Midland Air Museum January 12

After seeing the various opinions expressed in this thread, I have modified my position – the P.111A is “a star” at MAM, which in all respects a marvellous collection, and I no longer think, for that reason, that it should move to Cosford to be among its contemporaries. However it does deserve to at least go under cover for its own long-term preservation. Thank you all for your interesting comments, which I for one hope will lead to a better future for this wonderful aircraft.

Keep it at MAM, but it would be even better if the Boulton Paul P111a were inside. That way people would definitely have to pay to see it rather than using the traditional “spotting technique” of looking through or over the fence!

The Boulton Paul is a rare aircraft that we have on our site and if it means customers coming in and paying to see the airframe, which in turn funds us and keeps us going, would you still wish it went to Cosford?

Think about it![/QUOTE]

Whilst I don’t want to cause offence on my first post on this site, the “correct” place for this airframe seems to me to be the Boulton Paul museum at the BPA factory.

Robmac – You wouldn’t need very big jacks to lift her -standard RAF four leg ones which stand at about four feet would do. Alternatively I know a guy who deals with air bags which are used to recover crashed aircraft . As for bomb trolleys – they are about ! Just trying to picture where I have seen one derelict!

Your idea is a good one David. The only way we can move the BP is by going round the back of the Argosy and to do that we need to remove the fencing and the Airport security don’t like us doing that! I wonder why?

Jacking it up and putting it on a bomb trolley would work the only problem is all of the aircraft jacks we have are un-servicable apart from one so it proves a bit difficult. Do you know anyone that could loan and deliver some to us………..oh, and a bomb trolley as well! :rolleyes:

One of the T-33’s is undercover . The other is on loan from the RAFM . I should imagine that the BP.111A is definately in the significant category because it’s the only one! Other factors come in with things like the relevance to the area and how it’s kept. As for your notes Rob – I would advocate the use of a bomb trolley in the case of the BP.111A as your facing an aircraft with a nose leg which has damage. Simply put jack the aircraft up and place fuselage formers on the trolley so it can be lowered onto it. A very similar procedure to how we used to transport Harrier fuselages to Belize with the wings on a stand in the back of a Hercules .However in the case of the BP-111A the wings stay on! I am sure if the museum sets a date to move her inside there would be plenty of those who feel strongly about her ready to lend a hand .

A few years ago BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] surveyed all the aircraft in UK air museums and produced the National Aviation Heritage Register. This categorised aircraft as National Benchmark, Significant and Noteworthy. What is the status of the Boulton Paul P111a and T33 at the Midland Air Museum? Could this be used to help justify funding for under cover aircraft accommodation?

Nice piccies and a very nice collection indeed.

interesting that people always manage to find something negative though. Im sure MAM dont need lectures about rarity of airframes, they will be well aware, and doing their best to address.

MJR

Thanks, Anna, I shall return . . . in the summer; frozen solid at the moment!
(will PM you later, busy right now)

Nice shot’s Peter, seems like you had a great time 😉 Anna

Well it’s pretty obvious that we all have our own opinions regarding the BP 111 but it still remains outside. Perhaps I may of said some words about people I shouldn’t have and I apolagise. I feel strongly about the museum and it’s aircraft and we all work had to keep things running smoothly. It’s just annoying hearing people try to dictate how we should do things at the museum. If it concearns you that much, get off you backsides and come up and help us!!

Using a crane is ok for an aircaft move but we can’t just go and order one. We need to weigh up costs and come up with a plan of movement which takes time, plus also, theirs the small item that needs to be brought to attention regarding the airport. We used a High-ab on the back of an artic wagon to move and lift the Harrier when we aquired her and the airport had a dicky fit at the height it was………30feet!!!

The Boulton Paul P111a is being cared for just the same as all the aircraft at the museum. I can assure you it will continue that way and just to say that hopefully she will be inside very soon!!

Les – if you read my post ’33’ – in conversation with the museum management for the FlyPast article I was told that space was available for her in the Robin. Of course new aircraft become available but my opinion is that you need to stick with what you have first. Discussion on how she could be moved is perfectly valid as plenty of people have cited the reasons for how she cannot be moved . I don’t realistically see that money is a big issue. As for a crane – yes indeed one way of doing it but height is often a problem with small hangars.

No volunteer museum, including the one that I spend far too much time at has ever made all the right decisions. You do the best you can with the information you have available at the time. It is wrong to cast blame on those who have gone before, as you dont know what the reasoning was at the time. We all do our best to make the right decisions at the time.

As and when the MAM have a plan to get the BP111 under cover, they will have my full support. I will be happy to offer assistance, and if there is a good case, money.

I must come and visit – March I think!

Bruce

I sorta liked Meteor NF14 WS838 in yellow…was the new camo scheme representing an earlier part of WS838 career?

Does the Sabre have an engine?

As for your comments Les – the BP can be moved -.

Fully understand that, don’t think we need to get into moving detail here. But yes I know it is possible to move it, a TallBoy crane hired for the day would also do the job. However, the method and timing of any move are, in my view, the responsibility of MAM. I suspect, such an event would be conditional on funds and available space.

that MAM’s amateur effort back in 1973 saved her to begin with. I am passionate about the type and those who appreciate Britain’s delta aircraft should note her part in it all.

It’s my view that if those early “enthusiasts” at MAM had not managed to get the BP away from Cranfield it would not be on public display today. It would, no doubt, be subject to one of this forum’s Scrapyard threads with people exclaiming loudly when bits of it were uncovered under other scrap. As a country we do not appreciate enough our past in terms of aircraft history.

So, on reflection it was maybe a tad churlish of me to write what I did. But this, and other airframes, have been the subject of many words over many years by many people, and yet . . . the state of most of those airframes remains the same. Must be a reason for that. Maybe it’s space, maybe it’s money, but I somehow doubt it’s complacency.

.

Yeah there is a big collection down at Midland air museum, I went myself in August 2004, but really need to get back there to see the stuff that has arrived since that date.

Hi Andrewman, don’t ask me, I live in Sweden and this was a one-day photo visit only! I am sure other thread posters here know the answer, though! My photos did not show the whole collection, by the way, which consists I believe of a total of 57 aircraft, all of which are well worth seeing!

Nice photo’s Papa Liam, are there any plans to add more planes to the collection in 2006 ?

Robmac,

Not wanting to get into an argument but as one of the “enthusiasts” who put the “T-33 commonstar” in the MAM hangar I thought I should respond.

The said hangar is called “The Sir Frank Whittle Jet Heritage Centre” (SFWJHC).

By the time the Museum had relocated (across 100% grass) to it’s present site and funding had been secured for the hangar the Museum was already a Limited Company and a Registered Charity – done by (partially) the same “enthusiasts” that had started the Midland APS in 1967 and achieved all the other things (and more) Jagx204 mentions.

When the SFWJHC was being designed/planned the Museum’s Trustees (at that time) discussed long and hard about what should be inside. The main consideration was that the building was funded as a permanant tribute to Sir Frank Whittle who was born in Coventry and grew up, was educated and carried out most of his research/development in the Midlands area. The building was also to provide an entrance/shop/cafe area and have space for an office and small library.

The T-33 was chosen to represent the entry of the United States into jet aviation (using freely supplied Whittle technology) and was a peer of the Meteor, Vampire and J.29. It was intended to replace it with a replica F-80 Shooting Star de-engineered from a T-33 and, indeed, a second T-33 was acquired for that purpose. It was also no accident that the MAM has such a large number of U.S. jet airplanes.

I too am a huge fan of the BP.111 and it has a deserved place at MAM for several reasons. The delta wing is tied in almost inextricably (right spelling?) with the jet engine and the Museum has a number of delta wing jets in it’s collection that the BP.111’s relationship to should be exploited. The aircraft was built in the Midlands. Last, but not least, us “enthusiasts” found the means to move it from Cranfield in 1975 when, it seemed, no-one else could.

Yes, the Museum was run by “enthusiasts” but they were the elected Board of Trustees. That Board still exists, it may be different but it is not seperate, simply an evolution of an earlier body of people.

Roger Smith.

From a personal point of view, I believe we collectively ‘dropped the ball’ on the BP111a during the development of the museum. We missed the opportunity when we opened the Main hangar – although at the time the logic for the choice of what went inside seemed sensible with what we were trying to achieve (the story of the Jet Engine, the T-33 representing the P-80, the USA’s first true jet aircraft).
Then again when we constructed the Robin hangar – indeed we should have included it as part of the rationale for putting that building up, we may have got some funding for it then, rather than funding the building from Museum Funds.
I’ve discussed the airframe since then many times with the current Chairman and believe the Museum is fully aware of the current situation and concerns, indeed I believe if it had not been for the ‘Undercarriage incident’ it would have been undercover by now.

Mark Ray