kev35Hi, John.
“I would still imagine that this incident was hushed up though,”
Do you think it was hushed up solely because it occurred in Eire, or for some other reason?
It is interesting that you mention Canada and the RCAF. F/L Ayton was most definitely RAF and came from Norfolk. However, there is some possibility that the family moved to Canada. Whether this is either true or significant, I’m not yet sure.
I’m just going to have to keep digging. Thanks for the help so far.
Regards,
kev35
kev35I’ve now established that the aircraft crashed at Gort, Co. Galway. The pilot, F/L Ayton died in the crash and the second crewman F/O H R Anderson was rescued but died at the scene. Strangely, F/L Ayton is on the CWGC refister but F/O Anderson is not. Simple mistake? Or something else….
To muddy the waters further the aircraft is said to be a Mosquito FB26 KA317. Air Britain records say that aircraft never left Canada. The crash occurred at 23.20 while the aircraft was on a delivery flight. Would an aircraft be being delivered at that time of night?
Anybody have any idea at all where to go next with this? Any information will, as ever, be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
kev35
kev35LimaN.
Hi, and welcome to the forums. If you can post the dates of death from the headstones on the forum it will make things easier and then I’m sure someone will be able to help you.
Good luck.
Regards,
kev35
kev35Thank you all for your responses, it’s very much appreciated. The main aim at the moment is for me to discover the fates of certain aircraft in which a gunner flew 39 operations with the Desert Air Force.
Thanks again.
kev35
kev35And another….
kev35And another…..
kev35All I can say is I parted with all my magazines in the early nineties, Flypast inluded, when my interest waned as a career took over. What happened a few years later? I ended up buying a set! And I will never part with them again. They keep coming out for a browse, like books, they’re old friends now.
Keep them if you possibly can, your children may grow to love them, especially as they age, and, in the quiet moments, you will miss them. (The magazines, not the children 😉 )
Regards,
kev35
kev35Leah.
What a fantastic experience. Please, write it all down while it’s fresh in your memory. As you say, sadly, there won’t be many people to tell the stories before too long. I, for one, would certainly like to read it. Feel free to post any of those stories.
Regards,
kev35
kev35Wasn’t May 17th 1943 also the first anniversary of the 8th Air Forces first mission from England?
Regards,
kev35
kev35Legends, my first, was just amazing and it was a real privelege to see the Breitling Fighters.
The South African 747 at Duxford, just jaw dropping.
The unveiling of the Memorial to Sgt Wiseman and F/Sgt Haddon which Snapper organised.
And, probably most important, meeting and making so many new friends.
Regards,
kev35
kev35Ian.
Hope you don’t mind, Radar Archive is too long to keep typing out.
Your contention is that touching irrepairably damages airframes and you would like to see a strict “no touching” policy adhered to. I’m suggesting that, as you have seen, there are a considerable number of people who, for whatever reason, touch the exhibits. Is it not time for the Preservation movement to do something positive to dissuade people from that action. It seems that interactivity is something that many museum visitors would like to see, is there any likelihood that museums might embrace that? You’re happy, visitors are happy, win-win situation.
Regards,
kev35
kev35RadarArchive.
“However, when an aircraft is placed in the care of a museum, it is so that it can be preserved for future generations.”
Blackburn Beverley, Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon.
Shackleton, IWM, Duxford.
Various Vulcans including Bruntingthorpe’s bag of bits.
Didn’t Duxford scrap a rare transport aircraft?
Is that the kind of preservation you mean? If you’re going to take the moral high ground, make sure you can hold it.
“Touching these is a problem and all those who do this are putting these airframes in peril for their personal gratification, which I consider extremely selfish.”
Interested, passionate, intrigued, compassionate even, selfish? Well, if the label helps you, that’s fine.
“It’s clear I’m not going to change anyone’s mind – those who touch are unwilling to listen to the facts – but it doesn’t change the situation that they are damaging our heritage.”
You make an interesting point there, whether you realise it or not. It is OUR heritage, mine as well as yours. But having a meticulously preserved airframe in a hundred years time will mean nothing if no-one is interested any longer. That’s the problem museums face today, a lack of interest, and little is done to correct that. Yes, the generation of forty or fifty years ago, maybe even thirty, may have been content to view things from afar but society has changed. People tend to be more hands on today. Life, and everything in it is experiential, when people experience things for themselves then it has more impact.
I’ve listened to you on this, and who knows, to an extent you may have changed my opinion, perhaps it’s time the preservation movement was a little less unbending too?
Regards,
kev35
kev35Radar Archive.
“This then necessitates repairs which detract from the historical authenticity of the object and also mean that museums (which never have enough money to do everything they want to preserve OUR heritage) have to spent percious funds which could be better used. And why? Just so that someone gets to feel what metal feels like!”
Still not convinced. I understand what you are saying but some people, I’m one of them and I suspect there may be others here, have a different kind of connection with what we see. Perhaps it’s more of an emotional response, sometimes touching something gives it more substance, more meaning, defines the object for us. To me, it’s not just a piece of metal, it is something more. If it is only a piece of metal why is it so important that it isn’t touched?
“However, at the end of the day, touching real objects damages them, no matter how much anyone deceives themselves that it doesn’t! Ask any professional musuem conservator or curator and they’ll say the same. I want people to enjoy these objects,”
You want people to observe a policy of ‘look, don’t touch.’ I don’t think that’s viable. A Lancaster veteran visits Hendon to see Sugar. You would deny him any possibility of being in physical contact with a type he served his tour on? The man who risked his life for freedom? Isn’t that a bit jobsworth? Taking it a bit further, aren’t you against the flying of any historical type as that involves a lot of physical contact? And therefore damage. Sally B is open to the public at displays, but if you’re right that’s effectively destroying her? Damien’s example of the Vulcan at Coventry. I’ve been on board, and heard the awe in kid’s voices as they’ve clambered up into her. Perhaps that experience sparks a life long interest in one of them, that can only be a good thing.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that touching airframes damages them for no real purpose. End of story.”
For me, and I suspect many others, that is an acceptable risk.
Regards,
kev35
kev35Not sure I agree with all this stuff about not touching. Don’t get me wrong, I see your point but wonder whether it is that important in the long term. It’s going to tale an awful lot of people an awfully long time to rub away an airframe, surely? Touch is very important in bringing things into context. Everyone can look at a photo of a puppy and go ‘Ahhhh.’ The experience and the reaction have so much more impact when that puppy is put into your arms. Poor analogy I know, but I’m sure you can see what I mean.
A rifle your Grandad carried through the war looks great in a case, but take it out and place it in a person’s arms they feel the weight, the texture of the wood and metal, it becomes so much more to them. A uniform should be provided for people to feel. So sterile in a glass case, but in your hand you appreciate the weight, the texture, the roughness of a battle dress blouse, how cumbersome was a Sidcot suit, the suppleness of a leather flying helmet which was worn through thirty operations. It all adds to the experience, it’s that little bit extra that raises the hairs on the back of your neck.
Moggy’s right about the people too. Don’t ask me why, I never said a word to the man but somehow I’m so proud that I had the opportunity to shake hands with Douglas Bader. And Hamish Mahaddie, Peter Fox and Keith Lawrence. My Uncle died recently and I spent ages talking to the guys from the RBL who came to his funeral, thanking them. It’s something we don’t do often enough. I’d like to see Veterans at Hendon and Duxford, if they are willing, encouraged to share their experiences. Too many people take them for granted, me included. The little old guy who was always causing delays in the Post Office, making you wait in the chemist, ordinary, sometimes a bit of a nuisance, silly old bu**er. Got the Military Medal in Italy, a mention in Despatches in North Africa. There’s the idea, an exhibition entitled “The Debt We Owe.” Give us the opportunity to thank them.
Phew, sorry for rambling, but most of you already know it’s something I excel at. 😉
Regards,
kev35
kev35Becka.
Dioramas are a good way of displaying aircraft in a context and as a way of adding more interest. An example. Your school party sees a pristine Spitfire all parked neatly, drip trays in place and all ‘buttoned up.’ Now, the same aircraft in a diorama, cowling off, gun access panels open, canopy and cockpit door open, equipment strewn about. Discretely placed display boards with relevant information. Bags of impact. Maybe a raised or ramped platform enabling people including photographers and those in wheelchairs, to obtain a different perspective.
Boards as above.
Interactivity. Yes please, as Moggy said for the ‘growed-ups’ as well. Sympathetically done this can have a great impact on the visitor, enthusiast or non-enthusiast.
Engines etc. Although not of great import to me they have earned their place. The most effective way to display them though I don’t know.
Medals, uniforms, ephemera etc. Again very important. Agree with Damien about the impacyt of those at Hendon. No tiny little signs you can hardly read or one line ‘citations.’ Fred Blogg’s and his DFM deserve greater respect than that.
I like the idea of strategically placed ‘Veteran’s corners’ where they can leave their reminiscences, anecdotes in a notebook, photographic displays etc. Somewhere they might feel comfortable and where they can be reassured that their efforts are not unrecognised and will ever be remembered.
That’ll do I think.
On a personal note, access. What will it be like? If they are trying to make the Museum more disabled friendly, ask them to think long and hard and not just pay lip service. Example: The ramps to and from the superhangar. They are mangeable by someone in a wheelchair. But why have a piece of wood two inches tall syanding proud of the metal ramp? I had to push my wheelchair over them and then get back in it. A number of visitors offered assistance and expressed concern over the difficulties I experienced. There were other issues as well.
Enough of my whinging.
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
