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 - 8th September 2004 at 16:37
Fair comment Yak 11 Fan,
And so on. There are a lot of people doing good things. (Including Sally B crew, supporters etc. A great memorial)
By: Bruce - 8th September 2004 at 16:34
International Heritage
Philip,
OK, some good, reasoned arguments here, though I dont entirely agree with all you have to say.
I spend much of my spare time actually working on the ground, preserving the Heritage of the de Havilland company. We now have a good selection of exhibits that accurately reflect the majority of the significant aircraft built by that fine company. We are a trust, privately funded by admission and donation, and it is hard to raise funds to keep doing the work we enjoy, and equally hard to find members of a suitable calibre to do the necessary work.
I took the time to look at your website as well, and note your broadside at the lottery. Fact is that to get funds, you have to apply for them, and you have to have a sound business plan as to why you deserve them – That is reasonable and just. As it stands, we have not yet applied for funding as we werent in a good enough shape to raise money of our own to match any funding, and we had no concrete plans for the future. That is changing, and in due course, we will get there. Hats off to Newark, International Helicopter Museum, Yorkshire Air Museum and Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum, who as independent organisations, have been able to get the lottery to help fund their projects.
In this day and age, on a national basis, we have to preserve artefacts from all nations. From an aerospace point of view, this means aircraft of all nations, especially when they are as significant as, for example, the P51 and B-17. The point has already been well made that the Americans flew from England, and many, many of them lost their lives ensuring that Britain (and the rest of the world) were kept from falling under the Nazi jackboot.
At the time the American museum was erected, there was a very great need to see as many of Duxfords externally stored aircraft brought under cover as possible. By building a museum, that, in part, celebrated those men and women that served here both during the second world war, and during the cold war, meant that funding could be obtained in the USA, and in England, and ensured that the museum was built all the faster. In the short term, it has meant that many of the smaller British airframes that used to be outside are now under cover once more, as the American ones were moved into the new museum.
When I visited Duxford in the late eighties, there were a good many half finished projects in the restoration hangar – a good many poorly presented exhibits. In the past few years, these have been transformed – look at the Hurricane, Anson, Magister and others. Look at the work being undertaken on the Oxford.
As to the relevance of the Belfast – well, they were an unsuccessful design, of which one is already preserved, albeit outside at present at Cosford. Why would the IWM want to preserve one? Look at their name – WAR museum – you should have already noticed a contraction in exhibits at Duxford that have not taken part in conflicts – such as the Comet, Varsity, Convair and so on. The Belfast does not fit in their remit.
As to the airliners – well do remember that none of the airliners are owned by the Imperial War Museum – they are owned by the DAS, who, on occasion have the opportunity to work on these aircraft in one of the IWM owned hangars. The IWM are keeping Concorde and the Comet 4 undercover owing to their particular significance – the Comet was the first transatlantic airliner after all.
Although the Shackleton may in due course be sectioned, again, I dont see it as a particularly significant airframe, at least not in Mk 2 guise. The Victor should be brought undercover, but if you take the time to go through recent posts, you will see that this is being planned. The Victor spent many years undercover in the superhangar, and after its repaint, the paint faded so fast it was incredible. It is not so long though since it was undercover, and not so long since it had a large crew working on it. If they had a bad batch of paint, that is unfortunate, but it does make the aircraft look poor.
So, yes, we could build Vickers Virginias, and Handley Page Heyfords, but who is going to continue to preserve the heritage we already have. We are all stretched enough without resurrecting lost designs!
Last point – you decry IWM putting another hangar up at Duxford – to spoil the skyline, but you want the aircraft inside – you cant have both.
Cheers
Bruce
By: Yak 11 Fan - 8th September 2004 at 16:29
I’ve seen bins of Hurricane widgets that didn’t exist, but do, and are avaliable thanks to HR.
Don’t forget the Engineering Company who have produced many of these widgets for HR 😀
By: John C - 8th September 2004 at 16:20
Good work Philip – Hot Topic? Fireproof Y fronts required in my opinion… 😀
JC
By: JDK - 8th September 2004 at 16:18
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for the essay.
There’s a lot to comment on. If I can first correct a misaprehension; the Beverley which was scapped was shoved onto the RAF Museum by the RAF AFTER it had deteriorated past hope of saving. It was NOT an RAF Museum airframe until it was too late. Much as I’m not a fan of many of the RAF Museum’s policies, that was somehing entirely outside their control.
The big picture. Money, avaliability and comonality are critical. US a/c win on these points as well as ‘sexyness’.
While we are crying into our teacups, lets us bear in mind that there’s no good reason except heritage and ‘fun’ (both minor, compared to, say,eating and housing) to preserve anything. We are lucky to have what we’ve got.
No mention in your essay of Hawker Restorations or the people rebuilding Hawker Demons, Nimrods etc. There’s good news as well, and the world Hurricane population is now at least partly viable because of this work. I’ve seen bins of Hurricane widgets that didn’t exist, but do, and are avaliable thanks to HR.
Sadly it is difficult for people in Britain to appreciate that the USA was able to come out from W.W.II financially stable and able to hold onto and preserve many more of their aircraft, partly by ensuring that much of the world ‘bought’ (or were given) US a/c after the war. Britain had no such luxury; and many more a/c were lost as a result. The UK preservation scene is a child of postwar rationing and failure to convince the world to buy British as much as any other factors.
AirSpace is the next step after the American Air Museum. AirSpace can (IMHO) happen BECAUSE the AAM happened. Finanicially, I believe that without the proof of the AAM, the fundraising sucess (give them credit for achievement) would not allow for AirSpace.
I accept your points regarding exclusion and incvlusion in AirSpace. Have you written to the IWM?
As an Australian, I have a less ideallistic view of the greatness of British aircraft design. If the Empire Policy had directed the work of Laurence Wackett, the Australians would have been trying to make fighters out of the Lysander and Battle, rather than getting the Boomerang from the Wirraway (a US design…) Don’t get the wrong idea, I love lots of British aircraft; but I have no truck with small minded nationalism. I’ve travelled the world looking at and enjoying old aircraft. More would be great, but I support, celebrate and publicise what we’ve got. I don’t CARE what nationality it is, I just like it.
Thanks to Kermit Weeks, homes have been found for a lot of aircraft which were NOT WANTED in Britain (Sunderland, Lysander and Avro Rota, to name 3.) Isn’t it a good thing that an American likes three less ‘sexy’ British a/c enough to give them a home, to show Americans some great British a/c? It is for me.
Oh, yes, and wasn’t the Avro Rota the result of an international collabaration?
Great topic. However, for me the glass is half full, there’s a doughnut around the hole, and you can go see a history of great aviation (much of which is British, other bits of which are Dutch, American, French, German, Russian…) in Befordshire, all summer. I did.
Best wishes,
By: Ashley - 8th September 2004 at 15:54
A well written and passionate piece there, Phillip. Fair play to you for having the **** to post something provocative like this. The subject matter I will refrain from commenting on, as I joined the forums as an aviation enthusiast, not as an official IWM spokesperson.
By: Phillip Rhodes - 8th September 2004 at 15:32
True, 58,000 young American’s did die flying from our soil and indeed many remain buried in and around Cambridge, but many more aircrew also flew and die in aeroplanes which your average member of the public don’t even know existed or can even name? How many people know what a Whitley, Stirling, Halifax et al, are aeroplanes – build also by many thousands. This is going to be a hot topic.
Phillip Rhodes
By: tonyd - 8th September 2004 at 15:26
Interesting posting Philip.
What we need to do though is split off the private operators who can buy and operate what they want as it is their money. The big institutional official museums like the IWM are a different matter. It is time that more was invested into saving rare and unique British designs and aircraft that are not considered worthy by many people. (A bit like the Beeb not just making tv progs that appeal to the masses). The BAPC produced a listing of airframes of National Significance to the UK, IWM have many on this list and have the wherewithall and space to do something to save benchmark airframes.
Regarding Sally B, I firmly believe that this is part of our rich aviation heritage given that 58,000+ young Americans died flying from our soil.
By: setter - 8th September 2004 at 15:14
Hi Phillip
Thanks for your insights – it is 12 midnight here and I have read it but I will read again when I wake up and post a response. Thanks for taking the time to put such a thoughtful article together – it will provoke thought and it won’t be universally popular but it is worth thinking about
Kindest regards
John P
Sign In
September 8, 2004 at 2:59 pm