Okay, maybe we shouldn’t scrap Sally B, but for the past few weeks now I’ve been reading messages posted on this forum. It would appear that we all have a healthy appreciation of all things aviation and in particular our own aeronautical heritage. The photography is also very much appreciated and no doubt the age of digital photography has improved many a photographer.
But with every message and with every photograph posted I fear that this forum confirms our failure in which the United Kingdom’s own precious heritage is being sacrificed through this obsession with America’s Flying Legends.
We live in a country with a rich and diverse aeronautical heritage. Yet, this obsession with brightly coloured foreign airframes has and is having a detrimental and damaging effect on our own heritage. Looking at any display line up at Duxford and it was appear that we are slow in either persuading the likes of the OFMC or TFC to swap their American charges with British designed and built airframes, or they are sacrificing our heritage so these few individuals can fly fast piston-engined Cadillacs.
Wednesday, 17th December 2003 marked the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first powered flight – not that many in the UK paid much attention. The commemorative events in the USA were overshadowed by the conviction in the UK of Ian Huntley for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Perhaps we do take the magic of flight for granted. Or perhaps the media’s obsession with the evil of one man (that over a community’s wish to move on) pushed other stories or events down the running order. But I digress…
Why is our aviation heritage so important?
Today there are only a handful of surviving veterans of The Great War (1914-1918). In 25 years time there will be a similar number of elderly veterans of the Second World War (1939-1945). Those who remember or who bore witnessed are our greatest assets – those we look up to with pride or for an insight into what happened. Yet, when the last solder, sailor, airmen, or wartime evacuee has passed away what is left will become exponentially more valuable. The problem is that by then it maybe too late. If we are to consolidate our history beyond the grave then we need to increase our heritage portfolio and not cast away the physical attributes in the same manner we have done in the recent past.
Whose Heritage – Whose Priority!
Our aviation heritage – that we know and love – extends beyond the contours of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Yet, despite our rich and diverse heritage the biggest issue we face is the waste of valuable resources (funding) expended on the preservation of foreign aircraft. This has become a national scandal of epic proportions.
Question: why is it that we are spending what valuable resources (funds and manpower) that are available on preserving the aeronautical heritage of other nations, while our own heritage crumbles into obscurity? In writing this I highlight the ever-increasing perception that our aviation heritage (both physically and intellectually) is being sacrificed over that from other nations. this essay also highlights the dangerous practice of “Top Shelf Aeronautica” – what use to be called “Spitfire Snobbery”, which is being practiced by the very institutions that we ultimately rely on to protect our heritage (see also “Big is Beautiful” below).
Take for example Duxford – renowned as being the biggest and best aviation heritage site in Europe. Despite being a major Battle of Britain aerodrome, 50% of the aircraft of display (static or airworthy) are foreign. My first visit to Duxford was on November 6th 1995. At the time builders had just started on the construction of the American Air Museum. Despite this costly activity I was concerned by the condition of the Avro Shackleton and Handley Page Victor, both of which had been left exposed to the elements.
Eight years later and the same two British aircraft remain outside and in a deteriorating or worst condition. This while the IWM not only opened the American Air Museum, but also expanded this collection of America’s heritage. We know funds are limited, yet the Imperial War Museum saw, as a priority, the preservation or conservation of more popular foreign airframes over more vulnerable (and valuable) British aircraft, whose future survival is now jeopardised.
My concern is that we are not only sacrificing our own physical heritage, but we are also enforcing the perception that we either never had an aviation industry worthy of preservation or that the aeronautical exploits of other countries outclassed or surpassed our own.
At this point it must be noted that private individuals or organisations are not exempt from this criticism. If anything they are the real culprits – they more than most have the ability (funds) to preserve our heritage, yet choose to turn the aforementioned Flying Legends display into a celebration of American airpower. I must add at this point that my criticism is not anti-American in context or content. It is largely directed at those in authority (OFMC, TFC, IWM, RAF Museum and Heritage Lottery Fund management) who desire to preserve the heritage of other nations (using scarce resources and even scarcer funds) this while our own heritage is increasingly at risk.
This I guess is due in part to the misguided believe that sexy fighters and bombers sell, and that America produces the best porn (P51Ds and P47Ds).
AirSpace
As most of you will know the Imperial War Museum are going to create a new attraction at Duxford – based on Hangar One (the Super Hangar). What amazed me was a leaflet, which I guess most of you recently received through either Flypast or Aeroplane Monthly. The Imperial War Museum want your money so they can preserve “our” heritage. The leaflet reads: ‘What you do today could inspire generations to come’.
The leaflet continues: …it’s a sad fact that the future of this heritage is not yet secure. A number of the aircraft are housed out-of-doors (never knew you could house something outside?). Indeed without vital conservation work, they would be lost to the nation forever. The Premise behind AirSpace is that those airframes currently in danger of being lost will be saved. Yet, if you look at the same leaflet an accompanying floor plan excludes both the aforementioned Victor and Shackleton. The new AirSpace museum will also exclude the VC10, Trident, BAC111 and Bristol Britannia, which will remain outside – until they’re scrapped or until the IWM build another structure to pollute the Duxford skyline.
The Premise behind AirSpace is that construction work will result only in a 40% increase of floor space. It appears that ancillary displays and a conservation centre will take up precious space, which could be used to house additional airframes. So where does that leave the Shackleton and Victor? It is reported that the Shackleton will be sectioned, with both wings being removed and stored elsewhere on site. I’m also concerned about mixing airframe restoration and display facilities in the same building – all it takes is one small accident and we could loose an entire collection.
Now if I was a high-paid executive of the Imperial War Museum, I would have (a) considered constructing an identical Super Hanger (bolted onto the east side of the existing structure) or (b) extended the length of the said existing structure. I would have replaced the ends with large glass panels (just like the American Air Museum and what is proposed for the new AirSpace Museum). The premise behind these proposals is that there would be a 100% and not 40% increase of floor space. Perhaps as a result those large [and British designed and built] airframes currently “house out-of-doors” could be guaranteed a brighter future.
Big is Beautiful
Rumour has it that when HeavyLift went into receivership, the owners offered its last airworthy Short Belfast to the Imperial War Museum for a mere £4,000 (to cover the cost of fuel). This offer was polity refused on the grounds of cost (how much did the IWM spend on the American Air Museum?). What is worrying (****ing annoying) is that Duxford are in a better position than most to offer this airframe a ‘sheltered’ home. In recent years, a number of [British] large airframes have been scrapped, yet the Duxford Aviation Society has proved that large airframes can be preserved by bodies who are sometimes more ‘focused’ or ‘mission orientated’ than their national counterparts.
Thumbing through the pages of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly it is easy to identify the problem areas. We know that large British designed and built aircraft are scrapped at an alarming rate. RAF transport aircraft are particularly at risk – why? Because we still suffer from Spitfire Snobbery. Museums need to attract visitors – both to secure funds and to impress funders.
A lumbering old transport, whose faded paintwork does little to detract from years of accumulated bird droppings, will always be less attractive than an easily identifiable Spitfire or Hurricane (even if they are fibreglass replicas).
The RAF Museum’s Blackburn Beverley was scrapped we are told because it was too costly to move to Cosford. We are also told that the airframe was unstable. In reality the RAF Museum’s Blackburn Beverley was scrapped because it wasn’t sexy enough for Hendon’s new image. Fact: a Spitfire will always outsell a lumbering old cargo plane. No matter, according to the RAF Museum this airframe was in fact owned by the MoD – so weren’t to blame.
Imagine if those with money and influence stopped and thought about their actions (or lack thereof). No matter how prestigious or charismatic, with every foreign airframe that pollutes the skies above Duxford the more likely our own heritage is consigned to the history books and cultural obscurity. I’m not in any way trying to diminish the contribution of our allies during World War Two, but to sacrifice our own heritage will only result in future generations questioning our own aeronautical and engineering exploits and abilities. And yes, it was the Royal Navy and not a US submarine that secured an enigma machine from a German U Boat during the war. And yes, the British did land on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day – Steve Spielberg and Hollywood take note.
Imagine if someone had the balls to create a replica DH Albatross or Airspeed Envoy or even a humble Vickers Virginia, nay a Fairey Long Range Monoplane. What if all that money and engineering talent was diverted from rebuilding yet another Spitfire and directed towards building a Wellington, Halifax or Mosquito. What if that instead of being excited by the visit of a Lockheed Constellation, we directed our efforts at putting back into the air an Vickers Viscount – after saying that, how many people know what one is? How many care? As long as your £2.50 Duxford burger doesn’t give you the ****s, who cares what flies above our heads?
Discuss…
Phillip Rhodes – http://www.driffieldaerodrome.co.uk
By: JDK - 9th September 2004 at 12:03
That’s the Pommie vs Aussie test…
“Australian children are brought up on Vegemite from the time they’re babies. It is said that Australians are known to travel all over the world with at least one small jar of Vegemite in their luggage, for fear that they will not be able to find it. “
It may be the secret ingrediant in winning the Ashes. Tests have shown that most Ashes winners were brought up on Vegamite, while the losers liked some junk called Marmite. 😀
By: Ashley - 9th September 2004 at 11:55
Setter…well I’ve never seen a real live kangaroo other than on the TV…think you could squeeze one into your luggage for me? 😀
JDK…I’m more of a Marmite girl myself 😉
By: JDK - 9th September 2004 at 11:50
A bottle of something red from Southern WA or Victorias grapelands…
By: JDK - 9th September 2004 at 11:49
Bring her some Vegamite…
By: setter - 9th September 2004 at 11:44
Well
Appologies Ashley
You will now merit two presents.
Anything in particular you need from Australia??
Regards
in constant embassasment
John P
By: Ashley - 9th September 2004 at 11:39
Indeed…:D :diablo: 😀
By: Bruce - 9th September 2004 at 11:33
or even girl…..
By: setter - 9th September 2004 at 11:30
Ashley
Don’t get too cheeky
I will be there in two weeks and I won’t bring you a Present if you aren’t a good boy!!
John P
By: Ashley - 9th September 2004 at 11:25
This reminds me of a thread we had a while back, started I think by Mark12? “What will Duxford be like in 50 years time?”
John…presumably the Whitney will be powered by a set of warbling, glass breaking and eardrum shattering engines? 😀
By: setter - 9th September 2004 at 10:56
Dear Alter Ego
Well fair enough
Lets rebuild one of them as well then !!!!
We could put it in the soon to be Lottery funded “Rare, Obscure and Bizzare Pommie Aircraft Hall” at Duxford to be constructed on the demolished remains of the “Yank bunker” recently condemed by the Royal Guild of Aviation Architects and Plumbers.
The Whitney a mildly redesigned updated version of the Whitley will go on display alongside an example of its predecessor and be accompanied by the following types
Baffin
Albermarle
Heyford
Manchester
Vincent
R101
Princess flying barge
and numerous other “United Kingdom Milestones of Flight”
The Museum will be opened by the newly cloned Lord Brabazon who will then donate his recently restored Brabazon airliner to the Museum complete with Cafe and Mobile NAFFI
I will be representing the Empire at the Ceremony complete with new Kevlar underwear!!!
Kindest regards
John P :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:
By: Mark12 - 9th September 2004 at 09:20
Straightened
John,
You were Miles out.
http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/MILES%20M11%20WHITNEY%20STRAIGHT.htm
Mark
By: setter - 9th September 2004 at 09:11
Sorry I work with a Whitney so I need to try harder on focus when typing
Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-Whitley-
Thanks Mr multiple identity crisis
Kindest regards
John P
By: Mark12 - 9th September 2004 at 08:22
Straightened
Why wouldn’t the RAF M for instance not want to preserve a Beverly , Whitney or a Belfast as they were RAF UK built types-
Hey John, can we get this Straight? 🙂
Mark
By: setter - 9th September 2004 at 03:18
Hi all
My response
Well this is a really interesting issue and it is one where there is clearly no right or wrong – it is about balance and individual opinions/conduct..
No it’s not about scrapping Sally B or the Belfast or the Beverly.
In my opinion the following are the issues that matter.
1) The UK aviation culture and environment are about total imersion in a very rich past – Duxford for example has a very important role to play here and in the past it has been the focus for keeping that culture alive,
It does that through a number of aspects including the “fixed assets ” (the field itself , the historic buildings etc) this provides the ambience and context to which one is imersed when you attend functions there or just wandering about. One cannot forget the fact that this was the very heart and soul of what defending the UK was all about in WW11 and the look , feel and smell of that time.
The recent craze to the IWM constructing the American Museum , The armour Building and the Superhanger (+ new mods to it) all jar and conflict with that culture and feel to the site.
I have no issue with what needs to be done here and that these buildings needed to be constructed but they went up out of context and without reference to a sympathetic melding with their surroundings – more focused on the creation of a monument to the egos of the encumbants in various roles and boards than outcomes for the future. The Idea of the american museum is fine and addresses for me a real need to comemorate the role of the US during the War – BUT it is a huge ugly and worst of all disfunctional building that is totally in aposition to the rest of the airfield – it looks good from a distance but the aircraft displays, lighting and context fail hoplessly – it has nothing to do with the second world war or America’s role in it and everything to do with some architectural tombstone to trendiness. All the aircraft look like fish out of water strung up in a very poor and visually unattractive manner.
The same could be said about the Superhanger new concept but I will reserve judgement till they finish but why couldn’t we have had buildings which added to the ambience rather than detract from it – it is quite possible just not demonstrated.
2) People restore and preserve aircraft that have meaning to them and that’s the way it is. You can’t tell people to restore a Whitney when thay like Mustangs – that’s the way it is . However this is where the Museums and collections come in – the Charter of these Museums should reflect the need to focus on UK first and others second – it is about priorities.
Why wouldn’t the RAF M for instance not want to preserve a Beverly , Whitney or a Belfast as they were RAF UK built types- It doesn’t have to be at Hendon but they need to put aside these aircraft for preservation so they don’t die out altogether and this should be the policy, not duplicating examples of foreign built aircraft already preserved elsewhere first before they get aroung to looking at indigenous types that are down to the last one or two examples or extinct and in need of resconstitution from remains. Individuals will not do this as a rule but some will because of a passion for an individual type – you cannot direct peoples efforts in this regard meerly be supportive and educate people about these issues.
So more focus and effort in my opinion needs to go into strategic planning and cooperation between Museums and Collections – I had thought that this was happening through the Council but it does not appear to be effective.
Surely if the 5-10 biggest collections in the UK got together and set priorities and cooperated on preservation and conservation planning more could be achieved especially if that was focused on the UK aviation heritage as a first “cab off the rank”
I wouldn’t stop further infusion of collections like the US facility at Duxford – it has an important role but is it central ? – it should happen as an adjunct not a priority. What about all of the UK machines at Duxford that could benefit from similar expenditure and be housed appropriately indoors.
3) To keep things in proportion Governance at a strategic level is vital to preserve the balance and maintain the culture and heritage of the UK aviation scene both civil and military.Leadership is apparently lacking and this is the missing ingredient at present not money.
My thoughts
Kindest regards
John Parker
By: duxfordhawk - 9th September 2004 at 01:41
I for one appreciate how lucky we are to have the BBMF every time the Lancaster turns up to an airshow.
I agree i always love to see BBMF and they hold a place in my heart,I think i comment more tommrow on this subject as i am tired and a little worse for wear.
By: andrewman - 9th September 2004 at 01:23
I for one appreciate how lucky we are to have the BBMF every time the Lancaster turns up to an airshow.
By: HP81 - 8th September 2004 at 23:27
Well said Phillip.
Firstly I should declare that I have very little interest in fighters & bombers. Transports & airliners are my thing, also British independent airlines. As a result I am in a constant state of disappointment & frustration. Even when these planes make it into museums they are far from safe, the Hendon Beverley has already been mentioned but before that there was the Southend example. Then there was the Duxford Comet, Varsity & Convair, the Wroughton Trident I am sure there have been others. Outside the museums these types of plane stand virtually no chance, even if people do want to save them. In recent years the Carvair at Southend & Vangaurd at East Midlands were both scrapped despite credible attempts to save them.
Another thing that annoys me a lot is the way that some museums paint there airliners in the colours of BEA & BOAC, when there are other more interesting & historically important schemes that could be applied, or just left alone. Duxford’s Viscount was in the very attractive Cambrian Airways livery, the Hermes fuselage would be better suited to Aiwork or Silver City colours IMO. Cosfords Viking wore Channel Airways colours, the Britannia Invicta International, although this plane needed a repaint. British Eagle might have been a better choice than BOAC.
I understand that combat planes draw in bigger crowds & therefore money, even I would never turn down the chance to see a Hawker Sea Fury in action & I loved the Mosquito. It is cheaper & easier to exibit all this American metal, but in the end I suggest it will be less fulfilling than putting a bit more money & effort into saving our own aviation heritage.
By: andrewman - 8th September 2004 at 23:19
Looking at any display line up at Duxford and it was appear that we are slow in either persuading the likes of the OFMC or TFC to swap their American charges with British designed and built airframes, or they are sacrificing our heritage so these few individuals can fly fast piston-engined Cadillacs
Excuse me but what bloody right do we have to “persuade” any operator’s to swap the American or any other foreign aircraft for that matter.
We should in fact be giving our full support to anyone who is willing to put anything on the airshow circuit no matter where or by whom it was built.
We will always have the BBMF to represent the British aircraft from WW2 irrespective of what any groups like OFMC and TFC etc decide to do.
By: John Boyle - 8th September 2004 at 17:54
I for one believe it is as important to preserve the heritage of all nations in the UK as it illustrates the whole spectrum of aviation. There are many people working hard behind the scenes to preserve many different aspects of aviation, none of which are any more or any less important than each other.
To effectively tell somebody that they are working on the wrong aircraft because it’s not British will do nothing to encourage them or others from continuing in any form of preservation.
Yak 11 Fan, I agree fully….
If you look at the new $200 million National Air Museum outside Washington, it’s filled with plenty of foreign aircraft…everything from a JU-52 to Concorde.
You can’t tell a nation’s aviation story by being exclusionary…a half told history serves no one.
Phillip, I agree that at times it looks like U.S. aircraft are getting a lot of the U.K. preservation effort and money, but that doest’t mean other nation’s aircraft should be ignored. Like it or not, the B-17, B-24 and P-51 have a greater place in U.K. aviation history than many obscure native designs.
Ask most people on this forum and I’d wager they’d rather see a flying B-26 in the U.K. than a Vickers Virginia.
Even as an American I’d love to see a Sterling.
When the IWM or some other national group announces planes to build one, I’ll send a cheque. It’s only fair to pay back the Brits for keeping the Sally B alive.
By: Yak 11 Fan - 8th September 2004 at 16:43
I for one believe it is as important to preserve the heritage of all nations in the UK as it illustrates the whole spectrum of aviation. There are many people working hard behind the scenes to preserve many different aspects of aviation, none of which are any more or any less important than each other.
To effectively tell somebody that they are working on the wrong aircraft because it’s not British will do nothing to encourage them or others from continuing in any form of preservation.
Sign In
September 8, 2004 at 2:59 pm