Tempest NV778 in target-tug colour scheme..

there is already one of those hanging upside down (arggg!!!!) in the museum at Speyer, Germany. One day I will post some photos. I was thinking about of one of the plastic replica’s that to RAF exhibition unit used to tow around the airshows and smaller country fairs.

DOUGHNUT

Actually the RAF is a bit short of Hawks at the moment.

Can they use an Alpha Jet instead. if it’s in Red Arrows colours, 90% of visitors will never know

Willow

Ok then willow lets use a Red Arrows Hawk. The non aviation visitor will not know the difference anyway.

Don’t waste Red Arrows Gnats!!!

They are better off in the air

Willow

Steve wrote

I’m intrigued now – I’ve not seen it, but what’s so awful about the SC-1 suspension?

Its an insult to the designers at Short’s. OK the aircraft may not have been the prettiest ever to take to the sky, but it still deserves respect. I do not have a photo, last time I visited I could not bring myself to wave a camera at it. Basically the museum have removed one wing and bolted what is left half way up a wall, OK you can see the four RR lift jet engines but there must a have been an easier way. The whole point of the display is lost because I would expect that most of the non aviation public will not recognise that they are looking at an aeroplane, it look more like a giant hair drier!

I am not against dramatic displays but do not do it to significant aircraft, IMHO the SC-1 should be at Cosford with the rest of the R&D collection, its place in the Science Museum could easily be taken by something like Red Arrows Gnat.

DOUGHNUT

Willow – ask Bill Fern (Chairman) or Naylan Moore ( Curator ) if I have ever visited !

Kev35 and David Burke.

I now have a better understanding for you idea. I still don’t fully agree with it as every restored aeroplane has been derelict at some stage, but I do see some of the merits in what you say.

And yes, as long as the grass is cut and the aeroplanes are shiny, it is better for isolated collections to have airframes that they cannot look after. My reasoning is as follows, even though these airframes will probably be scrapped eventually, in the meantime they are probably the local areas only site of aviation interest and hence the only place where local schools can visit to give kids a chance to see REAL aeroplanes. It’s the same as with dinosaurs. A kid will have seen Jurassic Park etc, but will never understand the size and presence of a T-Rex unless confronted with a full size skeleton. The same would be true of a Lightning (jet). In a book it is just another aeroplane, but when confronted for real, it has a fantastic appeal. It is every inch a fighter, it’s doing Mach2 when it’s parked. It doesn’t matter to a 7year old whether the Lightning is rotting away under the paint or not, it still looks the part.

OK, so it DOES matter to guys like us whether it’s rotting away or not, but in 10years time that kid has a greater chance of getting a career in aviation if he’s/she’s actually come into contact with the real thing.
There is also the ‘my dad used to be an armourer on Lightnings…. oh, would you like to see one?’ argument. No Lightning, no chance to see.

I’m going on a bit now so I’ll stop, but you see what I mean and I’ll even back you up a bit. I agree that a small collection does not need 2 identical airframes, both rotting away. If you dismantle one you have a greater chance of saving the other.
On the other hand though, have you ever visited Aeroventure at Doncaster? It’s full of the bits other museums throw away, and it’s absolutely fascinating!!!

I will stop this time

Willow

Tempest suspension

I had a chat with the team leader of the restoration and it turns out that the Tempest won’t have any huge great holes cut in the skins or re-inforcement plates, just small wire exit holes cut in the wing root fairings, which are new as they don’t want to compromise the original fairings (even though they’re from SN219), I know this as I was a link in the chain which got the new ones made and repaired the originals. I was dubious when I saw the start of the painting but upon seeing the whole thing I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome and as others have said Target tugs are a bit thin on the ground so it’s nice to see one represented though a camo scheme would look better, I’ll wait for EJ693 to be completed for that though 😉 On the B-25 matter, does it really matter that much? there are plenty more B-25s than Tempests and the example in the AAM isn’t exactly a Grand Champion winner or even a potential one at that as there’s better examples out there to base an airworthy rebuild upon.

Tom.

My problem with aircraft that the B-25 is that in order to hang things safely you have to start doing modifications to the aircraft’s
skinning in order to allow safe securement of the lifting points.
Bringing it further on can you imagine what they will need to do to the TSR-2 if they succeed in their plan to hang her up?
Simply put the bigger the aircraft the large the apparatus is needed to suspend it and the more compromises need to be taken in order to display it.
My next door neighbour has a captive Eagle owl kept in a very large aviary type building . She cannot fly as such and I consider to be a ‘grounded ‘ animal – thats the same thought I apply to preserved aircraft.

Originally posted by David Burke

Moggy – Your arguement is that because an aircraft is static it’s
somehow of less value than a flying machine – that simply doesn’t stand up .

Oh yes it does!

The ONLY purpose of an aircraft is to fly.

In my world a static aircraft is still worth a thousand working steam locomotives, or a couple of hundred red Ferraris, but the finest static aircraft (S-Sugar? Sorry Lancman) Isn’t in the same league as the most down at heel C152 dragging first solo students into the air from Nether Wopping in the Mud Flying Club.

Flying is mystical, the history of flying is second best. A great second best, but second none the less.

Anyway making comparisons of ‘value’ is personal. If I say it, its true for me.

Moggy

But you still haven’t explained what the problem is with the B25

Cannot find a picture – all I can do is recommend you go and see the ‘Making The Modern World’ exhibition in the Science Museum and make your own mind up. There is nothing wrong with the engineering effort it’s just what thought occured for her to be
displayed in the way she is. The exhibition is well worth viewing anyway!

David, I’m intrigued now – I’ve not seen it, but what’s so awful about the SC-1 suspension?

Moggy – Nice prose but at what stage does an aircraft evolve from
being a machine built in a factory to something mystical.
You simply cannot decide that something is ‘dead’ because it’s in a museum. Plenty of examples of aircraft have flown again after enforced periods on the ground. The RAF ‘gate guard’ Spitfires were to many people worse than ‘dead’ – they were condemned to a life of corrosion with little future.
Your arguement is that because an aircraft is static it’s
somehow of less value than a flying machine – that simply doesn’t stand up . My arguement is that if we decide something is worthy of ‘preservation’ then thats what we should do. Doing alterations
to an aircraft in order that it can be hung isn’t preservation.
If you have a chance visit the Science Museum and look at the Short SC-1 suspended and then we can discuss the realative merits of it.

Get to bed you bleeding drunk!

Don’t be obtuse.

Dead is an aircraft that will never be an aircraft again. The empty souless husk of a once magnificent flying machine pinned forever to the ground.

Moggy

Moggy – Define ‘dead’ is your aircraft ‘dead’ when it’s having an annual and is out of the air?
The idea of preservation is to preserve something in the form of which it was built allowing of course for the replacement of components which happen as a course of its flying career.
If it’s doesn’t matter because you class it as ‘dead’ would it no be cheaper to have aircraft represented by photographs in museums?
Aircraft are not designed to be hung from roofs – it’s not
a part of their design and I do not see that you can justify it by saying it’s better than having it outside if that’s the only other option. Thats ‘carrot and stick’ – a better way is to think about what you acquire and allow for it in future expansion plans.

But David, can you explain?

What difference does it make. The B25 is a dead airframe. Far better it hangs there than rots outside surely?

Moggy

Steve – damage is a strong word. If you take a look at how the B-25 is suspended you will see how it’s been necessary to suspend her. It’s not a case of the integrity of the suspension plates or indeed the cables etc it’s the compromise that has to be made to suspend an aircraft . They simply arn’t designed in most cases to be suspended . There was no need to incorporate this in the design .Therefore we see aircraft with suspension plates bolted to the structure as opposed to fittings being screwed into inbuilt
lifting points.
I am well aware of the work carried out on the Lockheed
10 and the skill taken in doing it but it’s worth pointing out that
it’s been reasonably easy to hide the method of attachment on her – machines like the F-100 in the AAM need very large plates
bolted to the fuselage in order to spread the weight.

Originally posted by David Burke
Steve- go to the Science Museum and tell me what your thoughts
are regarding how the ‘suspension’ of the Short SC-1 has either
improved or otherwise the perception of the type.
This isn’t about who carries out work to suspend aircraft but the actual concept as a whole. Simply put you cannot suspend an
aircraft without incurring some airframe damage inorder for it to be anchored securely when it’s above your head. In the case of the Mitchell there are large suspension plates bolted to the mainspar with exit holes for these through new skinning holes .
If your an aircraft engineer you know this goes against the s principle of maintaining the structural integrity of an aircraft.

David, I’ve not seen the SC-1, so can’t comment on that.

I did however see at close hand a lot of the work that went into the suspension fittings for the Lockheed 10, and the work was carried out with absolute sympathy for the aircraft’s structure and future. As I’m sure you know, the fittings were sleeves which fit around certain load-bearing parts of the aircraft’s structure, and therefore transmit the load as evenly as possible. The fittings were then attached to the suspension cables through existing panel holes, and I understand that the panels were placed inside the aircraft for safe keeping when she was suspended. Essentially, the Lockheed 10 was undamaged by the suspension.

Knowing who carried this work out, and what his views are on this kind of thing, and having briefly seen part of the B25 and C47 suspension fittings, I just can’t for the life of me imagine that he’d have been happy to inflict any damage on an aircraft, and as you know, his views on structural integrity (and therefore safety) are second to none.

I would have to agree with those that I would prefer to see them hung rather than left to the elements. Because it isn’t a death sentence.. They will most likely be brought down someday with minimal damage done to the airframe (assuming that they were done properply in the first place). But that being said I hope more museums don’t jump on the band wagon and start hanging up all their collections. It will start to look like my bedroom from my childhood..

my two cents..