Full size models, worth it??

We sometimes forget on this forum the majority of visitors to public aviation attractions are casual, not entheusiasts!!

There around 60 aircraft museums in the UK. If we want to attract “new blood” into our hobby they need something to inspire them, unfortunately most of the UK’s “desirable” and iconic aircraft that the public know are found in a handful of museums and collections. Those that have “iconic” or valuable aircraft in store understandably do not let them go to other collections.

So the if smaller collections want a particular aircraft their only remit is to build or buy a Full Scale Model.

This was the exact scenario I attempted to achieve at Boulton Paul, with the wreckage of Defiant N3378 (With one or two added bits from other Defiants, not least Steve Hague’s engine and prop) laid out as a crash-site diaroma right next to the FSM of Defiant L7005. Sadly, the guys who actually built the FSM did not want what they called the ‘scrap’ aircraft ‘ruining’ the view of L7005. The wreckage was exiled to a distant corner in the belief that the FSM was far more valuable.

What a shame, this attitude shows those of small minds need to broaden their horizons if they want to get the best.

Some of the most famous paintings on show are copies as they are deemed too valuable for display. Dinosaur bones are often replicated as they too are rare (next time you’re in a non-aviation museum, check the small print) You will be surprised how many artifacts aren’t artifacts after all.
Replicas are not only confined to the aviation world.

I agree, its amazing how many museums have replica artifacts on display & the real item is preserved out of public veiw due to rarity or fragility.

Encyclopedia Britannica quote:-

…the museum differs markedly from the library, with which it has often been compared, for the items housed in a museum are mainly unique and constitute the raw material of study and research. In the museum the object, in many cases removed in time, place, and circumstance from its original context, communicates itself directly to the viewer in a way not possible through other media…

Not quite sure how a plastic replica sits within this remit? :p

Some of the most famous paintings on show are copies as they are deemed too valuable for display. Dinosaur bones are often replicated as they too are rare (next time you’re in a non-aviation museum, check the small print) You will be surprised how many artifacts aren’t artifacts after all.
Replicas are not only confined to the aviation world.

This was the exact scenario I attempted to achieve at Boulton Paul, with the wreckage of Defiant N3378 (With one or two added bits from other Defiants, not least Steve Hague’s engine and prop) laid out as a crash-site diaroma right next to the FSM of Defiant L7005. Sadly, the guys who actually built the FSM did not want what they called the ‘scrap’ aircraft ‘ruining’ the view of L7005. The wreckage was exiled to a distant corner in the belief that the FSM was far more valuable.

Where artefacts are rare or extinct it makes sence to use a replica to show the public what the artefact looks like.

If I find a T-Rex bone in a museum, I’d like to see a model of the full thing to put that item into context. Similarly, if I find a pile of mangled wreckage, I’d like to see a full size model of the aircraft from which it came. In wreck cases particularly, it is difficult to comprehend what these pieces are and where they fit inless you can get a sence of scale from the real thing.

My local museum has a Hurricane wreck, but could never afford a real hurricane to complement it and to display the former airfield’s most famous residents. An FSM would fit every criteria – as in it would help the museum tell the wider story.

Encyclopedia Britannica quote:-

…the museum differs markedly from the library, with which it has often been compared, for the items housed in a museum are mainly unique and constitute the raw material of study and research. In the museum the object, in many cases removed in time, place, and circumstance from its original context, communicates itself directly to the viewer in a way not possible through other media…

Not quite sure how a plastic replica sits within this remit? :p

Tongue in cheek ans – Airfix 1/24 Spitfire – Price X L X H X W = £40x24x24x24= £552,960 versus 1/1 FSM ?? £28,000 + VAT ??= yep:D:D

Seriously, that depends on what you gain from a purchase – in the case of individual, arguably an expensive garden onament but if they are happy with their purchase there is no issue to raise – many of those individuals use their FSM’s to raise awareness & funding for charities, so that adds value to them.

However, for museums and collections I still believe they are worth the money, whether its a one off build or mass produced fibre-glass, especially when they are relevent. They can be a valuable tool, education-wise and in the case of warbirds a cost effective option to an original, occasionally they can be complementary to other displays – such as at Hawkinge.

Casing a Spitfire, would I love to see one at the museum of which I am a member? Yes I would!!!- the type is extremely relevent and I feel with the right compilmentary display would be a great attraction, act as a memorial to those who flew from there but also entice the casual visitor to go to collections that do have a real one on display.

Regards Rad

I stand corrected, as I am sure many have before me.
I don’t know how much of the Delhi Wapiti is original, certainly not the undercarriage, that said I would’nt like it to be thought I am pouring ridicule on the Delhi Wapiti.
The IAF did the preservation world a great service when they held on to it.
I hope someone will do a Wallace on it sooner or later

………
2) Replica vs Real thing. The Wapiti in Delhi is based on the real thing.
The Wallace in the RAF Museum is a replica….

:confused: The Wallace at Hendon is based on original fuselage frameworks recovered from woods near RAF Cranwell by the founders of Newark Air Museum in the early 1960s!

This debate like many good threads has ranged about a little.
!) Preserving every significant aircraft, would present a major problem, and to make them accessable to all an even greater one.
You would require a museum the size of Davis-Monthan on at least every continent, and under cover at that.
2) Replica vs Real thing. The Wapiti in Delhi is based on the real thing.
The Wallace in the RAF Museum is a replica.
3) Some aircraft such as the Stirling cry out for representation, more than others. I would place the Whirlwind in that bracket, a few years later with a couple of gas turbines in it, you would have had something like a Meteor.
and it was also a W E W Petter product (Should always mention Davenport).
Departing from thread a moment. Do you realise there is not any biographical work on W E W.
Lysander, Whirlwind, Welkin, Wyvern, Canberra, P1B, Gnat; He deserves his place in history, difficult man or not.
What with that and the background political story, I personally think the Whirlwind replica is a special case.

If you accept that the Whirlwind Project is a worthwhile proposition, may I suggest that you become a member, There is no charge, no pressure to subscribe ( although needless to say, always appreciated) and it is hoped that the website will cover aspects that other media cannot or don’t want to reach. There is also an unwritten policy of ‘No pestering members’

The appropriate term is probably “Trigger’s Broom”.

😉

Thanks Bruce, digested that.

Well you raise another interesting point really, what do we learn from them? Agreed, very little I suppose, apart from maybe experiencing what it may have been like to witness them flying.
However museum and flying exhibits are surely not just something to learn from, but to many are entertainment, variety, and experiences to behold in their own right, vulgar words in the world of artefacts possibly!:o

I’m not sure what that achieves – yes, it shows a shape in the sky, but what can we learn from that? We cant really know what they were like to fly, as they broke down every five minutes, and the engine handling was interesting to say the least! The new engines change absolutel everything.

You have a PM regarding the rest!

Bruce

The new build 262’s differ quite significantly from the original, primarily in systems fit, but also in construction technique. It was described to me as ‘the right shape in the sky’ by someone who worked there…. In my opinion, they have no historical value whatever.

Hmm, that bit is debateable. I guess maybe no historical relevance, but they have huge value in showing people just what these aircraft look like flying and to feel the ‘presence’ of the real thing, something that isn’t achievable otherwise.
My understanding is that externally they are 99% right and that is what matters to most people looking at these things.

I didn’t realise that a lot of museum static aircraft were even complete internally until recent times, so I guess as exhibits for the public it could be argued that if they are complete or not it dosen’t really matter, but from a historic artefact point of view it does.

I tend to see the NZ Mosquito’s as restored originals, in the same way that many other aircraft are – new metal fuselage and wings is still a restored original, so why should the same not apply to a Mossie just because its made of wood?

The new build 262’s differ quite significantly from the original, primarily in systems fit, but also in construction technique. It was described to me as ‘the right shape in the sky’ by someone who worked there…. In my opinion, they have no historical value whatever.

The Flugwerk 190’s are in a similar position, though the basic airframe is essentially similar to a late production A-8, compromises made to fit the various replacement engines have altered the orignal quite significantly.

In both cases, I think ‘New build’ is an appropriate term.

Bruce

Its a bit strange that a 1/72, 1/48, 1/32 model is often referred to as a replica, however, a 1/1 replica (constructed the same as its smaller cousins) has to be called a FSM:confused:
Anyway, you wouldn’t catch me buying one:rolleyes:

Baz

This topic has been debated before and the Robert Mikesh book is probably the best reference existing for museum aircraft and therefore a suitable guide.

I’ve never heard of 1/72, 1/48 or 1/32 scale models being called anything but scale models?

There are flying replica aircraft of fractional size and some of questionable likeness that are called replica’s or scale replica’s ie a 5/8 Spitfire etc, and there are ambiguities over the term in Aviation, the EAA use is largely a fractional scale replica or even full scale built using new materials and design to produce an external look a like, and I tend to apply that term myself, where as the definition by Mikesh describes a replica as per the art world in that it replicates the original near perfectly.

In Warbird Aviation we have modern constructed flying airframes, Spitfires/Mustangs/Me262s’/ FW-190s that are built to exact templates of the originals but clearly not built by the original manufacturers, I prefer to call these reproductions, by the definition by Mikesh is reserved for further examples built by the original manfacturer, and clearly with many types thats unlikely to ever occur, and if using the drawings etc doesnt reproduction result regardless of the sign over the door?

I therefore think that Mikesh seems to cover the same technical outcome – a replica and a reproduction with two terms seperated only by “who” built it? where as I prefer the alternative uses of the terms that cover distinct and different technical outcomes regardless of who built them.

The issue of a Mosquito that was essentially rotted away having all of its wood replaced but much of its metal work retained creates some definitional problems in regards to its provenance.

It is clearly based on the remains of the specific identity, and no other remains can claim the identity, but by weight or other percentage factor clearly little of the finished product actually flew in WW2 or came out of a DH factory.

In my mind its clearly not a replica, and certainly not a restored original, I would tend to describe it as a reproduction but that could easily and better apply to a mosquito with new wood and new metal?

Perhaps then for those airframes that have a significant portion of an original identity still associated with the remains, but also a significant amount of new material constructed into the outcome are a remanufactured original as against a restored original, reproduction (as per the Me 262’s with little or no original parts and no original identities claimed) and certainly not a replica from my and the EAA approach.

Clearly the flying warbird reproduction and remanufactured originals are terms that do not fit with the definitions listed by Mikesh but seem needed to describe the situations that are now occuring.

A replica in aviation has usually been a term applied to a flying “look a like” even if constructed differently under the hood or at a fractional scale, where as FSM or Full Scale Mockup is almost certainly a static outcome by definition and usually only an external “look a like” with no structural capability other than to hold itself up, usually there is no cockpit fit out etc, most FSMs are however full scale.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I just don’t get it. If a model is to be built then a scale model is more than sufficient.

The issue with scale models is scale. Full size aircraft (and replicas) give an appreciation of size that a scale model cannot give, when measured against oneself. This is an observation based on talking to many museum visitors and professionals, by the way.

As in Geoff’s website, very large scale models fulfil an important role inside museums, such as I recently observed in Tocumwal and San Francisco International’s history display. However for external display, 1:1 scale really is the main thing that makes sense – for example the scale Concorde at Heathrow was always, I though, misleading as to the real thing’s proportions and dimensions.

I see no purpose in spending a huge amount of cash on a full-sized model. Far preferable to spend money on real aeroplanes methinks.

As David Burke mentioned the Qantas museum at Longreach, it is a good case study where FSMs have a particular role to play – in the case of most of the FSMs there, there is no real equivalent to preserve – in this case the FSMs give a full size visitor usable experience of an aircraft that is otherwise extinct.

In the case of replacing a genuine B-24 at Lackland with a FSM and bringing the real B-24 overseas, inside, and restored is a win-win. Why that would be ‘hard to get’ I don’t know.

They don’t suit all purposes, but the do have a role to play, particularly in external visitor-attracting gate display.

Certainly were there a streight choice between paying for an FSM or paying for the restoration of an equivalent original, I’m sure we are all in agreement. But that’s not usually the real choice. Usually a FSM is standing in for a real aircraft that isn’t available or is going to get better treatment than the plastic ‘fall guy’. That seems like A Very Good Thing to me.

It just gives me that awful taste of “entertainment” which seems to be the key aim with museums these days.

Can’t say I’m lusting to return to the thunderingly dull museums of my youth in the 1970s. There’s much that can be improved with the model of the modern museum, but the overall trend in terms of communication and access to a wider audience is in the right direction since ‘the good old days’. Museums have three jobs to do, and entertainment is an integral part of the third, without which they will die.

As for that Beverley, I don’t buy into any of these arguments in favour of dumping it. No matter what the excuses, Hendon is a museum and if the aircraft really was as unsafe as they claimed, then they should have spent the money to make it safe. Would have been cheaper than buying two plastic models. Truth is that they just didn’t want it – they wanted a pretty Spitfire and Hurricane to amuse the public and didn’t even care whether they were models or not. Truly objectionable, the whole shabby business.

If you want a level playing field on the forum Chox, then please play like it. You regularly chastise others for inadequate research – here you are taking the populist and inaccurate version of the events rather than the reality of the situation. You expect better of others.

The information is in the public domain, discussed in this thread and previously on the forum.

In this case it’s already been pointed out that the Beverley wasn’t a RAF Museum aircraft in the critical period, but was dumped on them with significant issues after many years as an RAF gate guard at the adjacent RAF base – that may be a tough distinction for some, but not one you’d accept, given your previous stated expectations of other’s comprehension.

Certainly it may have been salvageable at vast cost to everything else that the budget the museum had to cover. You might choose to believe that the aircraft was scrapped lightly, but much as I’ve criticised the museum before I don’t believe that was an easy decision.

The statement “they wanted a pretty Spitfire and Hurricane to amuse the public and didn’t even care whether they were models or not.” also doesn’t do you credit. They very clearly wanted two FSMs for external display, as there’s no future for such real aircraft outside. I’d suggest they care very much for their real Spitfires and Hurricanes as they are all being looked after inside.

Yours,

PS – please feel free to discuss the matter maturely, as between gentlemen open to conviction by evidence based discussion. I have noted – and avoided – recent variations from this.

Beverley

Hear Hear! Chox.

Anon.

I just don’t get it. If a model is to be built then a scale model is more than sufficient. I see no purpose in spending a huge amount of cash on a full-sized model. Far preferable to spend money on real aeroplanes methinks. It just gives me that awful taste of “entertainment” which seems to be the key aim with museums these days.

As for that Beverley, I don’t buy into any of these arguments in favour of dumping it. No matter what the excuses, Hendon is a museum and if the aircraft really was as unsafe as they claimed, then they should have spent the money to make it safe. Would have been cheaper than buying two plastic models. Truth is that they just didn’t want it – they wanted a pretty Spitfire and Hurricane to amuse the public and didn’t even care whether they were models or not. Truly objectionable, the whole shabby business.