Preservation of Civil Aircraft

The Science Museum do of course have the “out” collection at Wroughton but they don’t seem to have a clear policy on what to do with it. However there are hangars there. Would any be big enough to house Concorde? You could always move the Connie and Boeing 247 which don’t have much in the way of UK provenance. (Waits for the incoming)

I think one of the main reasons that several civilian aircraft are not preserved for future generations (under cover) is that there is no more national museum responsible for the subject: AVIATION.

The Science Museum which has a fantastic collection has more or less stopped collecting (to a sustainable level) 10-15 years ago.They hold the nations’s aeronautical collection.

The civil collection at Duxford belongs to the Duxford Aviation Society.

Therefore it has always been an odd combination at Duxford (Imperial WAR Museum). Although it is fantastic that several aircraft are now entering the Airspace building, it is not really there responsibility.

It is bizarre that not a single production Concorde is preserved by a national museum in England, but it stresses precisely the problem.

In the US there is the fantastic National Air and Space Museum, Britain used to have the Science Museum, but not anymore (from an active collections point of view).

Is it not ironic that the NASM manages to preserve a Concorde, but no national museum in Britain manages to preserve a production Concorde

I hope that the aircraft at Brooklands and at least one BA Concorde get a roof over their heads! This should be #1 priority.

It is really time to realize that preserving large objects outside for a long period is not possible.

But the real problem is the lack of responsibilty for a national aviation collection.

Humm that’s sad…I was under the impression that XM496 at Kemble had at least three engines that were ground run or capable of being run….have they decided to preserve her in a static form in order to help save funds..

What is the current status for Bristol Britannia G-ANCF?

With work and money, XM496 could indeed run 3 of her 4 engines again and maybe even taxy! The Society holds a serviceable spare which was donated by RR in 2005. The reasons why the engines are not run are those problems all groups like ours encounter and face – small group of people doing a lot outside in all weathers in spare time with very little or no finances, coupled with little or no Proteus spares (things like 3-Phase inverters) constant attention from others parts of the aircraft, H&S rules (XM496 is on a CAA licensed airfield) and insurance. The cost of insurance just to allow visitors onboard for the current year amounted to £1500.

As to G-ANCF, the future is very uncertain, she is no longer connected with the Bristol Aero Collection and needs to be relocated to a new location soon.

My thoughts exactly. Whenever you read about historic aircraft or aircraft preservation it invariably relates to military types. Airliners are just as much a part of our aviation history and heritage as the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster etc. I don’t go with the glamour argument though.

To my mind, aviation enthusiasts should want to see both civil and militaries being preserved for future generations, not just militaries.

Hi Bloodnok,

That is exactly why I used the phrase ‘…often leads…’ the fact is that niether civil or military aviation progresses in issolation and that in order to have the full story of aviation available to future generations, we must preserve the civillian aspects as diligentley as the military.

It is also worth noting that the sorts of flyby wire technologies entering military service today on aircraft such as the Typhoon have been in civillian service since the introduction of the A320. As for composites surely the earliest extensive use of such techniques was on sailplanes? Yes it’s as broard as its long, yes places like Farnborough have had an extensive input on all aspects of aeronautical developement, but at the end of the day if our museums lack the civillian aspects of our aeronautical heritage we only have half the story.

Steve.

Humm that’s sad…I was under the impression that XM496 at Kemble had at least three engines that were ground run or capable of being run….have they decided to preserve her in a static form in order to help save funds..

What is the current status for Bristol Britannia G-ANCF?

Happy New Year!

Of course the real irony here is that civil aviation has had a far bigger impact upon the average man than military aviation; being one of the powerhouses of and enabling the globalisation we are experiencing. We should also remember, that contary to popular belief, that civil avition often leads military. Witness the introduction of the DC3 when the US airforce was still flying biplanes or the advent of fly by wire with the A320.

Therefore I would argue that if we are really aviation enthusiasts as oppossed to military aviation fans we sould grasp the nettle and get those Brittanias and BAC 1-11s etc under cover, or else in a very few years we will be decrying their extinction in the same way as the HP42 or Empire flying boats.

Steve.

of course you could say the same about civil aviation, it wouldn’t be where it is today without military aviation.
in WWII we went from starting off with biplanes still in use, to ending up with unguided missiles and jet fighters with swept wings. all this in the space of 6 years, much of the technology then went on to be used in civil aircraft.
the use of composites and fly by wire technology have been pioneered in military aviation, and since taken up by civil aviation.

Happy New Year!

Of course the real irony here is that civil aviation has had a far bigger impact upon the average man than military aviation; being one of the powerhouses of and enabling the globalisation we are experiencing. We should also remember, that contary to popular belief, that civil avition often leads military. Witness the introduction of the DC3 when the US airforce was still flying biplanes or the advent of fly by wire with the A320.

Therefore I would argue that if we are really aviation enthusiasts as oppossed to military aviation fans we sould grasp the nettle and get those Brittanias and BAC 1-11s etc under cover, or else in a very few years we will be decrying their extinction in the same way as the HP42 or Empire flying boats.

Steve.

Martin, I think the main reasons we see less action taken to preserve civil types have already been covered. Military stuff is considered ‘sexier’, they are generally smaller and easier to handle – and being smaller, they are cheaper and require less space.

We’ve got all the room we could want for aircraft up here and would love to get our hands on an airliner. We’ve been offered a few airframes for free over the last couple of years but have been unable to take them due to the cost of dismantling/transporting/rebuilding. The cost of bringing an ATP from Woodford to Liverpool was estimated at £45,000 – which is waaaaay outside our budget!

Like most groups, we are low in number, low in funds but high in enthusiasm. In this commercial world enthusiasm doesn’t buy you much.

We’ll never give up hope though!!

Roy.

MR.B – Could you give me chapter and verse on the fate of the former Boscombe Down ‘Team Spirit’ which ended up in Africa?

Sure David, no problem. Not sure how much info you want so here goes (all note that this is extracts taken from the text of a book I’m writing about Britannia operations in Zaire):

XX367 and all the spares holding was sold to Katale Aero Transport of Zaire Winter of 1983. Following some work at Cranfield, she was placed on the Zairean register as 9Q-CHY and left Cranfield for Zaire in her basic Boscombe colour scheme in March 1984. When she left Cranfield, the pilot (name escapes me) carried out a very low flypast and hard bank to the left which according to all onlookers placed the left wingtip extremely close to the ground! If memory serves me right, a certain Mr Piercey of “Propliner” fame was aboard.

Katale’s home base was Goma, on the far eastern edge of Zaire and all of Katale’s Britannias (including 9Q-CHY) were used to pick up loads of coffee from many rural airstrips, although loads such as general farming produce, consumer goods, machinery and even passengers was not uncommon. During the latter years of Katale’s operation, a company called Business Cash Flow Aviation (known as BCF) which had often purchased space on the Britannia’s began to charter whole aeroplanes.

During 1987 Katale decided to take the Britannia’s out of its fleet, and by this time along with one other machine, 9Q-CHY was the only aircraft that remained airworthy. Since arriving in Zaire it had been repainted white overall with black doors and titles. Following her last service for Katale, 9Q-CHY was put up for sale at Kinshasa sometime in 1988.

After having witnessed first hand how successful the Britannia could be used as a business tool in Zaire, the owner of BCF, a local Zairean known as Dr.Mayani, agreed to purchase the 2 grounded Katale Britannia’s plus spares inventory. It was reported at the time that this deal cost him less than £200.000! Whilst the other Britannia was never flown again as it remained grounded at Kinshasa as a source of spares, 9Q-CHY was once again placed back into revenue service.

BCF flew a once daily service between Kinshasa and Mbuji-Mayi that typically took 2 hours each way and carried both freight and passengers. Unlike earlier times when passengers used to have to either sit or stand on the floor of the cabin, BCF fitted 17 passenger seats to 9Q-CHY affording the wealthy Zairean passengers that could pay for internal passenger flights an unheard of level of comfort!

A hybrid BCF colour scheme was applied for a short period before Dr.Mayani decided to have her fully repainted to match his 707 in 1990. Right up until this point, the aircraft had flown around proudly wearing the old British Eagle name ‘Team Spirit’. During the repaint though the aircraft’s name changed to ‘Mwenye Mikebwe’, the name of the grandmother of Dr.Mayani. Just a few months later at the end of January 1991, mounting spares shortages and engine problems led Dr.Mayani to ground the aircraft at Kinshasa. Although Dr.Mayani put the Britannia up for sale; knowing the commercial advantages of operating a Britannia in Zaire, he was reluctant to sell it to a competitor and so 9Q-CHY remained parked at Kinshasa until late 1993, when she was sold to Transair Cargo to help repair the damaged Transair Cargo Britannia 9Q-CJH (XM496 at Kemble) which had landed at Kinshasa with her nose gear retracted. I’m still searching for an exact date but following spares recovery by Transair, 9Q-CHY was broken up and scrapped late ’93, early ’94. A sad end to a once magnificent machine…

MR.B – Could you give me chapter and verse on the fate of the former Boscombe Down ‘Team Spirit’ which ended up in Africa?

the Kemble Britannia and Brunty Comet are nice examples of good runners…:)

Have to correct you, XM496 at Kemble is not in running condition, although all at the Bristol Britannia XM496 Preservation Society wish she were.

Of course I’m biased, but if any aircraft deserves a little more attention it’s this machine – why? Because XM496 is the only “complete” – i.e. with engines etc, Brit in existence and is the only RAF machine left from the 24 flown by the military.

As no doubt many have noticed since the start of her repaint in 2005, the very small band of volunteers do an amazing resource with a very limited amount of money and it only highlights the issue of keeping significant examples of large aircraft preserved outside with little or no “official” help or funding.

Of course, the popularity of certain machines plays a huge part in the whole presevation movement; and this is especially so when talking the larger types. For me, it’s sad when it seems all attention is paid to one Vulcan getting airbourne (and I fully support XH558) and a small number of production Concordes being placed under cover when still no examples of a Britannia are under cover with very secure long term housing. One may hope that G-AOVT will one day be placed under cover at Duxford, but to the rest, unless something changes, they’re all on borrowed time.

I have also been worried about the lack of preservation of the larger commerical types…but it seems a few have been kept in running order because they have a mixed career civil and miltary…the Kemble Britannia and Brunty Comet are nice examples of good runners…:)

Large airliners would need a lot of space and maintainence. I’m a volunteer at an aviation museum which has a collection of cold war era military aircraft – Canberra, Meteor, Phantom, Lightning, Jet Provost, Vampire, Sea Prince and Whirlwind. We also have an Auster under restoration as an AAC aircraft because one of the members flew those in the AAC in the cold war era and we also look after the Vulcan which is part owned by one of our members and is the airport’s gate guardian. Because of its large size, the Vulcan has been a major draw on member resources with its recent repainting work. The Pa-28 which I fly as a PPL is almost as old, having been built in 1965. Although the controls are very different and the handling is different due to the different wing, the fuselage looks basically the same as a modern Piper Archer. There are many older civilian light aircraft still flying – Piper Cubs, Tri-Pacers, Tiger Moths, Austers, Luscombes etc. are all relatively common visitors to our airport, so despite its vintage, a small civilian aircraft isn’t going to attract much interest as a museum item, even in taxiable condition.

Yes, Brooklands does run the engines on the Vanguard. The team that look after the aircraft does a good job keeping it this way. The engines are run quite often.

“Didn’t the Brooklands Society”

By the way its the Brooklands Museum not Society..

Happy New Year to all..

GASYD

Didn’t the Brooklands Society have the Vanguard running in the recent past?

Morning gents. I can see this subject from both your points of view and you both speak the truth. The fact that airliner parts are so large does present its own set of problems and the expense entailed would likely render the preservation of even a small airliner such as the Herald or 748 in taxiable condition prohibitive.

obviously there are exceptions, but i could imagine size would play a factor (oooer mrs!), you average civil airliner is a big old thing, compare it to say a lightning, hunter or a vampire, and you can see what i mean. if you are doing maintenance on an airliner, you’ll be needing cranes to remove major components like flying controls, where you can do it by hand on a smaller military type. it all adds to the expense.

i think another factor is the price and availability of spares, a lot of military spares are sold off at little more than scrap price once an type has been removed from service, whereas there maybe a residual commercial value in civil aircraft spares, so they stay expensive for longer.
i suppose this could also be applied to GSE, compare the price of a set of jacks for a herald along with a giraffe or airstairs, to a set of jacks and ‘A’ steps for a lightning.

but ultimately it’s as you have mentioned, its all about image.