IWM Lancaster comes out in the sun..but not for long

there are 8 in canada FM159,FM136,FM212,FM213,FM104,KB944,KB882,KB839,currently 3 are displayed outside(KB839,882,136), one airworthy(FM213),one ground runnable(FM159),3 active restorations(159,104,212) 2 of which may be to runnable condition(212,104) with another restoration to start soon(882)

Bruce ,what in effect I am saying is tha certain A/C that have benchmark status ,or else are held up as “definative restorations” ,should be just that; to be either of the former they should have all systems fitted and restored, exhaust stacks nailed to a piece of wood and the prop hung on a piece of tube attached to the fire wall, will not, in my opinion do; is this (in the case of the big nationals) a questiion of money or availability, or as much to do with the fact that no one will ever see inside , therefore it doesn’t matter whats in there. There are many A/C around the country / world that are either stripped out in the cockpit or engine dept, you do the best you can with time and money available, but you don’t try and pull the wool over the eyes of the visitors. Its when these restorations are held up to be the very pinnicle of their type by their owners or else other interested parties, that the problems arise. Take the Supermarine s6 as an example, the exploits and achievements of this legendary A/C are equally atributable to the airframe and the engine; when you see the airframe with a big empty hole where the engine sat, you cannot believe what a disappointment that was to me ,to be face to face with a real legend, and yet not; I always thought that museums should be time capsules preserving exhibits in a way that would capture the imagination, the thought that they are almost ready to go ; how would you feel if the steam train Mallard was just the steamlining cladding with no boiler or motion (other than that which could be seen) held together with angle iron? and then you would read about what a labour intensive restoration had been carried out…

can anyone tell me how many lancs there are in the world where they are and what state they are in?

whats stopping the IWM from making more of its own exhibits. Four engines turning on the HP Hastings , or a ground run from the Oxford would be good places to start.

This has been addressed in several recent threads. It’s a question of responsibilities and standards as they pertain to a museum rather than a collection.

After all once the Airspeed Oxford is suspended in the new Air Space building its roll as an educational research subject is going to be somewhat negated.

For the enthusiast, I agree that it’s a loss. For the wider visiting public, far less so, and in terms of an educational “roll”, it is far from negated. It will be quite possible to interpret for the visitor the aircraft’s historical role, service history, unique technology etc, without people clambering inside or seeing the props turn. This will require more than the old “name rank number” style caption boards, but more sophisticated information and media are on the way.

If you mean “research subject” as in analysis/study of the individual airframe, what more is there to learn that hasn’t been discovered? If, being honest, the basis of your argument is that you would prefer simply to have a closer look at that particular airframe (which is absolutely fair enough), then you must understand that your needs have to be weighed by IWM against those of all the other visitors, who may not be enthusiasts or experts. It’s a question of cost/difficulty vs benefit.

This all makes me think yet again of something I’ve often recounted on here; I remember in the 1980’s, when at the RAF St.Athan ‘At Home’ day you’d get to see the Me410 being run up in the morning. My God, it was a sight and sound! And now, it sits utterly lifeless at Cosford.

Some aircraft exhibits haven’t flown in many of our lifetimes, but when it’s something like the Me410 that was once ‘live’, or of course poor old Black 6 now lurking sadly in the murk at Hendon, you really realise just how ‘dead’ an aircraft can be. 🙁

Thanks SINE MORA,

The Hastings was perhaps not best aircraft for me to pick!

How about the CASA 2111, Merlin engines, strong Duxford link with both the film Battle of Britain and the original conflict. Plus the aircraft needs a complete rebuild anyway!

Septic

Duxford would be far weaker as an attraction for both the public and enthusiast alike without these groups/individuals, but whats stopping the IWM from making more of its own exhibits. Four engines turning on the HP Hastings , or a ground run from the Oxford would be good places to start , both would become unique features to Duxford without the sole survivor tag. After all once the Airspeed Oxford is suspended in the new Air Space building its roll as an educational research subject is going to be somewhat negated.

Septic.

I’m sure that the museum would love to get all four hercules engines on the Hastings running again, unfortunately they are all seized and the props are pretty knackered (plus all the other relevant systems needing overhaul)so without an enormous injection of cash (priced a sleeve valve radial rebuild lately?) it will remain silent.

GhostRider – I fear that when PA474’s hours are up she will be the end of the line for Lancaster operations in the hands of the RAF. Each year must be a struggle to avoid LEAN and various other initiatives which are decimating the RAF.

[QUOTE=Pete Truman]The IWM don’t have to fly or taxy a/c to produce a living museum, it’s already being done for them by OFMC, TFC, Caroline Grace et al.
QUOTE]

I think you’ll find the name is “Carolyn Grace” and not “Caroline Grace”.

mick

It’s not a question of relying on the private operators; the hangarage arrangement is mutually beneficial, as is the opportunity for collaboration between museum and the various private concerns. The roles are clearly defined, static and active, and IWM are extremely unlikely to go back to doing their own running, for all of the very good reasons already given.

Photoshoots are a different matter (and are provided for Friends); unecessary exhibit movements should be avoided, but this can be more easily rationalised and set against the potential benefit of income.

Duxford would be a very dull place without the private owners, imagine if they did all pull out . Dull as ditch water and just as lifeless.
Mind you, some operators won’t move, they’re onto a good thing and have it all sewn up.

Duxford would be far weaker as an attraction for both the public and enthusiast alike without these groups/individuals, but whats stopping the IWM from making more of its own exhibits. Four engines turning on the HP Hastings , or a ground run from the Oxford would be good places to start , both would become unique features to Duxford without the sole survivor tag. After all once the Airspeed Oxford is suspended in the new Air Space building its roll as an educational research subject is going to be somewhat negated.

Septic.

Fear of the unknown and being proved wrong.

The IWM don’t have to fly or taxy a/c to produce a living museum, it’s already being done for them by OFMC, TFC, Caroline Grace et al.
.

Duxford would be far weaker as an attraction for both the public and enthusiast alike without these groups/individuals, but whats stopping the IWM from making more of its own exhibits. Four engines turning on the HP Hastings , or a ground run from the Oxford would be good places to start , both would become unique features to Duxford without the sole survivor tag. After all once the Airspeed Oxford is suspended in the new Air Space building its roll as an educational research subject is going to be somewhat negated.

Septic.

The point I would like to make regarding the IWM’s policy on its aircraft exhibits is:

Should the museum solely rely on its private Vintage/Warbird operators to keep the site active. I personally don’t think it should, the IWM should occasionally show case its own exhibits, whether it be in the form of a photoday /roll out or an engine run.

It’s not a question of relying on the private operators; the hangarage arrangement is mutually beneficial, as is the opportunity for collaboration between museum and the various private concerns. The roles are clearly defined, static and active, and IWM are extremely unlikely to go back to doing their own running, for all of the very good reasons already given.

Photoshoots are a different matter (and are provided for Friends); unecessary exhibit movements should be avoided, but this can be more easily rationalised and set against the potential benefit of income.

I’ve heard from a few people (far better qualified than I) that museums often prefer an aircraft without engines to help with the weight problems.

Roy.

Hardly Stuart – they are just incomplete! As the number of flying aircraft diminish over the course of the next 50 or so years, IWM will have an opportunity to fit engines to replace those missing now.

As to the museum/fly argument, we should preserve excellent examples of at least two aircraft per type (in case of loss such as Le Bourget), as static only examples. We should also remember that most of the fliers are only so due to the very deep pockets of the owners. I dont see people queuing up to restore a Lanc to fly…..

Bruce

I agree NOT facsimilies!

like the concept of preserving two – Bruce’s de Havilland Ark anyone :diablo:

TT

At some time in the future when 474`s hours are up, would it be possible to do a swap?
BoB`s Lancaster for the IWM`s one?
Steve 🙂

A/C without engines are just facsimile’s .

Hardly Stuart – they are just incomplete! As the number of flying aircraft diminish over the course of the next 50 or so years, IWM will have an opportunity to fit engines to replace those missing now.

As to the museum/fly argument, we should preserve excellent examples of at least two aircraft per type (in case of loss such as Le Bourget), as static only examples. We should also remember that most of the fliers are only so due to the very deep pockets of the owners. I dont see people queuing up to restore a Lanc to fly…..

Bruce

The IWM don’t have to fly or taxy a/c to produce a living museum, it’s already being done for them by OFMC, TFC, Caroline Grace et al.
I have a client nearby and have to pass the airfield regularly to meet him and our site meetings are always interrupted by something flying overhead.
I don’t know how much IWM charge for hangar space for these organisations, but it definately gets them off the hook as far as trying to make something of their own airworthy in order to satisfy everyone, don’t take it the wrong way, I’m not critisising IWM for their magnificent collection and policy towards it, but tanks are a lot easier to run about, churn up the ground and look impressive.

I’m not saying don’t fly any aircraft. I’m saying preserve a few benchmark examples in national collections (and YES – I know several of the “benchmarks” aren’t that original) that won’t be run and the risk to those airframes is minimised – they should effectively survive forever (at least a few hundred years).

What private owners, the BBMF, etc do is irrelevant to this. The point is that there will be a good selection of authentic aircraft that are preserved “forever” in museums – ideally in 1940s condition. Unfortunately for us this means that we don’t see every aircraft in operation, but we do get the good feeling that we’re preserving those that don’t run for posterity 😉

In my opinion whilst in a way it’s a shame that the Lanc isn’t a flyer, it’s good that there are aircraft that are being preserved as statics in museums. Any time a machine is used, it suffers wear, and having an aircraft fuelled has an element of risk involved (however small). We have a responsibility to preserve these objects for future generations. Whereas the Lanc at Duxford will very likely be in much the same condition in 200 years time, I doubt NX611 will still be taxying and PA474 will still be flying, and if they are, I suspect much of the original material will have been replaced.

Eddie,

Don’t you think that could have been exactly the same statement said ooh lets say roughly 60+ years ago?
Just look at how many warbirds there are around the world still flying.
Even some first world war aircraft.

Bomberboy