find genuine examples to exhibit.

Surely what is important is that generations of the public get the chance to enjoy a museum that has representative (if not genuine) aircraft, that most of them learn something of our history and that some of them are inspired enough by the experience to want to learn more, support the preservation movement or even to become actively involved in preservation. On the downside, what is the worst that could happen; some museum visitor makes a serious faux pas by announcing that he has seen a He111 at Duxford when surrounded by aviation experts? 😮

Agreed.!

Dear All,

I shall try harder in future to be nicer,

P.s.

Mr Pilkington, at this moment self employed

Herby

I think the arguements for and against the IWM’s justification of the Casa/1-11 are really nul and void. IF and WHEN the IWM decide to let the aircraft go, WHERE could it go under cover in the UK?

If a post war spanish built, german designed licence buit HE-111 derivitive has no place in the IWM collection and justifications or arguments for its retention and display are really “null and void” then I would extend the same view to the relevence of its display undercover anywhere else in the UK (displayed in its post war spanish authentic presentation it seems as irrelevent in the IWM as any other UK collection?) and instead argue for its offer back to the Spanish (who it is assumed would display it in post war Spanish colours), or the Germans (who would most likely happily display it in wartime German colours with or without a Jumo conversion), or perhaps the USA who would most certainly do so.

But if its not a certain case of “WHEN”! the IWM decide to let the aircraft go, and still a only case of “IF”? then the debate and justifications of it being in the IWM collection would not seem to be “null and void” and quite a valid issue to be debated?

regards

Mark Pilkington

I think the arguements for and against the IWM’s justification of the Casa/1-11 are really nul and void. IF and WHEN the IWM decide to let the aircraft go, WHERE could it go under cover in the UK?

The aircraft was either built on the line with Merlins or converted from Jumo. Either way back engineering is all well and fine but it didnt see service with the Luftwaffe and most likely was built when the Nazi regime had ceased to exist. What I do find interesting is that the Deuches Museum choose to restore their CASA in the silver and blue of the Spanish air force -as a machine it looks far better in that than a pseudo Luftwaffe scheme and I think the public is savvy enough through information boards to understand what they are looking at!

I’m not sure there is a need to display it as authentically as a CASA and in spanish colours to justify its pedigree, but if that was done so be it?, I suspect that might simply support arguments of no relevence?

The Deuches Museum as a German Science and Technology museum (as against a Military Service or War Museum) is displaying a German design licenced built in Spain post WW2, its relevence isnt as a mockup He 111, it has historical relevence to be there in its own right as a german design, hence presentation in its CASA and spanish colour scheme are very appropriate and relevent.

The rationale for the CASA in the IWM is assumed to be its relationship to and representation of the He-111 as a type, and that types strong significance in the wartime experiences of Britain and therefore its relevence to a War Museum, I think thats quite acceptable, but that would lean me to displaying it in the context of that relevence not its own spanish identity.

In this case we have a post war “version” of a wartime aircraft being presented in colours and an identity it never wore, and with technical differences to the actual aircraft it is trying to represent.

There are hundreds of aircraft in museums in that same situation.

Would you then also apply the same criteria to the Beaufort in the RAF Museum, its an Australian built mark VIII presented as a Bristol built mark II, it clearly never served in the RAF or Europe and therefore should be presented in its RAAF colours?

Similarly the P-40 is built up from an ex-RAAF example recovered from the Pacific, and although technically similar to those flown by the RAF never in fact did so, should it be presented in its RAAF colours.

I personally wouldnt mind those outcomes, but within the UK presentation in representative RAF colours chemes and identities are more relevent to the types significance in Europe, otherwise the UK public might question what is the relevence of Australian aircraft in a British museum?, and have difficulty in interpreting the types role in UK history due to the distraction of the RAAF colours and markings.

Equally when Hendon acquired its Hudson there wasnt any others in preservation in Australia so display in its authentic RAAF colours and identity were very appropriate and appreciated, but with the AWM and RAAFM both having RAAF examples in preservation for future display, and Temora flying theirs in RAAF colours perhaps it is time for the RAFM to be encouraged/permitted to present their Hudson in a more relevent colourscheme to UK heritage, ie an RAF Coastal Command colour scheme?

The RAAF Seagull is perhaps a special case, it is the last of breed (as against a Walrus) and so is deserving of being preserved in its authentic RAAF colourschemes despite its role in the RAFM in representing the wider family ie Walrus, and certainly it shouldnt be technically modified “into” a Walrus to “correct” any differences.

Not that I consider full conversion of the CASA is viable or necessary to justify its retention and display in the IWM collection at Duxford, but what about all the WW1 replica’s in the RAF Museum collection, even if they are technically accurate, they equally didnt ever see service with the RAF and were all built long after the period they purport to represent, yet display in no colour schemes (as they are not entitled to wear them) and signage focusing on them not being original would defeat the very purpose of them being there, to allow full size interpretation of machines from that period.

Otherwise the argument for any full size aircraft or mockups being displayed in museums dis-appears and a collection of walk around photos on a digital display and historic movie film can suffice, ie is the UK richer or poorer in terms of Bomber Command heritage and public interpretations and learnings from the Yorkshire “Halifax” display?

As I have said previously, I would not embark on a complete conversion of the CASA to a quasi He 111 its unlikely to be a complete success due to the lack of parts and would still not be an original.

I wouldnt argue with it being presented in an accurate BoB colourscheme with Merlins in place and a signboard coverage of the CASA and its spanish history.

Equally I wouldnt argue with its merlins and cowls being removed and replaced with fibreglass He-111 cowls etc to better present it, but would still retain signboard coverage of the CASA and its spanish history.

Of course my opinion is just that of an armchair enthusiast in front of a PC on the other side of the world, but also a potential visitor or “customer” to the IWM as well. (and despite the comments of some, we are all entitled to our opinions and able to debate opposing views without denigrating others)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Its languishing in the hanger because thats what they choose. Its perfectly possible to restore it as a genuine Spanish Air Force CASA as much as it could be mocked up as a 1950’s Luftwaffe Heinkel 1-11.

1950’s? 😮

Had they snuck some away to Brazil, perchance?

That’s just the way I roll…

Then certainly dont let any of us stop you from rolling off somewhere else.

I would certainly agree with the comments of others above, and take offence at your comments and attitude.

From what I can see you have posted @20 comments in this forum, and many appear to be rather obnoxious in one form or another, if you cant control what you type and how it reads to others, then resist the temptation in the first place.

Posting under an alias and claiming anonomity due to proffessional employment within a collection or museum to imply some type of expert opinion, does not give you any right to deride others for putting their opinions or views forward.

Simply demanding to be excused because “thats how you are” doesnt cut it for me.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Does it really matter that it saw any Luftwaffe service or if it has the ‘wrong’ engines? Many of the aircraft in museums never served in the schemes that they are painted in and it is impossible now to find genuine examples to exhibit.

Surely what is important is that generations of the public get the chance to enjoy a museum that has representative (if not genuine) aircraft, that most of them learn something of our history and that some of them are inspired enough by the experience to want to learn more, support the preservation movement or even to become actively involved in preservation. On the downside, what is the worst that could happen; some museum visitor makes a serious faux pas by announcing that he has seen a He111 at Duxford when surrounded by aviation experts? 😮

The aircraft was either built on the line with Merlins or converted from Jumo. Either way back engineering is all well and fine but it didnt see service with the Luftwaffe and most likely was built when the Nazi regime had ceased to exist. What I do find interesting is that the Deuches Museum choose to restore their CASA in the silver and blue of the Spanish air force -as a machine it looks far better in that than a pseudo Luftwaffe scheme and I think the public is savvy enough through information boards to understand what they are looking at!

As Bruce has said, this thread has gone a surprising distance! I’m just posting again to explain that my idea of converting the CASA to Jumo configuration is based on two things.

Firstly, the museum’s own collecting policy. If indeed a Merlin-CASA were deemed unfit for the museum, then conversion to Jumo would redeem it through its resemblance to the original German version. Whether it were painted in Spanish or Luftwaffe markings, it would in either case represent a wartime Heinkel in the metal. I’m still hoping someone can clarify whether this airframe would have been built with Jumo’s, in which case it would be a conversion back to how it originally was anyway.

Secondly, the current condition of the airframe, ie. heavily corroded and fairly well stripped. This means that an enormous amount of work would be needed in any case, and that conversion as part of the restoration work may not add very much to the total effort and funding required. The airframe’s poor condition could be seen as a good opportunity to convert.

I’m not suggesting that it would in either case be easy or cheap, I simply feel it’s an option that should be explored given the airframe’s condition and the collecting policy of the museum that currently holds it.

As a slight aside, I’m hoping the rumour mentioned earlier in the thread about disposing of the French-built Storch and Ju52 are unfounded. To my mind they are close enough to the originals, and where on earth would IWM source the real German-made replacements?

Alder Tag,

According to the axis aircraft website this aircraft is No 53, was this a production or Spanish Air Force number, I don’t Know!!!

What I was told is that a number built were Jumo engined CASA 111’s, I don’t know for certain the exact number but if my memory serves me right the figure was closer to 100.

If anyone can verify these two points are fact, than the aircraft may be a prime and valid candidate to be restored with Jumo’s.

Either way this aircraft deserves better TLC than currently being received- no bad reflection on the IWM, as with any other museum they’re constantly fund juggling.

Perhaps the only way forward is to form a seperate support group to restore and maintain the aircraft on proviso from the IWM that it is legally protected from disposal, so the groups efforts are not in vain.

My concern with such a ‘collection policy’ (and I don’t know if such a blanket policy even exists) is that the options are realistically likely to be, keep it as a Merlin-engined variant or sell it. Don’t get me wrong I’d be as happy as anybody to see it converted to Jumo engines but I think there are more pressing candidates for the museum’s limited budget and I’d rather see a Merlin-engined version than a space where one used to stand!

That’s just the way I roll…

How civilised of you…:( Sorry, I don’t want to drag this thread down, but the ‘go stuff yourself’ attitude of some makes me think about ditching my interest in historic aviation as a whole.

As Bruce has said, this thread has gone a surprising distance! I’m just posting again to explain that my idea of converting the CASA to Jumo configuration is based on two things.

Firstly, the museum’s own collecting policy. If indeed a Merlin-CASA were deemed unfit for the museum, then conversion to Jumo would redeem it through its resemblance to the original German version. Whether it were painted in Spanish or Luftwaffe markings, it would in either case represent a wartime Heinkel in the metal. I’m still hoping someone can clarify whether this airframe would have been built with Jumo’s, in which case it would be a conversion back to how it originally was anyway.

Secondly, the current condition of the airframe, ie. heavily corroded and fairly well stripped. This means that an enormous amount of work would be needed in any case, and that conversion as part of the restoration work may not add very much to the total effort and funding required. The airframe’s poor condition could be seen as a good opportunity to convert.

I’m not suggesting that it would in either case be easy or cheap, I simply feel it’s an option that should be explored given the airframe’s condition and the collecting policy of the museum that currently holds it.

As a slight aside, I’m hoping the rumour mentioned earlier in the thread about disposing of the French-built Storch and Ju52 are unfounded. To my mind they are close enough to the originals, and where on earth would IWM source the real German-made replacements?