Snoopy flies

One of the good things about the Museum Registration / Accreditation process is that to be part of the system a Museum has to have an acceptable Collection & Disposal Policy.

Yes there was a phase of ‘grab anything’ and that helped a lot of items survive but the latest accepted collection & disposal standards are far more onerous and I believe that you will see more considered acquisitions and possible disposals in the future.

Remember, without being Registered or Accredited it is unlikely that you’ll secure any funding for any major capital projects – especially those aimed at getting airframes inside.

I think actually you learn from the past and indeed your errors. Nothing about some kind of evangelical ‘forgiving the actions of the past’ -that’s completely meaningless. The control of preservation in the future is entirely down to the people who are about then -we can only hope that they are sufficiently interested in what has been saved.
As for collecting policies – I can think of a number that have not had collecting policies over the years .I have been involved in preservation for a while and it’s clear that a lot of aircraft are acquired because it’s ‘available’
and for no other strong reason.
Funding as a whole is available to some degree -however duplicating what everyone else is doing or keeping unique aircraft outside while common ones are inside isn’t really good practice.

So much as I would like to say that everything is ‘rosy’ -it isn’t -the toll of corrosion carries on and there are collections that will falter in the next few years. By all means ignore the reality but preservation needs to police and come up with some new answers to the problems ahead.

David

No point in taking this further. You will not be able to look to the future until you forgive the actions of the past and move on. What has happened has gone. The control of preservation in the future is in our hands and negative sniping is not needed.

By the way, very few museums in this country are operating without a collecting policy. The common factor throughout them all is a lack of proper funding to get everything under cover.

The future is bright – the future is…….. hangars 🙂

Bravoalpha- That still doesn’t explain why the RAFM should preserve a largely modified former weather research aircraft (not a test or trials aircraft) which is in no way now representative of the type and the sterling service it’s carried for the British armed services. Interestingly the last specifically modified ‘weather ship’ to be preserved in the U.K was at the IWM Duxford – a Varsity which was scrapped by them in the 1990’s.
As for your other statements – East Fortune has a history of preserving one large aircraft inside namely Concorde. The former BA collection machines that arrived comprised the cockpit of the Boeing 707 ( the only part remaining in the U.K on display of one of aviation’s most significant airliners)- a BAC 1-11 (a type preserved in reasonable numbers) and a Viscount which is still dismantled.
Duxford has in the past chopped a Comet 2 – Convair VT-29 and Varsity.
Other groups i.e in the past have preserved Beverleys. From effectively four
at Finningley-Southend and Hendon we now have one surviving. Maybe I am misreading the situation but that seems a very high attrition rate.

From my understanding of the situation the last few years have seen and will continue to see large aircraft decimated (indeed it seems like even a small 748 might evade preservation). So maybe rather than burying our heads in the sand and thinking that by ‘preserving’ numerous duplictes we achieve a lot – we really should be targetting specific aircraft which are endangered.

None of my statements belittle preservation at all – one thing that preservation does suffer from is a lack of cohesive collecting policies and people who can look to the future. Explain how these aircraft can survive
the long term effects of the British climate and I might side with your view – however using one example of a former RAF Britannia at Kemble and a former
freighter pretending to be an RAF example at Cosford makes me wonder if in reality the resources should be ploughed into one a Kemble to ensure atleast one former RAF example survives.

Bravo – much as I would like to see Snoopy preserved – if I was the RAFM curator I would be seeking a bog standard Hercules to represent the RAF use of the type.

I’m sure the remit of the curator covers both examples. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made. If Snoopy came up for grabs at the same time as a bog standard example, I know where my choice would be.

The fact that ‘Snoopy’ has very low hours also indicates that she hasn’t really had anywhere near the use of other aircraft in the fleet .

Sorry David, I fail to see the significance of this statement. A C130 flying thousands of hours carrying out it’s essential task of moving freight and passengers – which it was designed for – against Snoopy’s rather more unique history of test flying and the unknown nuber of hours modifying her for the tests meaning she couldn’t fly – I still know where my choice would be.

As for preserving more Hercules in the U.K – the U.K reord in large aircraft preservation isn’t too sparkling ! Effectively we cannot adequately preserve what we already have.

I see. We should abandon large aircraft in the future because of lack of funding in the past and the guys at Duxford, Cosford, Brooklands, East Fortune, Bruntingthorpe and many more have got it all wrong. I think not!
I agree that while there are some poorly preserved aircraft around, the majority are in the hands of some very dedicated people and lovingly cared for. Your statement belittles their efforts and does the cause of aircraft preservation no good whatsoever. I would expect better from you. 😀

Bravo – much as I would like to see Snoopy preserved – if I was the RAFM curator I would be seeking a bog standard Hercules to represent the RAF use of the type. The fact that ‘Snoopy’ has very low hours also indicates that she hasn’t really had anywhere near the use of other aircraft in the fleet .
As for preserving more Hercules in the U.K – the U.K reord in large aircraft preservation isn’t too sparkling ! Effectively we cannot adequately preserve what we already have.

Bravo Alpha

I agree with your thoughts but sadly the MOD is so short of money with the government demanding that it is more like a business everyday. It is then forced to make money by every means available to it. I am sure that there are many of us who are employed by the MOD who would like to see more aircraft go to preservation – the government is to blame for it not happening due to its short sighted policies.

It’s a quite a big airframe, realistically who would be able to take and maintain them ?

Aeronut

You say the Skydel system is easily removable – perhaps but its cetainly quicker to perform a full flat floor to roller or vice verca with the -4 system further more it does not take up valuable cargo space down route when not in use unlike the Skydel system.

The skydel system is unsuited to modern ops which require quick role changes hence the reason that the K’s in both operational theatres operate in a compromised roll will no side guidance rails requiring the pallets to be chain lashed.

I can not comment on the -4 for air drop as I have no dealings with it however on all other nations aircraft we load the locks workperfectly well unlike the ones in our J’s because they were fitted when the aircraft was built and not as an afterthought when some other so called money saving option failed.

Bravo Alpha

I agree with your thoughts but sadly the MOD is so short of money with the government demanding that it is more like a business everyday. It is then forced to make money by every means available to it. I am sure that there are many of us who are employed by the MOD who would like to see more aircraft go to preservation – the government is to blame for it not happening due to its short sighted policies.

Would the Snoopy Hercules actually be that representative of the Hecules in military service? Surely if the RAFM get one a C-130K would be the one to go for?

Have you forgotten that the RAFM have an extensive collection of test aircraft. The cold war building is terrific but people seem to be forgetting the rest of the collection elsewhere on the Cosford site. It seems to me that Snoopy would fit nicely into that part of the collection.
It was announced at the last BAPC meeting that the Canadian Armed Forces are about to donate no fewer than 9 C130’s to Canada’s museums. Isn’t it time that the MOD went back to thinking along these lines instead of selling all their surplus aircraft to the highest (sometimes) bidder – often a scrapman?

Dash 4a is as antiquated as Skydel – they both originated from the same requirement!
The beauty of Skydel is its easily removable (which it is why its seen as antiquated by some users) unlike the fit and forget FOD traps of Dash 4a and its flip over derivatives.
I’ve had to read a large number of American accident reports and the one common factor in most of the fatal accdents during airdrop were laid at the door of Dash 4a.
I agree that when the RAFs J Hercs got Dash 4a it was butchered during installation (I was the one who pointed it out) but to be fair that was the result of poor build quality of the aircraft.

The skydel system is antiquated. There is nothing wrong with the -4 system it works well for the other C-130 users unlike the RAF who had their J models delivered with no system at all and then had it bodged in at Cambridge.

Messing about by wanting to use the Skydel system which was tried on the rear crew trainer at Lyneham is why the -4 does not work properly – what we should have had is the flip over roller and electric pallet locks similar to those in the C-17 which the Danish amongst other nations have in their C-130J’s.

The cargo tie down points were the same as the old Belfast to use the same role equipment

Ah the good old Skydel Mk 2 as also seen on VC10, Britannia, Andover and Argosey, fully adjustable and adaptable, much better than that leathal c##p of a system fitted to all other Hercs (inc the C Mk 4 and C Mk 5) the Dash 4a cargo handling system.

Talking of Skydel and Belfast’s just how did the RAF museum get the MSP into the one at Cosford without a roller floor?

Not a very good scan but proof that she is alive and well..

Removed as part of the modification, the mods to the centre wing are too major for it to be reversed.

The nose cone is now on display inside the Met Office.

Good photo, it would seem that the aircraft has retained it’s RAF registration of XV208 instead of assuming B markings or a civil registration.

There is an interesting photo here

The C3 is basically a RAF’d L100-30 stretched Herc. Similar stretched Hercs serve with Egypt, Netherlands, Portugal, USMC, France, Malaysia and Spain amongst others, so not unique to RAF service.

Thats not really accurate.
The RAF fleet is quite unique in the world as no other air forces had the same spec aircraft (not including Austria and Sri Lanka that had ex RAF aircraft)

The cargo tie down points were the same as the old Belfast to use the same role equipment, so this means the floors, chine caps and ring frame fittings were all unique to RAF fleet.This used to cause quite a problem when waiting for structural spares as the lead time could be quite a bit longer.

The C3 is basically a RAF’d L100-30 stretched Herc. .

Similar, but not the same as Marshalls modified C.3.

Pagen01,
Not just to UK weather research. It was a world renowned asset. The RAF aircrews who flew it (through some appalling “stuff”) and the civilian Met Office flying scientists who accumulated the data were known in the met aviation world as being of the very highest order.
Another victim of salami slicing cuts!!
Resmoroh

But it has been replaced with a more modern type – a modified BAe 146…okay its not dear old snoopy, but..