NO .. it was a TWIN Buick V8 start cart that was needed…..

Coupled unsilenced V8s…..bliss..

And sadly replaced by in barn airstart system….

Sadly Hunter you seem to have not seen the optical images taken at M3.3 and 80,000ft by the A-12….with a 3 inch resolution.. meaning you can see an object as small as 3 inches by 3 inches on the images…

Perhpas it has not occured to you that cameras tha are used to take optical recon images have continous film carriage in order to avoid the blurring….

Or maybe both the US/ USSR and French have been faking their supersonic recon images all these years. (RA-5C/SR-71/RF-4C/RF-101C/ RF-8G/ F-14 TARPS/ MiG-25R/ Mirage IV)

Perhaps you have not been under Concorde as she passed overhead at M2 in the Atlantic….. the sound was quite some time after she passed overhead.. and unless you were tracking her she was very easy to loose sight off. And she was white, pulling a contrail and heading east into the sun……See Operation Tresgo….Had she been painted a darker matt colour.. say the same FS blue as the SRs (its officially blue according to the code) and flying the other way without the contrail I doubt anyone would have seen her, hear her ues but not seen.

Get serious indeed…maybe it applies to you..

Firebar,

I do not know why the Russians did not attempt to take the straight line speed…perhaps they just couldn’t be bothered? Or maybe they knew that they would not be able to get thro the gates..as their instruments and flight control systems are not precise enough?

It makes no difference as to why.. I tried to give an explanation as to why on that day the record was not achieved and it has been thrown in my face as if its an accusation…you really need to make up your minds as to what its is you are trying to do…

As for the MiG-25…its not the E-266M or the E-266….if we are to believe Belyakov… but I’ll accept you know better..

As for the ‘reasonable payload’ what do you call carrying 80% max load to set the record? And bear in mind that the additional 200kg really makes little difference when compared to the 38,000kg of fuel the SR can carry….

The 2000kg record is not possible if the SR cannot carry 2000kg is it? Or maybe you’ll find a reason to dismiss that little detail.

The reality for you guys is that whilst the MiG 25 is the fastest operational interceptor it is/ was not the fastest operational aircraft deployed into regular squadron service by the military. It is a massive technological achievement and taught many lessons to the West in terms of focusing the design and manufacturing effort in ways the West would never have thoght of…but its greatest achievement was to scare the West into developing the F-15 and F-14 fighters…

Jonathan,

What you are ‘wishing’ for a is reversion back to the central, completist collection approach so beloved of the ‘National Institutions’ of the early 20th Century…which depended on an ‘enlightened’ direction of collections…

We have moved away from that into a ‘populist’ approach…nothing too difficult, nothing to challenging…easy mental and physical access to all…

The pendulum will swing back.. but when and after how much has been lost in unclear…although I think it has already begun to move…both the AirSpace and Cold War at Cosford are going to be the last and the first if you see what I mean.. the last of the populist funded museums and the first to be albe to bring a more pedagogical approach to the collection…at least we hope…

In comparison the Milestones Gallery at Hendon is populist… easy access, entertaining, but ultimately not particulary interesting or challenging…

JonathnaF et al…

The smaller museums often operate of a negative funding basis.. as staff costs are not often included (volunteers) so entrance a low volume sales are the only income.. plus afew teas and coffees etc…

So we should look more closely at the income streams of the larger, ‘national museums’…those that recieve direct state funding for essential budget items such as restoration and maintenance plus running costs.

Of those both the RAFM and Duxford havve activily sought to create new revenue streams in order to increase their annual budget and demostrate a commercial reality…

Both have rented display space to auctioneers for major car auctions…and Duxford promotes the AAM as a venue..why because it generates income and more importantly increases the exposure of the museum to a wider audience who having had a great time in the corporate sense will return with firends and family…and spend more money…

Whether or not we feel the artefacts are being damaged by this is irrelevant…if this does not occur then they will not survive…the museum will not survive…

Its the devil and the deep blue sea on that issue. In termsof sponsorship there does seem to be some potential.. although I recall the Lockheed Martin sponsored exhibition on the Merlin at the FFA museum was a giant advert for Lm and actually did very little to inform/ educate/ enlighten the visitor as to what the Merlin did..let alone why or how…

In one respect we (as aircraft enthusiats) are becoming less and less important ot aircraft museums.. as we do not consume enough whilst there…going often has a cost in itself, yet once there we are less likely to use the cafeteria and shop..and in all honesty the events that they can organise far outgross the entrance fee income over the year that we generate….the general public are the targets.. getting them in for the day.. spending money in the cafeteria, in the shop and so on are the financial fuel that is needed.

So whilst this means the purity of the museums may be lost.. it does mean more and better displays.. more use of advanced display materials and concepts and funding for the actual artefacts as the museums continue..but until a far higher sum is spent on the ‘academic’ side by direct central (tax payerbased) funding do not expect a change..

The criteria for any Lottery funding is totally reliant on the inclusion of a well thought through and credible BUSINESS PLAN…explaining why this project is needed in terms of operating a museum and how it will be used once completed to promote the museums’ aims and objectives….a simple.. becuase we have to preserve XYZ is not sufficient..

Its a simple fact that to preserve an aircraft demands time and money….either to build a hanger or to install an elaborate system for keeping it dry like the Coronado in Switzerland.

If the money… either in real £ or in volunteers’ time in not there then the airframe WILL deteriorate to such a condition that it will be scrapped…

That is not defeatist…it is a reality.

If you imagine that aircraft preservation in the UK has a fixed pot of money at its disposal….how that pot is distributed depends on what the aims are…preserve a number of airframes superficially or several in depth?
A wide range of similar airframes around the country or a number of in depth collections, yes not always easy for every one to get to, but with the ability to preserve the aircraft?

Either approach has validity and proponents and neither are right or wrong.

However long term it will be the ones which have recieved focused and in-depth attention are that will survive..the others may well still be present and looking good, but then again they may not..

The reaction to the scrapping of the Vulcan is an emotional one…nobody who loves aircraft will be happy to see a ‘nice’ aircraft being lost.. but the reality is that whilst a few people made efforts to secure the airframe, nobody came up with the amount of money its OWNER wanted….

Maybe £10k was too steep.. but if that is the cost of it then its the cost of it. Money again.

As to the Concordes…they remain BA’s property….is that a good precedent? or is their inherent value to the general public in terms of increasing foot fall the real reason why they will succeed? Yes they have displaced other aircraft in the list of restoration/ preservation priority, and other artefacts, perhaps with personal appeal greater than Concorde’s..or is the historical importance of the Concorde sufficient to keep them all, in itself a historical event….

As for how long these things take… well, a couple of years is barely enough to get out of the starting blocks…

The issue with Health and Safety is a ‘straw-man’ arguement.

The underlying reason is a financial one….as in order to make any space like a workshop hanger accessible the requirement is to allow a ‘permanent’ escape route in at least two directions for the public…this is a 2m wide zone.. clearly marked, with a minimum clear height of 2m..

For Historic Flying the additional floor area this would entain would have required a larger hanger than their needs.. to say nothing of additional insurance requirements…also from a purely operation side its a real PITA to retain this if your primary function is a workshop.. and commercially minded.

This issue is far less onerous in the larger pre-exisiting buildings…where much can be made of this as a visitor attraction.

It applies far less to guided tours or group visits by special arrangement.. as at Area 51.

What is a shame is that Cosford does not appear to have a policy of opening up its reserve collection at all….a lack of foresight which is alost inexplicable in this day and age…

I recall visits to the Paul Garber Restoration Centre at Silver Hill…opened for booked visits by volunteers…an Alladin’s cave of treasures and history.. sure it had a cost but every time there was more open and new things to see. I kept going back, time and time again to see what was new….

Wroughton does have a similar programme but Cosford should be encouraged to do the same…