Half-naked display. What's the issue?

Wonder why “never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world” should preclude anyone from having an opinion. Surely we are all entitled to an opinion irrespective of our level of contribution towards the preservation movement.

Planemike

As usual we have lots of opinions from far and wide about how the job should have been done. I have no doubt that the vast majority come from experts who have never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world.
We should all rejoice in the fact that we can see this aircraft at all!!

Ahh but, bravo24, you fail to realise that the moment any post on this forum mentions the RAF Museum in any way, shape or form, be it for example the lights in the BoB Hall, the length of time it took to complete the Dolphin, the data plate identity of the Dornier or the unannounced scheme for their Wellington, it signifies “open season” on the RAFM…

The Wellington thread has thrown up a few comments about the way R-Robert is displayed at Brooklands, with one side covered, and the opposite side uncovered exposing the innards and construction.

Personally I think this is a brilliant way to show the aircraft, partly because you can see so much more, particularly of the geodetic frames, but also since this was a Wellington factory as a way to show the complexity of the work in building the machine (and also the stupendous quality of the restoration which I watched in frequent visits over the years.)

Others disagree.

Can anyone suggest what is gained by covering all this up with 21st century fabric and paint, an example of which can easily be seen just by walking round to the other side?

Moggy

With you all the way on this one. Unless it is ever going to be returned to the air it serves far better as it is.

I am quite happy with the naked bit … just wish they had straightened out the prop blades … only my opinion.

I’m happy to be corrected (having never seen the “naked bit” or the rest of it “in the flesh”), but as I understand it, R for Robert has been conserved “as it was” at the time of its crash, with some structural repair / new material to rejoin the fuselage where it had broken away.

Hence its not striving to be a fully restored factory fresh airfix kit, and the bent prop blades are part of the story of what happened when it crashed.

R for Robert is not unlike the RAFM Halifax, and the Dornier, although more intact than either.

Hence there is a slightly different role, purpose and story (let alone model) in the display of R for Robert as against the RAFM example.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I am quite happy with the naked bit … just wish they had straightened out the prop blades … only my opinion.

Sadly I have never been involved in aviation in any way so that firmly puts me in the “armchair”. I do have a keen interest in our (UK) engineering heritage in all its forms and I come to this forum to learn from members who do know about such things and who freely pass on their knowledge. Having no experience in aviation, restorations or museums does not mean that one cannot have opinions on some subjects as long as they are well reasoned and constructively add to the thread or are even suitably humorous. Surely when there is a debate between parties with differing views the object is to put forward a reasoned case in order to come to an agreed decision and this is achieved by convincing the undecided or uninformed that they have the best solution until you have the majority view.

As far as I am aware there are only two examples of aircraft built using Geodetic construction and only one where this construction can be clearly seen. In view of the significance of this design and of the designer I would have thought there was a very strong case for leaving R Robert unclothed. Further Mark Pilkington has very kindly posted much about Mikesh’s book in relation to static museum restorations together with his views on the “RAFM Wellington” thread, posts #77 & #86, and and I would find his conclusions hard to disagree with. I have certainly learnt a lot.

As usual we have lots of opinions from far and wide about how the job should have been done. I have no doubt that the vast majority come from experts who have never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world.
We should all rejoice in the fact that we can see this aircraft at all!!

Wonder why “never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world” should preclude anyone from having an opinion. Surely we are all entitled to an opinion irrespective of our level of contribution towards the preservation movement.

Planemike

Brooklands Wellington is a somewhat unique exhibit .

Sorry, it cannot be “somewhat unique”, it is either unique or it isn’t. Best described as unusual, rare, etc…….
Apologies for being a pedant.

Planemike

I concur with the view that it is not the Wellington that looks untidy, it is the state of the hangar it is located in. Imagine the aircraft as it is, exhibited in a much cleaner, lighter environment.

As usual we have lots of opinions from far and wide about how the job should have been done. I have no doubt that the vast majority come from experts who have never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world.
We should all rejoice in the fact that we can see this aircraft at all!!

Yes, you have my opinion – for clarity; I spent 22 years volunteering at the de Havilland Aircraft Museum; I worked on Mosquito, Vampire 6, Vampire 11, Venom 4, 125, Chipmunk, and acquired a good number of aircraft for the collection as well. I am currently resting.

I also worked on more than 15 Spitfires, 3 Mustangs, a P40, Tiger Moth, Jungmenn, Hurricane, FW190, Me262 and others in a professional capacity.

‘Expert’. No, I would never claim that, but you should be careful with casting aspersions; there are many posting here who have more experience than I!

Bruce

R for Robert is of course not the only Vickers twin engined aeroplane to be displayed in a partially clothed manner, and the other one is unquestionably far more historic, ie the Alcock and Brown Vimy. I dont recall ever hearing anyone raise objections to that.

As usual we have lots of opinions from far and wide about how the job should have been done. I have no doubt that the vast majority come from experts who have never done a tap toward anything useful in the restoration preservation world.
We should all rejoice in the fact that we can see this aircraft at all!!

Brooklands Wellington is a somewhat unique exhibit and difficult decisions had to be made when creating it. Any finish was bound not to please all, but I’m perfectly happy with the end result.
In general I find ‘see through’ exhibits much more interesting than those fully clad. The half way measure, of one side restored the other not, is an excellent form of display. View the side with the style you prefer.

PS I’d rather see the aircraft half-naked than Minnie Driver. 🙂

Are you mad?

Moggy

Ah, ok, thanks.

Didn’t R Robert’s crew perish when she ditched, therefore making it something of a grave?

Untrue. The rear gunner was killed when he baled out and his parachute failed to open, the remaining crew survived.

Didn’t R Robert’s crew perish when she ditched, therefore making it something of a grave? There are plenty of Wellington bits around to enable one to see the construction, I think the Doncaster museum has a few considerable pieces. [ATTACH=CONFIG]219685[/ATTACH]

There is still a lot of new material that is uncovered. It is fairly easy to spot and I remember the photographs of the Wellington as it was lifted from Loch Ness (in two pieces); much of the fuselage from the rear of the wing to the tail-plane is new-build.

On my first visit to Brooklands I asked one of the Wellington restoration team if they were going to cover it, the reply was along the lines of ‘its too fragile and couldn’t take the forces imposed by taughtened doped fabric’. I left thinking ‘ fair enough’ and therefore was surprised to find on a later visit that some fabric had been applied.
I’m of the school of leave R Robert as she is, covering half would require the corrofded engine and propellor on the covered side to be replaced or the effect would be ruined, but that would ruin R Robert’s originality. The beauty of looking at R Robert is finding the new parts amongst the originals (its harder than you would think).

Actually, judging from the photographs I took at the time, only a small portion of the fuselage side is covered; enough for a roundel and airframe codes / serial.

IIRC that covered bit is the section which was reconstructed. As that is mostly new material, it was felt that covering it was fitting. The rest of the structure is mostly ‘as found’. I would like to see the aircraft stay as it is, as the patina of the original structure is just so impressive. Putting fresh fabric and paint over this would make it look less real in my eyes.

Edit: here are two photos from June 2012:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219681[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219682[/ATTACH]

Actually, judging from the photographs I took at the time, only a small portion of the fuselage side is covered; enough for a roundel and airframe codes / serial.