WJ244If you are not happy about applying letraset direct to the model or handpainting straight on to it just buy some clear decal film. You can apply letraset, hand paint or even use ink on the clear decal film. Apply a couple of coats of lacquer to seal it all in and when it is thoroughtly dry cut out and use like a waterslide transfer. Some of the suppliers on Ebay even sell decal film and a suitable spray of lacquer as a complete kit and it doesn’t cost the earth.
WJ244How About the Miles Mowhawk it looks airworthy to the untrained eye aka me :rolleyes:
I think the original question was meant to be along the lines of “Are any of the static display aircraft currently in UK museums capable of being wheeled outside, filled with fuel etc and flown and the answer to that must be no.
The Shuttleworth DH88 Comet was restored to fly in the 1980’s and has been repaired in recent times and then grounded following landing mishaps. There was talk a while ago of flying her again BUT only if a full survey proves that everything is OK. Bearing in mind that the Comet (which has been grounded for a comparatively short time and was low hours and not too long out of a full rebuild when grounded) needs a full survey for a return to flight there is no way anything that has spent a long time static could or should be dragged out of museum and flown without a full overhaul of the systems and comprehensive structural checks.
I saw the Mohawk a year ago and it looked as if it may have had some rather crude repairs at some time. The skin also looked quite rippled in places which made me wonder if it wasn’t falling victim to the dreaded glue rot that caused the demise of so many Miles and Percival aircraft in the 60’s and 70’s. Not a terrible problem on a static museum aeroplane provided it is monitored but as another forum member who is rebuilding a gaggle of Proctors and doubtless others here will verify glue rot means a ground up rebuild for a flyer using modern glues to make sure that you have a safe durable aeroplane.
WJ244I was hoping to go but was concerned about the weather.
I don’t think this is the first time Shuttleworth have had to cancel the first show of the season because of water logged runways. A real shame and I would think the collection would have appreciated the income after the winter but at least they took the decision early and had a chance to put a note on the internet so a good few people will be saved a wasted journey.
WJ244The website says that the Great War Display Team will be flying 2 shows a day. The rest of the “display” will be large scale radio control models.
Hopefully the weather will be a bit kinder this time. Unfortunately both the fly ins I attended at Stow Maries last year were blighted by strong winds which reduced the number of visitors. They definitely deserve better luck with the weather this year.
WJ244Looks wonderful and well done to all involved. Nothing wrong with Spitfires and other heavy metal but I do have a particular affection for wood and fabric aeroplanes. As another post says “there is room for everyone”.
WJ244Would Wrecks and Relics have an entry covering the range? I’m afraid my copy won’t be much help as it is 25 years old but maybe another forum member has an up to date copy.
WJ244It seems extremely unlikely that IWM would want to run a hotel themselves so I presume they are talking about either leasing or selling land to a hotel chain. I can understand that there is a demand for a hotel on display weekends but Duxford seems to be quite isolated so unless there is also a regular demand from corporate guests using the museum facilities I don’t understand how they are going to generate a viable income all year round from a hotel.
I can also understand that there is an immediate financial benefit in leasing or selling off a piece of land but I don’t see how it can generate a long term income for IWM.
Assuming the intention is to sell off or lease a bit of the land it makes me feel a little uneasy as once sales of land parcels start they tend to escalate and it also limits opportunities for expansion of the museum buildings.
The idea of telling the history of the station seems a good one but does this really mean that there is a need to get rid of some aircraft and other exhibits. After all some parts of the airfield have changed markedly since WW2 – notably the destruction of the hangar for the Battle of Britain film and the building of Airspace and the AAM – so why do they need to change exhibits just because they don’t fit in with the ethos of illustrating the history of the place?
WJ244Thanks for clarifying that. Seems the airframes did at least make some useful contribution to the preservation movement then.
WJ244I think its quite clearly a statement and part of her artistic process. Why bother smelting the aircraft seperately and individually stamping each ingot. I don’t like it either but she was entitled to do as she wished with her property.
I think we can safely say that there were more people who appreciated them as complete aeroplanes or as they were in the Tate Gallery than are likely to appreciate them in their final form.
I believe the Tate paid a lot of money for a load of bricks a good few years ago now so maybe she is hoping a connisseur of modern art may be in the market for an artistically stacked pile of ingots – much easier to store now as well.
Can’t dispute that she was entitled to do as she wished with her own property but there must have been many parts that may have been of use to restorers / cockpit collectors which wouldn’t have been smelted anyway like cockpit canopies and switchgear, instruments etc. It would have been nice (and potentially profitable for the “artist”) to have offered these parts to interested parties and the rest could still have been smelted so it wouldn’t have detracted from any desire by the artist to “make a statement”.
I suspect that some of the components of the parts that couldn’t be smelted will end up as landfill where they will do far more damage to the environment than they would have done safely installed in a resto project or sitting on an enthusiasts mantle piece as a souvenir.
WJ244At the end of the day it seems reasonable to assume that the artist owned the aircraft so she would have been responsible for their disposal.
Was anyone given the opportunity to express an interest in them or parts of them for spares?
Artists usually earn their living by selling their works and the fact that these were melted down rather than being sold as works of art suggests that there was no interest in “the piece” or “installation” or whatever else you want to call it. Since there appear to be investors out there who are prepared to buy what they percieve as “significant” pieces of modern art it seems this wasn’t regarded as a “significant” piece although I suspect that the sheer size of the “piece” and the cost of moving and storing it was a major consideration for any potential investor.
We can’t save every ejection seat in the world and we don’t have sufficient aircraft /cockpits to use them all anyway. Many of the engine parts that are polished are unsuitable for airworthy projects and selling them as art is a way of raising more revenue than selling them as scrap just as many of the race car parts sold as souvenirs have either run out of life or were machiined out of tolerance in the first place and raise more as souvenirs than they would as scrap. I even know of a late 70’s F1 car that was used as a show car that was built almost exclusively from “reject” parts.
In a way she did buy a dog and then chuck it out on the street as one moment these aircraft were an artistic masterpiece and not too long afterwards they were perceived as a heap of scrap.
I stand by my comments but if others have different views then that is fair enough.
WJ244[QUOTE=Al;1883630]If they were such important works of art as to be shown in the Tate, why were they destroyed after their exposure?
I had exactly the same thought. I don’t doubt the artist would come out with some c–p about returning the aircraft to their original form and that this formed part of the artists remit in showing how transient objects can be in this world and how things come full circle but I suppose if I had my head firmly lodged in my own behind (an affliction which seems to affect many modern artists) then maybe I would also think that destroying a perfectly salvageable aeroplane for no apparent reason was the right thing to do.
If these were such a great work of art I don’t understand why they weren’t snapped up by an art investor. If their ultimate fate was the smelter then why couldn’t the artist have offered parts to anyone who needed them for resto projects – probably because she had little thought for anything or anyone other than herself and the glory of having her “art” exhibited in the Tate.
WJ244WJ244, when they’ve gone abroad, rarely does the opportunity for repatriation arise – and yes, I know that the Hanriot contradicts that theory. But try asking the New Zealanders to return G-ADPR! In my opinion that makes it important for national collections to hang onto what they have and only to do deals when they get as good as they give. I do not consider a modern replica to equate in value to a largely original airframe. Thus the disposal of the latter does not justify the receipt of the former.
Seems we both agree that once they have gone there is little chance of any of the RAF Museum originals returning to the UK. I understand the desire to acquire replicas (probably more accurately reproductions) to fill holes in the collection but this shouldn’t mean the disposal of rare original airframes.
WJ244While there may be a case for the Hanriot going back to France I think that Old Warden would be an appropriate place for it assuming it is up for disposal.
As far as the Farman and LVG are concerned there is no way that they should leave these shores.
As far as I remember the LVG was returned to RAFM from Old Warden because it was wanted for the Milestones of Flight Hall so how come it is now in store?
If it wasn’t going on display it should have remained at Old Warden and continued to fly for as long as possible and if they really don’t want the Farman how about letting the Old Warden engineers have a go at getting that back into the air as well.
From the photos I have seen the TVAL replicas / reproductions look superb and there is a place for them particularly in a museum which keeps them flying, like Old Warden, but, to me, to exchange original WW1 aircraft for TVAL built repros is simply not acceptable and the RAF Museum should be taking steps to train people in the UK on the skills needed to rebuild and maintain wood and fabric aeroplanes so that we continue to have those skills available in the future rather than spending money and parting with original aircraft to obtain reproductions from the far side of the world.
Assuming that the aircraft previously mentioned in this thread are those up for disposal it is, in my eyes, pretty much tantamount to giving away / selling the family silver.
WJ244501 was converted for SOAF at Southend having arrived in Nordseeflug livery as D-CNSF. That would have been 1968 or 69 at a guess soon after Aviation Traders had prepared 4 other Dakotas (sorry should be C-47s) for the South Arabian Air Force which were previously D-CADE, D-CADO, D-CORA and G-AMYV the famous Airfix kit Dakota. In those days Southend was a busy interesting place for a young aircraft enthusiast!
WJ244The Skylark Hotel bought the HS748s intending to make at least one of them into a wedding venue. I had no idea that they were that bad as access is difficult but sadly it looks like it will be a massive job to make either of them presentable again.
I believe the Bonanza came as part of the same lot. I think the story was that it had been impounded due to unpaid parking fees
Sign In
