What has to be realised is that when the collection was commenced..way back when..in museum terms…there was little incentive for the RAFM to devlop themselves as a visitor attraction…no ‘other sources’ of income were needed as the central funding did not permit ‘profit’ centres on site…

All of that has changed (not for discussion right now)…so the RAFM, like Duxford, Science Museum and so forth have been able to increase their independent income generation activities accordingly…

This in turn has meant a reevaluation of the role the artefacts actually play in a musuem… are they contributing as efficiently as possible to the visitor experience…or not.

For example at Duxford the DAS airliners do provide a ‘completeness’ to the aviation collection which would otherwise be lacking.. plus having a Concorde really pulls all the strings together….

Similarly the AAM is being made avaliable for non aviation activites in order to bring REAL money into the IWM…money which individual visitor numbers are not able to match….yes it costs in terms of additional staff and resources but the numbers do stack up.

Cosford, like Hendon are trying to make the collection work as well as possible, focus the themes and attract more visitors….not just enthusiats but the general public, repeat visitors.. for whom the attraction is more ‘generic’….Their focus is not BA aircraft…which other than ‘being there’ do not contribute fully to the visitor experience….so can the RAFM continue to support them.. evidently they think not…

It does beg the question…who are the museums now appealing to…the focus is moving away from aircraft enthusiats and expanding rapidly into the wider public, for whom, say a VC-10 is a VC-10…the configuration is ‘relatively’ irrelevant.

If these aircraft are to be preserved in-situ they need to be made to work much harder…access to their cabins, flight decks…volunteer guides inside an so forth…

This provides an additional ‘attraction’ and hence add to the offer…a case can then be made for them to stay.

Yes investment will be needed to get this to happen, plus RAFM support…but deep down they know that the scrapping of ‘historically’ important ariframes in this day and age is a PR nightmare in the heritage aviation world. The money is there.. its about finding it and getting it to the right place..

Whether we like it or not Cosford’s focus is the RAF….

So civil airliners rightly (?) should not be part of their remit. Those airliners that have served in the RAF should be considered part of their collection (Comet…) but others should not be….

The DAS at Duxford have built up a collection of civil airliners and the IWM have benefitted from their presence at Duxford.. including Concorde’s…

The Science Museum has also colllected a number of ‘important’ airliners at Wroughton…

So in brutal terms what does the BA Collection at Cosford really add…
VC-10s, to the majority of ‘visitors’ are VC-10s, whether Standard or Super or civil or military…it should however go the Wrougton as an example of hte best civil airliner (subsonic) that the UK produced….

So what about the 707? Not a British airliner, although RR engines…does it go to DAS? or Wroughton.. afterall they have a Connie and a 10.. so why not a 707.. and a 747 for good measure..

If however we are talking about an overall aircraft museum.. to get visitors, in then the best solution is to keep them there, protected… either in or out.. open them up and see what happens…

David,

Using a model or illustration is indeed nothing new…however I’d argue that many of the veterans..and American corporations, were seduced by that image and made contributions to the appeal that may not have been made had the design not been what it is..

I would also argue that the majority of veterans contributed becuase they were supporting a memorial, not a museum..and the families of the veterans who may have no interest in avaition were also happier to contribute to a memorial than just a box for aircraft…

And that they really were not too fussed that some aircraft were being hung from the roof..provided it was part of a cohesive whole…

It was the whole that attracted them… the iconic design, the collection and then perhaps in last place the way tha aircraft were displayed…at least that is the feeling I have from those veterans..

Oh and by the way perservation is not necessarily the only watchword in the world of museums….that is applicable to certain museums but not to all..

Cosford and Hendon have great records there don’t they.. Beverley, Mk1 Comets to name but a few great successes in that respect. At Duxford one could ask why the F-15 is outdoors..well its there because at the moment its not a rare aircraft, if it deteriorates to such a condition that it needs replacing then that is what will happen…

Sadly we as enthusiasts must recognise that we are a vital, but numerically and financially small part of the visitor equation. It is one which is being loaded against us as more and more commercial aspects are being brought into the world of museums…as the need to generate new visitors and repeat visitors increases so the pressure on museums to bring in new ways of displaying thier atrefacts and new exhibition methods increases and the traditional, aircraft on undercarriage stance, of aircraft collections wanes away…

A parallel has to be what has happened in car museums, like Beaulieu and Gaydon…more and more ‘settings’ for the cars, hiding some details and revealling others…and yes shock horror they look as if they might be in action..

The same with the AAM, some of those aircraft look as tho they might be in flight, or even coming into land…

In the teams that drive these projects forward to reality the presence of aircraft enthusiasts is not a prerequisite…people who are knowlegeable in the business of museums and display are, and they are not necessarily plane enthusiasts… it means the whole museum design moves on.

Whilst many enthusiasts will bemoan the fact that they can not longer see the aircraft in detail…as evidenced here.. or be able to document that detail..they are however rewarded by a wider spectrum of aircraft on display and a increasing number of museums… each better able to fund restoration work and hence further increase the scope of aircraft on display…

David,

You have just highlighted the biggest difference between the AAM and many other ‘aircraft hangers built for museum purposes’…

The AAM is a museum and memorial first and foremost…that is what it does…how it does that is by housing aircraft as museum exhibits. They ar used to tell a story and to present the people who made that story..it is not about the aircraft..they happen to be the best method of telling that story but they are not therefore their own sake.

On a technical level the building has to respond to the demands of the aircraft in terms of size etc and the layout was a collaboration between the architects and the IWM team….

Whilst its form is unique.. the basic principles have however influenced the other major aircraft museum developments in the UK.. like Hendon, Cosford and even Duxford itself with the AirSPace project.

They have recognised that the building itself has to be done as well as can be to huse the display as its an atttraction in its own right and can lead to more imaginative displays.

David,

Put like that it is not a huge improvement..

But to be more precise..the T-33 was taken down as part of the reorganisation of the AAM..however once it had been completed they realised that there was sufficient space visually to rehang it..and they did so.

Not sure how you justifiy the cost as enormous. It all depends on the perspective and ultimate goal. The other solutions, such as a door large enough to accommodate the aircraft movement would also have had a real cost. If the intention was for it to be used occassionally and then only as part of a major operation, then how is that justified when its impact on the day to day life of the museum was vast.

The IWM knew that they would need to move aircraft around.. they included this requirement in the brief…the architects came up with a solution which allowed the requirement to be met as and when needed only..and to create the visual link with the airfield, also asked for in the brief.

Both parties knew that to remove the glass wall had a cost and the Client accepted that when a major renovation or addition was in view this cost needed to be added to the budget..however they took a value judgement as to whether or not the value added by this solution to the building overall was sufficent to justify this additional financial cost to the operation of the building.

The IWM decided it was and the glass wall was built..

The AAM was designed not only to house the aircraft but also as a monument…part of its success is this link between the active airfield and the exhibits.. nowhere else can you see a two B-17s together or a B-17 with Spits, Mustangs etc etc together..

The design of the suspension cradles is done on the basis of the individual airframes. As you mention some airframes have unknown characterisitcs and need to be supported within a cradle structure rather than using the airframe itself to take the diverse loads..not all of which are originally anticipated.

For example if you look at the A-10 suspended at the AAM, the arrangement of the cradles means the fuselage is supported at pretty much each end. Now normally this would mean imparting a bending moment into the fuselage as the two ends would want to come together.. however the cradle has been designed in such as way as to reduce this bending moment by introducing a cradle element to resist the bending..and so the fuselage acts as a simply spanning beam between two verticla supports, exactly the same as it would be if standing on its own u/c on the ground…

This principle applies to pretty much all aircraft suspended…they try to ensure the load paths are ones which the airframe is designed to carr ynormally..as even a rebuilt aircraft able to support its own weight on it sown u/c will be strong enough.

The Sabre will come down…

The increased visitor demand which has made this type of display a prerequiste is also driving a ‘churn rate’ of exhibits….

If you want to attract repeat visitors then you must rotate the collection…including the suspended aircraft…

It is possible to do that quite frequently with the smaller aircraft (like the Sabre) without it being a huge problem…

The Connie is not in the best possible condition for sure. She was used to carry livestock and its the animal urine that has done hte vast majority of the damage…

Lockheed did approach the Science Museum a number of years ago with the offer of restoration (to flight) but the paybakc was a number of flying hours for Lockheed before she was returned.

The offer was turned down.. it was contrary to the Museum’s philosophy and Lockheed looked elsewhere.

Sadly she has not had extensive work since..just stabilisation work to help prevent further deterioration.

Both Wroughton and Kensington are treasure troves…

The BD-5 should be back at Wroughton as the Spitfire exhibition has taken over the space..