Should a national body step in

It’s worth pointing out that the Beverley whilst not an RAF museum aircraft was ideally located about as close to the RAF museum as you could possibly hope! I think a little more imagination could have saved something i.e the fuselage as a walk through exhibit .

The Beverley at Hendon wasnt in as poor a condition as they would have you believe.

Sure, there was some corrosion on the skins, but the spars were in good shape. I had a good look at them once they had been chopped up….

Bruce

While I’m prepared to chastise the RAF Museum’s management when I think they deserve it, on this case, IMHO, IIRC, they get a bad rap. The Beverley at RAF Hendon was NOT an RAF Museum aircraft, until the RAF dumped it on them (moving it from the airfield to the museum precinct) late in the day when it was riddled with corrosion and unsavable, letting the Museum get the bad PR for the inevitable scrapping.

Quite right, the a/c sat on the gate for 20 or so years, and at that time there was also, remember the instigation of the one guard per gate policy. Hence a/c were being broken up left right and centre.

Within months a chunk would have fallen off the air frame and with health and safety as it is, it would have been a nightmare – imagiane if an engine had broken loose.

Its a waste that none of the a/c was saved though, the cockpit at Newark makes a great walk through exhibit. Sadly the MOD put it up for tender so the RAFM would have had to buy the cockpit.

The Beverly would have ideal in the Cold war building with the other transports. Surely more so than the Belfast (an a/c I do like)? there are iconic shots of paratroopers piling out of Argosy and Beverly.

Whats the condition of the Comet at Lyneham?

The argument is more about the stepping in of a imagined or real national body to either take away and house or preserve an airframe in situ for the future national interest.

What is the point in pontificating on the possible actions of an imaginary body, which has little prospect of ever coming into being? I am also ill at ease with the assumed powers of this imaginary body, who will seemingly swoop in, and ‘take into custody’ any airframe deemed to be ‘at risk’ or being historically significant, or something.

I feel the whole discussion is not really about any imaginary or real body, its powers or lack of those. It’s about funding. Rather then ask “Is/should there be a body to act in a case like this?” one should ask “is/should there be funding?”. If you can find money for such action, a related ‘body’ will be easy to organise. If there’s no money, no ‘body’ will help.

Something else to consider – we have four national museums who are concerned with the preservation of historic aircraft…….
Bruce

Actually, it’s six I think:

Army Air Corps Museum
Fleet Air Arm Museum
Imperial War Museum (3 sites)
National Museum of Scotland (name right?)
Royal Air Force Museum (2 sites)
Science Museum (2 sites)

The Beverley is a good example but it would be unfortunate if those at Fort Paul might think there is criticiscm from some of the comments made here.

What other “large” British aircraft might be at long-term risk of extinction? We have at least one example of each of the V-bombers under cover, a Shackleton, several Comets, a Trident and Concordes are also indoors. What about the BAC 1-11, VC.10 and Avro 748? Others??

Roger Smith.

I used to work on the Shack outside at Mawgan, and am only too aware of how difficult it is to look after a large 1950s airframe when it is contsantly battling the elements. I do know that we all hope that it would be taken over nationally, and hopefully one day covered.

Look on the bright side at least the RAFM has an AEW.2 displayed inside at Manchester!

Back in 1977 I helped dismantle the Mk.3 that’s at Newark and had to watch when Beverley XL149 was actually chopped at Finningley – heart breaking but sadly it happened!

The nature of a debate involves digesting opinions at varience with your own.

What is the point in pontificating on the possible actions of an imaginary body, which has little prospect of ever coming into being? I am also ill at ease with the assumed powers of this imaginary body, who will seemingly swoop in, and ‘take into custody’ any airframe deemed to be ‘at risk’ or being historically significant, or something.

What about the restorers and volunteers whose efforts have preserved the thing in the first place. Do they just step aside and watch their ‘baby’ disappear on a low-loader?

It is a curse of our times, peoples acceptance and even love of ‘big government’ which will move in, take over, tell us how things should be, because somebody else knows best.

I sense that Pagen01 relishes some sort of a debate….there doesn’t really seem an awful lot to discuss

Thats the sort of shallow and pithy remark that gets these threads nowhere.
Also a very blinkered approach to our heritage.
Because it isn’t being done, dosen’t mean it shouldn’t, or that we wouln’t like it to be done.
As for a debate, yes that is clearly the intention – this is a forum is it not?!

I’m beginning to wish now I hadn’t used the Bev as the example, but it is perfect for the point of the intended debate here.

The argument is more about the stepping in of a imagined or real national body to either take away and house or preserve an airframe in situ for the future national interest.

I used to work on the Shack outside at Mawgan, and am only too aware of how difficult it is to look after a large 1950s airframe when it is contsantly battling the elements. I do know that we all hope that it would be taken over nationally, and hopefully one day covered.

I envy you that sound and spectacle, but my reference was to the present state of the sole survivor, and the likelihood of it attracting funds in the face of other contemporary competition, and naturally one thinks of the Vulcan.

I confess I have not visited in person the cherished Beverley, but made a rash guess that it is no longer very noisy save perhaps the wind moaning through the propeller blades, or the raindrops bouncing off the slab-sided fuselage.

I sense that Pagen01 relishes some sort of a debate, even though everybody seems to broadly agree that it would be great to secure the future of the aeroplane. However, in the absence of any statutory or charitable body in a position to make a difference, there doesn’t really seem an awful lot to discuss.

We have a least concluded that the Bev was a bit of a turkey, but we love it anyway:)

Unlike the Vulcan, it is not even noisy and spectacular.

Those of us who saw the final farewell flypast of a formation of Beverleys at Abingdon, followed by a ponderous horizontal bomb-burst, may beg to differ!

The UK’s aircraft preservation movement is one of the most diverse in the world and IMHO it would be very difficult to “un-pick” how it has evolved by trying to introduce a new national scheme to save airframes. It was difficult enough to devise a listing scheme like the NAHR to identify what is important and worth saving.

With the current financial situation and the increasingly scarce funding resources available to the heritage and arts sectors as funds are drawn away to the 2012 Olympics; I believe that financially such a scheme would be a none-starter.

It’s almost beyond belief that in this day and age a national museum like Hendon should have to take out banner adverts on sites like this to draw in visitors and presumably generate operating funding. So much for free museum access!

Of course, over time, application of similar criteria may also mean that aircraft currently in the national collection may be disposed of.
Bruce

Witness British Airways a couple of years ago wth some of the airliners at Cosford.
It almost happened wth Duxfords’ Shackleton Mk.3 (not sure on current plans), indeed there is only one Shackleton preserved indoors at all.

Gentlemen please read my posts more carefully, a couple of posts are suggesting this might be a little slight at the current Beverley situation – it isn’t in anyway and I utterly respect that they alone saved this aircraft and look after it very well.

Someone mentioned that it isn’t as important as the Hercules so intimated why bother saving it on a national scale, ok turn the tables, it’s far more significant than a Belfast and one of those is looked after very well by a national collection.

I have picked the Bev as a case due to it being a single example of its type, not massively significant (like a Lancaster say), and displayed outside.

Should we allow these things jus to happen or should there be a body / funding to intervene for the futures sake?

The Beverley as a type saw far more warlike action than the Vulcan so it all depends on your perception of ‘undistinguished’ Moggy!

Something else to consider – we have four national museums who are concerned with the preservation of historic aircraft.

If none of those four have chosen to preserve an example of a certain type, then can we assume they have applied certain criteria to their decision making in order to work out what should be kept? In the case of the Beverley, it may well be that the decision has been made that it is not sufficiently important to warrant one being preserved in the national collection.

Of course, over time, application of similar criteria may also mean that aircraft currently in the national collection may be disposed of.

Bruce

But if we have only one of a type left, should efforts be made to prolong its existence, forceably if needs be?

Surely there must be an EU Commission for the Preservation of Items Most People Would Consider Rubbish ?

I’ll force myself to take the job for 250,000 quid a year. 😀

Seriously, since it’s the last of its kind some planning would be nice.
What does Fort Paull say about its future? If they’re taking care if it I could see they might be a bit insulted by the impression that the aircraft was in long-term danger…especially since they spent money to move the plane when no one else stepped up to take it.

I think possibly this is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but reality would dictate to many problems to make happen.

If it was a unique peice of artwork the logistics would be relatively simple to achieve in terms of moving and storing the item securely.

Lets say a national organisation decided X airframe was to be placed under national ownership (for want of a better word) does that necesarily mean that there would be a home for it. An aircraft the size of a Hunter or for most modern single/two seat military jets that might be possible to achieve. Although as stated the Thud at Duxford remains dismantled, thankfully undercover.

But going back to the Beverly where would the organisation stand then?

Most museums are run on limited budgets, even the RAFM so who funds the compulsary purchase orders. Who funds the dismantling, transportation, reassembly of the airframe. And secondly who funds the undercover storage for the display of the aircraft. As Ben stated in the case of the Bev nobody else wanted it so what does that suggest?

So what Im saying would we be left with an organisation which would only take on smaller airframes?

Additionally would the “national museums” want or be able to care fpr all these at risk aircraft they find themselves with. Would we find ourselves with collections that are over stretched so either a) existing airframes suffer or b) opening hours reduce to fund this?

My main concern for aircraft preservation is the larger aircraft types we use. I think we are crying out for a RAF VC10 to be preserved. Will it happen????????? I hope so but it will be a huge undertaking.

I don’t know what kind of situation the bev is in but wouldnt it be possible to erect some kind of temporary structure around her (tent:D) until a permanent home can be found;)

Chaps – may i make a counterpoint?

When MoAT closed, the Bev was up for anyone who wanted her to bid for and take her away.

Fort Paull succeeded and undertook what must have been the mammoth task of transporting her and re-assembling a giant airframe, then repainted her.

Bottom line, no one else did. I dont have any connection to FP – indeed I’ve never been there but it might be considered by some to be a bit of a slap in the face to suggest national compulsory purchase on an aeroplane they clearly have lavished some care on – compare and contrast Lasham????

Just posted in the spirit of discussion 🙂

TT

We all too often look at such problems with blinkers on.

£150K was suggested as a figure to house an aircraft the size of the Beverley – I think that is somewhat conservative. There always seems to be the presumption that the only way to preserve is complete – ie fully assembled.

Occasionally there are moans about, for example, the F-105 at Duxford not being assembled and on display. I would rather have four rare types preserved in a dismantled state than two preserved and two extinct.

Roger Smith.