One of the overriding responsibilities of the press is to hold such organisations to account. It’s about time the aviation press started asking some awkward questions instead of the constant ‘attaboy’ we read too often. Bruce

Entirely agree and we know there is much to hold them to account for. There really doesn’t seem to be much overview and scrutiny around either from the press (or from other bodies for that matter) – but how can that happen when the specialist aviation press is entirely dependent on the museums for information, interviews and access from which to prepare the copy and articles that sell the magazines.

It is, unfortunately, more often than not a parasitic relationship – the parasite feeds off it’s host, but if it starts attacking it’s host, it itself dies. We see it here where items are pulled because of threats by museums or individuals. That’s not intended as a criticism – just an example of a fact of life

Perhaps someone needs to start an independent “Private Eye” of the heritage aviation world. Wouldn’t need to be high-gloss full of pictures and advertising – and just quarterly or half yearly would suffice. You could call it Spitileaks. It just needs a campaigning editor……………

You can express your views on this shambles to the NMRM (National Museum of the Royal Navy) through the following link

http://www.nmrn.org.uk/contact-us

more importantly – how are you going to get it out of there when it’s finished………….

I’ve always been suprised that not much in the way of historic airframes has surfaced in Turkey – given the size of the country and the diversity of aircraft used. Surely though the Turkish Air Force Museum would have been following these rumours up some time ago – for their national collection.

? Also, as Bruce says, are you being asked to fork up £50K, or merely insurance to cover that amount (very cheap)?

Whether the insurance costs £10 or £50,000, i would have thought that if the FAAM was getting the Barra rebuilt at essentially zero cost it should at least stand the cost of insuring the component pieces during the rebuild – it’s a point of principle and – frankly – good manners (sorry I know that’s a bit old fashioned)

Let’s hope the parts dont fester on a pallet for the next 25 years and then are just scrapped because there is not the wherewithall to rebuild them……….

I agree – a quite interesting thread degenerating into petty squabbling. Unedifying and unnecessary.

Sorry – if that was the result of my initial post – it was not the intention.

Are we saying that airshows are about as good as they get – early 50’s technology seems to be about as advanced as will be allowed to be displayed by private operators – so anything past that date is relegated to static display only. With the armed services displaying current service types (and that to a lesser extent because of manpower and budgetary considerations) will the “age gap” between original airworthy planes and current types simply get wider

if somebody sought to reproduce an airworthy HP0/400 or an HP42 to display with minimal or zero original parts, would that be allowed – if you could not attach an original identity to what would essentially be a new-build reproduction.

The only way forward then seems not to bring new types onto the airshow scene – but to use the existing pool in a different way by sharing those airframes across boundaries – such as the “guest airframes” presented at Legends or by having specialised events – such as the “racing aircraft” theme of a recent Shuttleworth event.

I’m unsure on what you mean by ‘allowed’. I’m pretty sure most historic aircraft that can obtain a Permit to Fly would fit the bill there.

Don’t see many Lightnings or FGR2 Phantoms on the UK Airshow circuit……………..

in a ‘closed community’ you exclude the possibility of unexpected input from someone who doesn’t usually contribute but then offers something incredibly valuable.

Interesting philosophical debate – the natural expectation would be that “the internet” would result in greater knowledge for a greater number of people, but instead debate has become more concentrated in closed or self-selecting groups – which results in that knowledge being actually shared within a smaller pool. Add to that the perceived reduction in printed journals available to people because of the “rise” of the internet and it means potentially that fewer people, rather than more, are in the know.