Willow.
First of all, I admit I’m not as knowledgeable about the intricacies of the preservation movement as many of the forum members so these are purely my ideas and opinions.
“A cull of airframes would cause a number of problems.”
There would inevitably be problems, but would the problems be any more significant than they are now? I’m not talking about the wholesale slaughter of anything that is not airworthy or pristine, just a rationalisation of how the limited resources available are used.
“Firstly, who is going to decide which airframes to scrap? You can’t just turn up on an owners doorstep and tell him to scrap his Hunter, Vampire, Vulcan etc,etc. The aircraft are private property after all.”
You can’t enforce anything on private owners or on museums, that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. As an example how many Lightnings do we need? I’m suggesting that those that are derelict may be incorporated into those which, through whatever circumstance, are better looked after. Obviously there would need to be some kind of ‘quid pro quo’ which would come in the form of greater co-operation between collections. Museum A’s Lightning contributes greatly towards museum B’s better example, museum A receives another airframe from museum C while museum B contributes something to museum C. Probably not the best explanation in the world but you get the drift.
“Secondly, an decision process is going to take into account the availible resources to look after the airframe.”
But by sharing and pooling resources everyone can benefit.
” It will therefore be smaller collections that get hurt.”
Not in the scenario I have described, surely everyone will benefit? If all museums could work towards the goal of acheiving a certain standard in the care of their airframes that has to be of benefit to everyone. If it means losing a few derelict or near derelict examples so be it.
“Not everyone has easy access to major museums.
I’m sure that anyone who lives in Dumfries would be somewhat annoyed to lose any of their local collection (very nice it is too – well worth a visit if your in the area) simply because another museum near London was better able to look after a similar example.”
Not using any museum as an example here, but your comment means it is better for a museum to have and display an airframe which they cannot care for properly and is currently rotting away? What possible good is that? Is that not preservation for preservation’s sake? I’m only advocating the culling of airframes which are only going to deteriorate to the point that they require scrapping. In my probably utopian vision of the future everyone would benefit.
“Thirdly, you lose the chance of saving any spares or components which may be of use in the restoration of other projects in the years to come.”
No, that’s the point. The spares are utilised in the restoration of others, but not if the airframe is allowed to deteriorate too much.
“Fourthly, any aircraft can be restored if the money exists, but the aircraft has to exist as well.”
Yes, and if we’re not careful many won’t exist for too much longer. I’ve probably not explained this with anything like the clarity I can see it with in my head.
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
