To what point? If it still being operated, then it is still making it’s own history, and pandering to its past (unless it’s a highly significant past) achieves nothing other than satisfying someones personal opinion of how it should be presented.
As mentioned earlier, things like the S6B won’t ever be considered for flight… so can be looked on as an artifact, and presented in a condition that reflects it at it’s most worthy point. There is nothing significant happened to it since then, so the history of its moves and custodians is just a footnote.
On the other hand, aircraft such as PA474 have made plenty of history, since being operated in preservation, and are still doing so. Nobody is trying to return her to test bed configuration, or as she was when she was doing mapping work, as it’s been operated since… so the aircraft if retired now, would have to have that taken into account.
The last thing is this… if the maintainer said that an aircraft needed something that compromised it’s historical value in the eyes of the curator… it wouldn’t fly any longer. Another reason why flying aircraft cannot be looked at in the same way as statics.
In short. If it is of high historical value, I don’t believe it should be flown. If it is anything else – then keep the options open.
Just my thoughts…
Regards,
Ric
Because the definition makes a separation it does not necessarily mean that the flying exhibit would receive less care, only that that care will over time change the object over time from its original state. Therefore it ceases to be an original artefact.
While it is still doing the job it was designed for (flying) the state of the aircraft is still “original”. Only when it ceases to have purpose, and pieces are changed for no reason could it not be an original artifact.
That’s why (although my personal taste is different) Nashio is right regarding our Shackleton, WR963. It should be an AEW.2, as that is its original condition. If we were conserving it as an artifact, that is the state it shoyuld be in.
As we’re trying to return it to life, we just leave it under preservation, and the original condition can be conveniently ignored.
To me, I would define an aircraft as an artifact once it ceases to be operated… when its condition is stable and no longer likely to change. Up until that point you can’t decide what state it is going to be preserved, as the nature of operation will mean the inevitable replacement of parts.
Preservation is different as it covers all scenarios… the flying, the ground running and the static. As a result, I can’t agree with Pagen when he suggests the best way of preservation isn’t flying the aircraft. Preservation is keeping something from becoming lost, which can apply whether you do this by keeping it active or pullng a lost example out of a swamp..
Conservation would be more accurate a description for the suggestions made; to stop new skins, new parts, etc. changing the condition of the aircraft.
Regards,
Ric
I see the DC6 crew stole our idea for getting a good view of proceedings!
Excellent pics, Keith, and nice to meet so many people off here. It was a very good day.
Rich
:rolleyes:
I’ve got enough on… let somebody else play!
So long as you can persuade the landowner to sign off the MOD license application, I can’t see there being a problem. Until its recovered, it’s not TIGHAR’s plane… it’s the MOD’s.
Gwynedd Council are the landowners.
Kind of funny though, given you and I were discussing this last night.
I feel like I’m being watched… 😮
Try 52 50′ 57.48 N, 4 07′ 20.17″W for a rough guess.
A Freedom of Information request regarding it would yield the grid reference TIGHAR gave in their application.
I’m just having another look round their site… I’m going to have a crack at translating some of the stuff on the forum later.
The pictures are cool… they seem to have found a couple of Merlins (they have them tagged as “Merlyn”) and a Lincoln rear turret. They seem to be well on with the task of clearing years of dirt out of the aircraft and have fabricated some new parts by the look of it.
Impressive stuff. I only happened on it after a link from an Argentinean gentleman who posted on another forum, asking if anybody knew of any Lincoln parts are available in the UK. I think he may be a little too late on that score…
Regards,
Ric
p.s. Ben, it’s the proper version of English I use. The Northern variety… :p
How about your Spanish? 😉
Languages were never my strongpoint… I can just about handle English!
Many Thanks…
I don’t see the need for every static exhibit to have to suddenly spring back into powered life, usually at great expense and effort which can be applied elsewhere on a project.
Dead aeroplanes are okay when displayed well. Cosford is a pretty good example of that.
On the other hand, I’d love to be able to see and hear something running firsthand rather than seeing it on youtube. I want to smell it running, feel it running, and be able to recall the sound for myself for years to come. Museums that take the desicions to make an aircraft ‘alive’ again are a great thing, whether the venue lends itself to running is immaterial. So long as there’s no chance of damage to aircraft or property, why the problem?
If no-one asked the question “Will it run?” or “Will it fly?” we wouldn’t have anything left running other than what is in service. So I think the question stands in most cases. I know where Peter’s coming from as I’m frequently asking the same question.
There’s no great need as such, but think of it in this way… Sit a five year old in a dead aeroplane, and their first question is going to be “Does it fly?” You will have a hard time then explaining why it won’t. They get bored very rapidly if nothing works, or if they can’t understand it.
Making things live again so that they can see it work, inspires them. The five year olds today don’t have the Battle of Britain to remember, or any of the 1970 and 80’s when the preservation scene was starting to come alive. They don’t even have a couple of good war movies… just CGI.
So how do you get him or her, age five, interested enough to take care of that aircraft when he turns twenty five? You make it run. You make it work. Get the excitement going.
It worked with me years ago, it works now, and it’ll work well into the future. Its the same reason kids make a beeline for gokarts. Because it moves, it works.
If it keeps the project going, and people volunteering years into the future, then starting it up was a damn good idea.
(in my opinion, of course….)
Regards,
Ric
tests on their own “dambusters” notion, well worth digging out if you can get a hold of a copy.
On the forum on their website there is a mention of this, but once again its all in Argentine! I’ll have to see if I can get hold of a translation of it.
The reason being that it wasn’t officially confirmed until this week that CF would be getting one and that they wanted to tell the Classic Flight club members first,before it was public knowledge.After all that is one of the reasons for joining,so that you get the latest info first,not off a forum.
Official press release here.
If the club want the information first they need to be a bit smarter off the mark. Despite doing my own bit to remain silent, it has been touted round various military, and modelling forums that Coventry were to get a Nimrod for a while. The only unknown was which one.
If you can stop the rumours coming out the military, then you might have had a chance.
Knowing how things move within the military though, it will have been confirmed weeks ago where the Nimrods were going, as none of them were put through the DSA auctions/tenders site. Nothing this big is last minute.
I can’t really speak much for WR963, and I await Nashios input on this, but externally it is still a mixture of when it left service as an AEW.2 but it’s painted up, and has had the AN-APS nose radome removed, to give it an MR.2 look, however it dosen’t have any MR.2 bits reinstated, such as bomb doors aft ASV radome etc.
As far as I know the intention is still to return WR963 fully to MR.2 configuration. She is a little mixed up at the moment, but the parts are there to make it happen, it will just take a little bit of time and effort to achieve. The focus lately has been on getting the engine change completed, which means the cosmetic side of things (while playing on all our minds) has had to be put aside.
I’m sure you’ll get a more definitive answer from Ben (Nashio), but I think at the moment he’s probably up to his armpits working on 963, while I’m stuck in my office at work wishing I was there too.
I’d love to see either of the Paphos Shackletons looked after, whether they become a MR.1 / T.4 replica or not. It’s a crying shame watching them slowly dissolve into the ground.
WL795 at St Mawgan is an MR2. Considering that WR960, WL790, WL747 and WL757 are all still in AEW.2 configuration, it’s hardly under represented. All the AEW gear works at a high voltage, and the radar (as Ben stated) was removed because if it was powered up accidentally it could be dangerous.
My opinion (and this is just my preference) is that the MR2 is a lot more pleasing on the eye, both in colour scheme and shape. I’ll be happy to see the full size bomb doors on though… but I know its already on the ever growing “to do” list!
Regards
Ric