Springbok,

I think a hanger capable of housing a B-52, plus B-29 , B-24, B-17, C-47, B-25, F-111 oh and an SR is certainly suited to housing large aircraft,

Similarly one which will house a Vulcan, Vicot and Valiant is also suited to housing large aircraft….

..designer or not..

Certainly we could do with more of the same to house the remaining large airframes..especially the civil ones..

And keeping airframes outside I guess nobody told the Coronado and DC-3 in Switzerland that they would not survive outside… its only been 30 years after all..

The real point is that the focus is not on civil airliners nor providing basic cover….the money is being spent on projects which have a tightly focused historical programme and a consequent high profile. There is not a fund allocated to the overall needs of the wider artefact pool…like the VC-10s in vaious locations… there are none under cover, or BAC 1-11s and so forth.. (note there is Trident and Comet under cover at Wroughton..).. however at the moment the momentum for a civil project is simply not there….

Firebar,

The A-12 was both faster and higher flying than the SR, which with the additional crew position was both less aerodynamic and heavier…

It was however far less ‘reliable’ in terms of number of unstarts and so forth…so it paid a price in those terms..

And refrain from using words like ‘apthetic’ when discussing performance…it is tailored to its job and if that requires only a very limited AoA window then its all it needs.. pathetic could be applied to the MiG 25’s range when compared to the Sr but it was not designed for hte same job so the comparison is irrelevant..

The same with the 1000HR between engine overhauls…

Neither of these aircraft is ‘pathetic’ in any way… they are designed for different missions and so do things differently..

Oh and BTW radar can easily detect the exhaust plume..it detects the altered air density and differential air flows.. just like a weather radar..just flick thro a few decent SR books and you’ll see RCS models with exhaust plumes as solids..

Also you’ll find that search radars are far more able to ‘see’ low RCS aircraft, even the F-117, yet the hand over to a tracking and guidance radar is often unsuccessful as these find it far less easy to perform their job (radar-wise) than the tracker… so whilst you know its there you cannot ‘see’ it to shoot it down. Imagine a very dark room.. you ears tell you there is something there and ‘about’ where it is, yet your eyes cannot give you sufficient infotmation to actually ‘see’ them….an analogy only but one which comes from the horse’s mouth as it were…

Twin,

I guess you point of view depends on how often you expect to open the door….if its not often you may question its validity..

TwinOtter,

I would love to have your view of the problems the IWM had when reconfiguring the AAM to house the B-24 and SR…

Jonathan Livingstone Seagull….A Story..(Richard Bach) has to be there…the essence of flight..

Vulture’s Row…Paul Gilchrist..life as a Naval Aviator

More than my share of it all…Kelly Johnson..

God is my Co-Pilot..Robert Scott.

They gave me a Seafire…Mike Crossely.

Just to try to shed a little light on the issue of writing into Councils to support or to object to planning issues.

Councils are obliged to take into account any and all comments received during the consultation period for an application only to the extent that it is relevant to planning policy and aims…so writing to them to say an XYZ should be allowed to happen for Historical/ Heritage etc reasons is not going to be considered.

So for example if you wanted to support an Application for a museum building at say GAM then the best time to write in support is during the consultation period of the Revised Local Plan… this is were the Council redefines its overall strategic objectives for all the land in its area….if the Local Plan is adopted with the GAM land noted as farm land or open land them no end of support during a planning application will make any difference…. the Local Plan takes precedence in legal primacy….to award a Planning Consent would be contrary to the Local Plan and hence the Council can be challenged. So whilst the individual planning Officers and Members may agree, if they go against the Local Plan the Council could be taken to court for ignoring its own Local Plan…which is not a path Councillors are ever keen to explore..its just not worht their while.

Local Plans tend to be revised every 3-5 years and it takes a good couple of years to get a draft out, consulted on and adopted by the Councillors…so in effect there is always a window of opportunity to engage Councillors and Officers on this issue…If the Council Officers and Members recieved those hundreds of letters at that time then there is a greater chance of them being taken into account.

If the GAM site were to be relisted in the local plan; due to pressure from a large and well organised number of supporters; as a in an area or an area of cultural or educational use (unlikely but you never know) then building on it becomes a normal extension of the land use class… and therefore entirely appropriate…thus any application to build can be supported with a heritage preservation justification. (Note I have not researched the GAM situation in detail.. this is more a generic example; it may be that there are other reasons, but this one springs to mind…)

Whilst this seems asinine it is a system that actually works after a fashion and its better than many as it is relatively open, all you need to do is know where and when to look.

This ties in neatly with the proposed PPS 3 provisions that define airfields as ‘brownfield sites’ and therefore potentially redevelopable as opposed to developable green belt land.

In essence the time to get involved in this is to keep a watching brief on local plans and overall planning policy, as by the time applications are in and made public it’s already very late and quite difficult to alter the course embarked upon.

Also to those who think that developers are being ‘sharp’ with Councillors there is really no need for them to do so… its all above board and legal, for large projects at least…..its called a Section 106 Agreement or ‘Planning Gain’ and is effectively a sum of money or of the development that the Council ‘get’ in a legal agreement contained within the consent for the overall development. In the case of Dunsfold of the 1000 homes proposed there will be a good percentage (30-35%) in the ‘Affordable Homes’ category that have to be made available (usually the HA purchase a long lease) to a Housing Association the sell on in either a part ownership scheme or for them to rent at Council approved rates for low income families. On top of this there will be sums for local Health Care, Education, infrastructure improvements etc. So whilst not saying the developer will not make millions on the deal, the Council will also get a net increase in its asset base as well as millions of pounds in cash to spend on services to the wider community. And that means happy voters, who re-elect those who provide good service at minimal tax rates……. 😉

Sorry it’s all slightly off topic but one of the prime aims of any Society whose aim is to support aviation heritage could be as a knowledge base and pressure group to encourage the building of relevant buildings for collections.

Guys,

Two to three years is just past half way thro the process of actually getting to a point to raise sufficent funds to build a decent (ie large enough) building for Concorde.

One would expect a proposal to be made public with an HLF bid in the next year to 18 months; with it completed within 3-4 years.

Bear in mind the airframes are all loaned to small and local museums (apart from MoF) who need to learn how to manage such an asset, and put together a HLF bid….

Even then they still need to raise 50% of the money…not an inconisderable challenge for museums possibly used to dealing in £10,000s not millions…

BA have loaned the airframes to these institutions, they are not responsible in any way for their maintenance, all they have to do is check the condition of the airframe and see its being looked after ‘properly’.

Each museum is responsible for the display, maintenance and exploitation of the airframes as an asset within their museum. The promise of getting them under cover is one which should be upheld, but within a realistic timescale.. two years is a very short period for the museums who do not have adaptable infrastructure (ie all those except MoF) to get a funding programme together to fund an HLF bid, be successful, and build a building suitable for Concorde…remember the HLF will be looking very carefully at what they contribute to in that regard.

SCG have been vocal in their aim to see an RTF, but actual results are being kept very close to their chests, oh other than a straight answer from Rolls Royce, who have 4 zero time Olympuses in store. They will support the RR engines on Concorde at the normal commercial rate…..which rather puts a dent into any RTF ambitions.

Their (SCG’s) jumping on this band wagon seems to be counterproductive in that they are implying that BAC are not looking after their charge and that BA are ‘letting’ them get away with it.

They therefore appear to be alientating both the only operator in this country that the CAA and insurance world would ever consider backing in an RTF and the custodians of possibly the best located airframe.

Whilst it may keep Concorde in the public eye it also risks embedding a notion that ‘why bother as they are rotting away’…within the wider perception of fund raising efforts for either an RTF, however improbable, or a campaign to have a cover built.