Let's be really radical…..

I think this thread highlights the Battle within all heritage movements…

Those that have said there is no right answer are correct, but

Museums, particularly aviation museums have a tough job.

The artifacts are large, the history extensive and the costs high.

In a perfect world we would have our National museums taking the task of telling the full aviation history of each country in broad brush strokes and the regional museums providing the detail within their area.

Mind you in a perfect world we would have the funding to do it.

It is interesting to open another can of worms with the restore or conserve discussion…another passionate debate.

But until we live in a perfect world we must make compromises. England is very fortunate to have a federal goverment that at least takes heritage seriously and provides a modicum of funding to make it work.

Others such as ourselves dork in a atmosphere that provides next to no assistance.

It is my personal belief that Aviation museums need to work together more, regionally, nationally and internationally to create excitment in the young folks to fire the interest that leads to the addication and passion for aviation.

If we do not…we will cease to be.

Tom H

The RAFM Hendon Hurricane wreck for example. That single aircraft relic captured my imagination as a kid in the 70’s. It was found in sand dunes where it had crashed in Essex, and is now displayed to reflect this. If everything was fully restored and perfect, would there still be as much interest from “us” to work at bringing this stuff back to life?

Just to say you are not alone. I can remember the first time I saw that display I stood there, looking at it and thinking of life and death in wartime for an hour or more. Gripped me more than all the complete aircraft together.

Moggy

Not an impressive house -she just sits on the patio thats all! .

So the Dove’s still there then……:diablo:

I think the discussion here shows both sides of a black and white take on preservation when really we only have shades of grey. A lot of comments here have shown why we have duplicate airframes around the country and have produced very valid reasons for doing so. It may be that a lack of a rigid collection policy has meant that we may have to turn down that once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire something great but to be fair – would your organisation be there if it hadn’t. We sometimes forget that to keep the money coming in compromises have to be made.

If I look outside my kitchen window I can see a Chipmunk pax which in better days flew from Usworth

David – do you have some interesting garden ornaments or an impressively located house..!!!

I didn’t mean to give the impression that a museum should grap anything which comes its way – certainly for us the only aircraft to have been aquired in the last ten years was the DH Dove – and I personally think that was down to personallity problems, grudges, and bad decisions. Already this aircraft is giving us a headache. If the management had not bought it so quickly, put aside their personal feelings, and thought rationally, then perhaps we would have been better off buying a storage container for our spares and parts rather than an airframe which we have no room for! I certainly agree that a deeper thought process must go into aquisitions, disposals and allocation of funds. By the way – thats my personal opinion!!! Just before the boss starts ranting!

Our problems are many, and if we keep the airframes which the public like seeing because they know what they are, then perhaps it will allow us to restore and preserve the rareties which enthusiasts come to see. I still don’t like the idea of culling the replicated airframes though….

Lindy – the ‘impracticability’ is dependent on how far you look ! If I look outside my kitchen window I can see a Chipmunk pax which in better days flew from Usworth . Similarily there are other chances that can be grabbed – a few years ago I thought it would be impossible to bring a DHC Otter back from Antartica – as it turned out it was easy because we asked the right people nicely!
Anything is possible – I do know one U.K museum where an F-86D would be entirely appropriate and it’s not Duxford – it’s just about making the right connections!

Lindyslad

I understand the feeling that a museum needs to take every acquisition, but we must learn to allocate our resources to the story we are telling within history.

In the past year we have turned down 11 acquisitions
– 5 because we have run out of room
– 6 because they did not fit our mandate

In each and evrey case we do our best to find an appropriate home for the aircraft, but we must b realistic

If we use up room and resources on a type that is not within our collections policy and acquisition list we may have to turn away one that is important.

We have to make tough decisions!

Tom H

I agree with Misha (but I am biased of course). Quality should be before quantity. However, many collections have been passed down so that the current crop of managers and volunteers may have had nothing to do with the original collecting policy if there even was one, so many of us have common / replicated aircraft and the odd gem hidden away.

There can’t be too many museums who are soley dedicated to a particular cause 100%. I’m sure that even at the Mosquito Aircraft Museum (sorry for name dropping Bruce) they have one or two exhibits which have nothing to do with Salisbury Hall, or DeHavilland hidden somewhere…. Despite them having a very clear policy on what they collect now…

Some aircraft are at their locations purely because the private owner wishes them to be displayed near to where they are. It must be difficult for any museum to refuse what could be a prize exhibit even though it is outside of their collecting policy.

Lets take this example – If I was to offer our F86D for disposal (I’m not, so don’t get excited!) how many museums would jump at the chance to get a rare airframe under their roof? Would the F86D fit with anyones policy save for the American Air Force part of Duxford? What about the Pucara – does it have a place in a British Museum?

If we solely directed our aquisitions to aircraft which had a link to Usworth, we would not have any aircraft at all. We would need Hurricane, Wapity, Spitfire, Dakota, Chipmunk, RE8, Anson… and other such examples. Gone would be the majority of the collection. We have a chipmunk which is loaned out….

If we decided to include the Sqn aircraft in that collection, we would be able to keep a Vampire.

Location links — well, has anyone got a Sunderland they don’t want?…

Interesting conjecture for sure. Impractical in reallity.

Re NEAM F86D. And im playing devils advocate here as Im on your side Lindys Lad & Misha. How does that fit in with NEAM’s local connections or (excuse my ignorance to NEAM) their collecting policy? If you base the future of that airframe on the afore mentioned questions asked by some on the forum, that aircraft should either be moved to another museum or scrapped as been surplus to requirements. But to NEAM that is a gem and who on earth are we to say to that museum should give that airframe up?

I’m presuming (as I wasn’t around then but others who post on here were…) that the F86D came about despite an early collection policy and the opportunity presented itself. I think that there is an element of good fortune here in that it is attractive to the enthusiast but also to the general public as it was part of an aerobatic team (admittedly one most people were unaware of!) Again I would argue it attracts people in to the museum and so really do we need to slavishly adhere to collection policies all the time??

I am not convinced of the ‘draw’ that a particular airframe has at ANY museum, to the general public. The general public make up 95% of our visitor numbers, and it is they who vote with their feet, and decide which particular area of the heritage sector they wish to patronise. As many of them wont know a Vulcan from a Spitfire (slight exaggeration), I really feel that it is the quality of the exhibits that is the most important.

Absolutely agree with the quality angle – the difference that can be made by simply painting an exhibit can be huge. A good PR push can help the particular draw of any aircraft – even more so if it is one people are vaguely aware of. It all helps to meet the aim of educating people as well.

Another interesting point that should be brought to the discussion

History is not made by machines or technology…it is made by the people involved.

Often I feel that we spend far too much time and effort on the hardware and forget the people.

Our focus over the next few years is story of the people of our specific aviation history.

I think in many cases with museums we need to remember these points.

Tom H

Museum collecting policy

Forgive me if I am wrong but back in the day that we are all referring to and I am looking 15 to 20 years ago, smaller museums didnt really have much in the way of collecting policies and also back then airframes were being disposed of and picked up without much regard to the long term future. Kev, I think you are right that we are now entering an important stage of airframe preservation,scrapping as the number of airframes needing attention outstrip most museums number of volunteers able to work on the aircraft. Hopefully IF we lose any aircraft to the scrappers in the near future, the aircraft can donate as many parts to other groups as possible like what is happening to the woodford vulcan!

…..I will try to get you a copy of the NAHR edition 2; please send me a PM with your address and I will get you a copy in early August when I return form holiday……

Kev35 – notwithstanding TwinOtter’s offer, if the Museum/Group that you volunteer at is a member of BAPC they should have a copy of the NAHR which [I]should[I] be available to it’s members.

Roger Smith.

Kev also kindly mentions MAM as having duplicate T33’s two airframes that were taken on by previous boards of the museum. Im afraid I wasnt around then so am unable to exxplain the decision there.

We also have duplicate Hunters. Looking at the Hunters one is a genuine RAF one and the other an ex Danish one. We dont own the ex RAF Hunter its on loan from the USAF. What happens if the USAF suddenly changes its museum loan policy and takes her back? we are left with a pretty important airframe type missing in our collection. So yes it may not be ideal but it ensures we will not be left without an important aircraft type. And anyway weren’t some Danish Hunters converted ex RAF ones anyway? Maybe wrong on that.

As someone involved in the acquisition of both of these pairs of aircraft at MAM I will relate how the duplications came about.

The T-33 in the Sir Frank Whittle hangar was one of the trio (T-33, Mystere and F-100) acquired on loan from/courtesy of the USAF/USAFMuseum. They were, perhaps, acquired before a “collecting policy” was established but, anyway, fell into the ‘Story Of The Jet’ criteria once the Museum’s policy was drawn up. For most of the museums/collections acquiring them at the same time they either kick-started a new collection or gave a welcome boost to a small/young collection – often providing increased local public interest and additional working volunteers. They also started/provided an era of cooperation between the groups involved in dismantling and removing the aircraft from (remote) RAF Sculthorpe.

I, personally, had a dream that the Sir Frank Whittle/Story Of The Jet would, eventually, exhibit an example of a first generation jet aircraft from each of the major aircraft producing nations – Meteor/Vampire, Me 262(!), Ouragon, MiG 15, P-80 and most of these were on the ‘acquisition’s list’. The T-33 has stood in to represent a P-80 to accompany the Meteor F.4, Vampire F.1 and SAAB J.29 in the Whittle hangar. There was a plan to ‘de-convert’ a T-33 into a P-80 with the hope that engineering work (to shorten the fuselage) would be carried out by an educational establishment. THAT is why the second T-33 was acquired.

The ex-Danish Hunter F.51 was acquired (£10 from Hawker Siddeley) again, probably, prior to a “collecting policy”. Many Hunters were produced at AWA, a few hundred yards from the Museum, by local people and the F.6a was a, later, ‘targetted’ acquisition. Again acquired via a USAFMuseum loan it joined the Museum’s growing collection of locally-built aircraft. This created a duplication and the F.51 became surplus to requirements and was then kept as a future exchange item.

Hope this goes some way to explain.

Roger Smith.

Mark12

Nice tail-less spit design…. not sure if it will catch on though? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, if I could go and see the rotten remains of a DH Hornet in a UK museum, I would really appreciate it for what it is (was).

The RAFM Hendon hurricane wreck for example. That single aircraft relic captured my imagination as a kid in the 70’s. It was found in sand dunes where it had crashed in Essex, and is now displayed to reflect this. If everything was fully restored and perfect, would there still be as much interest from “us” to work at bringing this stuff back to life?

Mark12 is right… there is room for both.

As I am of the view that you can rebuild anything if you throw enough money and engineering at it, and notwithstanding the ‘family silver’ aircraft, am I alone in finding derelict and degrading aircraft scattered around the world both fascinating and photogenic?

I would settle for a corroded Danish Hunter outside in the right light, even graffiti spattered, than a pristine example hanging from a museum ceiling any day.

…there is room for both. 🙂

Mark

TwinOtter23.

Firstly, let me apologise for ruffling your feathers as it were. I can’t deny that getting 14 aircraft put under cover is something of an achievement. I’d like to know more about the NAHR please. You say it is an important document the concept of which has been copied by other Heritage sectors. Would it not therefore be a wise move to make this document more accessible to people who have an interest? Let people know how the criteria are formed and by whom? Or is it that the NAHR is sort of exclusive to the BAPC? If I’m understanding you correctly, it seems that this document could form the basis of a National agreement which would then allow the BAPC et al to target funding at those airframes most at risk according to their importance to the Heritage movement.

Kev,

You haven’t ruffled my feathers; you were merely expressing your opinions based on the information that you have available, but as I hope that you will appreciate I know that the NAHR can work.

The NAHR information [in italics] that I posted in #18 was actually cut and pasted from the HLF application document that was submitted. The NAHR edition 2 was also used to decide, which aircraft went inside for that project i.e. choosing at that time to include a Varsity rather than Vulcan, Shackleton or Hastings. When the bid was submitted the rationale was that there were no Varsities under cover, whilst there were with the other three types mentioned.

There is more detail in the document about assessment criteria etc and I certainly agree that it should be more widely available and perhaps even refined to allow the document to be used more widely. At the present time that will need to be resolved via BAPC. I understood that there were plans to include a PDF version on the new BAPC website – so far this has not happened.

I will try to get you a copy of the NAHR edition 2; please send me a PM with your address and I will get you a copy in early August when I return form holiday.

I believe that the other sectors using the format are railways [carriages] and boats.

One slightly unrelated point – if you are volunteering with a BAPC organisation you can also participate in training via the following scheme the National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative – http://www.nahsi.org.uk

TwinOtter

Much to comment upon so apologies if I miss anyone or anything out. Question is, where do I start? I should also say that I am not out to denigrate anyone’s efforts, just trying to come to a point where I can understand why things are the way they are. So, here goes…..

TwinOtter23.

Firstly, let me apologise for ruffling your feathers as it were. I can’t deny that getting 14 aircraft put under cover is something of an achievement. I’d like to know more about the NAHR please. You say it is an important document the concept of which has been copied by other Heritage sectors. Would it not therefore be a wise move to make this document more accessible to people who have an interest? Let people know how the criteria are formed and by whom? Or is it that the NAHR is sort of exclusive to the BAPC? If I’m understanding you correctly, it seems that this document could form the basis of a National agreement which would then allow the BAPC et al to target funding at those airframes most at risk according to their importance to the Heritage movement.

Who next? Lindy’s Lad I think.

I’ll apologise to you too, I’m big enough. I have absolutely no doubt about your passion, commitment and desire to improve the situation at NEAM. None whatsoever and I can only wish you continued success. However, that still doesn’t alter my opinion re duplication of airframes. In your case we’ll take the Vulcan. I don’t know how much is needed, and by your own admission neither do you, to bring the Vulcan to the best possible condition you can manage and to get it under cover. All I’m suggesting is that isn’t it conceivable that the money might be spent more profitably on enhancing those airframes with a truly local connection or doing something magnificent with the F86D and the F84 et al? I wouldn’t travel to Sunderland to look at ‘another’ Vulcan but I would and someday will come to see the F86D and F84.

Badger.

Tried three times to volunteer and was told over the years that it was ‘inconvenient’, that I had no qualifications or experience to offer and the last time that volunteers were no longer required. Alas, my heart now belongs to another, somewhere where my enthusiasm was considered to be far more important than my inexperience.

dcollins 103.

I take your point in the difference between Vampire trainers and single seaters. The point I’m trying to make, however clumsily, is that wouldn’t it be better to have some kind of rationalisation now where we preserve a few airframes well rather than a lot of airframes badly, if at all?

Bruce.

Thanks for the comment.

I take the point to an extent about duplication being a necessity due to geographical location. However, what about duplication within a collection or within the same local geographical area?

I suppose what I’m getting at is, is trying to find some form of National framework by which we can reduce excessive duplication where specific examples are bound to fall into disrepair and eventually face the axeman’s torch. A National framework that could reward X Collection by having one of their Hunters stripped and scrapped and rewarding them by offering financial or practical help to get their aircraft under cover, or, to at least help ensure that adequate resources are allocated to ensure the safety of an airframe until such time as it can be covered.

Putting it in another way, a triage system as used on the battlefield. This airframes is fine, that one is in need of instant support and that one over there is beyond redemption. Rather than seeing the neck end of 50 Hunters lying derelict, wouldn’t it be better to see ten in pristine condition and safe at least for the foreseeable future?

Idealistic? Maybe. Simplistic? Undoubtedly, I am a simple man. However, I’m sure there are brains out there within the Preservation Movement who could pull something like this off.

Was going to say just my 2p’s worth, but on reflection it looks like at least a couple of quid there.

Regards,

kev35

Interesting debate.

Just to expand on one point though close to my heart though….

You are correct in saying that there are “plenty of Vampires” in the UK in museums, but we are only talking about the trainer variants. However, if you just look at the condition of the woodwork on many of them, especially if these are kept outside, they won’t be around much longer. Fortunately many of this type are in good hands, so the T.11’s future in many cases loos rosy.

If a slightly broader look is taken to include ex-RAF/RN single seat vampires and venoms the picture is much gloomier. Just how many ex-RAF fully preserved and painted single seat vampires can you actually see in uk museums?….. 2. Considering this was 50% of fighter command for a number of years, paired with the Meteor, this is a pitiful amount. Also, the FAAM has the only Sea Vampire F.20 in existence.

There are no complete ex-RAF single seat venoms fully preserved and painted in uk museums yet. Considering this type was the backbone of Nato’s ground attack force in RAF Germany, this is another current gap in the national collection.

Display standard complete single seat vampires on show in uk museums:
F.3 Hendon
F.1 Coventry
(Cosford has a Vampire FB.5 in store, but I have never seen it on display.)
(Bournmouth airport has an FB.9 in bits, ex-St.Athan, but this has not been on display since the 1980’s)
(NEAM have an FB.5, but this has not been fully assembled since it was sold in the early 90’s)
(I have a Vampire FB.5 cockpit in poor condition, in store)

Display standard complete single seat venoms on show in uk museums:
FB.1 = 0
FB.4 = 0
(Mosquito Museum has a dismantled FB.4, ex Hong Kong, but this needs a lot of restoration work.
(Aeroventure have a cockpit of an FB.1)

Maybe because of the woodwork involved, the single seat vampires and venoms have not faired well in numbers compared to it’s contemporary; the Meteor.

This is a very important debate, and one which will play out over the next 10-15 years. Kev, you are absolutely right to bring it up.

The first point to make is that it is absolutely correct that there is a huge amount of duplication within the preservation movement, but much of it takes place outside of county and area boundaries, making some of that duplication not just useful, but necessary. That said, when it comes to the point of losing an aircraft from a collection, it is useful to know that there are other, better ones elsewhere to represent the type. Whilst aircraft continue to be ‘preserved’ outdoors, it is inevitable that some form of cull will take place eventually.

It is unfair to single out any particular museum. Most of us in the volunteer sector have or have had our problems. Some are recognising them now – the NEAM thread is a good example of this; some have gone through the pain barrier (Midland Air Museum, Newark, and ourselves are good examples), and some have ceased to exist (Hemswell, Wales Aircraft Museum). It is a failing that in the early days of the movement, the onus was to preserve as much as possible, without thinking too far into the future. Thats why the loaned T-33’s, Mysteres and F-100’s were such a draw. Vampires from HSA for £1? Thanks very much, we’ll take two. Later, Canberras for a tenner, and the mighty Vulcan for £5K all played their part.

I am not convinced of the ‘draw’ that a particular airframe has at ANY museum, to the general public. The general public make up 95% of our visitor numbers, and it is they who vote with their feet, and decide which particular area of the heritage sector they wish to patronise. As many of them wont know a Vulcan from a Spitfire (slight exaggeration), I really feel that it is the quality of the exhibits that is the most important.

I strongly feel that in the next 10-15 years, there will be a contraction in the number of airframes preserved, not just by volunteer organisations, but by the nationals as well. Corrosion and lack of maintenance are taking their toll, and some are already close to the point of no return. Looking back at the Cardington thread, where it is stated that the buildings require £5m of funding to repair, and will then have a value no more than £2.5m, it is easy to draw parallels with the aircraft in our collections. But what price Heritage?…

We are still one of the youngest parts of the heritage sector, and have much to learn. Time will tell how we cope!

Bruce

Very interesting points Tom ! – Regards my points – in the last year one ex RAF Hunter has become a diving curiousity with another at the same site looking to have the same future. This isn’t a case of having a massive cull -purely one of museums having a realistic view of what they have and looking at ways to enhance their collections through either trades or exchanges.
Regards your points Phixer – the Swift is a good example of an aircraft under risk. I have been involved in attempts in the past to get her preserved. The problem isn’t really the money – it’s the uncertainty if that actually is the deal on the day. As for putting funding into her – it’s entirely up to the museum in question if they can justify her. However the museum I was acting on behalf had a clear collecting policy where a Swift would have fitted in – they now have a Swift F.7. I would say in all this that it requires determination and lots of money to take something on like the Swift.
However if you could justify something like her in your collecting policy why not ! Your notes on the Hunter were interesting. From memory these were funded under the MAP program . This uncertainty meant that the Norfolk& Suffolk example took a while to arrive after an aborted auction.
It does put it into perspective one of the problems of loan aircraft – I would however suggest if she is maintained well that she will never leave MAM. The problem aircraft are the Mysteres and F-100’s that are not maintained well – those to a large degree have already been dispatched to the smelter.