The Future of Aviation Preservation

Bruce – I wonder if the Victory has a data plate ? Then anything is permissable!

Its the equivalent of Triggers Broom – its still in use, and still the flagship of the Royal Navy, so bits will keep getting replaced. I guess its past the point where ‘conservation’ would be better than replacement in any case.

Bruce

Sea Vixen,

Have a look on the ICC site

http://www.internationalcockpitclub.org.uk/sales.php

Nice S.2b and sensibly priced.

Bruce – I wonder if the Victory has a data plate ? Then anything is permissable!

I would have expected as much, it is after all 200+ years old!!, and however little of the original ship that does remain ,its still more than many flying A/C , many of which are only a quarter of “her” age ,and have been undercover for at least half of their lives!

Victory may not be a particularly good analogy.

There is a guy up here in Norfolk who has been recycling wood from Victory for some considerable time; he makes a lot of furniture, curios and so on with it. Point is that it was extensively reconstructed in the last century, and one wonders how much of the original now survives! Perhaps not very different from some of todays flying aeroplanes!

Bruce

Good point, I went round Victory last year during the Trafalgar celebrations and it was the first time in my lifetime of visits, that I had seen it complete.
In fact, I was told by one of the staff, that this year they were going to replace the whole starboard side.
Only in the bottom of the hull could you see evidence of original ribs and beams.
But then, it’s still the Flagship of the fleet, so the powers that be will throw any amount of money on it, and quite right too, same as the BBMF, we hope.

Victory may not be a particularly good analogy.

There is a guy up here in Norfolk who has been recycling wood from Victory for some considerable time; he makes a lot of furniture, curios and so on with it. Point is that it was extensively reconstructed in the last century, and one wonders how much of the original now survives! Perhaps not very different from some of todays flying aeroplanes!

Bruce

Its possible that the UK’s high density of “preserved “A/C can be atrbuted to reflected glory; being an Island nation defence of the realm has always been important to us; in this day and age when the UK can’t even produce a stuffed toy ,we can look back to a time (quite a long time) when we were “top dog” at something , and these preserved airframes make us feel better ,for our own under achieving. Many of the A/C under threat are by and large civil types (with the exception of a few well known military types)their size being their undoing . As I’ve said before in similiar discussions duplication isn’t an issue ; people don’t want to travel hundreds of miles to see something ,they would much rather do 50 miles or less, as apart from anything else ,the roads are so congested in this country that you can spend half the day travelling a relatively short distance. Regarding Concorde ,theres only half a dozen of them ,can that really be too many? its not as if we are trying to preserve all 22,000 spitfires is it, and on the subject of Spitfires, I can purchase a new building to house one for about £3000-, infrastructure i.e road ways and mains sevices will add a fair bit but the principle is that a steel single span building (which comes ready to assemble) is relatively cheap; its the “poncy” designer ones that eat up all the money . There is however a real problem in getting local authorities planning departments on side. One other aspect to our heritage, is that we keep adding to it, and every 10 – 20 years another type is retired from service and is eligible for preservation soon after. The very real problem with preservation, is that it is by definition never ending , but taking HMS Victory as an example, 200- years out in the open, and made of wood ,it is possible.

Hi Sea Vixen

I would prefer to see a whole aircraft any day. How stunning is a spitfire, especially flying. Imagine if there were no complete spitfires left, and just a few cockpits. How tragic would that be!

As for the BA collection at RAF Cosford, I am supprised that they see fit to dispose of these, while at the same time, there is clearly much resource being expended on the new Cold War museum there. Its really like the Hendon Beverley situation all over again. No lessons learnt there then.

Airliners, along with large bomber or transport aircraft will always present the hardest airframes to preserve. I knew one of the team who restored the B52 at Duxford, which was a massive task. And even this, fully painted and kept within a dry museum could have a limited life, owing to the high magnesium content in its airframe!

i am very very sorry if i offended enyone with my comment about preserving cockpits. the reason being i put that in my post was seeing on another thread in this forum, people are cutting up a Trident in the veiw of just keeping the cockpit… to be honest with you it made me a bit mad to say the least. the people who restore and preserve aircraft cockpits do a fantastic job, obviosly not everyone has the space and money to keep and restore a whole airframe. im sorry i hate the thought of putting a gas cutter enywhere near a vintage or classic machine.
i wonder how much a Buccaneer cockpit is…

…I believe the following statement to be true, but am happy to stand corrected, if proven otherwise: “Compared to most other countries in the west there are a lot of aircraft preserved in the UK, probably second only to the US.”…

An interesting statement, and kind of illustrates my contention that the UK scene is very bad at measuring itself, let alone making international comparisons.

[Edit for clarification: I agree with D Collins that the UK has a great population of preserved aircraft, although the US has a larger selection, but then it’s a larger country. However it’s interesting that it is not generally a recognised fact among all too many of the UK aviation preservationists!

Even major museums often don’t trouble to make test comparasons of their performance with peer organisations overseas – that’s a form or arrogance or ignorance; neither being helpful or healthy.]

I’m certain this is true:
England has a greater density of aviation museums and preserved aircraft than any other country in the world.

The following in almost certainly true:
England has, per capita, a greater percentage of its population involved in aviation preservation than any other country in the world.

A caveat. I’ve made it easier on my definitions, and focussed the statements by using England, rather than Britain or any of the other ‘UK&NI’ ‘sets’; although adding the Welsh, Scots, and other constituent parts, would primarily weaken the case – both are much more typical of the rest of the world; relatively little concentrated in a few locations.

The vast majority of preservation occurs in Southern England, within a 200 mile radius of London. Interesting point?

The fact is that the UK (or England if you prefer) has the most vintage aviation and preservation in an equivalent area. While there’s a lot of great stuff going on in the USA, it involves a much smaller percentage of the population, and is spread over an area vastly larger. Despite my concern, the awareness and interest of other nation’s aviation history is also significantly greater in the UK than the US.

Given all that, there’s going to be a lot of ‘problems’ simply because there’s a lot going on; but the overall scene is a good one, IMHO.

Just a couple of thoughts.

I would be interested to see how individual aircraft are assessed, or graded as to their significance. If you could save only 3 of the following, how would one do so?

1/ Hawker Typhoon. – Sole survivor, USA evaluation aircraft, no service use.
2/ Fairey Barracuda II. – Salvaged wreckage, sole survivor, FAA service use.
3/ Bristol Brigand. – Damaged fuselage only, sole survivor.
4/ de Havilland Sea Vampire 1 – Prototype, one of few early vampires left.
5/ de Havilland Mosquito – Prototype, one of few early mosquito’s left.
6/ Gloster E.28/39 – First UK jet powered aircraft.
7/ Supermarine Spitfire MK.IX, MH434 – Combat record, continually flown for past 60+ years, mostly original.
8/ Vickers Valiant – Dropped UK’s first atomic bomb.
9/ Avro York – Complete preserved, memorial to the Berlin airlift.
10/ de Havilland DH.88 Comet Racer – Race winner.

Could we scrap one Spitfire each, or three T6s each to save all of the above?

Sea Vixen quoted:

personally i have never seen the point of preserving just the cockpit..its like buying a old classic car and just keeping the dashboard !!!!. i have never looked at a cockpit and thought, thats a fantastic looking aircraft..a aircaft has got wings and a tail… oh **** that one havnt got eny !!!!!!.

Everyone is entitled to their own personal preferences on what is worth saving, or spending time and resources on. If there is little else left, other than the cockpit to start with then a cockpit is worth saving. From a pilots perspective, you will spend 99% of your time in the cockpit anyway. It is the part that he/she has the majority of their personal interaction with.

Secondly, as long as there remains a complete example of a type left in a museum, with an assured future, I see no harm in saving a cockpit from an aircraft that is being scrapped anyway. This is afterall more likely to “last the distance” and be better looked after than a large complete airframe.

UK Aircraft preservation in 2006

Dear all

I have been following this thread for a few days, and have now decided to put in writing some thoughts. There are clearly a lot of interested preservationists who read and contribute to this forum, which in a big way, is a good thing for the movement as a whole anyway.

I believe the following statement to be true, but am happy to stand corrected, if proven otherwise: “Compared to most other countries in the west there are a lot of aircraft preserved in the UK, probably second only to the US.”

Just compare the latest editions of UK Wrecks and Relics, to the European Wrecks and Relics books for a start! With more aircraft, more museums, groups & individuals with very diverse ideas of collecting and their preservation standards, coupled with a very variable climate and funding issues, probably gives the UK the greatest headache in terms of what to save for future posterity compared to most other countries.

I for one attended several BAPC meetings in the early 90’s, while with a small group with the difficult task of restoring a Meteor and a Vampire outdoors! There was clearly a will in the council to save airframes for future generations, and in one form or another, it remains so to this day. The proposals put forward in this thread are all good, and are core to the BAPC. The council meetings were good to spread the word in “stopping the rot” at a very grass roots level, and have managed to save many airframes over the years, however without real legal powers, it is very difficult to influence the future of a privately owned airframe facing the axe, whether it be “owned” by Joe public, a charitable trust or a National body, because in many cases the £££ out weigh the greater cause, while their actions can be limited to just lobbying.

There are many levels of involvement from aircraft preservationists. I’m doing my bit, and I know many others who are too. Echoing Bruce Gordon, and Stuart Gowans comments, indeed there are fewer of the younger generations coming through with the interest or skills. But this sadly reflects the downward spiral of industry.

The involvement of the individual is key, at what ever level. There are for example:

– Cockpit owners. (like myself these days)
– Working + Retired staff Weekend volunteers at museums.
– Mostly Retired staff Weekday volunteers at museums.
– Fulltime Paid restorers at museums.

All levels of involvement are necessary, and indeed form the backbone of preserving our heritage. It is important for any individual or museum to have a clear collecting policy and only collect what you can afford. I would rather visit a museum with one historically significant aircraft preserved, researched, and displayed indoors, than a field full of many that are sinking up to their axels in mud, with a bad state of preservation, where the resources are stretched.

Can somebody on the Forum publish an up-to-date list of the BAPC airframes on this thread so we can see if what is considered saving?

I would be interested to see how individual aircraft are assessed, or graded as to their significance. If you could save only 3 of the following, how would one do so?

1/ Hawker Typhoon. – Sole survivor, USA evaluation aircraft, no service use.
2/ Fairey Barracuda II. – Salvaged wreckage, sole survivor, FAA service use.
3/ Bristol Brigand. – Damaged fuselage only, sole survivor.
4/ de Havilland Sea Vampire 1 – Prototype, one of few early vampires left.
5/ de Havilland Mosquito – Prototype, one of few early mosquito’s left.
6/ Gloster E.28/39 – First UK jet powered aircraft.
7/ Supermarine Spitfire MK.IX, MH434 – Combat record, continually flown for past 60+ years, mostly original.
8/ Vickers Valiant – Dropped UK’s first atomic bomb.
9/ Avro York – Complete preserved, memorial to the Berlin airlift.
10/ de Havilland DH.88 Comet Racer – Race winner.

Daft comparison really, as these are all clearly examples of significant airframes worth saving for future generations, but try applying a selection process to literally the 800+ types of aircraft in the UK alone, and then multiply this by the overall number of examples of each type (each individual history, with varying states of preservation and ownership), then you can see how complex a task it can be. There will be fewer resources to preserve each aircraft, and the condition of most located outdoors will significantly deteriorate within out lifetimes, so there is a real need to help identify those most at risk and act accordingly, and soon.

bravoalpha,

Glad to hear it – By my own admission elsewhere, I am somewhat of a mushroom, in that I only have time for my family, and the museum one day a week if I am lucky. For that reason, I dont have much time to see what is going on elsewhere unless it is reported here.

However, there is a perception that the BAPC is not being used to full effect, for example as a lobbying organisation, to keep airframes in the country, or indeed alive.

Our museum is a member of BAPC, and indeed I know Steve Hague very well, he having been a mate for more years than I care to remember! However, I dont have the time to go to meetings these days, and there is no-one else at the museum with the inclination to do so. I well remember meetings when no more than seven individuals showed up, which led me to believe that this was still the case. Indeed I attended a number of meetings with John and Steve (and others) when the training programme was being devised.

Let me just take issue with one point – the BAPC might well be the members, but by criticising them, we are not criticising all the volunteers in the country! I was involved in a small way with the BAPC for a number of years, but one of the reasons I stopped other than the time issue was that I just couldnt see what they were doing that was helping me!

In both of my posts above, I have tried very hard to be as constructive as possible; I am merely stating the case as I see it, and as it applies to me. I am not known for rash criticism, as is reflected in my posts elsewhere. As I have already stated, I dont have all the answers, and it may be that the BAPC is more alive than I give it credit for. I just struggle to see a long term future for an old mans pastime….

Bruce

Originally posted by Septic
If this is the case then why doesn’t the BAPC make a start by relaunching its own Journal ‘Control Column’, it may have have rather amateurish but it did offer a vehicle for the member organisations to publicise the efforts and events. It also offered the public an initial point of contact with the BAPC, with copies avaliable at member museums and airshows etc.

If this option proved to costly how about taking a regular page in Flypast, with clear links to an up to the minute maintained website.

The BAPC do publish their own journal, BAPC Matters, which is distributed to members. The need for Control Column was largely overtaken by the likes of Flypast and other monthlies. As Flypast are members of the BAPC, perhaps they are now “the” journal?

Originally posted by Bruce
The BAPC has been in decline in recent years,

Where have you been hiding Bruce? The current Chairman, Steve Hague and Secretary, Brian Dixon are more active than any in recent years. The BAPC consists only of it’s members. Those members are the museums and groups around the country who are in the business of “doing” rather than talking. Every time we lambast the BAPC we are taking a dig at every volunteer in the country because they ARE the BAPC. If anyone here is a volunteer at a museum, you are probably members too so find your Museum representative and get involved. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism takes some real thought and effort.

Originally posted by Bruce
For a number of years, the BAPC ran seminars and courses aimed at helping the volunteer organisation understand the problems associated with aircraft preservation and restoration

They still do. Their Stopping the Rot seminars are alive and well. the last one was at Warton last October and was an excellent day. I believe another is planned for later this year.

Originally posted by Bruce
John Berkeley spent a number of years trying to get some sort of training scheme up and running, but I think apathy ruled, and this fizzled out.

Now you really are out of date. The training scheme is up and running thanks to the initial input from John Berkeley and brought to fruition by Louise Court and others when John stepped down.
They now employ 2 full time trainers, a part time manager and an administrator. Training courses are free to all BAPC members and can lead to a City & Guilds qualification for those volunteers who want it. Courses have already been run at museums throughout the country and many more are already booked as the scheme takes off.

Interesting debate but possibly an almost impossible task to get a conclusion acceptable to many.

I personally think that we need to go right back to the basic question (which may seem a little trite but bear with me…)

Why are we preserving the aircraft that we are?

There is a lot of debate about duplication etc etc. however if we are preserving aircraft for educational purposes are we going to encourage people to become interested in preservation if they have to trek say, all the way from the North East down to Cosford or Duxford?

Are we preserving aircraft because we have an interest in the type (e.g. cockpiteers) ?

Are we preserving aircraft because we would like to remember the contribution to our society the aircraft and the people who flew and worked on them made?

And potentialy many more questions like that.

Each of these will attract different people for different reasons – e.g. I don’t agree with the above about cockpits – I would love to restore a cockpit (and if anyone knows of a cheap Harrier cockpit……) however that is clearly not everyones cup of tea. But it does mean that in a similar way to the tractors at least something will be preserved.

I don’t share the pessimism in believing that there will be a contraction in the independent sector – they are accessible, local and friendly organisations. I think once they have cracked the question above and start to interpret the exhibits with that in mind we will hopefully see a rennaisance in this sector. however I think that we need to recognise that there are diverse interests out there and develop exhibits appropriately – remember that any aircraft museum is not going to survive on enthusiasts comng through the gates alone.

personally i have never seen the point of preserving just the cockpit..its like buying a old classic car and just keeping the dashboard !!!!. i have never looked at a cockpit and thought, thats a fantastic looking aircraft..a aircaft has got wings and a tail… oh **** that one havnt got eny !!!!!!.
i would give my right arm to help preserve a classic. but i cant just admire a aircraft parked with moss growing out of its exhausts.
i own a vintage tractor, and there is nothing better then to hook up to a plough and use her as to what she was made for. i know you cannot compare restoring and running a old tractor to a aircraft. but people like to see them working. i have took my old girl to shows as a static exhibit..noboby is interested.. but when i have taken her to a working day..people take notice and are a lot more interested. i think it is the same with eny preserved machine..be it a model T ford or a vulcan.
personally i love looking round aircraft museums..but i would i love aircraft… aircraft preservation has got to be more interesting for the people sat on the fence…

I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said “you can’t compare restoring and running a old tractor to a aircraft” Take the Ford E27N for example, almost entirely cast iron/steel even the wheels ,and if on spade lugs you don’t even have to worry about perished tyres, you could left one out in all weathers from new and only have to replace the tin mudguards now. Almost all vintage tractors will go in an ordinary single garage,many can be trailered behind a 4×4 ,and there is a myriad of events on throughout the year for people to chug around to their hearts content. Most A/C on the other hand are a tadge wider than a single garage will not fit on a trailer behind a 4×4 and there is virtually no events where visiting A/C lowloaded in can ground run/ taxied. The high content of magnesium used in their construction, makes them far less suitable for prolonged exposure to the British weather, and after a relatively short period there can be suprisingly little left. Then theres the cockpit issue that Kev35 mentioned originally, take the Hurricane as an example, if as many cockpits had been saved as Data plates from Spitfires ,just think of the numbers that would be flying today; whos to say that cockpits preserved today won’t be part of a flying (or even just a static) project in years to come as perhaps a new enthusiasm for jets comes about, perhaps by the relaxation of CAA rules/regulations. Looking at aircraft preservation, and the future of, I’d say that the biggest problem likely to come about is, the lack of skilled restorers ; the way that the basic trades are being neglected in schools in favour of “IT, human resourses” and plenty of other “management speak” type activities, who will be doing the restoration and conservation in 20 years from now? As Bruce says the quality of restoration varies enormously even now, but people (general public)are expecting perfection ; if you look at the early days of traction engine preservation ,the engines were in the main scruffy, with only the “showmans”engines (fairground types) that were polished, nowdays even the humble steam roller is presented to the general public in concours condition, and so the standard is being set by those that can afford to “gild the lilly” ,in the case of aircraft preservation that will be the nationals and as ever the rich individuals, but every one will be judged against them.

Good thread to start, and I’m sure there’ll be a lot more said.

If I may broaden things a bit. One of the tendencies of British aviation preservation in general is provincialism. (That’s a lot harsh for some, way too kind for others; but bear with me.) I mean both in terms of subject matter, techniques and technology and globalisation.

Subject matter: It’s a fair generalisation, I think, that there’s a lot to learn from other transport museums and enthusiasts – those interested in classic bikes, or steam trains, yet this is less exploited than it should be. Interestingly the military vehicle enthusiasts have (literally) got on board the vintage train game with wartime ‘days’ on a lot of lines. Yet even at places like Duxford, I see and hear enthusiasts resenting or disparaging the other groups.

Techniques & Technology: Probably the most important historic aviation project in the last few years occurred in the UK, and there’s a book coming out about it. It’s important not just because of the subject aircraft, but because of the approach and attitude; yet among the enthusiasts this is an almost unknown achievement – this despite Dave Morris lecturing on the subject, the FAAM Corsair. It’s important because of the use of techniques normal and accepted in archaeology, furniture restoration and National Trust circles, yet virtually unknown in vintage aviation, it seems at times.

Globalisation: It’s never been easier in history to fly to another country, or to find information and send it across the globe; yet all too often we see and hear people talk of aircraft ‘lost’ when they go overseas, or regard their bit of aviation history as only worthwhile if it’s in some bizarre way, pure and unsullied by foreign types or interest. Yet I’ve flown to countries where I don’t speak the language to share information about aircraft from all corners of the globe; I’ve just e-mailed a bunch of pictures of an aircraft stored in Australia (275 miles from me) to another forumite, in the UK, to pass onto a person rebuilding another example of this ultra-rare machine. Equally it was nothing special to discuss online, from Australia, with an expert at Duxford, details of the Lysander’s tailplane and cross check it with a specially provided photograph from a chap in Hamilton of the CWH machine. This for a book printed in Poland, written around the world and featuring an aircraft that could only have been designed in Britain – of the hundreds of detail photos in it, I’m reasonably sure that some of them will feed back into Lysander restorations in Belgium, Duxford and Canada… It is, luckily a small world, and it’s only provincial if that’s the limit to your mindset.

Just a few thoughts.

Cars Trains, Boats & Planes. Transport Museums Globally: http://www.iatm.org

The Corsair Project: http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibits/planes.asp?plane=153

A great collection of British aircraft (and others) on the plain in Spain: http://www.fio.es/noticias/noticias.htm

‘My’ Lysander book: http://mmpbooks.biz/books/8391717844/8391717844p.htm

Kev – As for the register – it was last updated about four years ago. Your nearest BAPC group will have a copy for you to look at . Updating it and keeping it current is being looked at now.

Kev – If I am not mistaken you volunteer at a museum which is a member of the BAPC. Membership of that museum entitles you to participate in the activities of the BAPC and contribute ! For example the BAPC is running a series of training courses as we speak -the last being held at Aeroventure and being very well received. This is part of the ‘outreach’ as such and further ideas are in the pipeline.
Make your voice heard ! Attend a meeting – the BAPC can only influence and help it’s members if they are prepared to contribute .
As for the Boeing 707 saga – the information was out there a good while ago – I must point out that the RAFM would have asked for some degree of confidentiality in the dealings otherwise it would have served no purpose with it’s press release if the information was out there already. Whether it would have helped to have it out in the public domain remains to be seen – I think possibly East Fortune was at the front
of the queue for the 707 – the queue consisting of them solely!
The perception of airliner preservation in the public is quite poor – for example the Boeing 707 HZ-123 at Southend is quite significant in terms of age – would it merit any attention in national press I severely doubt. If a type isn’t readily identifiable or
holds some kind of public appeal saving it is difficult.