PondskaterIts simple folks I don’t like Heritage Laws plan and simple they stimmy the recovery and restoration of aircraft be it a Warbird or Vintage Aircraft
OK but what alternatives are there? How can a country or region protect the aircraft that mean something to them without some version of these laws.
My concern is that, without regulation, objects will simply follow the money. For instance, where is the best Shakespeare collection in the world? Stratford? London? Nope – its in Washington DC (Folger Library). There was a move to do the same with William Wordsworth’s archive and, but for a single inspired individual, it might have left the English Lake District.
The USA is the current wealthy nation which tends draws the world’s heritage to it (aircraft, books, art etc). Britain used to do it but in the future it could be China, Russia or India. Who knows.
What form of Heritage protection would you have?
PondskaterNo.
Why should replacing some material cause a problem? Many listed buildings have a complex history – modified, extended, rebuilt.
And buildings without a use are at greater risk of being lost – now it has a use the museum will maintain it. There is a tendency these days is to allow some “at risk” buildings to be modified to allow new uses – and therefore survival.
It becomes part of the history of the building – and better than the building becoming history.
Allan
PondskaterHi Allan, Point of debate if you like while The Short brothers might be the first UK aircraft factory they were not the first to set up an aircraft factory that would be the United States Army Signal Corp who signed a contract in Sept. of 1908 with the Wright Brothers for six Wright Flyers.
I’m reluctant to take the debate off-topic but I’ve never seen Short Brothers’ position as the World’s First Aircraft Manufacturers challenged before – I would be interested to see your source for that information. In Sept 1908 Orville was injured and Lt Thomas Selfridge was killed (the first fatal air accident) in a demonstration to the Army at Fort Myers. The aircraft was finally accepted in the summer of 1909 as the Signal Corps Flyer – the world’s first miltary aircraft. But that was a single machine.
Anyway, the point I was making is that, even in apparently obvious cases such as the Flyer, Heritage laws will meet opposition. The debate on individual cases is an important part of establishing the robustness of those laws including precedent. An important part is setting up an appeal process for both sides. As Mark says:
An appropriately written Heritage Law, with appropriately qualified assessors, and access to the appropriate information and records should hopefully be able to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most logical onlookers?
For avoidance of doubt, my personal view on the Flyer is that it belongs in the Smithsonian more than the Science Museum. 🙂
Allan
PondskaterIf the Heritage Law was instead a UK law, and applied in 1948, when the Wright Flyer returned to the USA from the UK, the UK law would have determined that while the Flyer was 35 years old, (over the 30 year test) it had not operated in, or been associated with the UK for over 30 years, and in fact only been in the UK for 20 years. Despite its “world Heritage” values, the Wright Flyer is therefore not significant to UK “National” Heritage, and the Heritage Law would then let it depart.
A very interesting and well reasoned assesment. But if I may oppose the export. In 1909 the Wright Brothers licensed their design to the Short Brothers who set up the UKs first (indeed the world’s first) aircraft factory to produce a run of six copies of the Wright Flyer. I would argue that this makes the Flyer significant in UK National Heritage in being the start of UK aircraft manufacturing.
OK – my real point is that, no matter how well crafted the legislation, there will always be an opportunity for another view and therefore a debate. Things can never be put in a way that creates a simple black and white situation. But the debate is healthy.
Allan
PondskaterAnd where art is concerned its really crazy, in the Uk the government can step in after a sale and use public money to keep the art in the uk. For a fraction of the cost they can have a copy made and placed on display and use government funds for peoples needs.
That’s not quite my understanding. It is only if the artwork is going to be exported that it needs a licence and then it is judged as to whether or not it should be kept in the UK. If the export is blocked, then a period of time is often allowed for a UK institution to raise the money to buy it. An example would be Turner’s Blue Rigi painting which is regarded as one of a set of his very best works. All the others had gone overeas so the export of the last one was delayed. Tate Britain launched a huge campaign and raised the £5m+ needed to buy it.
This is I suppose a regulated free market. The market determines the objects cash value and delaying export licences is on a case by case basis. If nobody in the UK wants it – or is capable of raising the money for it – then it goes overseas.
This hasn’t yet happened with aircraft but there is no reason why the system shouldn’t be applied to aviation in future.
There have been long debates about whether the UK should “Save a painting for the Nation” – as the press usually report such things. One argument is that the world should have access to British achievements. And also, we like to have objects here to be able to study the historical achievements of other nations (Elgin marbles anybody?). It is not a perfect system but it seems to work much of the time. I believe it is all organised under The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest Order 2003 and licences are granted by the DCMS (Dept of Culture, Media and Sport).
So, would a sale be blocked if the Avro Triplane or the prototype Mosquito was sold overseas? I would hope so. But similarly, with Spitfires flying in this country, I’d want to see them flying in other countries as well. I don’t see how we can have a black and white system. It needs judging every time an aircraft is being exported.
Oh – I don’t think we can compare moveable assets such as paintings and aircraft with buildings or World Heritage Sites such as Stonehenge. Unless of course you want to raise the issue of the American who bought London Bridge. 🙂
Allan
PondskaterCouldn’t they get a bank to sponsor it – seems the most appropriate to me!
What, Northern Rock? :diablo:
PondskaterSome very good ideas there.
Tom, I’d also be wary of asking museums if they are threatened with closure. Many would not announce such a problem – it can cause donations to go to somewhere apparently more secure. It might be better to seek a survey of museums that have closed over recent decades. But that’s a big bit of research.
Denys’ idea of a simple visitors numbers/membership/costs survey would also be good – if you can compare it to national visitor number trends and uncontrollable external factors, it would be even more powerful.
I have to agree that airfields are a convenient, but not always the best place to put a museum. But then aircraft in a city centre museum feel oddly stranded.
Good luck
Allan
PondskaterJust me on my soap box. Lets have some other views.
Budge up – There’s room for two on that soap box! 🙂
I’d agree that I prefer to see aircraft in their original markings – not to do so denies the object its history, its story. All museum objects have a story – and often fascinating. Any single aircraft comes to life when you can read and discover the exploits that it had to undertake and, often just as extraordinary, how it survived to be on display.
Tom is right to say that the relevance of a type of aircraft to a city etc can also be a compelling story and needs to be told.
But I prefer to see an aircraft displayed in a scheme relevant to its history – unless there is a very, very good reason and its not the only survivor. For instance, ZK-PBY is a RCAF Catalina painted in RNZAF colours – because that’s the country it flies in, which I can’t argue with.
In a museum there is more room and time to interpret an object which I would argue can greatly reduce the need for false colours.
Allan
PondskaterKnowledgeable for sure, but I guess we will only know for certain if someone comes up with a dated letter head or contact of employment.
Would a period advert do?
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1940/1940%20-%202875.html
I had to double check this for a piece just going off for publication and I had it down as “department” until I saw this thread. Thanks
Allan
PondskaterAir Ministry Specification 22/38 ‘For the manufacture of dummy aircraft’. Three patterns were requested, a single-engine fighter, a single engine light bomber and a twin engine heavy bomber. Contracts were placed with film studios and set builders to produce these in wood and canvas and were used in 1940-41 – some were also used ahead of the D-Day landings when they were definitely placed at existing airfields to trick German recon into thinking there were more aircraft available. Not sure if this was also the case in 1940 but knowing the emphasis on dispersal around airfield, I’d say it was likely.
Somewhere I have a book with a poem about the setting up of wooden dummy aircraft on a fake airfield which was bombed by the Germans with a wooden bomb.
Some favourite screen mistakes:
The film about the Enigma decryption (can’t recall its title) includes a scene where a submarine is bombed by a Catalina carrying just one bomb – but it would have made more sense to a general audience than dropping a spread of four depth charges across it. And at least they found a Catalina.
And Die Hard II – you know, the one at the airport. The simple premise is that all power has been cut to the control tower so they can’t speak to the circling aircraft. “if only there was some way to talk to those airplanes” somebody says. There is. Go downstairs to any aircraft parked outside, switch it on and use its radios. :rolleyes:
And don’t get me started on U-571. The girlfriend made me promise never to talk about it again!
PondskaterWhy can’t you just tell us what happend, I’m curious … :confused:
I hate that too 🙂 – but it does build up curiousity while Googling.
It seems the answer is here http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/replica.html.
PondskaterIt raises the inevitable question:
“Should this artefact be left as it is or (assuming funds were available) be restored and fitted with replica wings, rear fuselage, tail surfaces and undercarraige?”
Roger Smith 🙂
Indeed. Interestingly there were plans in the 60s to restore it. CH Barnes noted that “a recent survey of the remains has indicated that it can be restored to a state fit for exhibition once more and in 1966 preparations were being made to this end” in Shorts Aircraft since 1900
It is a remarkably original artefact even as it is. Not only is it the oldest surviving Westland built aircraft but the earliest (by some years) survivor of the Short Brothers designs. Considering their pioneering designs from 1909 right through to WWII, it is very sad that so little has survived. It shows the difficulty of preserving maritime aircraft I suppose.
If there are drawings etc surviving that would allow wings and a tail to be made, then I’d rather see a full replica on display alongside this original.
Allan
PondskaterAn interesting idea. There are two issues against it that spring to mind. The first is money: can museums afford to repaint an aircraft that doesn’t need painting (Flying aircaft will need to be repainted more often). The other is originality. Obviously you’re not suggesting that an aircraft which survives in original 60-year-old paint should be repainted, but often an individual machine is put back into its original colours and indentity.
For instance, the RAF Museum Sunderland is coded NS-Z – the same codes she wore when first operational with 201 squadron.
The IWM Sunderland is coded NS-F, because coincidentally she also first served (temporarily) with 201 squadron.
Unfortunately, neither served in the Far East but the devil in me want to ask why neither are in French colours, since they would not have survived had they not been with the Aeronavale – but I think the answer is obvious.
I do feel that Coastal Command is overlooked, but it is not a recent occurence and there is not likely to be a sudden change.
PondskaterBTW, am I the only one who thinks Coastal Command is woefully under represented in the national collections?
Nope. It is a curious thing that Coastal Command get overlooked so often, not just in museum displays but in other ways.
Perhaps the reasons behind this might be the clue as to why aircraft such as XF703 had a lower chance of survival.
PondskaterIndeed thanks for that info. And a welcome to the forum – you can’t have too many Sunderland nuts.
I’d just found a copy of The Guardian’s article (6th June 1955) in my Sunderland file which lists those killed but doesn’t list the survivors or indeed add any more to story than above other than that the Duke of Edinburgh had sent a message of sympathy to the next of kin.
Allan
Sign In
