Hendon Sabre

My source also indicated that other aircraft at Cosford, in addition to the Lightning and Sabre, will mounted in ‘imaginative’ attitudes.

I’ve heard the Vulcan is being mounted as if she is just lifling off.
😮

David,

Using a model or illustration is indeed nothing new…however I’d argue that many of the veterans..and American corporations, were seduced by that image and made contributions to the appeal that may not have been made had the design not been what it is..

I would also argue that the majority of veterans contributed becuase they were supporting a memorial, not a museum..and the families of the veterans who may have no interest in avaition were also happier to contribute to a memorial than just a box for aircraft…

And that they really were not too fussed that some aircraft were being hung from the roof..provided it was part of a cohesive whole…

It was the whole that attracted them… the iconic design, the collection and then perhaps in last place the way tha aircraft were displayed…at least that is the feeling I have from those veterans..

Oh and by the way perservation is not necessarily the only watchword in the world of museums….that is applicable to certain museums but not to all..

Cosford and Hendon have great records there don’t they.. Beverley, Mk1 Comets to name but a few great successes in that respect. At Duxford one could ask why the F-15 is outdoors..well its there because at the moment its not a rare aircraft, if it deteriorates to such a condition that it needs replacing then that is what will happen…

Sadly we as enthusiasts must recognise that we are a vital, but numerically and financially small part of the visitor equation. It is one which is being loaded against us as more and more commercial aspects are being brought into the world of museums…as the need to generate new visitors and repeat visitors increases so the pressure on museums to bring in new ways of displaying thier atrefacts and new exhibition methods increases and the traditional, aircraft on undercarriage stance, of aircraft collections wanes away…

A parallel has to be what has happened in car museums, like Beaulieu and Gaydon…more and more ‘settings’ for the cars, hiding some details and revealling others…and yes shock horror they look as if they might be in action..

The same with the AAM, some of those aircraft look as tho they might be in flight, or even coming into land…

In the teams that drive these projects forward to reality the presence of aircraft enthusiasts is not a prerequisite…people who are knowlegeable in the business of museums and display are, and they are not necessarily plane enthusiasts… it means the whole museum design moves on.

Whilst many enthusiasts will bemoan the fact that they can not longer see the aircraft in detail…as evidenced here.. or be able to document that detail..they are however rewarded by a wider spectrum of aircraft on display and a increasing number of museums… each better able to fund restoration work and hence further increase the scope of aircraft on display…

Michelf – The ‘identifier’ used for the AAM was in effect a model or picture of what was proposed . That’s nothing stunningly new in the world of building. Indeed the Bomber Command Hall at Hendon used similar ideas to raise the money they required
back in 1982. I don’t think the veterans and members of the public contributed with the belief that they were going to be making an architectural statement. They wanted a building that would house the aircraft in an economical way and preserve them for future generations. The premis was never that they had to drill holes in the aircraft so they could make them look good hanging from wires. The idea then was preservation of important artifacts.
Of course times change and the old ideas of the aircraft being the attraction might be on the wane – certainly however the people who feel that we need ‘concepts’
and ways of ‘interpreting’ displays shoud possibly look at other ideas.
I wonder for instance if future generations visiting the likes of Cosford will ‘interpret’ the Lightning in the right way or maybe visitors to Bruntingthorpe will understand the efforts more of the guys putting Lightnings into an original QRA -not on plinths -wires or any other means of suspending them unnaturally -but on a good old fashioned undercarriage.

David,

You’re right, hanging aircraft from wires is not a new concept.. what is and what remains trend setting is that the building that houses the aircraft is more than a hanger.. it responds to criteria beyond merely housing them and displaying them..

The fund raising was based on creating a memorial, which was large enough to regroup under a single roof the entire collection of aircraft that best represented the airmen and women, that was a building that would be symbolic of that memorial, that was crafted in a manner suitable for its primary purpose. The IWM had a design before they had the full finances in place.. it served to raise that money by creating an instant and memorable image in peoples’ minds..that identifier is an inherent part of its success, without it the AAM would not have been built.

Very few veterans who visit have a problem with aircraft being hung, they are seeing beyond that..reliving the past and taking a mental trip back in time…all of which is enhanced and made more real by looking out of the window to the active and seeing Sally B or a P-51 taking off…believe me seeing that in the eyes of a veteran is the reality of the museum..not somebody grousing that they cannot see the U2 properly..

In the hard light of day and the financial reality it is that feeling and support that is needed, that raises the monies required. It is a memorial, it is a symbol of sacrifice and however that’s cut it is the primary driver..

In terms of for the better I think the reality is that without the AAM neither Hendon nor Cosford would have embarked on the programmes they have in gaining new space..and whilst the new display and entrance at Hendon is pretty dire, one can only laud the fact that more aircraft are on display and will find long term homes therein. Both would have expanded in a very conventional and ‘safe’ fashion, which would have housed the aircraft but made little progress in other areas.

The success or not of the new display building at Cosford will need to await the completed building, as will the AirSpace at Duxford.. but conicidences being what they are both will have a cohesively suspended set of aircraft and themed displays that try to tell a story…and gather together a relevant group of aircraft…relevant to each other and to the overall stroy fo the musuem…and its no coincidence that the architectural quality of the buildings and their external appearance try to connect to a wider goal than before…

Hi

I don’t like parts being seperated – sometimes they don’t find there way back – I can think of lots of cases where spares had to be replaced on aircraft where the original components were lost.

JDK – I was laso horrified to see one of the worlds most original WW11 Spitfires in the AWM had been cut about to mount her on the pole in the AWM – WHAT!!! were they thinking !!!

Regards
John P

Hanging aircraft from wires isn’t a new concept. There might be some influence to other museum projects in the U.K but if that is for the better remains to be seen .
Certainly the aircraft going into the project at Cosford will be there for the long haul.
The AAM is indeed a memorial and aircraft museum secondly . I do however feel that what drove the fund raising was the chance to see the aircraft in one building.
I hope imagination does play a part – however that needs to be carefully balanced
against the need to inspect and preserve the aircraft .

David,

You have just highlighted the biggest difference between the AAM and many other ‘aircraft hangers built for museum purposes’…

The AAM is a museum and memorial first and foremost…that is what it does…how it does that is by housing aircraft as museum exhibits. They ar used to tell a story and to present the people who made that story..it is not about the aircraft..they happen to be the best method of telling that story but they are not therefore their own sake.

On a technical level the building has to respond to the demands of the aircraft in terms of size etc and the layout was a collaboration between the architects and the IWM team….

Whilst its form is unique.. the basic principles have however influenced the other major aircraft museum developments in the UK.. like Hendon, Cosford and even Duxford itself with the AirSPace project.

They have recognised that the building itself has to be done as well as can be to huse the display as its an atttraction in its own right and can lead to more imaginative displays.

COSFORD LIGHTNING TO BE VERTICAL?

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I have heard (and I forget from whom) that a Lightning in the new Cosford exhibition is to be displayed in a vertical position. My source indicated that it was not a problem coming up with a suitable pedestal to take the loads (something up the jetpipes to attach to the engine mounts?) but it was hell of a lifting/slinging problem getting it from the horizontal to vertical position without damage. My source also indicated that other aircraft at Cosford, in addition to the Lightning and Sabre, will mounted in ‘imaginative’ attitudes.

I guess one option would have been to have allowed room at the entrance end of the building for access . The layout was the architect’s idea but if you examine other contemporary aircraft hangar’s built for museum purposes you will find that this design
very much stands alone.

That summary is pretty much spot on…

But as an addition the entire focus of the museum towards the flight line was made possible by this transparency….no door could have achieved that (at the time) and certainly not within the financial constraints involved….

Both parties knew that to remove the glass wall had a cost and the Client accepted that when a major renovation or addition was in view this cost needed to be added to the budget..however they took a value judgement as to whether or not the value added by this solution to the building overall was sufficent to justify this additional financial cost to the operation of the building.

The IWM decided it was and the glass wall was built.

All very interesting, what was the alternative to a glass wall? I was not party to the discussions at that time but I would guess that the alternative had to be a door of some kind, which to make transparent would have been prohibitivley expensive. The glass wall was surely a compromise, the ‘client’ making the decision to reduce initial capital outlay but with the knowledge of expense later when the need to move large objects in/out.

David,

Put like that it is not a huge improvement..

But to be more precise..the T-33 was taken down as part of the reorganisation of the AAM..however once it had been completed they realised that there was sufficient space visually to rehang it..and they did so.

Not sure how you justifiy the cost as enormous. It all depends on the perspective and ultimate goal. The other solutions, such as a door large enough to accommodate the aircraft movement would also have had a real cost. If the intention was for it to be used occassionally and then only as part of a major operation, then how is that justified when its impact on the day to day life of the museum was vast.

The IWM knew that they would need to move aircraft around.. they included this requirement in the brief…the architects came up with a solution which allowed the requirement to be met as and when needed only..and to create the visual link with the airfield, also asked for in the brief.

Both parties knew that to remove the glass wall had a cost and the Client accepted that when a major renovation or addition was in view this cost needed to be added to the budget..however they took a value judgement as to whether or not the value added by this solution to the building overall was sufficent to justify this additional financial cost to the operation of the building.

The IWM decided it was and the glass wall was built..

The AAM was designed not only to house the aircraft but also as a monument…part of its success is this link between the active airfield and the exhibits.. nowhere else can you see a two B-17s together or a B-17 with Spits, Mustangs etc etc together..

The design of the suspension cradles is done on the basis of the individual airframes. As you mention some airframes have unknown characterisitcs and need to be supported within a cradle structure rather than using the airframe itself to take the diverse loads..not all of which are originally anticipated.

For example if you look at the A-10 suspended at the AAM, the arrangement of the cradles means the fuselage is supported at pretty much each end. Now normally this would mean imparting a bending moment into the fuselage as the two ends would want to come together.. however the cradle has been designed in such as way as to reduce this bending moment by introducing a cradle element to resist the bending..and so the fuselage acts as a simply spanning beam between two verticla supports, exactly the same as it would be if standing on its own u/c on the ground…

This principle applies to pretty much all aircraft suspended…they try to ensure the load paths are ones which the airframe is designed to carr ynormally..as even a rebuilt aircraft able to support its own weight on it sown u/c will be strong enough.

Probably been said before, but if they are worried about weight why not make one out of fibreglass the weight problem goes away the original Aircraft stays intact and could be loan out to say Tangemere or rotated around the various provincial museums more enthusiasts get to see them, more variety and you adverage ‘joe public’ won’t know the difference. How many have noticed the P-51D in the AAM at Duxford? 🙂 everyone is happy

Will have to try and photograph the Sabre + others tomorrow when I visit.

How are you actually rotating the exhibits if you take them down for a week or two and then put them back up again! It seems a completely pointless exercise – as for the cost of taking the glass out -the architects worked to a basis of ten year rotations as you say but the cost is still enormous.
As for the loads -how can you realistically work out the load factors when you are dealing with aircraft that have been rebuilt and have in many cases
unknown internal structure. I don’t think they NDT aircraft before they hang them – do they for instance remove all the wing fairings and check the wing
bolts ? I wager not.

The AAM is a good example…

The initial set up..dating from 1996/97 has already received one overhaul, with the T-33 coming down, the C-47/B-25/Avenger being hung up and a short time later..once the glass had gone back up, the T-33 brought back into the museum, re-assembled and re-hung.

Considering the inital set up date that’s pretty good…and one would expect another go in some 6-10 years as other things become avaliable…

The small airframes…like the T-33 and the Sabre are pretty easy to deal with as the loads are pretty light and with the correct equipment its a straight forward process…not necessarily easy, but with the correct proceedures it is realistic to achieve. The time and equipment required for this task is not exceptional…and avaliable….

The cost of removing the glass wall was entirely reasonable and considering the other options that were available, entirely justified..plus it was designed to be removed and reinstalled. The IWM anticipated a 10 year cycle of exhibits and a method of permitting aircraft to be moved in and out was required….

I think we must accept that in order to grow and maintain a high quality of service the way aircraft are displayed needs to evolve and be more flexible….and that includes far more of that type of display…

Michelf – using the AAM for example – how many aircraft in there have been brought down? The cost and Health and Safety requirements are huge – just getting the glass out costs a fortune! I don’t think the Sabre would ever come down at Cosford.

The Sabre will come down…

The increased visitor demand which has made this type of display a prerequiste is also driving a ‘churn rate’ of exhibits….

If you want to attract repeat visitors then you must rotate the collection…including the suspended aircraft…

It is possible to do that quite frequently with the smaller aircraft (like the Sabre) without it being a huge problem…

Hendon has so lost the plot that it has commited the most serious sin any modern UK museum can make……………… Its possible to go around a free museum and leave without ever going near the SHOP!

This reminds me of the Short SC.1 that is displayed in the Science Museum at South Kensington. It was perfectly happy sitting on its undercarriage in the FAA Museum at Yeovilton until it was moved out. I was horrified to see one wing removed and the aircraft vertically pinned against a wall where it is now!

As for the Hendon Sabre, I have had several attempts to take decent photos of it at Hendon, but it’s SOOO 😮 dark! I just hope that it’s safely suspended in a well-lit building, so we can get some good photos of it at last….but surely not by its undercarriage?