David B, I quite agree.
Just a couple of myths to knock over. A museum of the RAF’s calibre would expect to stabilise and conserve any ‘unrestored’ airframe or part. To imply that it would be left to deteriorate is not realistic, and criticism of the Halifax’s state here some time ago was shown (IIRC) to be based on false premises itself based on a bias against the display. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.
Cees, look up the museum term ‘conservation’, before going on in a manner that hardly does your expertise justice.
Funding does not direct a ‘half and half’ restoration project – that’s a matter of policy. Funding means that only a certain niumber of items happen ‘now’ with the others awaiting more money to become available. ‘We could restore half of the aircraft for half the money’ is just rubbish, and not a decision the RAFM would take.
There is a ‘complete’ Hampden on show at Langley, BC, Canada. There’s at least one other project in the UK able to be rebuilt to complete status – but it also needs funding and support.
The Me109E at Duxford is an example of the ‘half and half’ approach, and as displayed tells the general public both stories. The ‘barrier’ TT mentions (a wax, IIRC) was used here, and the original paint is still on both sides of the fuselage, one side being repainted over. Most impressive is the Spanish Civil War collection at Quatros Vientos, Spain, where each side of about ten aircraft are painted with the opposing sides. Unless you know, you might not notice they are Nationalist on one side and Republican the other! There are other examples too, the Fleet, the AWM in Canberra has a Beaufort (in store, currently) and so forth. What I’m surprised no one’s mentioned is generally one looks at one side of an aircraft (on the ground) at a time – the perception is of two different ‘stories’ being told.
Cheers
Come on James,
It’s not a selfish way of thinking of me or critisism towards the RAF Museum you know that. But if we are realistic time does have an effect on (even restored) airframes. That W1048 has been underwater for 31 years has not been any help. The aircraft is stable at the moment (I think) and they have ensured that this will be for the next decades but slapping on gallons of that ugly red preservative is not enough. Personally (this time yes) displaying her robbed of perspex etc. doesn’t create a good representation as how she had lain on the lakebed but that again is my personal view, and to a certain extent I can agree about the decision not to hang the engines etc. but making it a bit more complete would give youngers generations a better view of the might Halifax as opposed to the “legendary” Lancaster that is displayed only a few feet away.
Corrosion will go on between the structural joints etc. and should really be attended to by dismantling and conserving etc. Funds are a problem I agree and if I win the Lottery I would surely donate a vast sum towards the restoration of W1048 (not joking). The ugly thing is that funds were being raised to restore her but it was decided not to, Ok that is understandable, but what happend to these funds then. People who have contributed to this fund probably want to know.
I would really await the end result of the Hampden and I am sure they will make a nice display out of it (things have improved over the various decades). But that doesn’t mean that decisions made in the past cannot be altered for future generations.
Cheers
Cees
Sign In
