The state of preservation today

small groups

I could not agree more with Misha the Penguin. Big “stuff” can be accomadated by the large museums but individuals have been responsible for the collections which appear at Woburn every year.
“Lighties” made about every significant record advance in aviation during the inter war period and it was not untill WW2 that the nation needed aviation in such a way.
Because of financial needs then we have a Hornet Moth depart Shuttleworth and indeed this is probebly required because of the increase in activity but the small group is the way forward.

Wessex boy’s also made an excellent point. Any museum that doesn’t present you with something that is a surprise isn’t very good. I’m an experienced ‘expert’ museum visitor, yet I’m always coming away with a ‘I didn’t know that’ moment.

So as a museum you need something to attract the visitor, which will probably be different to the thing that keeps them there, impressed or involved.

Those are very much along my lines of thinking – if you can’t get people through the door you won’t get the cash to preserve what you really want to – and to do that you have to give people what they want. I think a good collections policy is vital , however with the flexibility built in to adapt this for good commercial reasons. The museum I have been involved with has little connection with the development or operation of the Harrier – however I know that if one had been acquired it would have got publicity and would have had the non-enthusiast visitor flocking to the door. I was told by a trustee at another museum that this was sacrilege and was a “bad thing”. I disagree as it would have meant extra funds to restore the aircraft that were in the main collecting policy.

I agree with the “preserve, inform and entertain” philosophy with a particular emphasis on the entertain. As an enthsiast I could look at aircraft all day but Mr & Mrs Joe Public want more and this could be a worry when it comes to future preservation – especially if some of the lottery funding bodies look for more bang for the buck and start to fund populist programmes (which is likely if political pressure is brought to bear as it is today with lottery bids.)

I think the “well I never knew that” moment is vital too in terms of entertainment and education and is vital in stimulating interest for future visits and future involvement as without a steady stream of willing volunteers the future is bleak.

I think the potential future of the preservation movement rests with the individual – I think we will see individuals forming very small independent groups and grasping the mettle and purchasing and restoring their own individual exhibits – leaving the larger museums to go down the populist route. I don’t mean like the embryonic regional museums began in the 60’s and 70’s but as motivated enthusiasts committed to a particular type. I think this could be beneficial for the preservation movement as a whole and if links can be forged with the independent regional museums could increase the preservation of those types we may be in danger of losing in the future. Now if we could just get a group to link them all together and co-ordinate this…..

(from Misha-non-Penguin…)

Ah another Kurkov fan!!

Nice to meet you there PL ! The plan was for the Draken to go into the new hangar and possibly allow some gems like the Chipmunk to see the light of day!

Twin Otter – I guess the current Iraq War won’t feature on any National Curriculum
until Tony leaves power!

Newark Air Museum 19 January 2006

andrewman, here are some recent photos taken by me at Newark, mostly from inside the new hangar.

My sources advise that Newark encountered wing-folding problems with the Gannet and Buccaneer; I guess as a result of being outside for so long. This caused changes to Hangar 2 content and work is ongoing to resolve the issue on both airframes.

Also the T33 is likely to remain outside and the final location of Lightning T5 still has to be resolved.

MiGs are listed for repaint but the loan agreements have only just been renewed.

I understand that a large allied fighter / bomber has been on their Acquisition List for many years. Other possibilities not secured included F4 and or A10 but the Viggen, which is on long-term loan, fills that gap. I am told that temporary moves may be made to allow Viggen to re-built in Hangar 2.

Perhaps with the Viggen they may apply my logic from one of my post on the Midland Air Museum thread i.e. “…. even better if the Boulton Paul P111a were inside. That way people would definitely have to pay to see it rather than using the traditional ‘spotting technique’ of looking through or over the fence!”

One other food for thought comes on the Cold War theme, this seems to be flavour of the month, because in the Government Education White Paper I understand that it could become a National Curriculum topic!

Newark, need to get the S1 Bucc, and the Lightning T5 inside asap, however I think that both these and the T33 were planned to go in the new hanger.

Damien, did you take any photo’s at Newark and if so would you be kind enough to post them please ?

Newark – dearly now need the same again hangar wise to house the likes of the Dove and Heron with possibly the Lightning T.5 getting a respite from the weather.
The museum as a whole has clearly shown a number of other museums how to run a successful venture ! The investment in buildings is clearly the key to an all weather venue and something that should be grasped by others.

Damien,

I suspect the Viggen will be filling one of the ‘gaps’. Whilst nice to see, I am unsure as to how that fits in with a UK museums collecting policy. I understand that the Migs are on loan from their owners, and that this has something to do with why they have been largely untouched since their arrival.

Bloodnok

A great many museums have yet to apply for lottery funding. In our own case, it took us a lot of work to bring ourselves up to the required standards, but I am sure we will be looking in that direction when the time comes.

James,

I agree – our heriatge sector is very well catered for, although there are some types that inevitably slip through the net here as everywhere. It will always be the private individual who goes the extra mile to feed his passion. To look at another interest of mine, it is quite amazing that the original E type Jaguars that were first displayed to the public have all survived, and all been restored, all but one by private owners.

TwinOtter,

I guess thats what I was getting at – I would have got all my existing aircraft under cover before acquiring more, but please dont see this as a criticism of Newark. What they have achieved is fantastic.

Bruce

i agree we have plenty of stuff preserved, but the vast majority of it is done by private individuals in their garden shed or garage.
perhaps some of the millions sat in the lottery fund could be used, instead of just sitting there gathering interest.

unfortunately in the uk, there doesn’t seem to be much regard for our engineering heritage in general. it not just aircraft, but motoring, ships, trains, and steam.

Thanks Bloodnok,

Where (and how) does anyone do better for history, preserved or in action?

I’ve always been puzzled by this view. Britain (per capita or by geographical size) I believe has more preserved heritage of all kinds than any other country in the world; from prehistoric sites to industrial heritage, from the London to Brighton Car run to Goodwood, from Old Warden to Conningsby there’s more aircraft, trains and boats preserved and active in the UK than any other country except the USA, which is a bit, ~uh~ bigger, and therefore has more people and money floating around to play with old stuff. I think the Americans do stunningly well, and have some of the best in the world, but per capita, they are behind the UK – a fair way, although in number 2 position.

Folks in Canada and Australia, as well as on the continent can’t get over how rich the resources are in the UK.

So what’s missing, anyway? If you try and keep everything, there won’t be any room for the future…

Cheers

unfortunately in the uk, there doesn’t seem to be much regard for our engineering heritage in general. it not just aircraft, but motoring, ships, trains, and steam.

i think one draw back is that to get just about anything in working condition from the categories above, takes a lot of money, and skilled labour, most of them need fairly special facilities to be stored, or operated from, which add greatly to the overheads. all of them will deteriorate if left outside, so need large buildings, again, taking money away from money needed to preserve them.

and just like everything, there are the more desirable things , that will bring the punters in. your average jo bloggs wants a spitfire/sr71/harrier/lancaster/concorde to show his kids, they are the type of exhibit that brings the punters in. you might have a really important aircraft, but if no one has heard of it, it wont be the reason people (apart from enthusiasts) will visit a museum.

it would be nice if there was a national body like english heritage, but solely for engineering. at least then you could have someone to lobby if you thought a particularly important object was at risk.

one thing i find quite odd, as a newcomer to these forums, and as an outsider to the aircraft preservation world, is how easily some people on hear turn on each other, and say things like “that aircraft shouldn’t be preserved, the money is wasted, and should be spent on something else”… it just comes accross as petty jealousy!

Bruce

In my first post on the Cosford thread I noted, “I read somewhere that Newark Air Museum used the BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] produced National Aviation Heritage Register when deciding that the Varsity would go inside their new building; rather than the Vulcan, Hastings and Shackleton. As these types were already displayed under cover in other collections”.

I understand that the NAHR and the aircraft status on this Register was one of the main justifications in their Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] application, along with developing the training theme, which is not covered elsewhere.

I guess the Jetstream going inside follows the training lineage from the Varsity and I believe they are using the Sea Harrier to complete the VTOL lineage that started with their Meteor FR.9 test-bed that has local significance with Rolls Royce Hucknall.

I guess options would have seen the Heron and Dove also go inside, another project for the future perhaps!

JDK & Bruce

One other point of clarification to my earlier post, to attain Registered Museum Status any museum must have an approved Collections and Disposals Policy. So I guess as Newark are a Registered Museum the Jetstream and Sea Harrier were covered by their C & D Policy.

James might be right about the three basic requirements, but to me collecting policy is right up there with them!

I ought to be correct, it’s the basic museum tenant, and hardly my idea! 😀

Just to clarify, it might perhaps be better to say that a clear collecting policy needs to span the preserve/present/entertain triumvirate – you can’t leave any of the four out, but the policy doesn’t sit alongside the other three, it’s a separate, and as Bruce’s highlighted, vital item.

It’s interesting though that almost any museum I can call to mind has had wobbles on the collecting policy front from the British Museum (incubating, among others, collections leading to the Museum of Mankind, the Natural History Museum, the V&A, the Science Museum and what was the Geological Museum). Not being clear about what you are collecting seems to happen, in periods, to any museum.

I think TwinOtter23’s post is an excellent one, and issues of ‘perceived’ value are a tough nut. I worked in a museum that had a small entry charge (less than 3 quid per adult) – people wouldn’t come in for a browse, but one they’d paid their cash, they ‘did’ everything, often in obsessive detail… We then were able to go ‘free’ thanks to a change in local govt policy, and people would drop in for a quick look around, which was good, but conversely didn’t feel it could be ‘as good’ because it was ‘free’.

Speaking as an experienced retailer, if you are free-entry you should be able to make the gate money in the shop. If you don’t, your shop’s wrong.

Wessex boy’s also made an excellent point. Any museum that doesn’t present you with something that is a surprise isn’t very good. I’m an experienced ‘expert’ museum visitor, yet I’m always coming away with a ‘I didn’t know that’ moment.

So as a museum you need something to attract the visitor, which will probably be different to the thing that keeps them there, impressed or involved.

Funny really, that’s basic retail practice. Get ’em in for the bread and the milk, sell ’em gum or a mag on the way out. I’m not saying that museums should turn into shops (or vice versa) but there’s a lot to learn and adopt in other areas; museums are competing for people’s time and money against the shopping experience, the DIY store or a day out. It’s a winnable game, but too many museums believe that to compete is mucky and difficult and that they should be given special advantage.

Good thread, Misha (from Misha-non-Penguin…)

Newarks new hangar is an excellent building, and shows a great understanding from the local council as well. In many cases, simply building an aircraft hangar is not enough. Our own plan has to be seen to fit in with the ‘County plan’, and be of architectural interest in its own right. If we could spend so little (relatively) to get so much, we would be well pleased!

My only gripe with the Newark building is that they have used it as an excuse to further expand their collection without getting all the worthy aircraft under cover. James might be right about the three basic requirements, but to me collecting policy is right up there with them!

My point regarding Concorde might be soul-less, but if it came to a choice between Concorde and another type being preserved undercover, it is the sort of discussion I would be having. That said, it would be somewhat overshadowed by the obvious affection for the type, and the fact that it is one of the few aircraft, that, for the time being, will guarantee visitors.

Bruce

There is little doubt that someone could write a University thesis on this topic and still leave much ground un-touched. Here are a few of my thoughts and a couple of question questions.

Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar reviewed the way forward to protect the Benchmark and Significant airframes on the National Aviation heritage Register [NAHR] and one very interesting figure emerged from the review. Assuming a typical cost of between £250 and £300 to provide one square metre of basic under cover aircraft accommodation, it would “only” cost between £35 and £40 million to get all the Benchmark and Significant airframes listed on the NAHR under cover. I highlight the word “only”, because this is a small amount when you look at what has been poured into ventures like the Millennium Dome, etc.

For up to date costing data refer to Flypast – March 2005 and Newark’s Heritage Lottery Funded Hangar, project cost £533,000 to provide 2,400m² of basic under cover accommodation at a cost of £222 per m². Admittedly this does not provide accommodation to the standards being achieved by the national museums with their environmentally controlled facilities, but it certainly slows the deterioration to a more manageable level.

In the drive for funding opportunities many independent museums have become Registered Museums through the Museums and Galleries Commission Registration process [now called Resource]. This means that many voluntary managed museums are already working hard towards, and achieving standards similar to those attained by the national museums.

My first question would be why have the national museums like Duxford, Hendon, Cosford and the Fleet Air Arm Museum been forced to seek HLF funding to complete their building projects?

I think that if this money had been directed at the Independent museums, many aircraft could already be under cover. I guess the answer surly comes down to Government funding or more precisely the lack of appropriate funding for the national museums.

The Government have already diluted the effect of money the public contributes via the National Lottery by widening the causes that the Lottery supports. This problem could be further exaggerated if the current review of the HLF comes up with the wrong conclusions. HLF are currently undertaking their strategic planning for the period 2008-2013, the consultation closes on February 28th 2006 and I urge every who has concerns to check out their website and comment www.hlf.org.uk/future/

Another Government policy has contributed to the lack of funding for the national museums and has a creeping effect on many voluntary / independent museums across the country and is not just pertinent to the aviation sector. The Government’s policy of reducing and in some cases eliminating admission fees at many national museums has not only reduced income at the nationals but also impacted on the independent museums. I’ve heard many people question why they should have to pay to visit independent museum when other “larger” venues are free.

Many venues in the voluntary / independent sector only exist thanks to admission fees and limited shop sales, hence the need to secure attention grabbing airframes to draw in the public. [I appreciate this cross thread issue that is also covered by the ongoing Concorde debate].

Various factors influence people’s interest in aircraft and aviation. Back in the sixties and early seventies there was often a degree of mystery surrounding aircraft, which I personally believe for the most part has now disappeared thanks to package holidays and more accessibility to aircraft in general.

Also I believe that the general public’s expectations are different to many enthusiasts, especially in this fast changing technological age, often the major driver is the desire to see something new! Be it a new exhibit or a more current airframe.

As a realist I know that some of these airframes may eventually be lost and they may even be the ones that have attracted the public. However enthusiast should remember that when people visit a museum to see the new airframe they pay their admission fee, thereby generating the income that in the long-term may help save those other more significant airframes in the eyes of the enthusiast or the NAHR.

Everyone can be of help to many of the museums out there, but especially those in the voluntary / independent sector. Ultimately their fate may rest in your hands and your desire to keep on visiting them. So please don’t just lean over the fence to take down the numbers or get that snatched photograph, pay your admission fee, go inside and take a close look at what’s going on.

Are you supporting your local aviation museum?

It isn’t always the headline exhibits that prick the interest once you are in a museum.
For instance, the exhibit that created the most discussion amongst my party at London Colney the other week wasn’t the Mossie Prototype, it was the bit of Horsa Glider they have. I would not have gone to the museum just to see it, but they it was displayed, and the knowledge displayed by the staff made it one of the most interesting things there.

To Summarise: You need the headline exhibits to get the punters in, but you then have an opportunity to broaden their minds and move them when they are there.

I’d be interested to see people’s views on this as I think some interesting points have been made in the discussions mentioned above.

Dangerous thread to start because this subject evokes so many views, emotions, ideas and even arguments! However, for my part, my view is this:

All of the points/questions made in the start of this thread are vaild and will obviously change dependant on what’s close to your heart, your head or even where you live geographically.

The one constant I feel that is lacking in any of this is a serious understanding and investment in ‘our’ aviation heritage by the main and local government. It’s often said and usually true, that the UK aviation world would be a far richer place if it received the type of investment that paintings, building, trains and other items receive. After all, Britain was a world leader in all or many of the pioneering aviation feats of achievement in the last 100 years of powered flight and therefore I can never understand why not more importance or investment is placed in aircraft and museums that help celebrate this. Plainly, due to size and upkeep constraints this effects larger aircraft more than it does the smaller types.

Personally, for my money, I’d like to see a list drawn up so that at least one type of each significant British aircraft is protected under cover. As you can tell, the Britannia is a passion of mine and I still can’t believe that any of the 3 complete and 1 disassembled airframes have been afforded long term survivability by being under cover.

My interest in aviation was born out of my father’s interest and I remember when younger asking him questions like – Dad, what did a Valiant or Javelin sound like? (because I couldn’t see one flying)

In the future, I would hate my children therefore to ask – Dad, how big was a Britannia? (because none had survived)

Clearly this is an extreme example but it hopefully highlights a need to nationally agree the types that need targeting for long, long term survival.

Besides working in the aviation industry for both my income and when time allows to help preserve Britannia XM496 at Kemble, the enthusiast in me is always disappointed that I cannot go and view anywhere in the UK examples of a D.H. Hornet, a Stirlin, a Bristol Freighter, a Carvair etc, etc.

Although both a Bristol Freighter and Carvair could be saved and brought to the UK, the fact that none of these types currently survive on our shores is because they were allowed for various reasons to disappear.

Hence my call for a nationally agreed ‘this needs to be saved now’ policy.

As I said earlier, it’s the larger types that are badly effected and it feels only by luck that just one Beverley and one Valiant has survived.

There…that’s enough from me – my points, get Government to be more active in aviation heritage and ensure we grab the opportunity of protecting types that currently survive and numbers are dwindling and obtain replacement’s of types missing from a UK aviation heritage line up.

The whole ‘Concorde was a commercial failure’ argument strikes me as a particularly soulless way to treat the type. Landing on the moon made a huge financial loss but it was still a magnificent achievement. I think the Battle of Britain cost us a few quid too.

Well said.

Yes,
On the Concorde question, I’d agree with Damien, though Bruce’s analysis is correct. I went to see Concorde’s last flight into Birmingham – I’ve NEVER seen so many ‘joe public’ kids in prams, the lot, so fascinated by an aviation event. ‘Because it’s there’…

On the original question, the principle is simple. Any museum must

*. preserve
*. inform and
*. entertain

Two out of three isn’t good enough. On top of that will (or should be) a collecting remit.

If you can examine the museum’s presentation and artifacts and say that (to differeing degrees) all of the above are being achieved, then it’s working. A failure in any of the four is an investment to future disaster.

Cheers!