Just today a request has been posted on the WIX forum by the guys at the 1941 Historical Aircraft Group, and it appears that their example, N582 is another survivor with British connections, having served with the FAA as FT478. They are looking for information on the markings for this particular airframe, or failing that just some general information about the colour schemes used on FAA Staggerwings. This is with a view to repainting the aircraft in full FAA colours!

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36193&p=361441#p361441

Well done to all at BBMF, as if keeping the existing fleet airworthy weren’t hard work enough you manage to find time to put this one back in the air. Wonderful to see it looking like an aeroplane, I’m guessing it’s decades since she last had her wings properly attached.

The latest efforts for that aircraft are “just” a fresh attempt at (finally) starting series production, which so far has not come about since the prototype flew many years ago, so does that one really count?

Mentioning that manufacturer rings a bell; we’ve forgotten the newly-built Yak-3 and Yak-9 (with Allison engines)!

Ah, well if we’re including vintage types resurrected for the sake of it, we could also mention:

Me262 (Texas Airplane Factory)
Ki-43 Oscar (Texas Airplane Factory)
Fw190 (Flug Werke)
A6M Zero (Blayd Corporation)

There was, and perhaps still is, a Staggerwing (N18V) based at North Weald in RAF colours. It’s genuinely an ex-RAF example, but the paint job represents DR628, a Staggerwing attached to 24sqn at RAF Hendon, flown by Prince Barnard of the Netherlands while he was in exile during the war years.

Edited to add: The above “DR628” is in reality FT507.

To confuse things further, my grey matter is telling me that the genuine Prince Barnard aircraft also survives, but is painted again to represent a different example! Is the Duke of Brabant Air force example this ex-Prince Barnard machine?? Something’s telling me it is, but I can’t referance it at the moment.

Googled a couple of images of N18V…

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N18V&distinct_entry=true

http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=N18V&u=reg

Hello again michelf,

Once again thanks for an informative reply, however I still have one or two issues that I feel aren’t quite being addressed.

“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….”

I understand that in the case of things like grant applications there needs to be a firmly laid plan put forward, and that this ‘churn’ process is a necessary consequence. However, I am still failing to see why the building should fit the plan so closely and rigidly. By all means make a plan, but why not make future change/expansion easier by allowing for it through greater flexibility in the design of the building in the first place? The planning and churning argument still doesn’t account for why, for instance, the doors are relatively small, or why it takes the removal of walls to move exhibits etc. The same kind of ‘churn’ could be applied to a hangar-like building just as easily, if not more so, than the seemingly impractical architectural statement buildings.

-“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.”

What you say about the AAM makes sense, however when I mentioned Duxford I was thinking more about the hangars than the AAM or AirSpace. I still maintain that the majority of exhibits in the conventional hangars could be moved around/in/out without too much fuss thanks to the amount of open space within the structures, and the massive doors at either end. The best example of this flexibility is perhaps the inclusion of the airworthy Blenheim in the Battle of Britain exhibition when it was first opened several years ago. My basic point is that surely it should be possible to design buildings with this level of flexibility without affecting a museum’s respectability?

-“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.”

Yes, I understand there is an issue about set standards, but again I don’t understand how a more conventional, accessable, flexible building goes against this.

-“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.”

Why visually link the indoor space with the active airfield when you can visually AND physically link the space with the active airfield?? A great example of this is ‘Hangar-7’, the building which houses the Flying Bulls collection in Austria. Now I know AAM aircraft were never meant to fly, and that the design was somewhat restricted by space limitations, but Hangar-7 surely proves that a high-tech air museum building can be built which incoporates all the things you mention PLUS access and flexibility, ie. decent interior space and large doors.

It’s interesting that you say that doors on the AAM would have been ‘little cheaper’, but to my mind that’s still cheaper and more practical. It would be interesting to know precisely what the difference was.

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

Surely still more complex than opening a door?

-“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 accept this wholeheartedly, but the arguments I put forward are in relation to things which are relatively basic, eg. access and interior size etc. Sticking my neck out, I would say that it doesn’t require actual physical involvement to back up what I’m saying, it’s more about common sense than qualification. Perhaps the nub of this discussion is that common sense can be/is being undermined by the way things are run in the beauracratic sense.

-“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…”

I appreciate that the museum cannot solely cater for the enthusiast, and that there are many trade, exhibition and H&S features which have to be taken into consideration, but once again are these things really undermined by a more practical hangar-like building?? Again using the IWM hangars as the example, these seem to do a very good educational job as they stand, whether they contain airworthy aircraft, static airframes or boats. I remain unconvinced that a fancy, angled building is necassery to bring people in and/or educate them once there.

-“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….”

Again I admit that I am not a professional in the field, but I still don’t see the sense in this statement. Surely space for a museum is an investment, and a statement of commitment. Perhaps the space isn’t used right this minute, but I would argue that space is always useful. Large interior space is desirable in all kinds of fields, eg. houses, factories etc. It allows for activity and expansion, storage and display. These are bad things in the eyes of museum management and the HLF??

Hi michelf,

Thanks for your input, I’ll do my best to answer the points you’ve raised about my earlier comments.

“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 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. 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. Ofcourse 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. (Ofcourse it would take longer to move anything in or out from the American Air Museum.)

“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.”

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??

“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.”

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.

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.

Things seem to have gone a bit quiet on this one, have there been any developments? The moving deadline looms large…