What do you think is the place of replicas in a Museum

Well I visited St. George’s Chapel of Remembrance at Biggin Hill and the caretaker made a very valid point regarding the replica Spitfire and Hurricane at the entrance. He says if they were the real thing they would need to be guarded constantly nowadays. So it seems I’ve been a bit harsh and there is a place for life size replicas of some iconic types.

re

Sounds fair to me.
The Hampden at East Kirby will in my view be a worthwhile project, as although much of it will be new fabrication, it will incorporate and preserve a significant proportion of an original aircraft.

Not many will travel a long way to see tangled wreckage, but I think a fair few will, in many years when the Lancaster and Hampden are parked together. Which cant be bad for ticket sales.

Would anyone object if the Lancaster fuselage and Stirling parts at Newark were used in rebuild/replicas?

I agree on that Mark

Cheers

Cees

Cees

I would agree that the use of an original rear fuselage, identical centre-section and derivative wing outer panels – both from a Hastings does lift the Yorkshire aircraft up from being purely an FSM or replica.

Obviously the use of the original rear fuselage and the hastings “identical” centre-section go a long way to “rebuilding” a Halifax, as much as if the wing outer panels and centre-section were built new but to original plans or patterns as many spitfires and other flying rebuilds are, but the wing outer panel “differences” do create a compromise to originality, (as simply does their origin), as does the mockup cockpit section, theres nothing wrong with that as long as we call a “spade a spade”, it is a composite airframe of original, substitute and FSM parts.

All of that does not diminish its value as a Museum display, only as an accurate research item, but then again you really wanted to examine and record the workings of a spitfire, you would want access to an original airframe largely untouched since WW2, not a facsimile built in the 1990’s from new metal and bolted behind a data plate.

It is really no different from the new build Oscars and ME262’s, are they original – no, will they ever be original – no, and they worthwhile – of course

regards

Mark Pilkington

if it means making up bits to preserve that aircraft, rather than make a replica, so be it.

Sounds fair to me.
The Hampden at East Kirby will in my view be a worthwhile project, as although much of it will be new fabrication, it will incorporate and preserve a significant proportion of an original aircraft.

Tom,

The Yorkshire Air Museum Halifax is an excellent example of a composite reproduction” with the blending of original parts and FSM, with its mix of original structure, mixed with FSM cockpit and Hastings Wings, it provided the only “complete” display of the Halifax in the UK, (and for a time in the world) “Friday 13th” lets future generations see this very important part of the Bomber Comand story of WW2.

Mark Pilkington

Just a correction but the Hastings was developed from the Halifax just as the York was from the Lancaster. The centre section is identical and the intermediate wingsection between the engines has a wider span than the Halifax but it is fully compatible to the Halifax. I would say that 75 % of that airframe is Handley Page and not a replica. A bitsa yes, but other projects have started with much less and are called “original”.
If the IWM had loaned the nose section of PN323 to YAM then it would have been a magnificent airframe (it already is take a few shortcuts or two but I am not complaining)
Not starting a debate here mind you.

Cees

Great response Mark

I appreciate the info

To all that responded on this thread a personal thanks…

Your input and input from other sources has allowed me to rewrite our policy on replicas to an extend and I will be taking it forward to our board in the upcoming week.

Our first priority will always remain with the original aircraft

Second will be select replicas to fill the story of our history, but only if no practical method of salvaging an original is possible. My recommendation will also be that these should be flying replicas where ever possible so we may add a facet to our presentation.

Third will be large scale (1/5th or larger) models to present “special” foot notes in our history that do not have a major part of the story.
(Like the Avro Lincoln which only flew here a few weeks)

Fourth will be scale models to represent larger portions of history that do not necessarily have a direct place in our chapter of history.
(An example would be aircraft that were operated by the Alliies in WW2, but not here and of course the Axis aircraft they operated against)

I think these policies are a good compromise that will allow us to expand our ability to tell our story within our mandate, budget and space restrictions while bringing some new life to the facility.

Would appreciate comments..

And thanks for all you thoughts

Tom H

Tom,

I would totally agree, obviously flying replica’s bring back into the air aircraft types that are not readily available for purchase and airworthy restoration, and we all enjoy the SE5A, Camel, Pup and Triplanes that grew out the “homebuilt” movement in the 1960s etc.

But Replica’s also have a place in museums, either where a particular relevent type is extinct, or where a rare/expensive type is considered essential to the story being told by the museum an externally accurate replica/facsimile or FSM (Full Scale Model) plays a far more important role than photos or small scale plastic models
(1/72 – 1/48).

Large Scale and accurate Models – 1/5 ++ etc, or FSM’s bring extinct aircraft to life for future generations to see in their full 3 dimensional experience.

The Yorkshire Air Museum Halifax is an excellent example of a composite reproduction” with the blending of original parts and FSM, with its mix of original structure, mixed with FSM cockpit and Hastings Wings, it provided the only “complete” display of the Halifax in the UK, (and for a time in the world) “Friday 13th” lets future generations see this very important part of the Bomber Comand story of WW2.

http://www.yorkshireairmuseum.co.uk/collections/aircraft/wwII_aircraft_info.asp?id=11

They have then created a brilliant and cohesive collection around that aircraft consisting of hybrid restorations (The Mosquito built from parts from a number of disparate original airframes) and pure FSM’s (The Spitfire, Hurricane and ME 109)

http://www.yorkshireairmuseum.co.uk/collections/aircraft/wwII.asp

Thus resulting in a very attractive and entertaining offering to the General Public and enthusiasts all in one.

Obviously the serious researcher and “purist enthusiast” may not be interested in such replica’s and will seek out original airframes at other collections, but “their” absence or lost patronage will not diminish the success of the museum and its ability to preserve its original aircraft through the overall attractiveness to the wider general public, and ongoing gate takings.

In the end both the “complete” halifax at Yorkshire, and the “as found” halifax at Hendon serve two different objectives, and complete Replicas/FSM’s similarly have a complimentary role to play in overall preservation.

In the absence of a future full restoration of a Stirling from original parts, I would certainly support an externally correct FSM Stirling being created somewhere in the UK to complete the set of the 3 “Heavies”as both a UK National, and world wide collection outcome, perhaps an FSM for external display at Yorkshire along with one of the Lancaster FSM’s being created for the Dambusters Movie would allow display of all 3 of the heavies on the one site.

But even where is a type does exist and is preserved elsewhere, an accurate FSM has its place in a specialist museum and the type is a key element of the story being told – the Boulton Paul Museum with its FSM recreations of the Defiant and P6, Overstand Cockpit and intended Balliol hybrid of original cockpit with FSM remainder, are good examples of both purposes.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/markansell/bpa/index.html

Another good example is the Hampden recreation at the Canadian Museum of Flight, although based on significant original structure, the “cosmetic restoration” into a complete airframe is far more attractive to the general public visitors than a pile of rusty and twisted wreckage.

http://www.canadianflight.org/collect/col_11.htm

In some ways the future restoration of Avro Lincoln RF342 with an expected replica cockpit section, and presented as an Australian built Lincoln is touching on the same museum role that complete replica/FSM’s undertake.

I guess the one concern I have with replicas is when they are “nearly but not quite accurate” i.e. “9/10” scale models that make compromises or “full scale” that are poorly built or not cosmetically accurate, the effect can be to bring down the quality of the museum presentation to one of characture and even ridicule, and in those instances they lessen rather than increase the visitor experience and understanding and are simply wasting space and effort.

FSM’s dont need to be structurally or internally complete, they dont need to have original engines etc they do need to create the illusion of being real, at least from the public barrier, to really be of use in a museum.

There are many examples of this being done successfully in many excellent museums around the world.

Most of the worlds displays of dinosour “skeletons” in Museums actually consist of plaster, concrete or other mouldings, cast from the original bones and often fitted to a steel frame for display, they are all in effect, FSMs, that doesnt stop thousands of new visitors and returning vistors flocking to see them every year, nor dispute their role within a museum to bring dinosours back from extinction in terms of allowing size etc to be understood, Replica and FSM aircraft have a similar role to play in Aviation Museums.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Well said Tom. I agree fully.

Throwing my hat back in the ring…

While I appreciate the fact some don’t like replicas and feel the real thing should be saved I will try and put things in my perspective.

I am the executive director of the Alberta Aviation Museum in Edmonton AB.

Our mandate and collection policy are built on collecting, preserving and Educating on…

1) Edmonton
2) Alberta and the North
3) Canada
4) The rest of the world as it relates to Edmonton

In that order…

Because of our mandate and policy, as well as the fact we do not have room or money to preserve everything from everywhere we concentrate on our history as a chapter of the whole story.

This results in our need to have representation of extinct types ie: the Siskin.
There are others as well….now if I were to follow the anti replica theme we could never tell our whole story…continuing the theme if we were to invest massive time and money in the restoration of a type never used here, not relating to our history then there would be no consistancy in the collectioni and it would only confuse the history.

So how does a museum like ours deal with these realities?

I believe the most important thing is to tell the story of those that came before us, and from this thread and taking information from various other sources I am coming to the conclusion that replicas have their place in the telling of the story.

Thoughts?

Tom H

Why take up valuable space in a museum when more deserving real aeroplanes can be preserved?

That’s a fair point, and is the point I was making about the Swordfish replica. However some museums look to create a period or a theme where replicas are the only answer if you want to see an example. So long as they are not neglecting real aircraft at their facility for the sake of a replica, I see no problem.

Flying replicas are fine, but to be honest, are the general public going to be able to tell the difference between most of the interwar fighter biplanes? I think not.

Perhaps if more replicas of extinct and forgotten types were to appear in public museums, they’d then become more recognisable and they’d project more meaning to the public? I think that’s the entire point of a replica, isn’t it?

IMHO, these planes lose their relevance to the majority of the public once people who remember the originals have passed on.

So anything in any museum over 80-90 years old is irrelevant? Nonsense. I am interested in old aircraft from two to three generations before my time, the relevance of them has not been lost on me at all. I have also been found medieval knight’s suits of armour interesting when visiting museums, both replica and real.

We don’t have space for everything either. The great crisis might come later on down the line in 50 years time when people are wanting to preserve real airframes, but museums are clambering for space. Mind you, better to scrap a replica than the real thing.

Er, why not just build a few more hangars to put them all in? Most msueums with stuff outdoors are planning and looking towards building rooves over their collection. Aircraft are designed to live outdoors and can do for some time, with care, till money is raised for a museum building.

Personally, I think it is better to preserve what we have, and if it means making up bits to preserve that aircraft, rather than make a replica, so be it. We can’t save everything, and in the future we won’t have room, so perhaps we should let the past be the past, and not constantly be rebuliding it in replica form.

We won’t have room? That’s a very bleak crystal ball you have there. There is plenty of space for museums.

Replicas have their place, especially outside, but what happens when that replica (flying or non flying) is 50+ years old? It’ll become a preservation issue in it’s own right…..

Easy, scrap it and build a replica.:D

There are a few replicas around still from The Battle of Britain. One here has been outdoors for decades. It’s still fine and has a new coat of paint applied every now and then.

I have to agree with cessna152towser to a large degree

Although I like aircraft, I can look at all sorts of biplanes, and to be honest they all look the same. Why take up valuable space in a museum when more deserving real aeroplanes can be preserved? Flying replicas are fine, but to be honest, are the general public going to be able to tell the difference between most of the interwar fighter biplanes? I think not.

IMHO, these planes lose their relevance to the majority of the public once people who remember the originals have passed on. We don’t have space for everything either. The great crisis might come later on down the line in 50 years time when people are wanting to preserve real airframes, but museums are clambering for space. Mind you, better to scrap a replica than the real thing.

Personally, I think it is better to preserve what we have, and if it means making up bits to preserve that aircraft, rather than make a replica, so be it. We can’t save everything, and in the future we won’t have room, so perhaps we should let the past be the past, and not constantly be rebuliding it in replica form. Replicas have their place, especially outside, but what happens when that replica (flying or non flying) is 50+ years old? It’ll become a preservation issue in it’s own right…..

:confused:

Scotty

Everybody to their own.
Regarding patching up a Canberra with a few metal plates and some V-bomber bits, so long as the aircraft is substantially an original Canberra I don’t think restoration with a few non authentic parts detracts too greatly from what is substantially a real and once live aircraft. What I can’t get enthusiatic about is static replicas which were built long after the original and never flew – my old ATC squadron – 2175 Rolls Royce Glasgow, built a Pilcher Glider Replica in the 1960’s. I could never get enthusiastic for this project and played no worthwhile part in the project – for a time it went on display in the Glasgow Transport Museum but I don’t know where it is now, if it still exists, and quite frankly it wouldn’t break my heart if I learned it had been scrapped, same as all the balsa model ‘planes I built during the same era.

Replica static or flying

For an exhibit to make any impact on the viewer it should make an emotional connection. Get the senses all involved.
We are used to considering our sight as our main method of sense. So we can take for granted that aspect. Next will come sound, if you have the resources then effects can be played to a museum visitor as is the case with the original Lancaster at Canberra. Smell.. a bit trickier but it can be done with a static diorama as in the Jorvik Viking centre,York. Touch…not usually possible however a replica can be of use allowing touching if not a flying exhibit.
Ideally if you can display an original aircraft flying or taxying then you really are making an impact on the viewer. However this may not be possible and this is where a replica really becomes a big asset.
For the proof of my ideas visit Old Warden on a display day and glance at the audience. Look at their reactions.Many will make no distinction between original or replica ,they will be equally moved by both.And because of the intimate small venue you can even smell the aircraft at start up.

You can also understand from the above why I am an advocate for keeping aircraft active both original and replica.

“Likewise the Richard Fairey replica Fairey Flycatcher was great to see in the air. In the Fleet Air Arm Museum it sort of fills a gap, but a single row ‘merican engine with a constant speed prop rather than a two-row British engine and a wooden prop isn’t right either. (Very difficult to come up with even for static, to be fair.)”

I could be wrong, but I think the Flycatcher has now had an authentic engine and prop fitted, cartainly she doesn’t have the c/s prop anymore.

re:

Personally I think replicas are a waste of space in a museum and I’d scrap the lot. There are plenty of real aircraft worthy of preservation. If a type is extinct we can remember it in small scale models and photos.

In the transport museum at Hull was a charming silver replica biplane, built by BAE apprentices. I am sure they would not be too happy if it was broken up. Its not been there lately no idea what it is…

Neither would the late creator of the Sopwith 1/ 1/2 strutter at the RAF museum, the gorgous (and flying) Vimy, then theres the Clipper at Shannon, the WW1 replicas at Old Warden and what about the airworthy replica of Grovesnor house?

Your entitled to your opinion I just hope you dont get in charge of the collection at Hendon.

Finally the chap who built the Lancaster cockpit should be applauded – its amazing. I remember reading how a disabled boy was thrilled to sit in it, unable to climb into the real thing – would you seriously deny him that?

To fill our story in history there are others that are extinct (Siskin again comes to mind) that I feel we should look at having as a modified replica that flies, rather than a perfect “static” reproduction.

A good point. The Viv Bellamy built Hawker Fury replica makes a lot of sense in the air, a lot less in a hangar – it’s not strictly accurate in a number of aspects, chosen for airworthiness and practicality reasons; in the air, who’d notice? But if it were on show statically, items like the wheels should be changed. The owner’s chosen to hangar it and it’s not even on show. Their aeroplane, their choice, but a waste of a replica and an airworthy Kestrel engine, IMHO.

Likewise the Richard Fairey replica Fairey Flycatcher was great to see in the air. In the Fleet Air Arm Museum it sort of fills a gap, but a single row ‘merican engine with a constant speed prop rather than a two-row British engine and a wooden prop isn’t right either. (Very difficult to come up with even for static, to be fair.)

One had a great airworthy career, the other, sadly didn’t, but for both they were great ‘gap fillers’. A Siskin, even with a ‘merican engine would be great; and perfectly ‘doable’. Just needs cash. :rolleyes:

Thanks everyone for your input…really nice to have an outside point of view.

Jimw

I can’t comment on the accuracy of the info as I have not seen the plans, but the gent involved is a pretty straight shooter.

Cessna152towser

I also appreciate your point of view, but from a collections policy standpoint we have to deal with the fact we need to stick to our aquistitions list.

Sticking with our mandate means there are alot of aircraft that are worth saving, many people love, but don’t fit with our collection. It is not seen as our place to take on restorations and display that do not fit our mandate.

Our size and budget as a non profit means we cannot tell the whole story or save everything…we can only tell our chapter of aviation history.

We already have a couple of very good replicas (reproductions?) on display, types that fit our history but are extinct, but they are non-flying.

To fill our story in history there are others that are extinct (Siskin again comes to mind) that I feel we should look at having as a modified replica that flies, rather than a perfect “static” reproduction.

There is a lot to be said for seeing an aircraft type fly…brings life to the history I feel.

Your thoughts?

Thanks again everyone.

Tom H

That is interesting that the “Happy Green – tree hugging” aspect was brought up I had not considered that but with all this kyoto crap it is only inevitable and the flying fleet of historic aircraft will take a hit. A reproduction of the original engine will not appease this bunch either as there is hardly a chance emmisions of a 60 year old design or older could meet current standards.

I agree that replicas should not keep rare types outdoors that defeats the whole purpose of preserving history.

J

I think an external replica can be a temporary solution until an original example can be sourced or reconstructed/

I visited the Military Aviation Museum at Soesterberg yesterday and they have a full scale Fokker G-1 on display, built by a furniture factory in the mid-eighties. It looks impressive and until there is no substantial original remains or the rumoured reconstruction, it serves as an important gapfiller for the time being.

If on the other hand too many replicas are put on display at the same location the danger is that the whole thing misses the point.

Difficult to find the right balance. Perhaps the Planes of Fame have got it right.

Cheers

Cees