PondskaterWhy does every Dambuster thread end up discussing the dog’s name? It really isn’t that interesting, constructive or useful.
While I do understand Britain’s obsession with its pets I also find the focus of Dambusters discussions a little surprising.
Dictionary.com says that “Nigger” is “probably the most offensive word in English”. The full definition, including origin of the word, is on this link to their website.
The one things which always slightly disappointed me about the 1954 film was the way the raid on the Sorpe dam was reduced to a passing reference to only one bomber making it through. Since 53 men died on the Lancasters during the Operation, I would not object to a remake of the film devoting a little more time to what happened to the Sorpe raid – even if it means less time for Gibson’s dog. It would add a little more historical completeness.
PondskaterIt seems a strange way to run a Heritage Lottery Funded restoration .
Not necessarily. I’ve been involved in the opening of an HLF funded building and while not quite the same thing, we had an “invitation only” opening ceremony.
But we also had several other events where we let the local residents have a preview of their new neighbour, invited our “friends and supporters” to their own evening etc. I know of many in similar situations who have done three, four or more events of which only one is the official ribbon-cutting opening. There is likely a parallel here.
I hope they will announce an opportunity for you and I and the rest of the public to go along to see her fly – although that might only be at her first airshow.
Allan
PondskaterThe Lost Bombers website has a list of the 150 squadron/JN coded Battles lost in action.
Doesn’t narrow it down much but it is a start.
PondskaterUnless it is a totally one-of-a-kind aircraft (and no other airframes exist), sitting on static display is quite useless and uninteresting to all and to the historical record. You could make a fiberglass replica that would serve the same purpose for static display.
This is very far from reality. Although I lean towards allowing aircraft to fly, museum exhibits have a huge contribution to the historical record – especially those genuinely original airframes which are still in “straight from service” condition with little work done other than draining the fluids.
David said it better above:
It [the FW190D] was built under the Nazi regime – very likely by people conscripted or even forced into making it . It is very much something of it’s time. It’s even likely that people involved in building her died at some time after she flew either in under Allied bombing raids or under the excesses of the Nazi regime.
Certainly with modern spec alloys you could reconstruct her after an accident but she wouldn’t have the same social and military history.
While I want to see rare aircraft flown, I also feel that the most original version should be preserved in a museum.
It is all about compromise. We want to see an original FW190 fly. But future generations, perhaps in 100 years or more, should not be deprived of their right to see an original example – not one that has been flown and rebuilt so often that it becomes a replica.
I’m sure I read somewhere that of all the many Mustang survivors not one is left in its original “in service” condition. That’s as wrong as saying we should stop flying old aeroplanes.
Preserve at least one very original example and fly any others.
PondskaterAn interesting debate. A hangar full of grounded aircraft is surely a lower fire risk than hangar in which the aircraft are fueled and ready for flight.
But to me airworthy aircraft smell right. A grounded aircraft becomes little more than a sculpture, although valuable for the opportunity to preserve originality.
So my very personal opinion – if there is only one example of the type left (eg BP Defiant) then put it in a museum. If there is more than one, eg FW 190D, then hope that anybody with the means to fly one takes it to public displays and shares their passion. However, it is preferable for the most original version to be left and preserved.
All rules are defined by their exceptions and the exception here is the Shuttleworth Collection, who do amazing work.
PondskaterHi Dave,
I’ve been sorting through photos this weekend but I don’t have much on the Singapore III – just some earlier models.
However, I did come across this from a Short Brother’s brochure of Singapores inside the Seaplane works at Rochester. The brochure is 1939 but it is likely that the photo is a year or two earlier, possibly when some boats were being refurbished.
All the best
Allan
PondskaterPete,
A couple of options occur – finding a publisher might seem daunting to him and private publishing certainly is without the marketing and distribution knowledge.
So why not just offer to help expand what he’s done. His memoirs are already produced. It is a simple job for a local copy shop to produce more copies, either in ring binders, spiral wire binding or they may be able to do a cheap glued binding with card covers. Orders can be by subscription and printed to order so there is no surplus stock left. But, wouldn’t the local bookshop be willing to take orders from far and wide?
But also, have you considered doing an oral history recording with him? There may well be a local oral history society who would loan you equipment and give a little advice and, most importantly, offer an archive to put the recording into. If you are going to just sit and chat over a cup of tea, recording at the same time is surprisingly unobtrusive.
I’ve been doing oral history work with veterans – it is quite inspiring.
PondskaterWhat a great way to mark the shortest day:cool:
Really nice photos – thanks
May I contribute one I came across recently? I think it is NZ4107 – Sunderland Mk5
Pondskaterpipe dream time again… how about an empire class flying boat? Could rake in the cash doing carribbean ‘cruises’…
Yep, and the last time one was built it only cost £40,000.
Allan
WARNING: This post contains irony and traces of nuts
PondskaterThink about it – the site has evolved over the last 100 years, and so much history had already been “lost” as a result of the site’s natural “evolution” by the time the site was redeveloped in the 90’s that it didn’t reflect any particular period in it’s history anyway. Surely the museum as it currently stands is just another stage of evolution in the site’s history, but one that does try to reflect on the site’s past in all it’s aspects?
Very well said Paul.
And one of the challenges faced by all such museums is to explain that evolving history. I’ve seen it done well and I’ve seen it done very badly (at a Roman archeological site).
PondskaterSometime later, at the last Vulcan displ;ay at Finningly, 558 stopped on the taxiway right next to me before it took off.
I was a hundred yards or so behind you and still remember how good a display that was but it was an earlier Vulcan which had a big impression on me. Out walking in the Yorkshire Dales one went directly overhead at low level and the sky went dark.
And then a little while later I went to our gliding club, watched in horror as a couple of gliders were winch launched and went over to the other side of the airfield where they had engines on their planes and learnt to fly there, even getting a few extra flying hours by spending weekends washing and fueling aircraft. Happy days.
PondskaterHow many of us watching Lewis Hamilton win the American Grand Prix at the week-end took pride in the fact that Mclaren is a ‘British’ team?
Did we however know that only 15% of Mclaren is British owned.
Thanks for bringing up Lewis Hamilton – and for finding the cloud inside that silver lining.
This lack of national interest stems from the very top of government and is a trait of all political parties and is for me a very worrying state of affairs as we move forward into an era utterly dominated by technology.
Britain’s economy is based now on a different model. But it is interesting to see what happens when the Government invests in technology. Try this story from the BBC website. It talks about British investment in space technology but the first comment at the bottom is about the Government wasting money. Another knee jerk moan.
And as for celebrating our country, politicians have recognised the need. See this BBC article from 18 months ago. That debate is still going on.
So, back on topic, I’d be interested to hear a vision as requested in James’ post above or simply comments on the best examples of aircraft museums/preservation we have in the UK.
Allan
PondskaterThis is one of those threads that are sadly typical of forii.
Yes, and sadly typical of a culture we have in Britain today, comments of this type are heard literally everyday.
If I might indulge in a little amateur psychology. When looking at historic locations such as Brooklands or even just the whole aircraft industry in this country, we inevitably compare it to the past. But that was a past when Britain was a world superpower, we had an empire and all that went with it. Britain’s change has been dramatic enough to create almost a sense of loss – something that leads to a tendency to moan about our lot.
Superpower status is, it seems shortlived. In coming years we will have China and India as new superpowers. How the USA copes with the change the UK has gone through is what really worries me.
But think about what Britain really is today (such as a top five economic power) think about our sucesses (The first British Grand Prix was at Brooklands and most Grand Prix teams are based in Britain because of engineering skills). Go on, add your own.
I would suggest that we look to the past only so we can think about what we can do to celebrate it. Supporting local museums is a relatively easy and excellent way to help, but there are others things you can do. A lot of us are doing little things to preserve bits of our heritage using the skills we have.
Then we can all come to places like the fora to share our knowledge and encourage each other.
PondskaterSurely it is better to appreciate these aircraft whilst we have them than to say scrap em because we can’t look after them forever?? As I said at the top of this post – what are we preserving aircraft for??
I can’t argue with that but there is a distinction here between those aircraft being preserved (the indoor ones are the best examples of that) and those which are merely displayed.
If there is enthusiasm and money for new buildings to preserve more Vulcans long term, then I would hope the Vulcans are a catalyst which means other aircraft follow them under cover – such as the Shackleton and Hastings at Newark. The same benefits may come from the desire to get some of the outdoor Concordes under cover.
There are some Vulcans which are displayed not preserved and won’t last long term. But there are other aircraft types needing preserving as well. Who would want to be the one to choose?
PondskaterIs it too late to join in? I’ve sent my address by PM
Allan
Sign In
