… i don’t really feel i need a degree to be honest, as i have read tons of books since, well, i remember.

What you feel you might need is irrelevant.. its what your potential employer is looking for that counts.
If you apply for a job and one of the requirements is a degree then that is the first thing they will look at.. no degree, CV goes in the bin. Takes about 5 seconds to eliminate you.
Is that risk worth taking?

I’m sure your reading has been extensive and in depth..but there are several more orders of magnitude that are out there… and best experienced in the context of formal education.

…
Iv’e just finished my GCSE’s and waiting to do A-levels, so any advice?

Cheers

George

If you can do this look at a mix of which has History, English, some Maths and Physics and perhaps a foreign language…

Aviation is global…mainly in English but there are other interesting sources, reading them in the original may reveal some interesting facets. Hopefully a modern English A level will help you develop the correct language skills to communicate effectively to your target audience.

History….is a pretty fundamental one…

Aviation is biased towards a scientific approach.. understanding that is helpful…

On a side note have you read the Centennial of Flight series of books published by Texas A+M (http://www.tamu.edu/upress)?

Written by historians.. not plane enthusiasts these are amongst the most informative, rigorous and enjoyable books on the history of aviation that I have found. That enjoyment is totally down to the fact that the authors and editors are highly skilled at what they are doing.. the subject is not the driving force.. the desire to present a well researched, well documented, informed and coherent work is the the driving force. As a result the subject comes to life….

I’m pretty certain that the formal training they received at University is the foundation on which they built their work….

Perhaps that might yield a clue or two…

Take a step back and consider why this layout was ‘relatively’ widespread in that era…

1) Engine size/ type/ reliability
2) Inlet/ exhaust analysis and understanding
3) Aerodynamic modelling/ analysis tools/ abilities of the era

This layout is fantastic as it uses simple ‘pitot’ intakes for the relatively simple turbojets fo the era, so no need to model/ analyse etc more complex lateral intakes and interactinos with the fuselage….

The fuselage itself is a simple tube, whose charactersitics were very familair to the designers of the time….the wing/fuselage interaction is a well understood type and its analysis and calculation is therefore within the ‘comfort’ zone of the designers of the era.

If one engine fails and disintegrates then the other is unliklely to be damaged, physical damage to the airframe is lessened etc etc… sure the offset thrust meanss a bigger tail and heaveri airframe etc etc, but at the time it may not ahve been an issue.

All of this means that this concept was relatively easy to design, procure etc in the shortest possible time frame….
It was milked for all its worth becuase it was there… not necessarily becasue it was the best.

As the analytical tools became more familiar then the greater efficiencies (at higher airspeeds) of more integrated airframes (buried engines etc) become more widespread…with higher average/ combat speeds, greater ranges, higher roll rates/ agility etc becoming more widespread…

The real disadvantage of this concept was illustrated by the B-58 when an outer engine failed at speed then the airframe was subject to massive asymmetric forces and catastrophic structural failure was often the result…

The advantage of this concept is demonstrated by the B-52 and the S-3….very efficient at lower speeds (subsonic) with great flexibility….and pretty much every airliner….

Looking at US airframes of the period.. the B-66/A-3…well they were also mulit role but were replaced in time… where they obsolete? Or old and in need of replacement and that replacement was a more efficient concept?

Is there a need to have it at an established aircraft musem and use real and unique aircraft?

That is a very good question….and goes straight to the heart of the discussion…

It seems that the RAFM has the view that it is appropriate and is trying to get money together…

I did one of my work experiences in an architects office, it had the faint wiff of indulgence about it. Lovely shiny glass frionted building, grandiose models about the place, glossy posters, nice cars in the car park.
I’ve never seen a poor fully fledged architect.

A faint whiff…how disappointing…a serious smell of it is more appropriate… lots of big shiny models, we love toys and models and clients are keen to purchase them for us…..lots of glossy posters of our work…and we own nice cars…yup its a great life…..

If you haven’t seen a poor fully fledged architects I can introduce you to a few here….a few owners of architectural businesses are indeed very wealthy, a few have the talent and ability to deserve it.. others a good businessmen and manage to make a decent profit…but high fees are thing of the past.. I’d say they past some 20 odd years ago…

Adler,

Thanks for your comments, interesting to have more information… I’d like to add another layer of information if possible…

I understand that some change is possible over time, but the fact that it has to be planned at 5/10/15 year intervals is surely in itself a demonstration of the building’s limitations.

Is it the building, the collection, or the exhibition that needs refreshing after that period.? Its the exhibition…its dynamic and changing thing and this needs to be maintained in a planned and predictable pattern….in order to plan cash flow, grant applications etc… So this ‘churn’ is a standard museographical operation….

If IWM Duxford wanted to swap the contents of every single hangar, they could do this within the space of, lets say a few days or weeks. Open the hangar doors, move the airframe. Of course there is more to it than that in reality, but they wouldn’t have to plan years ahead or chop anything up to get it in or out. (Of course it would take longer to move anything in or out from the American Air Museum.)

The reality is indeed quite different. Lets look at the ‘AAM Rededication Project’ and the Airspace installation…..both major upheveals in the IWM collection. The AAM was a planned churn of the entire exhibition and major maintence of the building itself having hosted twice as many visitors as planned. The IWM knew that the SR and B-24 were going to arrive at some point….and be installed in the AAM. All of the deep maintenace required was planned for that time and as designed the glass wall was dismantled, stored, whilst the planes were reorganised, rehung, floor repainted, ramp recoated, handrail updated to latest DDA requirements, new front doors fitted and so forth…..and remember this is not and aircraft museum…its a memorial to the American Air Force…the people not the planes.

I am in full agreement with regards the unexpected retirement of Nimrod, taking on an airframe of that scale is ofcourse a major undertaking and it couldn’t be housed immediately. However, my point still stands that it would be easier to bring it indoors if the building it were destined for were more flexible. We come back again to the point of having to wait several years for exhibit rotation. In addition, even if space were to be prepared for a Nimrod in the ‘Divided World’ building, none of the doors are big enough for it to pass through, and in fact it would have to chopped up into relatively small chunks to get it in or out- a costly, time consuming exercise that damages the exhibit. Would the National Gallery be praised for designing a new wing that had doors so small that it meant larger works had to be cut up to get them in??)

First off the entire basis of your point is undermined by the reality that museums are obliged to operate on this planned churn basis. Gone are the days of ‘just bring it in a we’ll manage’. This is a National Collection and depends on meeting outside agency set standards to gain funding and official recognition, it has to be able to plan how the exhibition will change, will develop and remain up to date with teaching adn display technology…. This churn concept then drives the provision of space and how you access it during the operational and churn periods.

With this in mnid you would say that the AAM is incapable of accepting larger airframe changes….but the glass wall was designed to be dismantled during the churn period…the balance between the lower capital cost of a fixed glass wall nad a mobile one was made and fell firmly in favour of a fixed one with budget allocation per year to fund preplanned churns… and before anyone says it would ahve been cheaper to put in doros.. this was also reviewed at the time and found to be very little cheaper and would have conutered the primary ponit of the AAM.. to visually link the space to the active airfield….
The current doors in the glass wall permit airframes up to F-105 size to be installed without dismantling the wall or damaging the airframe….and they can be hung without altering the floor standing a/c.

Perhaps Cosford has similar provisions… PTFE walls are pretty easy to dismantle and rebuild…

I will state categorically that I am not an architect, however I have been involved in aviation preservation for some years. My ‘conviction’ is based on a long-standing interest in aviation museums, and contact with those who have been involved in various developments at some level.

I am not criticising the architectural merits of the buildings under discussion, the crux of the argument is the suitability and flexibility of these exhibition spaces with regard to airframes large and small, and other exhibits. My key points are simply that it makes sense to have a building that is adaptable and flexible, a building that allows for easier change and allows for the inclusion of larger exhibits without the need to cut them up or to wait several years/decades for change.

Ok…this is very delicate. Your interest is clear….with this interest comes a certain perspective on what is right/ good/ desirable etc etc….and hence this influences what you see and want to see….

But there are many sides of this that remain ‘invisible’ to you merely because of the origin of your interest. Second hand involvement is good but several orders of magnitude less informative than active participation..

I am primairly a plane enthusiast….I have worked in a plane museum…and I have designed and built museums…

and plane museums at that… one of which is mentionned often here….usually in the negative. The clearest message that comes from this is that the planes are part of a far larger whole.

As a plane enthusiast there are priorities that reduce, in my view, the quality of the museum’s offer, yet, when viewed as an architect it reduces the potential of the design and when view as a exhibition designer its also reducing its impact.. yet viewing it as the Client’s designer, charged with translation a written, spoken brief into a fully operational 3D mix of spaces, materials, technology and retail offer then its pretty clear what makes these museums successful and enables them to continue to offer the public access to all this ‘stuff’ to all ages and levels of interest. Looked at through the very narrow plane enthusiast’s lens there are massive faults and apparently stupid solutions…yet when the wider view is taken then some sense begins to appear..

And pretty much all of the points you make re flexibility etc are not ones that the physical manifestation are adapting to.. the current reality (certainly in the UK) is that this ad hoc flexibility is no longer a high priority requirement and in many ways unaffordable….it can be argued that the overprovision of space now is percieved as ‘wasteful’ in the current econimic conditions adn has been viewed as such for a long time in HLF terms….

QUOTE=AdlerTag;1582541]I should perhaps make clear that I in no way align myself with the earlier comments made about saving airframes in case of fire, my comments about flexibility and access are based purely on the normal running of the museum.

I hope this has cleared things up somewhat.[/QUOTE]

Understood … the fire issue is a poor strawman arguement…its tough enough moving a Camel replica that has been stuck on its wheels for a few months..let alone a late MK Spit….

I take your points on board WebPilot, but in a couple of ways I seem to have been misunderstood. When I mention exhibit rotation and movement etc, I’m not really talking about moving aircraft outside, especially in the long term. What I meant was that in a building such as ‘Divided World’ or the proposed beacon thingy, each exhibit has been pre-planned, and has it’s place inside the building where it will stay for the forseeable future.

In order to actually design the building a pretty good idea of what goes where and how it gets there is required. Iterative development of the exhibition and building ensure that there is a reasonably good match between content and container.

There will be some flexibility built into the space requirements in order to accomodate the inevtiable evolution in the display over time. However ‘major’ change is scheduled at intervals such as 5/ 10/ 25 years or more…depending on the museums’ own exhibition planning…at such a time the entire display may be altered.

I accept that large airframes are a problem, but the design of both of these buildings does/would preclude the movement of most of the airframes held within it, whatever thier size. This prevents any serious attempt to shuffle things around within the building, or to swap places in other exhibition halls. The recent retirement of Nimrod is a case in point, perhaps with a more conventional design some indoor space could have been found for one amongst its Cold War stablemates. As it stands, it looks as though it will have to survive outside…

Lets look at that as an example of the problem. The Nimrod was retired ‘early’ and unexpectedly. So the museum may well have had developed a plan for the inclusion on the Nimrod into the collection during its first ‘churn’….and just because you cannot see how it could be done does not mean it cannot be done….

So we could imagine that Cosford is in a bit of a bind….it has been froced to accpet a Nimrod perhaps 5-7 years earlier than planned, has no funding in place to carry out the update of the Cold War museum at tehmokent and no funds to preserve/ conserve the Nimrod right now.. its not in thier budget..and yet they are being taken to task about its potential display outside until they can get in undercover…when they had planned to do so… perhaps.

The new beacon is even worse than the Cosford building in that it leaves absolutely no room for further additions, and even seems to leave one or two important types out from the very beginning (no sign of Blenheim or Gladiator in the animations). It just seems crazy that when covered space is in such short supply that you would build something that is already at capacity from day one.

From the conviction in your post you know for certain and for a fact that there is no additional room, no other configuration of the airframes to allow others to be displayed. Or are you applying your knowledge of designing aircraft museums and the brief to support such a firm statement.. or is it just your opinion? If the former then perhaps you can provide some support for this .. if the later then simply state it as such…no problem.

.Some people are making huge amounts of money out of building these ‘Monstrosities’

Be interesting to see if you have anything to back this statement up…

A fanastic experience, well worth it.

Took a flight in te Rapide with my son, a great time and great meory for us both.
If you can do it then its well worth it.