michelfBlue2…
No doubt it is historic, yet it has changed completely by bringing the Beverly in…and the Hunter; so that makes the ‘do not or cannot change’ argument moot. Has that impacted on other uses already?
The entire place shows signs of its evolution over time as each era adapts it as needed or desired, so again lots of precedent to adapt the space to suit current needs without trashing the rest.
A cover/ enclosure etc is as permanent as it needs, or owners want it, to be.
michelf… Blue2 is right fort paull is a very historic site in its own right, to put a building tall enough to cover the beverley in the centre of it would ruin not just the history and look but also take away an important revenue stream.
Sorry but this is exactly why avaition musuems in this country are in the state they are in. Blue2 is not ‘right’. He has a view and its is valid, that does not mean it is ‘right’.
So Fort Paull is historic.. and so what are the consequences of that? It needs to be preserved in aspic? It cannot be added to or altered?
What it means is that the mental picture of a ‘hangar’ needs to be put aside and another approach taken. Historic sites/ buildings are added to/ modifed/ converted in a number of innovative/ creative/ cost effective ways.
If the concept of a modern intervention in a historic context is not conceivable then I guess I’ll have to find another source of income…it works well and has done for a few years so far and it does not look like changing.
The collection is to lauded for their purchase of the airframe and its current preservation/conservation regime. All we are discussing is the potential for it to be covered in its current location. It is there, it is primarily a question of money and to start the conversation with ‘it cannot be done’ shows far more about the utterer than the reality.
michelfBlue 2,
Therein lies the issue….it is a challenge and one that does represent a massive shift from the current view. The outside the box solutions require a rethinking of the basics and this often proves to be an insurmountable issue.
The results of a few minutes conideration brings forward a number of ways that this cover could be created and the possible issues reduced. To progress those some contact with the site owners and other site stakeholders would be necessary and hence viability issues addressed.
It also requires funding and that is often the first sticking point.
I appreciate that at first glance the issues are real show-stoppers however solutinos that are viable do exist, they are wating to be discovered.
michelfBlue 2,
A ‘hangar’ type structure. Interesting that this leaps to mind. I’d suggest that this is the first mental hurdle that needs to be cleared in order to get anywhere. A ‘cover’ could take many forms, many of which would not automatically reduce the ‘arena’ space, nor detract from the historic nature of the site, nor ‘tower’ over the surroundings.
I am sure the collection owners are doing a great job with the limited resources to hand.
However I think this sums up the greatest challenge to aircraft preservation community; a constrained perspective on what is possible rather than welcoming different approaches that enable what is necessary to be delivered.
The location, the local planners etc are all approachable and there is ample preceedent for interesting projects in historic locations to suggest that is ‘obstacle’ is surmountable with the right strategy.
However developing that strategy requires a mindset that is currently rare in the aviation heritage community.
michelfThere is no reason why it should move… nor any hindrance to an appropriate cover being designed for its current location.
The only factor is money.
It would be very expensive to move her again, despite her unique status; that funding is improbable for the forseeable future.
Funding for a covering is also improbable at the moment but certainly more possible with the correct approach.
michelfI’m probably going to sound simple here, but just to see if I’m reading this right,
The hangar that the Shack and the Victor projects currently reside in is to be turned into a display hangar, for this purpose the restoration projects will have to vacate to make space for display aircraft.
Therefore it will have the space to display the Shackleton (and Victor) after restoration, unless there is a plan to bring something else to the collection?
Not quite. The IWM had identified a number of large airframes on site that needed/ required restoration. The idea is that this front part acts as the restoration shop whilst they are being done. Once that ‘line’ is complete then there is an opportunity to convert this space into display space.
Certainly things have changed in the recent past and that may not longer be the case. However there was a scenario whereby the newly restored airframes were then back outside whilst other airframes (inc the DAS ones) took their place being restored.
Once they were all done then the space could have been used for display, with next set of (smaller) restoration projects being done in the Hanger 5.
One can imagine that the last two years have altered that picture and the funds for restoring the Shackleton are nowhere to be seen (assuming its after the Victor) or another 5-0 years away and the IWM is seeing if alternatives are even possible.
michelfThe plan was/is for the front section to transform from a restoration space to a display space as the ‘need’ for large airframe restoration declines….just as with initial Superhanger, which was created in order to provide covered maintenance/ restoration space for Concorde, Vulcan and so forth.
The timeframe is the issue…. restoring the Victor/Shack are both long term, capital intensive projects. That in itself is not a show stopper, but having invested all of that there is then no place (either then or in the future) where this investment can be located undercover and protected.
It’s a catch 22 situation, one very familar to the IWM. It has insufficient capital to build new structures, save those for which it can get direct external funding (e.g. AAM + AirSpace).. In order to do that they have to attract monies….by an exceptional ‘product’…that individuals and corporate sponsors can identify with…
What sort of ‘product’ includes the Shack? The Victor?..
So the IWM is between the devil and the deep blue sea (sorry!); invest £££ in restoration and replace outside or see if someone else can do it sooner and keep her indoors.
Long term there is no doubt that the ideal would be to create another large display building at Duxford for the airframes outside to be brought in and protected. But obtaining captial funding for these is not as easy as that.
michelfIdeally it would stay…
What if moving it brings restoration and long term preservation closer in time than remaining at Duxford? A good trade-off?.
Or should Duxford increase its income in order to pay for it sooner?
Would an extra contribution to keep it there be in order or should that be assumed in the funding it already receives?.
I know that my son loves gonig to Duxford to interact with the ‘stuff’ there.. he also likes lying on the floor in the AAM and gazing up at the aircraft, watching them change with the changing light. My view is that both need to be catered for…
michelfMy god, a complete Barracu…, oh wait now, ah it’s a Leopard Moth!
Excellent clear pictures there DCW, I can actually see the dust!
On another note, Michelf it takes a lot of balls to bandy about the argument of ‘doing much for knowledge of historic aviation’ in front of Mr Aeroclub!
I’m sure it does.. but perhaps the Director of Duxford who was ‘responsible’ for creating, developing and delivering the AAM project from start to finish and left once the SR was in, after a stretch from 1978 as the Director at Duxford, ‘might’ be viewed as one of the more influential people in the development of historic aviation and its preservation… and to define him as an ‘idiot’ might be stretching the point….
Mr Aeroclub has no doubt contributed…and that the choices made by the IWM that lead to the AAM do not coincide with his perspective does not make those responsible for the AAM ‘idiots’.
My own contribution.. it remains, as it has done in the past, under the radar.
michelfTrue. I was thinking the same when I was writing previous post 🙂 But when the F-15 was designed nobody was thinking “multirole” that much. Today “multirole” comes as a must for most of the air forces around globe.
(
The USAF might not have been.. but the USN designed the F-14 as a multi role from the off….
Is wasn’t used initially but the capability was always there and demonstrated to a degree by Grumman as part of the ‘A’ model flight test, before NavAir removed that part of the test programme.
michelfHere’s the link to the website of the organisation behind the plan, Club Concorde.
http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/concorde_for_london.php
I looked at this website about a month ago, and the plans appear to have been completely revised. A month ago the plans showed the Concorde positioned along the bank of the river, rather than at a right angle to it and crucially the plans showed her INSIDE a glass building, rather than perched on this raft thing.
Personally I’m uneasy about it being displayed outdoors, yes it can be maintained but why do all that work over and over when you could stick a roof over it and not have to worry? Nature usually wins, outdoor airframe preservation is usually two steps forward and three steps back. I’d be happy to be proved wrong…
A very very very long shot this, but personally I’d like to see a kind of London Air Museum set up somewhere near Heathrow. With the likes of Heston, Hanworth, Hounslow Heath, Stag Lane etc not far away, it would be great to have a museum that covered London’s aviation history. I would like to see Concorde become a founding airframe in such a collection. Pipe dream I know, but it would be the best outcome.
Wouldn’t that be Brooklands?….
Anotehr one to add to the Science Museum/ RAF Museum and brooklands is not realistic…
michelfAll correct. But remember that “the legal/political issues” were corrupt behaviour by Boeing & the USAF personnel it had in its pocket. Boeing was in a position where all it had to do was play straight, & it’d win a fat contract – and it couldn’t resist cheating! That set the scene for everything that’s happened since. Boeing had to be kept honest. Any competition had to be a real one, not one rigged for Boeing. You don’t reward cheats.
Perhaps the very fact that the original spec only really allowed one plane to ‘compete’ and to win made cheating more attractive…
michelfThe original specs written by Boeing specifically to exclude the A330
At the time of the original specs EADs had no boom to offer…so could not compete.
The USAF wrote the specs.. assisted by Boeing’s technical teams, which enabled Boeing to offer a realistic airframe (the 767) for this mission.
At the time the B767 was the only realistic tanker option. So the USAF spec reflected what they knew they could obtain.. always bearing in mind it the airframe was to be one that was current.
michelfThere seems to be so much ‘imagination’ displayed in how the AF drew up the spec….
Simply put it based the entire spec on the only ‘reasonable’ airframe on offer at the time, the 767.
At the time the 737 and 757 were in production and could have offered off load capabilities far closer to the 135 ones…however placing a boom on the 737 was a no no and the 757 was a narrow body, limiting potential cargo carrying missions.
At the time EADS had no boom…and the A310, arguably the best fit to replace the 135 being both short and fat with good gronud clearance was a non- starter without a boom.
So the 767 is not and never was the ‘best’ tanker.. it was always the ‘only’ tanker realistically on offer.
But becasue of the legal/ political issues EADS had the time to develop a boom, bringing them into the frame, but lost the A310 airframe leaving the 330 as the only one they could offer….the 320 being too small.
Neither the 767 or the 330 are the ‘best’ tanker on offer for this particular competition… the A310 tanker most closely matches the spec, however it is out of production and hence not a contender….
The result is, as an overall ‘package’ the best one for the AF.. it gets new tanker which is essential, which can take on the 135 role for the foreseeable future and be able to shoulder additional load if the other generation tankers are not procured.
Politically it will meet little resistance and that in itself is a great asset, regardless of the actual capabilities fo the machine…
Yes it political.. but then the military only exists to service political ends…
michelfreally? if true he was an idiot to take the F-14
No he was given enough information, both technical and by demonstration to convince him (and his military) that the F-14 was a better choice for the role required.
The long term political outcome of his rule and the subsequent performance of his non OEM supported military would nto have been altered one bit….
The F-15s in the IIAF would have fared no better or worse than the F-14s.
Sign In
