Input and opinion please…

Thanks everyone for your input

I appreciate all the points of view and will be summarizing all I learn into a report for our next board meeting.

Tom

I agree. Even if a machine is being operated as it was intended to be it is still a museum artifact regardless.

“In short. If it is of high historical value, I don’t believe it should be flown. If it is anything else – then keep the options open.”

Here we agree mostly…

If the aircraft is irreplaceable due to it’s rarity or specific provenance it should not be flown.

But if an aircraft is being operated and representing a period of time or part of the historical story I feel it should be as right as possible within operating limitations as noted above.

Tom

Richw_82

“To what point? If it still being operated, then it is still making it’s own history, and pandering to its past (unless it’s a highly significant past) achieves nothing other than satisfying someones personal opinion of how it should be presented.”

If we were talking a private owner I would agree…but a museum (in my mind) is different. We have a mandate to present history within the context of our mission statement.

It is also part of our job to create enthusiasm and interest in our history and frankly sometimes the best way to do that is using an operating aircraft to reach the public…so what you may call pandering I look at as presenting and marketing.

As to its presentation, that’s why we have a curator…to keep us on track and make the best presentation possible.

So I see a balance needing to be found.

Tom

I don’t know quite how we should classify individual aircraft in terms of describing them as an artefact but there is one significant factor that no one has mentioned.
When we talk about preserving artefacts such as a roman statue or vase we can achieve this quite easily by keeping them in a suitable controlled climate to minimise deterioration but in the case of aircraft particularly large airframes the situation is rather different.
My understanding is that an aircraft simply sitting on the ground is subject to significant stress in various areas due to loads placed on the airframe by the weight of the structure and engines etc. Given sufficient time these loads will cause fatigue and the airframe or parts of it will fail unless it is maintained.
The first thing that springs to mind is the problems with oleos and flat spotted tyres on aircraft which have stood for long periods and I have even heard of the possibility of wing spars and longerons becoming bowed given sufficient time.
I also read that the Halifax at Hendon has decayed significantly while on display simply because it has been impossible to completely arrest the problems caused by such a long period immersed in water and it various methods have been tried to arrest this process all of which inevitably affect the originality of the artefact to some extent.
For these reasons I don’t think we can apply the same rules to aircraft (or even to other mechanical objects such as cars and railway engines) as we would apply to many other artefacts because at some point any aircraft cars etc will need significant intervention to ensure their continued existence and this intervention is sure to take away some of the originality.
I am not saying that any particular approach is right or wrong but simply that this is a problem which has no simple answer and I think that all individual museums and owners can do is work to preserve in the way that they think is best.

Incidentally CADman I should think that the reason for changing the rivets on the Spitfire was to prevent dissimilar metals corrosion between the magnesium and the alloy skin. I wouldn’t be surprised if many statics have also had rivets replaced with alloy ones when skin sections have needed replacement or reattachment as I would think that the reaction between magnesium and other metals must be very corrosive particularly if an airframe spends long periods outside. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can confirm this or shoot my theory to bits.

In response to Mark V…

I have no direct involvement with modern material specification, but have often read about the replacement of magnesium rivets with modern alloy ones in order to acheive airworthyness. (Shuttleworth Spitfire ?)
Can one assum that a repair or rebuild to static condition would have used the correct period parts ?

Perhaps the national museum collections, whoes remit is to preserve items ‘for the nation’ are more concerned about this than private owners, who invest large sums of their own money to recover lost aircraft types and return them to as near original condition as possible. Flying them then becomes one of the few pleasures the owner then has. Obviousely some organisations take this to the exstream where flying adds to the value of the finished aircraft, and its potenial sale for a profit.

To what point? If it still being operated, then it is still making it’s own history, and pandering to its past (unless it’s a highly significant past) achieves nothing other than satisfying someones personal opinion of how it should be presented.

As mentioned earlier, things like the S6B won’t ever be considered for flight… so can be looked on as an artifact, and presented in a condition that reflects it at it’s most worthy point. There is nothing significant happened to it since then, so the history of its moves and custodians is just a footnote.

On the other hand, aircraft such as PA474 have made plenty of history, since being operated in preservation, and are still doing so. Nobody is trying to return her to test bed configuration, or as she was when she was doing mapping work, as it’s been operated since… so the aircraft if retired now, would have to have that taken into account.

The last thing is this… if the maintainer said that an aircraft needed something that compromised it’s historical value in the eyes of the curator… it wouldn’t fly any longer. Another reason why flying aircraft cannot be looked at in the same way as statics.

In short. If it is of high historical value, I don’t believe it should be flown. If it is anything else – then keep the options open.

Just my thoughts…

Regards,

Ric

Appreciate the input….

But here is the problem when creating a policy.

As written the curator is out of the equation as is the board.

Now I am all in favor of flying aircraft but as a museum it is our responsibility to insure that what is presented is as accurate as possible and reflect the history we are showcasing.

So the way it is written all of this is thrown out and the authority becomes the maintainer.

My belief is that the aircraft should remain as original as possible/practical within the bounds of safety, regulations and the servicing requirements and the decisions around those points be handled by professionals in the field.

But the appearance, equipment, colours and similar historic presentations be handled by the Curator and the board with all approvals going through the Curator on historical issues and through the Board on overall process and needs.

I see the need within the policy to create a sub category of artifacts that are continuing to be operated where the curator remains in control of the historic presence and historic value of the artifact, the maintainer retains control on the required servicing, regulatory requirements and operational safety of the artifact and the Board retain control over both.

As such the artifact would retain the historic presence mandated, remain a safe operational asset and have a system of justification, accountability and control while continuing to treat the aircraft as an artifact.

Thoughts…opinions?

Tom

To fly requires materials and systems to be to modern standards and thus the aircraft requires certain modification in order to meet these standards. How often have we discussed ‘fire wall’ rebuilds or the loss of original material in the pursuit of airworthyness.
As has already been mentioned the museum world has its own set of rules and items have to be fitted into the right category in order for the academics to understand what is original, repaired or fake.

I think this statement is too general and to some degree rather mis-leading. It implies that if you wish to restore and fly say a Spitfire that a significant propertion of the material has to be changed to a different ‘modern’ spec in order to comply with current airworthiness requirements. The implication in this statement being that original specifications are in some way inadequate or sub-standard and that modern materials are consequently ‘better’. In most respects the opposite is true (in the UK) today – sound original material is always preferable to be re-used, if it is damaged or missing then you need to demonstrate that the item/material you are proposing to to use to replace it is original, or if not is the equivelant specification. Moreover if you do for some reason need to replace original material with something different(perhaps due to the unavailibility of historic material) the procedures for getting this approved are onerous.

In my opinion and thats all it is.

An artefact, such as a bent rod and piston or even a staright one for that matter, can be put away on a shelf and as long as it is preserved and kept clen and dry can be left for as long as you want it to be on a shelf. However an item which could be flown again having passed all tests on it suitability to fly should be given more due care and attention because if it is handled in the wrong manner it can cost someone their life.

Just my thoughts.

Both items have worth and are deserving of care and attention its just some need more.

The National Aviation Heritage Register (NAHR) takes an interesting view, in that the September 2001 edition states – “Only a small proportion of the aircraft listed in the Register are flown or airworthy and these are clearly marked”

The NAHR does however take into account the standard of care the airframe (artefact) receives as part of its point’s allocation that is used to achieve its listing status.

IMHO they should be considered artefacts, whatever their condition or modification as that forms part of its history!

Purely for illustration and with the greatest of respect, IMO there are only two Shackletons that can be even remotely considered to be artifacts, WG511 at Helston and WR960 at Manchester. Both of these items are very close to how they left service, and (as far as I’m aware) have not been restored or vital items removed, swapped, or added, they have also beneffited from being kept indoors since retirement.
WR963, along with most other surviving Shacks in the UK are preserved, and in some cases restored, historical items and it really dosen’t matter if people want to operate or fly them, as changing parts etc dosen’t affect what they are.

I would love to see an S6B or the an original Vimy fly, but it would be completey wrong for the Science Museum to attempt to make them airworthy.

Possibly what is needed here is knowing what the museum considers to be artifacts, seperate to preserved items.

Because the definition makes a separation it does not necessarily mean that the flying exhibit would receive less care, only that that care will over time change the object over time from its original state. Therefore it ceases to be an original artefact.

While it is still doing the job it was designed for (flying) the state of the aircraft is still “original”. Only when it ceases to have purpose, and pieces are changed for no reason could it not be an original artifact.

That’s why (although my personal taste is different) Nashio is right regarding our Shackleton, WR963. It should be an AEW.2, as that is its original condition. If we were conserving it as an artifact, that is the state it shoyuld be in.

As we’re trying to return it to life, we just leave it under preservation, and the original condition can be conveniently ignored.

Having read the proposal a number of times, I think there is a missinterpretation of whats being suggested here.
Within a museum context an ‘artifact’ is any item in the collection which is ‘inert’ or otherwise static. As such there are guidelines and proceedures as to how the object is handled and treated from a conservation and preservation perspective, ie originality, making any repairs ‘noticable’ so that they can be distinguished as a change to the object etc. These apply regardless of it being an aircraft, an flint arrow head or a piece of medieval armour ( as examples)
Clearly some of these are incompatable with the safe operation of a working aircraft and if its flying then the relevant maintenance and flight safety rules overide these. By classifying the aircraft as not an artifact, but governed by maintenance proceedures etc, it sets them out a seperate from but still included within a museum enviroment.

Whilst not wishing to provoke a seperate often trailed debate, from a ‘museum artifact’ perspective many flying spitfires fail from an originality or worth as a referance source since so much of it is ‘new build’ and hence cannot be used by researchers looking for authentic reference material. They do however obviuosly still have a significance and worth from a public access perspective and are still worthwhile exhibits in their own right, falling into the second category of the proposed policy.

I would agree with that interpretation, simply because in museum speak an artefact is something in its original condition or at the least in the condition it was when it was acquired.

A flying example needs to be maintained in the condition necessary to meet current regulations which will over time change and therefore require certain changes to be made to the as acquired original. Because the definition makes a separation it does not necessarily mean that the flying exhibit would receive less care, only that that care will be both of a different type to simple conservation, and over time change the object from its original state.

Therefore it ceases to be an original artefact – but then depending on the type and rarity of the aircraft or artefact a museum should necessarily decide whether the aircraft or artefact should be risked in operation. We shudder at the loss of a Spitfire, however there are many total rebuilds available but if the sole remaining Defiant was returned to flight and was destroyed in an accident the loss would in historic terms be far greater.

To me, I would define an aircraft as an artifact once it ceases to be operated… when its condition is stable and no longer likely to change. Up until that point you can’t decide what state it is going to be preserved, as the nature of operation will mean the inevitable replacement of parts.

Preservation is different as it covers all scenarios… the flying, the ground running and the static. As a result, I can’t agree with Pagen when he suggests the best way of preservation isn’t flying the aircraft. Preservation is keeping something from becoming lost, which can apply whether you do this by keeping it active or pullng a lost example out of a swamp..

Conservation would be more accurate a description for the suggestions made; to stop new skins, new parts, etc. changing the condition of the aircraft.

Regards,

Ric

To fly requires materials and systems to be to modern standards and thus the aircraft requires certain modification in order to meet these standards. How often have we discussed ‘fire wall’ rebuilds or the loss of original material in the pursuit of airworthyness.
As has already been mentioned the museum world has its own set of rules and items have to be fitted into the right category in order for the academics to understand what is original, repaired or fake.

I agree with your sentiments B2, but surely keeping them flying isn’t THE best way to preserve aircraft? It brings on wear and tear, replacement of original parts, the risk of accident damage, and in the very worst case scenerio, loss of a significant airframe.

In the cold light of day an artifact is usually something very historic that should be preserved exactly how it is, the truth is that flying or operating something will inevitably change something about it, ie instruments, skinning, brakes etc.
Where the line needs to be drawn is what the museum considers to be an artifact that needs the utmost preservation as it is and shouldn’t fly/operate, and what is of historical interest and can be operated without causing major changes to its historical relevance.
Where the line blurs a bit is that most statics have had major restorations done on them which will include much new materials.

Of course all the museum exhibits (flying, static, artifact) should be treated with the same amount of consideration as each other.

Having read the proposal a number of times, I think there is a missinterpretation of whats being suggested here.
Within a museum context an ‘artifact’ is any item in the collection which is ‘inert’ or otherwise static. As such there are guidelines and proceedures as to how the object is handled and treated from a conservation and preservation perspective, ie originality, making any repairs ‘noticable’ so that they can be distinguished as a change to the object etc. These apply regardless of it being an aircraft, an flint arrow head or a piece of medieval armour ( as examples)
Clearly some of these are incompatable with the safe operation of a working aircraft and if its flying then the relevant maintenance and flight safety rules overide these. By classifying the aircraft as not an artifact, but governed by maintenance proceedures etc, it sets them out a seperate from but still included within a museum enviroment.

Whilst not wishing to provoke a seperate often trailed debate, from a ‘museum artifact’ perspective many flying spitfires fail from an originality or worth as a referance source since so much of it is ‘new build’ and hence cannot be used by researchers looking for authentic reference material. They do however obviuosly still have a significance and worth from a public access perspective and are still worthwhile exhibits in their own right, falling into the second category of the proposed policy.

Obviously the best way to keep these machines preserved is to be able to fly them, have them do what they were built for. But that’d be in an ideal world, which we are far from. Also some, such as the prototype mossie for example, are perhaps too historically significant to ever consider flying.
If it’s a historic aircraft, living in a museum, then it’s worthy of whatever preservation, restoration and general maintenance it requires. Be it a flyer, taxiable, static, cockpit section, or even a wreck sat in store waiting for it’s turn, to me it’s an artefact. And the museum has a duty of care towards it.

I’m with both you and Bruce; NAM’s Hangar 2 project that was built with a £453,000 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund, plus volunteer fund raising efforts clearly recognises aircraft as artefacts – and important ones at that.

I appreciate that NAM’s aircraft are not fliers but sadly there is a general negative attitude towards aviation, which makes it something that many ‘traditional museum sector individuals’ sometime struggle to grasp!