RAF Museum mess

Would you like to have missed anything? 😉

🙂 @ Snapper…it’s all sorted now…matters delayed by power cut at Duxford yesterday lunchtime, which makes now the first time I’ve been here since yesterday morning…

Did I miss anything? 😀 😉 🙂

I hate to be the bearer of bad news boys!

Hello again to all,
I found out today why the areas were closed in the museum.Mr.Steve Patterson just purchased all of the aircraft located in those areas and they are all being dismantled to be shipped to Mr.Patterson’s home airfield.Sorry guys,I hear they were being sold because the museum took a poll of museum patrons and they said they wanted to see “New” airplanes and not those “Old”
and tattered ones!you should be able to come over to see them some time next year(for a fee,of course!)………Sorry,Tah for now………Tim 😮

And another super person and knowledgeable poster has left the room.

Mike, you are correct in your observations on those arframes, of course, and Ashley you are correct on the state of play in your division. However, this is NOT the place for fighting, especially with each other over minor words and things that can’t be changed from where you stand.

It seems to me that IWM policy (in the museum) is geared more towards business than towards love of aviation. DX is a fantastic place to visit, and the staff on the ground are often passionate about what they have (ie Rebecca) but at the end of the day it is a self-funding business that has to make money, and “there are no feelings in dealings” as they say.

Now, please all kiss and make up before I start planting potatoes in your mattress.

Dave…I’m not upset with you 🙂 I have PM’d you about this so I’ll say no more.

l/p on this topic

Becka,

Sorry if my bringing you into this debate has upset you. I didn’t mean for that to happen.

And having thought about it you are right in what you say about my quoting sources indirectly. I have a fairly clear memory of what my mate in the staff at the museum here in NZ told me about the light situation and have tried to express the poiints as clearly as I could here, but I admit it was a long time ago that he told me all about it, and things can of course change and memories fade. I don’t think I have got it wrong, but I do see your point that a direct source is better rather than a ‘the curator told me’ story. I apologise for any wrongdoing on my part if there has been any.

Dave

Mike…as Flood as pointed out to you, the Collections Division does not include the aircraft, tanks and military vehicles – my exact words from yesterday – “Working in the Museum’s Collections Division (which does not actually include the aircraft, tanks and other vehicles)…”

Therefore I can only talk convincingly about policies that I know about, and help implement. I am not qualified to discuss the condition of and the care policies of the Museum’s aircraft, as I do not work in that area. Knowing how information can be twisted or embellished, I try never to pass on information concerning the Musuem, in a public forum like this, that I do not know for sure is a fact (e.g. “one of the Conservation guys said to me…” or “I heard that…”)

Too often people seem to think that large Museums such as Duxford and Hendon have pots of money to throw around…

We wish…

Never mind, next time someone would like my input on something like this, PM me or e-mail me, I shall not speak publicly on anything to do with the IWM again.

Becka

Doughnut, Yes the spotlight does look bad in that photo. I agree. But the photo makes it look worse than it is in reality because there was a fairly long exposure on the photo causing the flared look. When you’re actually there in the museum you don’t notice any glaring lights like the photo shows. When the museum was set up there was absolutely no photography allowed at all, so it has to be remembered that they obviously didn’t set up the lighting with photographers in mind and that effect the light had on my photo is something they would never have considered. On the most part, the museum’s lighting is very condusive for non-flash photos in any case.
When you’re actually there you are not presented with harsh glaring lights, not that you would conciously notice anyway.

I think their lighting set-up gives a moody, nostalgic feel to the aircraft. It is more artistic, and the darkness around them disguises the hangar walls and ceiling, giving an effect that each aircraft is in a little space of its own away from the ‘hangar environment’ and the lighting draws you into each vignette in a really different way from how you’d see the aircraft in a fully lit space.

I think the darkening down of the RAFM Bomber Command hall has attempted some innovation along the same lines, but it would work a lot better if they set up the spotlights better to create a more dramatic effect, like in the RNZAF Museum and in the Australian museum where they’ve done the same with their Lancaster.

One thought, I wonder if the museum would consider setting up a ‘photographer’s hour’ each day, where say at 9am-10am they turn all the lights on and allow the tripod-bearers to go for it. The mad keen photogs could get their shots in that advertised hour each day, and after 10am the lights could be dimmed again. Just a thought. Maybe one of you could suggest it.

Ashley, thanks for your thoughts. It is interesting that some big museums allow in sunlight, and I really wonder if many museums consider the issue of UV light as irrelevent. All museums have different policies and philosophies despite how much information is available to them. All I can say is what I wrote earlier is what I was told about the RNZAF’s policy, and I guess that their policy might well be overkill in other museum’s opinions. Maybe they’re all aware of UV effects but consider the effects are not worth doing anything about as they are so gradual.

Some of the RNZAFM’s spare planes that have been stored in hangars lit by both artificial and natural light for a couple of decades do look decidedly faded – the Bristol Freighter is one which went straight from service to the Museum. So its paintwork would have been pretty much ok when it got there as they usually select the best example to preserve. But the paintwork looks decidedly shabby, and has faded considerably. It actually looks like it has had a bit of outdoor storage but I don’t believe that is the case at all. (can anyone argue/correct this?). Whereas planes in No 1 hangar, the main museum, look as good as new after 17 years in that environment.

On the aircraft mentioned as deteriating at Duxford, aircraft can be stored outdoors for a considerable time. Yes they do deteriate over that time, but they are always repairable and restorable. There is no need to scrap them. If they can rebuild Hurricanes, etc, that crashed 60 years ago to flying, etc., you can restore a largely complete plane that has been stored outside to static condition.

A curator at Motat in Auckland recently pointed out to me that aircraft are meant to be stored outdoors. That’s what they’re designed for. Hangars are mainly for maintenance, not storage. Just the fact that the storage does some harm doesn’t mean it cannot be rectified. Motat’s Solent and Lancaster are very good examples. They were outdoors for decades, and were in a much worse state than the Duxford examples – particularly because they were in sea air and humid wet Auckland weather. Now both are restored to immaculate condition and will remain so since they’re now inside and cared for. The Sunderland has been outdoors for over 10 years more than the Solent and is worse, but it too is now being restored. That plane literally had grass growing on it, but in a year or so I believe it’ll look as good and be as structurally as good as when it arrived there in the 1960’s.

Those B25’s seen recently on here are another example. Many here showed outrage and there was talk of scrapmen soon, but I thought, “They’re not as bad as some I’ve seen that are now back to pristine after some TLC.” They can be restored, anything can.

So don’t despair, yes it is sad and annoying that the planes are allowed to deteriorate, for whatever reason (and it is usually lack of funds), but they can be rectified. All you need is the right people with a vision and the money. Perhaps all who are so concerned should band together and form a restoration or fundraising group yourselves if you can. Whatever happens, in this day and age there is no need to scrap them, that is the real crime, not the fact that they got into such a state.

Andy, I would be disappointed if I made a special trip to any museum and found it closed. But then on both my trips to the UK this exact thing happened in many places, which really did pee me off. You see something in a guidebook or brochure, make the trip to it (usually costly on a train) and find it’s closed. Lots of Brits used to joke about coming to New Zealand on the weekend and finding it was closed. Well Britain closes most of its its tourist attractions for the whole winter it seems!! 😡 😡

Hendon…

Hi
getting back to the Hendon part of this thread.
I popped in yesterday and the Graham White building was closed. The roadway up to that building was being dug up and was therefore closed.
Didn’t bother me too much because I can go there anytime but I’d be very annoyed if I was a foreign visitor on ‘one off’ visit.
Surely these things could be better organised?
I do accept that the road work could have been in response to an emergency but I doubt it.
A couple of years ago I went to the Berlin technical museum only to find that the aviation section was closed–equally annoying.
Oh, and it was still pretty black in the Bomber Command Hall.
There’s plenty of lighting up there it’s just not turned on.
Cheers
Andy

Paint as conservation

Peter

I don’t know that paint is much more than a tempory cosmetic solution. that can hide a multitude of problems.

My experience is limited to buying bodged up cars but surely the principle is the same.

Just my opinion but judging by the time it’s taken Duxford to repaint the Bucc it’s possibly not as easy a job as you imply.

Regards

Chris

I just want to add my tuppence worth here……

Given unlimited funds and unlimited hanger space no doubt Duxford would be mor than delighted to restore and then house in a controlled environment every airframe they can get hold of.

Alas funds and space are limited, meaning that unwelcome and unpopular decisions have to made as to what gets conserved and what (alas) gets left out in the cold.

This is a complete farce as paint doesnt cost that much and it is a fairly easier way to help “conserve/preserve” aircraft outside rathar than doing nowt. Surely some uk paint companies would sponsor some paint towards helping maintain the outdoor aircraft?

Just to get back to the poor lighting,the photos posted show poor colours,most show a gradual differing of “bland” colours.This is poor lighting and really should’nt need altering on a computer.
Flash photography being banned i can understand for the fire alarm systems but most visitors are going to want to take photos [unless the museum are going to give away the photos].
The aircraft sitting outside at Duxford do look a disgrace now but are’nt they supposed to be extending the original super hangar,won’t they be put in there??

Conservation

Mike

Given unlimited funds and unlimited hanger space no doubt Duxford would be mor than delighted to restore and then house in a controlled environment every airframe they can get hold of.

Alas funds and space are limited, meaning that unwelcome and unpopular decisions have to made as to what gets conserved and what (alas) gets left out in the cold.

Regards

Chris

…like the Victor, Shackleton, Meteor NF11 and Varsity 😡 😡 😡

The Vulcan doesn’t look too happy with life either, after its short sojourn outside with the cocpit cover flapping merrily in the breeze 😡

I seem to remember an immaculate Convair VT-29, gifted by the US Government, flying in. Whatever happened to that one? Or the ex-RAF Comet? Met Flight Varsity, anyone? Remember that? 😡 😡 😡

Rant over

But since Ashley, quote, ‘Works in the Museum’s Collections Division (which does not actually include the aircraft, tanks and other vehicles)’ surely this is the collection to which she was referring. Having a rabid rant at her because she informs you that ‘great care is taken to store our collections at the best possible conditions in order to keep the collections in good condition, and to prolong (if impossible to defeat) the eventual deterioration of the collections’ is hardly fair. She is not in charge of the airframes, nor does she work with them. I have not doubt what so ever that the films and documents (which I believe is what she does work on) are well looked after in order to preserve them from any further deterioration for future generations.

Flood

thats not fair mike at duxford there are so many aircraft and so few people working in restoration sector things take time to be worked on. the victor and Shackleton are massive projects and need alot of time and care to be restored at the moment at duxford other aircraft have taken priority. Ive worked there and the atmosphere is good but with so many aircraft and deadlines work can be stressful at times,
Stewart

Careful Ashley, or you might get the job of making curtains for all the hangar windows. 🙂
mmitch.

Dave…as pointed out by mmitch, all of the main exhibition areas at Duxford bar the Land Warfare Hall (LWH) have quite large windows, which allow a fair bit of light in. The LWH is admittedly quite dark, but I think it is intended to be, in order to create an “atmosphere” for the tableaus (and personally, I think it works) I am not sure that the IWM has an “official” policy for the level of lighting for exhibits in terms of the physical impact upon them, but I can certainly try to find out. Working in the Museum’s Collections Division (which does not actually include the aircraft, tanks and other vehicles) I am well aware of how seriously the Museum takes the preservation and conservation of it’s collection. Great care is taken to store our collections at the best possible conditions in order to keep the collections in good condition, and to prolong (if impossible to defeat) the eventual deterioration of the collections.

I will not pass comment on the RAF Museum’s practices as I do not work there, so I’ll stop waffling now 😀

Becka

Dave Homewoods photo of the Havard showsthe worst possible lighting, a spotlight facing the camera, it simply burns out the image.

I have heard that flash photography is a problem to some security and fire detection systems, so in that instance the ban on flash is quite correct.

DOUGHNUT

At the risk of repeating myself from an earlier thread about Hendon, the lighting levels are low for a very good reason – preservation of the aircraft…

At the risk of repeating what was said on the other threads and by other people the Milestones section has whopping great windows and plenty of natural light. If the RAFM is so intent on the preservation of aircraft by knocking back the UV then this newly opened section is doing absolutely nothing to prevent it!

Flood

All I can say is it was explained to me by a good mate on the RNZAF Museum staff at the time that I lived there that the lighting can affect the artifacts. His job meant he was responsible for such matters, and he knew his stuff, having studied the mistakes and triumphs of many other museums round the world.

According to what he’d found out from various studies, the interior lighting can indeed damage artifacts, albeit very much more slowly than flashbulbs and sunlight. It makes sense to me, UV damages almost everything. Yes UV from sunlight more is damaging, but think about it, those planes simply sit all day under hot lights blazing away for probably up to ten hours. Add that up over the years, and you’re soon going to have to do some repainting and repair. Paint, like almost everything, breaks down under UV eventually.

And remember, a museum is in the game for the long term, not just for the two hours you’re there with your camera.

Where’s our resident museum plane duster offer, maybe she can offer some thoughts????

As a small aside to this…Most aircraft hangars, certainly in the military anyway, use both flouro and sodium lighting, the former being very bright but the latter being constant to counteract the former’s flicker, preventing people walking into moving props synched with a stobe flouro light. How many museums do we see in ex-hangars using flouros, quite a few. They are much worse than other types of lighting I’m told. A hangar filled with flouros reaching every point in the room with its light is certainly more damaging than strategically placed spotlights, as you’ll see below.

Also I want to say that I think that the backdrop of wartime London behind the German stuff in the BofB hall looks great by the way, much more innovative in the display of the planes than when I visited 11 years ago. I was rather disappointed in some aspects of Hendon’s displays when I went there, though the fact that I was seeing the awesome collection at all was overwhelmingly more important and outweighed the lack of creativity in some of the displays. I do wish they’d ditch the fake grass blast pens that the Spit and Hurri sit in though, they look like an Airfix set.

Here is an example of the RNZAF Museum, taken hastily by me with my rather old non-digital camera on a rickety tripod without a flash… just to give you guys an idea of how it is lit in the main hangar.