The Mig-25 inlet is one of its secrets. It is very complex 2D inlet, with upper and lower ramps and duct guide tree, all intended to ensure stabilised airflow.
There is no west eqivalent to this type of inlet.
Because of this, the MiG-25 do not suffer from ‘unstarts”.

From engineering point it is a technological marvel.

I guess what you wrote is not what you meant….;)..

And as you state it helps in low speed, high alpha flight.. not sure how its relevant to M3 flight but hey ho..

As to the records…mmmm we have had this discussion before…

Operational versus non-operational airframes….
Actual payload capability…v SR-71 at 2T…

I think we should stop….

The post about making the SH a bigger platform and having more powerful engines is an interesting one.

The result would have been something akin to one of the design studies that Grumman did during the F_14 development… a fixed wing F-14. (I can;t remember the project number 303F). From memory the wing was quite similar to the F-15 wing in its basic geometry.

One would therefore imagine that a larger SH would resembe something like that project, with SH intakes/ leading edge configuration perhaps….

Got news for you. ALL jet exhausts are supersonic. About the only ones that might not be is the bypass air on high-bypass airliner engines. BTW bypass ratio of the D30-F6S is 0.55 which is higher than the Super Hornet’s

I ‘think’ that what Firebar meant is that the MiG-25 engine is capable of handling a supersonic ‘inlet’ flow.

To a degree he is correct in that the first two stages of the compressor are designed to accept a transonic airflow. Certainly amongst contemporary engines globally this was a unique capability, however it was more a legacy of the original engine’s application than.

The bonus from MiG’s point of view is that the engine was able to accept a far greater range of airflow speeds, massively reducing the complexity of the inlet and associated shock wave management systems. From a conceptual, technical and operational stand point this was a very intelligent and robust solution. Sure the engine itself was not as ‘efficient’ (SFC) or as long lasting, but those were downsides that were perfectly in line with the pragmatic approach to war time operations then espoused by the Soviet military.

Sorry guys.. had to do some work this afternoon….

James,

Thanks for the pics.
Actually I remember the Mozzie being perched and difficult to see…but at the same time that was part of its beauty, you never got the whole picture, you never saw it all…a very accurate depiction of war.

Perhaps appropriate in a War Museum, less so in a aircraft museum.

The numbers….they are not ‘assumptions’… they are based on benchmarking exercises (some very recent, some older) that were carried out on building typologies.

Whilst assumptions is not the best word it serves to make it clear these are not precise figures but give the mid point of a range…for example the construction inflation (mid year 2005 to mid year 2008) figure varies between 12.5 to 16% depending on the sector and size of project. Within the ‘cultural sector’ there is no specific figure for aircraft museums, it is for museums and the range is from 14.7% to 16%, all museum types together. My ‘assumption’ is therefore that a figure of 15% is correct as aircraft museums are towards the simpler end of the building spectrum , yet have high cost elements in them (increasing IT and cost of steel). So whether its 14.7% or 15.5% I do not know, I take a figure that I feel is appropriate for comarative purposes.. an assumption, but one which can be supported by facts.

In the same vein the constructions costs for non specific ‘shed’ work is based on current market prices (2008 contract awards) as we are seeing them on work in the UK. These are real figures.

The same applies to the extra overs…they are real orders of magnitude, selected to cover the level of discussion. This is not to say that additional detail is not needed, but it serves to dilute the point.

As an aside, within the design process there is (at least in the work we do) an on going comparative process to make sure that the technical solutions as well as the design solutions being put forward are economically sound as well as technically sound. So when proposing say a steel strucutre other options are also considered and evaluated on both financial and technical grounds to ensure the money is ‘well -spent’.

The numbers I fear are what makes the difference. Had the price of the NCWM been the same as for Newark this entire issue would have not arisen. But that not being the case there is a need to illustrate that just because project A provides a certain type and quantum of accommodation at a certain price that project B, which provides a different quantum of a different of different accommodation at a different price that A could be scale up or the B is unnecessarily profilgate. Sadly the process does not deliver this scaling principle, even for supposedly the ‘same’ building type.

The issue of the Superhanger is one which I got from working with the IWM staff itself. Perhaps a bit of revisionist history going on…or genuine recollections of those driving the project at the time I don’t know.

As for how accountable a national , publically fund institution should be…oh boy what a subject, certainly now there are far more onerous demands placed on reporting than at the time or even during the AAM and AS projects, so there was a desire (if not a need) to have projects more accountable. Certainly more should be done in an accessible manner, delving thro the IWM website to find its chater, Trustees and records of meeting is time consuming.. but its there.

As for the environmental aspects.. hanging onto any concept for the sake of it is wrong. If its no longer working then start over, new ideas etc, be that environmental, techncial or display. It should however aim to be clear as to why things are changing. The cost of such a solar array is prohibitive.. and selling back to the grid more complex than at first considered (for everyone).

The split world is rather different..has it really ditched that concept? In its display? In the building…or has the world ditched that concept?

Twin,

The facts are incomplete, not incorrect. I could say that the NCWM cost £9m and have supporting facts, the same applies to a £12m figure. Neither are wrong provided there is a clear understanding of what is included in that cost.

The same applies to Newark, a ‘project’ cost needs to be comparable…and whilst you did not indeed say it was comaprable you made is clear that for you a series of building such as Newark gave a better result than the AS and NCWM.

Just as an aside it would be interesting to understand how a Belfast with tis 48m wingspan would fit into a space able to take a 29m Varsity, other than building a bigger building.. which has a different £/m2 rate…always upwards.
Again to push to the other extreme a garage costs £125/m2…should the Newark hanger be at the same rate.. after all its a basic shed.

The issue is that to house all of teh V bombers in the same hall, with the Belfast etc demands a bigger more expensive structure on a £/m2 rate than to house a Varsity.

If even a pretty simple shed (ie a Newark style shed) is in the region of £6m (to have the bare necessities of public access for such a large building, then addition £3m buys a lot of heating, power etc that raise the ‘quality’ of the environment to a ‘national/ global museum’ standard.

You might not like it but the reality is that it is that order to magnitude that is needed.

To be honest I recall vividly a day at the AAM..I had taken my son there for the day..and we were in the AAM…by the B-17 on a glorious day…Sally B parked outside.. an elderly man…with his son and family was entralled by the B-17 inside and out….then he drifted off to the window…..hand on the glass looking out across the airfield. Sally B in front of him and John Romain taxing out in a Spit and you could see, feel and you knew he was gone…a time travelling.. a young man on a day in 1944, yet he was old, he missed his comarades… thoughts he could not share really with his family who had gathered round him.. grandson asking.. what’s up Grand dad?

That moment made me realise fully to listen to people bicker about whether or not its too much or not good value is utter and total rubbish. That moment, made possible by creating the great window at Duxford justifies every penny spent, negates any discussion about viewing angles of hanging planes etc…they are swept aside by the sheer power of that connection and relationship.

His family sat down beside us…very quiet and subdued..until my son piped up to the other lad.. ‘this is my daddy’s building you know’….the old man came across and taking my hand very formally thanked me for making his trip back to the UK for the first time since 1945 worthwhile.

Now sorry guys…moan about money all you want…complain about hanging planes as long as you like..but to be honest it is irrelevant; that moment made it clear what was important and what was not important in the AAM.

Many familiar arguments coming out; sadly I’ll re-quote myself::o

“Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar reviewed the way forward to protect the Benchmark and Significant airframes on the National Aviation heritage Register [NAHR] and one very interesting figure emerged from the review. Assuming a typical cost of between £250 and £300 to provide one square metre of basic under cover aircraft accommodation, it would “only” cost between £35 and £40 million to get all the Benchmark and Significant airframes listed on the NAHR under cover. I highlight the word “only”, because this is a small amount when you look at what has been poured into ventures like the Millennium Dome, etc.

For up to date costing data refer to Flypast – March 2005 and Newark’s Heritage Lottery Funded Hangar, project cost £533,000 to provide 2,400m² of basic under cover accommodation at a cost of £222 per m². Admittedly this does not provide accommodation to the standards being achieved by the national museums with their environmentally controlled facilities, but it certainly slows the deterioration to a more manageable level.”

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53556&highlight=HLF

These also make interesting reading:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=64094&highlight=HLF

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57865&highlight=HLF

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52906&highlight=HLF

Yup.. you do keep on trotting out incomplete information…

The Newark project is very interesting…

1) It provides ‘basic’ accommodation for the airframes.
It does not however meet the requirements of the large museums in terms of their remit. This basic accommodation can omit certain parts of a museum which are not possible when building a larger building; aside from preservation issues (heating/ ventialtion, humidity control and cooling) there is a far lower requirement for the public facilities, such as lifts/ new additional WCs, specific lighting, safety equipment, etc. It can also afford, in this guise to omit any additional displays, with attendant costs for additional power/ IT…etc.

The design life of the basic hanger is in the order of 15 years, that of the AS/AAM/NCWM more like 30-40 years, with minimum of 25 years.

The upgrade from the basic to a ‘comparable’ standard to AS/AAM/NCWM is in the order of 100%. Add in inflation since 2005 and you are looking at something more like 115% (taking the £222 to £477).

2) Its a relatively small span building.
For Newark this is fine, but sadly not an option for museums that have large span aircraft.

As I said before the cost for this is more in the region of £800 to £1000/m2.

The issue is one of what do we want our museums to do…house the maximum number of aircraft in the simplest and cheapest possible hangers, or house a rational number of important airframes in a longer lasting, better quality offer…

I don’t know the budget breakdown but the £25m for AS included a few mil for the entrance building and the car park….

Not going to help the cost per airframe. From memory there was something in the region of £8m for that little lot…

Brings it down to £17m for the building…and so the rate per airframe is less.

Also bear in mind that the ‘refurb and extension’ bit is soemwhat of a misnomer. The complete skin was replaced…and all of the structure stripped and repainted in situ…the unit cost of which was very close to the new build.

I do not know the extent of the BAe support, but it may have been part of the ‘matching’ that was needed, so one biggy rather than many small one.

Kev,
Sorry, not ignoring you, I missed your post.

You were clear about what you did not like, as you have been in the past. However its your view…and whilst very important that is all it is..sure you do not like/ understand/ find value in certain choices however others do. Whose’s view counts ?

I do not have the figures for Cosford so there are no details to share.
However I have been involved in other HLF funded aircraft museum projects and know that there are a number of ways of presenting the figures to suit the case.

It is easy to use a ‘project’ cost for project XYZ that includes for VAT (as needed), professional fees, inflation, internal displays etc etc and use a ‘construction cost’ for project ABC and say look that one is twice the price of the other.

Or include other bits of work on the project that are not directly related, such as the AS project whose ‘cost’ includes the car park and entrance building. It is correct to say the AirSpace project cost c.£25m and houses 30 airframes… yet at Cosford the c £12m houses 20….which is better value for money and which was more expensive?

If you take out the c £8m for the entrance and car park the figures change a bit…

Or even if you look at the published construction cost of Cosford c. £9m. So what does the £12m include? Fees? VAT? display fit out?

£9m for 20 airframes begins to be even better value…

It can be presented as £9m for over 8,000sqm; or £1125/m2 or £104.5/sqft.

Just as a comparator currently traditional domestic construction is around £75/sqft, that’s for a 2 storey brick building with small spans.

Large span warehouses (say 25m span max) works out at £500/m2 for the shell and slab to warehouse loads and exceptional span buildings with normal loaded slabs are c£800-1000/m2. These are the really big sheds you see in distribution centres near motorways etc etc.

I think the extra over of £125/m2 for a slab that can take the point loadings of aircraft on jacks and has a superstructure that can take a hanging load on a clear span in excess of 50m, demountable walls to allow a/c in and out at times, is pretty good value.

Just to reiterate:- a clear space that big would cost in the region of £6.5m to £8m if it were just a distribution warehouse.

Add in specfic costs related to being an aircraft museum; openings large enough to allow aircraft in or out…a door that size easily adds £0.5m to the cost. And an extra over to allow for the point loads… say £300K, plus additional structure to hang a few airframes…say another £0.5m and before you know it you have a budget figure of around best case £7.8m, worse case £9.3m…

These are basic construction costs… the £9m begins to look pretty much in the ‘range of good value’.
I do not know the extent of the heating system in the NCWE. A basic one is assumed but as soon as more careful control and humdity control are added the cost could increase by a factor of 4 (so from say £200K to say £800K…)…plus IT infrastrucutre and lighting, another £200K..

Lets also throw in public toilets and lifts as well…not needed for a warehouse..but needed for the museum.. say another £100K…

Big sheds are relatively cheap….but big sheds that are museums are not, regardless of the shape. A shed that can house a 50m span a/c is going to be expensive regardless of its shape….a rectangle might be slightly cheaper, but not massively.
Similarly as soon as you do have that type of clear span adding structure to enable a/c to be suspended is cost effective; sure it adds some, but it allows a reduction in floor area to pay for it…

Its clear at least to me that you cannot say the iconic design has added a cost to the project. In such a building every addition in one area can be offset against intelligent omission or subtraction. To say it costs more because of its design is not necessarily the case.

Nor is this to say that a cheaper solution was not possible, but that would would have received no funding.
In this case the additional cost of the design is offset against recieving additional (or any) funding…which has its own ‘value for money’….

TT,

In theory yes you are correct. However IIRC the charity can chose to pay the VAT on the capital project if it intends to generate revenue from the facility which is not linked to its charitable purpose.

So as I understand it the building is potentially avaliable for corporate hire (which is revenue generation not linked to the charity’s purpose) then VAT may or may not have been paid.
Had hire only be avaliable to other charitable institutions then this would not be an issue or if it were hired out exclusively to associations linked to the purpose of the charity then its even more complex…

It makes it difficult, unless you are party to the correct information, to establish what the cost was and what it included.

With respect to the AS people forget, or never knew, that the ‘magazine published’ cost was for the enitre AS project, including works to the entrance/ shop building and the car park.

I don’t think anyone is complaining that rare airframes are indoors – especially good to see the Comet inside; now paint her in proper military colours – the black/dayglo scheme would do!!

What is a complaint is that Cosford could have had a much better building to display aircraft in if they hadn’t had to meet the requirement of having a ‘Landmark’ (i.e. fancy design so that the building is ‘iconic’ rather than just what’s in it) building foisted on the as terms of the HLF grant.

Its interesting to note that without the HLF grant there would be no building and so the airframes would still potentially be outside.

The choice for museums is to ‘self-fund’ developments of this nature either from revenue or ‘private’ sponsorship…or to appply for HLF funding and accept that in order to qualify the rules set by the HLF are to be respected.

Note for those who recall the HLF grant to Newark the sums involved were very different and each funding threshold has different criteria.

So whilst we can bemoan the fact that the aesthetics of the building and the way the museum elected to display its assets may not be to our own tastes two important issues needed to be kept in mind..

1) The aircraft are indoors…which means their long term future is far more secure.

2) The ‘offer’ that the museum can now make is to a far wider audience. This in turn brings more people into contact with the aircraft and hence has a greater potential to stimulate interest….thus ensuring the museum itself has a longer term future.

These set the overall tone.

We should also look at the overall financial impact that we as aircraft enthusiasts have on large museums such as Cosford and Duxford…it is a small one and one which is decreasing rather than increasing.

Its interesting to note that getting people to visit the AAM at Duxford is far easier if its based on the building than the aircraft.. I’d say my current ratio is something like 100:1 building versus aircraft…to the museum that represents their financial life blood. The fact that the U-2 is ‘out of reach’ or that we cannot easily see the cockpit of the Avenger is not of great relevance to them.

As for ‘having a much better building for displaying aircraft’…says who? You? Do you have a factual basis for that statement or is it just your personal opinion? If you think there is a better museum out there then use that as an example.

Also who says the design was ‘foisted’ on them? You make is sound as if the client (the RAF Museum) was not part of the process that developed that design and agreed to it being ‘their’ design in the application. You make it sound as if the museum was ‘told’ that this was the design they were getting regardless of their desires…and they could take it or leave it…

Sadly the process does not work like that. Sure the museum may well have initially shown a more conventional design and used that to get people on board..and they may well have received advice that the design was not going to be successful and that something else was needed in order to win funding, but the changes would have been done with the agreement of the museum at the appropriate levels and they are the supporters of the design.

So complain away about how the funding rules pushes museums to develop designs that may need to be more than sheds, or that they need to provide educational aspects and a ‘wow’ factor…but do not pretend that the museums are being lumbered with designs they do not want or feel have value to them as part of their offer.

In truth we CANNOT disassociate the design with the funding in the current set up, so we cannot on the one had applaud the fact the a/c are under cover from the cover they are under.

The system may indeed be one you disagree with but unless you change it (by voting) its the way that these captial projects will be funded at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

And as for kev’s notion that the display is permanent and it will not change….fortunately its not the case and the displays will change in time.. perhaps not as quickly or in a way we want but its not permanent….just look at the AAM…

Also kev can you provide any factual support for your assertion that you could have a ‘better result at less cost’? Such as what is a better result (if you know of a museum with a comparable size of exhibit that you think is better then use that)?

The costs are more difficult to find but do you really know what the costs involved were? And how they stack up?

Or are you just voicing an opinion…based on nothing really specific but it looks different and is therefore must have been expensive?….

Lots of opinions….not a problem… but make it clear its an opininon…otherwise all you do ‘aircraft enthusiasts’ no favours in the process; it makes us look ignorant, selfish and narrow minded and therefore far less credible to those who are driving the process. This in turn means valid desires and comments get sidelined as ‘ranting’ and not taken seriously.

We need threads like this to establish what we like and dislike, but make sure its clear why you think so.. such as an MSP in an Belfast when they did not carry otu airdrops for instance…or inappropriate colour schemes etc. Making sweeping statements of opinion unsupported by evidence makes aircraft enthusiasts less relevant and credible in the process.