New Museum Idea (?)

What do you mean, a bit like Flambards, which picks up a few themes being discussed about these parts – World War I TV series; major tourist destination in the south-west; etc.?

Or dare I even say also like Thorpe Park started out!!!

Any such plans would only work at a ‘non-enthustiast’ level, where I mean it must appeal to mum, dad and most importantly the kids. The full size replicas would be secondary to things like Imax cinema, themed roller coster rides, flight simulator rides. The place would have to be run like Madam Tussauds, allowing alot of interaction or Warkick Castle with re-enactors. Adding replics with a film or TV connection will be very important. and most importantly never, ever use the word “Museum” it would kill the project dead.

Imagine a museum filled with dead-nuts accurate Picassos, Matisses and da Vincis. Who would care, who would go? Not me.

If you’re talking about a static museum filled with nothing but replicas, you’re possibly correct…though some/many/most WWI buffs might disagree (as noted elsewhere on this forum, Mr. Weeks seems happy with the aeroplane Mr. Jackson built for him).

But the point of this dream is atmosphere…to see waht a wartime field might have been like. Planes would be part of it, but not the raison d’être.

For us not around in the wartime era, that sounds exciting…just as in 70 years people might be interested in the times we lived (“There was a time when ordinary people could own small planes?”..”People had gasoline-powered private cars?”).

Just as people go to Old Rhinebeck to see WWI dogfights and pay good money to see people pretend to be other people in films and on Broadway, people don’t mind a bit of make believe if it gives them a broader experience.

re;

shame swinderby wasn’t saved. That would have made a fantastic museum.

we do have old Warden remember 😉

Yes I realise that,I’m a regular attendee there and have been for more than 35 years,and most of their aircraft are originals.If this rich guy wants to start a museum of replicas there are lots of types that Old Warden does not have that could be reproduced,thats the sort of thing that I meant.:)

re;

we do have old Warden remember 😉

A museum of flying replicas would be great,but they ought to be exact replicas not look-a-likes,as that would defeat the object as far as I’m concerned.WW1 stuff would be fantastic, with stuff like T.V.A.L. make.

Classic example of a replica that acquired a substantial history all of it’s own is the Vimy now at Brooklands.

In my idea (and that’s all it ever would be) of the restoration of a complete Bomber Command airfield, the planes are subsidiary to the preservation of the whole site and environment and are intended to provide “dressing” – good, accurate, static external replicas (in the style of the Sir Peter Jackson Lancaster) would suffice in this context, perhaps with an original ( in the style of Just Jane) to provide “life” as and when

PS

There’s another Bomber Command TV programme on this next week, ITV 1 – Tuesday 9.00pm with John Sergeant.

I was just pointing out the things ive seen over the years and what the overall impression they give me. if anyone agrees or disagrees with me i dont mind.

there is nothing more real than the sight sound and smell of the actual none replica thing. by being around objects that have lived through the period of time they were born in lifts the imagination of who made it,touched it etc. although we could drift off into how authentic is authentic nowerdays? but best avoid that as long as poss as that was not the point of this thread i dont think.

A replica over time will develope a history and become characterlized much as the replicas at Hawkinge air museum but even these look dodgy now. if these new build museum replicas are of a high standard then that would probably make them stand out from the rest, especially if of a rare none existant type like a Stirling is built (unlikely). it would take alot of time,effort, money and imagination to make it work in a magical way that the real thing can do with ease.

Hi Rob

Playing devil’s advocate here:

So flying replicas which “look authentic” are “as good as the real thing”, but non-flying ‘plastic’ replicas aren’t?

So if we were talking about statics made of ‘proper’ materials (albeit probably fairly empty inside, where not visible) would that be ok? The original proposition did refer to replicas of “very high quality”, not just big floppy Airfix models which I agree would look pretty awful.

Or is it the ‘flyable’ part that’s the necessary element to make it acceptable?

😉

Ian

dont get mixed up between full scale static display replicas, rebuilt replicas and flying replicas. cockpits only or full airframe. engines and wear and tear bits not included as these are changed on a live a/c often.

static display replicas =
plastic,fibreglass,resin,moulded,bonded,glued,screwed,nailed oversized airfix kits with abit of internal structure to give them strength but have no internal guts or structure of the real item unless modified.. with no real history behind the model replica other than what it externaly represents

rebuilt replicas =
a/c rebuilt using as many original sourced parts as poss. although rebuilding of structual/skinning may have to repaired at the cost of some originality but as long as the new bits are joined to old original still attatched bits somewhere down the line then thats close enough.. history of the airframe will obviously be mixed unless there was a complete sirframe to start with

full scale flying replicas =
which is as good as the real thing in my tiny mind but are built to the same structual methods as per original design although plumbing different and more reliable abundent engines are sometimes used that from the outside look authentic. we have seen new build fw190`s and ME262,s reflecting the sun from thier wings recently as they graced the sky and fantastic they look but still only replicas!!

Cost?

Quite so, which is why I’m sure it’s not going to happen. Unfortunately.

(The vital point, again, being “accurate” facsimilies).

But we can still dream ‘what if’ or ‘if only’, can’t we.

😉

Ian

How about an outdoor set-up with say 3 Stirlings being crewed-up prior to take-off with nearby as a separate display a couple of Me110 nightfighters being got to readiness as dusk approaches?

I wonder how many million that would cost to do properly (i.e. accurate facsimiles, not wood and fibreglass lookalikes)

Replica ‘museum’

Are people complaining that most of the restored Spitfire 1 P9374 now flying at Duxford isn’t the original metal from that a/c? No, we’re just delighted to see it (or something looking just like the original did) re-created.

At what “percentage of original material” does a rebuild count as “ok”? A data plate attached to a whole new-built aeroplane made out of brand new-tooled parts and original bits from other aircraft of the type?

Hence personally I’d be happy to see some missing types realistically and accurately represented in a museum (ok ‘display’ or ‘exhibition’ – point taken about that) than not see them at all.

How about an outdoor set-up with say 3 Stirlings being crewed-up prior to take-off with nearby as a separate display a couple of Me110 nightfighters being got to readiness as dusk approaches?

Ian

Imagine a museum filled with dead-nuts accurate Picassos, Matisses and da Vincis. Who would care, who would go? Not me.

re;

I heard they wanted to buy the rest of East Kirkby that would have been expensive but worthwhile. Another option being to buy back the land from sites that have good museums – how I would love to bulldoze those flats from Hendon and restore the East Camp!

What would be nice to see would be a restored airfield (including all appropriate domestic/technical/training buildings, bomb dumps, fuel installations, dispersal pans etc etc ) populated with the appropriate vehicles and a full squadron’s (or two) worth of replica aircraft, representing the site as it would have been during the war.

It would give an idea of the complexity and span of a wartime airfield.

It will never happen, but nice to ponder such a development

Imagine a fully recreated bomber airfield! Oh, somethings happening to my downstairs…:D

re;

I find it incomprehensible that anyone could think no Stirling is better than an exact copy built with lots of original parts! Let alone one that could be explored!

Anyone remember the Lancaster cockpit that was used so a disabled lad could sit in her, as he could not enter PA474 or NX611. Shame the IWM wouldn’t let him sit in Old Fred. Wonder what happened to that cockpit…

Thanks all for the various responses so far. Slightly more ‘against’ than ‘for’ than I had anticipated, which is a bit of a surprise, personally.

I see many good points made here, however, and some of these concerns I share myself. I hate to make the comparison, but are education and learning well served by these large, full-sized dinosaur ‘models’ (replicas? exhibits?), or are they mere child-minded entertainment? Surely some children will be enthralled by these and pursue a career in palaeontology and such sciences, but how many? Enough to justify such exhibits, or do they need justification in any case? Is entertainment enough? I wonder how many who do not fancy the idea of such an aircraft replica exhibit at the same time approve of these recent “aviation” themed films which– from an historical perspective– are utter nonsense?

I haven’t the answer to all these wonderments, but, at the end of the day I would welcome the chance to see an authentically appearing replica of a type we shall never see otherwise. Moreover, as regards appearances, I can think of a fair few authentic aircraft in museums everywhere which, although I do realise that there is an important mechanical structure underneath, are so inappropriately, inaccurately or even pathetically finished and presented that they really just strike me as plastic toys, not historical aircraft.

There’s still the wonderful pre expansion era RAF Bicester, but realistically leaving even replica aircraft out on airfields would be hard to keep up.