Help save the Beverley

I thought Newark already had a very stripped out nose section dumped in the grass?

Most of the aircraft was moved on May 22/23. I happened to be visiting an old school friend of mine (Also a notorious Greek plane spotter!) and we nipped up to Fort Paull for reasons unconnected. There we found all but the lower fuselage on low loaders, waiting to be reasssembled.

Apparently the nose wheels would not come off which was why the lower fuse had not yet (at that time) made the journey.

Some pictures of the dismantling on the Beverley Association’s website.

Separately I see Newark Air Museum has acquired the cockpit of the ex- Southend Beverley from Duxford.

What is the latest on the move? Anybody any piccies?

That’s the problem with housing the Bev, it would need a big chocolate teapot….:)
Or rather the problem is one of height, and therefore wind loading, especially with a coastal location such as Fort Paul.

Putting the Bev under cover there wouldn’t be cheap, although as long as you went for function rather than form and didn’t employ an architect like Foster, then it’s not impossible, if the local council were sympathetic when it came to planning permission of course….:rolleyes:

No worries.
Hot air is permitted here after all! 😀
Have a good break.

True sorry I started that. I am sorry! Maybe we could build a big chocolate teapot! I will think on it whilst I am away.

Hmm.
I don’t like the AAM building as an aircraft hangar any more than many of the comments here. It is however, a talking point (see!) which is an enhancement for IWM Duxford, and a draw in terms of interest. It’s a lot better than a chocolate teapot –

No. of a/c housed in chocolate teapots – nil
No. of a/c housed in AAM – many

Value for money of AAM. Debatable

But this thread WAS about housing the Bev, and despite a lot of noise, few people bothered to try and DO SOMETHING about the Bev situation. In the light of that comments of “I like” or “I don’t like” about particular buildings which, regardless of merit, are housing aircraft don’t wash with me. The Bev is ‘at risk’.

Sorry, but less hot air, more action please.

Cheers

OK….

Umm….

You’ll have to excuse me, not being a regular and all, but isn’t that a bit silly?

No the front doesnt open, it takes more technically know how to get that front out then to get a TSR2 back in the air!

Now that money spent on a replacement Belfast and a few T2’s would have been much better spent and cheaper I would have thought as well.

Originally posted by Learning_Slowly
Rubbish is the right word.:mad:

What do you expect off of Foster…….:rolleyes:

As a structural engineer, to me the AAM is a fantastic structure, but as a structure to house aircraft in, it’s about as useful as a chocolate teapot, and a scandalous waste of money…..:mad:

🙁 We looked for ages at that facade. Does it actually open?

Totally agree. AND you can’t even get them out or others in without pulling the whole front off. Rubbish is the right word.:mad:

Originally posted by Hatton
True but all of the above contain/will contain at least one aircraft therefore the money spent on the building has directly gone to the preservation of the aircraft. A roof over the head of an aircraft is vital and the importance of this goes hand in hand with the restoration of aircraft. Im sure you would agree.

Just a passing ordinary person who sometimes likes to look at old planes…

At the risk of going off-topic, the American Museum at Duxford is a rubbish peice of architecture in that it fails to fulfill part of its function. It keeps the planes nice and dry but they’re covered in concrete dust (aggressive to aluminium) and the lighting is hopeless. Additionally, there’s no impression of scale in the building – the B52 just doesn’t seem as vast as say the Vulcan in Hangar 1. Thank you.

I really sorry to hear about the RAFM’s Beverely. I remember being awed by it as a kid in the mid-70’s.

In my personal opinion, the new building to be built at Cosford is the same. An architect showing how clever he/she is and impressing the high and mighty that decide on these things.
A more traditionally shaped building would be of more use to the museum, although less spectacular. Probably not unusual enough to attract the funding.
The original proposed development shown on the Cosford website, (still there a month ago), was impressive, I thought.
What’s been agreed isn’t.

Sorry to go back a few steps but HLF. I agree! Alot of money spent on an over done structure with the exeption on Newark. They of course went for a lot lower bid from the HLF and have built something to do a job. Why could Duxford not have done that with the Amercian air raid shelter or Hendon with the over done Nissen hut. It annoys me that these large museums can be so stupid with money in some areas and so petty in others. If you want to know how bad try working on a restoration at Duxford. The blokes that work on the shop floor there deserve nothing but praise. Rant over I am off on holiday!

How is the move progressing? Anybody have recent photographs?

Try an email to:- [email]mail@iwm.org.uk[/email]

Do you know why fuji?

Ted Inman has resigned. You heard it here first.
A scoop for the forum!