Museum storage

Jeepman -The example at East Kirkby is really a new build nose inccorporating a lot of original components that came from the RAFM at Cardington (and before Sweden). The Cosford Hampden part was recovered by the WARG based at Cosford. It consisted of more than a front glazing -having a few feet more going back .

It’s a thirty footer, when you enter the hangar and see it from a distance you think where did they get that one from (seen from thirty feet away). Looking closer you would think: hmmm…
I really liked the program though.
Cees

Sadsack, I don’t think it was designed to sit outside in the elements, especially when you watch the programme!

As I recall from the programme, it is a terrible replica – I dont think I would want it in my collection even it was gifted with a few grand to sort it out! Oh, and by that, I dont mean that the people who made the moulds did a bad job; more that the manner of assembling it once at Cosford was not going to create a decent job.

Don’t forget that it was an excercise to see if an ‘Airfix kit’, and its traditional breakdown of parts, could be assembled by youngsters in full size, I don’t think it was really intended to be an accurate replica as such, great project for the kids to be involved with and build up.
I do agree that it must be a useful asset to the museum as families/kids etc will recognise it from the telly for what it is, part of the education and entertainment remit of the museum.

re;

would it not make an ideal gate guard?

Whilst the inevitable repeats of the James May programme continue on Dave, and various other places, there is some logic to keeping the FSM at Cosford. I suspect it is still owned by the production company, who have merely placed it on loan.

As I recall from the programme, it is a terrible replica – I dont think I would want it in my collection even it was gifted with a few grand to sort it out! Oh, and by that, I dont mean that the people who made the moulds did a bad job; more that the manner of assembling it once at Cosford was not going to create a decent job.

Bruce

know you’re not, but absolutely agree.
Would rather see BP collections’ Balliol on display at RAFM, the Overstrand front end, as a rare illustration of pre-war RAF bombers, deserves proper public display as well.
Idealy the museum needs to inherit one of the other C Type sheds and expand.

Will the BP collection workers and volunteers be able to carry on their great work within RAF Cosford?

Not quite the same thing as storage I know, but when it comes to the restoration facilities, the Fleet Air Arm Museum is the only one that really seems to have nailed it, by having the restoration facility adjoining the museum building and being viewable during normal entry times.

The RAFM have accepted the collection despite the fact that Cosford can no longer find the room for the real Sea Balliol they already have.

Hmmm. With the ‘sea’ bit in its name and the all the other deck-landing paraphernalia, perhaps the FAAM could find a home.

And I know I am not the first to point that out here.

The Boulton Paul collection is being dismantled at the moment, ready for transport to RAFM storage by 31st March. With the volunteers working just 2 afternoons a week, it’s a slow process. The RAFM have accepted the collection despite the fact that Cosford can no longer find the room for the real Sea Balliol they already have. The FSM will presumably join it in store. There are hopes that the next hangar in the Cosford row will become part of the museum ‘one day’, but then they have to find room for the Nimrod, Hercules, Dominie, and everything else which is being retired at the moment.

I agree -the RAFM doesn’t need the kit Spitfire and it could well be passed on for some other use. As for the Defiant -its certainly not a replica – very much a fsm and as said previously the RAFM has the prime and only genuine example already.

re;

I fail to see why the James May replica is in a collection that includes five real Spitfires! It would be ideal in a small up and coming museum that is never going to have a real Spitfire, and deserves such an exhibit.

Yet a replica of a unique type, (day fighter extinct) might not be in the collecting policy?

The MAPS Defiant should be finished I guess very shortly. That is the prime example. How the BP Association example fits within the collecting policy I am not sure .

re

well, with no real one currently on show any where does it not seem like logic to put the replica Defiant on public display?

With a P51, Hurricane, and Spitfire, at both sites, it would seem sensible to have examples of the Defiant at both?

I cannot see the logic in having two Tempests and a substantial gladiator and a complete one, at Hendon but none at Cosford.

I am not sure if the collection has moved to Cosford from Wolverhampton yet.
It does pose the question as to why the RAFM would wish to display a Defiant FSM when they have an original example under rebuild at Medway .
They do however still have the ‘model’ Spitfire on indoor display when it could quite easily be replaced by something like the Swift FR.5 that they currently have out on loan!

re;

As in wooden model, do they mean that Defiant replica they spent all those years working on is in storage???

Why on earth isn’t it in show at Cosford?

I consider a museum’s primary role is to preserve objects for future generations while making them available if possible in a conserved/restored and displayed condition for current generations, but I dont consider a museum should be limited to collecting and retaining only those things it has current public display space for.

In some ways, a museum benefits from having a wider collection with much in storage as it can rotate displays and exhibitions to encourage re-visits, and hence a museum store and stored collection seems an asset to me, not a liability.

In fact if museums were limited to only collecting items that they could immediately display or restore and then display then our various collections around the world would be much the poorer for such a “policy”.

Were that “policy” to be applied much of the NASM collection assembled after WW2 would have been dispersed/disposed years ago, much the same could be said for the National Museum of the USAF, and the RAF Museum would be limited to its current holdings at Hendon and the storage collections that previously existed on various operational RAF bases and not available for public viewing would also have been dispersed/disposed.

The AWM “did” do that after world war II and scrapped a Sally Bomber (Surrender aircraft), Hampden Bomber, Beaufort Bomber (combat veteran), Wirraway (first production example) and sold in Australia a BF-109 and Oscar, and left in the UK to be scrapped a Short Stirling, that was earmarked for preservation in Australia. I dont think there are many of us who today consider that was a good outcome, yet these were disposed of, or not taken up because the AWM building did not then have the display space to display them all.

Of those, only two remain with us today, including the BF-109 which has returned into the AWM collection.

Since that time the AWM has expanded its display space, as well as developing a large workshop and storage facility, and since that time collected a Mustang, Meteor, Seafury, Mosquito, Canberra, Caribou, Iroquis, Beaufort and Hudson.

The last two types having incurred massive costs to both and acquire and restore these examples, (both are yet completed some 65 years after the conflict they relate to, and are unlikely to be put on public display for many many years, but are essential stories to the Defence of Australia in WW2, and obviously should be kept regardless of the limitations of displaying them today.

Its a pity the original Beaufort aircraft collected at far lower cost at the end of WW2, and in “as was” condition, werent able to be “stored” rather than disposed and scrapped. And of course, had they survived into preservation, the AWM Stirling and Hampden would now be of world significance as the only complete and original survivors.

Many smaller volunteer aviation museums are still suffering the exposures and deterioration of “outdoor” display, and a similar “policy” could be extended to them to disperse and dispose of those objects.

The 20th Century will be a research topic of mankind for many many centuries into the future, despite what ever future advancements we make, last Century will be seen as a massive step forward in our human development in electronics, communication, health, medicine, transport to name just a few, and of course Aviation from mans first powered flight to the first man on the moon.

The advancements in the 20th Century are all supported by tons of printed, photographic and film/sound archives, the richness of information and material far exceeds the quality and quantity of records of mankinds efforts for the previous 10,000 years, and I suspect make it the primary historical period studied by future generations, as against the periods we were given to study in school.

So in this way I consider 20th Century aviation will form the primary basis of most aviation collections ongoing, and the number of airframes preserved from the 21st Century is likely to be far lower due to lack of diversity and technology leaps, (its unlikely to span wooden /fabric flying machines to titanium supersonic jets) and even if a future world conflict is largely an airborne event, it is unlikely to extend for 5 years and drive the diversity of household names in aircraft to the level seen in WW2 or the aircrew participation to the numbers seen in WW2.

And so while aviation museums will continue to collect, their ability like the AWM to go back and fill in holes like Hudsons and Beauforts, (or Venturas) will reduce as we move forward in time and available airframes are lost or locked into other collections.

So yes, the RAF Museum could diverst the only Lockheed Ventura in the UK from its storage collection, and even dispose of it overseas, but that should only be done on the basis that its not relevent to their collection policy and that the significance of a Ventura to the story of the RAF is not sufficient to retain one, even an ex SAAF one. But it should not simply be disposed of, just on the basis that it has been in storage for many years, and is yet to be restored, or is unlikely to be put on display during the life time of surviving crew members or at the timeline preferred by impatient enthusiasts.

If the Ventura is considered to be an important type to be in the RAF collection, then as long as its conserved undercover and in storage, then its available for research and effectively “put on ice” for a future conservation/restoration process and public display in the 21st Century, unlike the AWM’s Stirling or Hampton.

As I said, I suspect the quantity of truely significant aircraft types placed into museums in the 21st century will be far less than the current population of preserved 20th century aircraft, and they are likely to be acquired in “ready to display” condition, and that in itself should leave even the reduced resources of skilled labour to slowly clear a backlog of remaining 20th century restorations.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Absolutely old chap, which reminds me I must contact young Hibbert!

ATB

TT

Hi TT,

It was Darren Priday’s presentation but it was given by Tim Wallis – who was approachable and very open about their challenges and methods of addressing them. A brilliant example of how everyone can co-operate and benefit! 🙂

Did Darren Priday give the talk Howard? If so, thoroughly agree its excellent.

I can’t fault either RAFM or IWM. They both bend over backwards to help when they can. We have exchange items with Cosford and are working on another exchange now. They have an ‘anything you need if we can help we will’ attitude which is perfectly genuine!

Darren is a prime example. We had in our collection a Hampden wingtip, on the wall for years (we bought it at an old Shoreham aerojumble 10+ years ago) we’d forgotten about it to be honest then last year thought, crumbs, perhaps RAFM could do with it for their resto. Few emails to him and pics later, they had the tip and we received a 500kg German bomb (which is used in our story of the bombing of Wellingborough display) and is more relevant to us.

Would we have got a 500KG elsewhere? Doubtful. Would RAFM have found a Hampden wingtip elsewhere – ditto -both parties won at no cost to either!

We are looking for an ADEN cannon for WN904 at the moment and they lads would have lent us one in a heartbeat had theirs not been live and requiring us to have a S.5 Firearms licence!

As for IWM they have donated items to us in the past for our ordnance display and most recently of course we have received WN904 by way of gift.

That we, a very small Museum, could benefit this way was a complete and utter surprise to us – but realistically as long as criteria are met and the bona fides of the recipient are proven, both organisations are in my view beyond reproach.

If the story of our lovely Hunter (for which we are still pinching ourselves) is to be listened to the maxim must be…..ask ….you’ll never know what might happen unless you do!

ATB

TT

Yesterday afternoon I had the pleasure of listening to an extremely interesting and thought provoking talk on the Hampden restoration at Cosford. This was given to the delegates at the Aviation Heritage Lincolnshire Autumn Conference that was held at Hemswell Court.

It certainly changed my understanding of, and level of admiration for their work; it also provided some tantalising insights into their future plans on various projects.

For me, the worth of adequate and informed storage is summed up by the Hampden – a nose and other remains at East Kirkby (from Sweden) and the original nose glazing on the Canadian reproduction were both de-accessioned by the RAFM at a time before the museum’s own example had been found, recovered and swapped for a Spitfire. All of this material would have immeasurably eased the task of restoring a single complete example for museum display in the UK