In theory I can see no technical reason why some form of “cradle” cannot be built into which the aircraft can be “sat” and/or clamped, with the suspension wires being attached to the cradle and not to the airframe. However, the resultant “device” would probably be damned ugly, and spoil the view of the hanging aircraft in the first place
Good point, though the way they suspended the F100 looks truly awful. I think the A10 has a similar ‘sling’.
The AAM represented a unique challenge due to the curvature of the ceiling and the use of the 2 holes in the pre-cast concrete panels as the only fixing points. I know the stresses and strains are all calculated beforehand but this unnatural positioning can’t do the airframes much good..
Don’t forget that the IWM first started off in Crystal Palace..!! Now I would love to have seen that. There would be stuff hanging everywhere..!! The old Lambeth had a strange charm about it, the fact that the building used to be a hospital made it all the more quirky.
Buildings like the AAM will date very quickly. What looked space-age in 1997 will soon look rather sad.
As for the “hang or not to hang” aircraft from the ceiling debate…personally I’d prefer not to see real airframes “hung”, but if doing so gets a few more airframes indoors out of the weather, then I’m not going to vote against it… then it’s a question of deciding which aircraft in any collection should be hung. If aircraft is unique, or a rarer type, then I’d say leave it at ground level.
Some of those that are/were hanging at Duxford don’t worry me, they are not particularly rare IMHO (such as the Superhangar’s Strikemaster or the USAM T33), others are visible from elevated galleries though may not be readily visible, but the decision to hang one or two “unusual types” for UK collections, such as the CF100 did disappoint me.
A few “flying” aircraft (or FSM) suspended from the roof are likely to be welcomed by some visitors, but not all, equally, the ability to get up close and personal with somewhat esoteric types will attract enthusiasts, but perhaps leave casual visitors stone-cold….
In terms of value and interest then I really think the Lysander should be on the floor if nothing else.
The trouble with suspending aircraft is that they often look clunky – the AAM F100 being a prime example..
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/8/7/2087784.jpg
Having looked at other aircraft suspended at other museums, it is interesting to observe how this is achieved. Some of the suspension points on the AAM aircraft look rather integral – take the former Lambeth Mustang for an example, the suspension points are clearly visible. Likewise, here’s a close up of the underside of the Avenger’s starboard wing
http://scaleadventure.com/pics/originals/IMG_2678-1280.jpg
That doesn’t look particularly reversible, the B25 has similar fittings.
Top trump Bob,
Has it accrued a bit of damage on the rudder fillet behind the turret?]
Looks like it. Probably caused by it spending 18 years hanging from the ceiling!
Totally agree about IWN ‘North’, I went there once and it was horrible. The most exciting things they had were Albert Ball’s RFC tunic, and a small chunk of Hess’s BF110 which had escaped from Lambeth.. There was some crazy intermittent display thing going on as well which left me feeling inexplicably kind of sea sick..
Unfortunately there is a new school of thought that appears to suggest that museums need to ‘wow’ people in order for them to engage with the exhibits. That says a lot about the AAM – a true aviation enthusiast would appreciate seeing a Mustang on the floor, but in order to win over a non-enthusiast it must be dangling from the ceiling as if in flight. Because aeroplanes ‘look boring’ on the floor don’t they..!!!
The Air Space hanger was raided by the police but I don’t know what they were looking for.
Someone probably saw the admission prices and phoned 999….!!
Are the 96th BG markings on the IWM B-17 permanent? Any plans to add some nose-art too?
No, unfortunately she’s permanently gone from Mary Alice to ‘factory fresh’. At least she isn’t dangling from the ceiling!
They should have let the guys up at Elvington use it in their Halifax build!
Nah, I’m glad they held onto it! It’s far too valuable. I just hope they don’t dangle it from the ceiling like everything else!
I’m not sure that it could be bigger, the pre-cast concrete roof alone weighs a staggering 6,000 tons. They’re probably just wishing they’d built something more like a hangar than an architectural statement….
…Am I the only one struck by the thought that it took all that effort to squeeze Mary Alice out of that tiny door piece by piece, and now she could have been just wheeled out!
I was thinking the same!
Just read this in Freeman’s book:
‘With a view to making this truly comprehensive […] the IWM […] made a request to the USAF Museum for a P-38, P-40, B-24, AT-6, F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, A-10, C-130 and U-2. Seven of these types were still being sought when the American Air Museum in Britain was officially opened…’
Quite some shopping list eh!!
The Stearman and the Harvard really don’t belong in there, they are just there as ‘filler’.. The AAM was never a great concept.
The AAM refurb is supposedly bringing the UK/US ‘special relationship’ up to date by covering the past 2 decades. So what else is going in apart from the F15?? Any ‘theme’ will inevitably lead to compromise and omissions.
The Avenger is itching to get out of that place!!
What are they doing with the Halifax nose? They should kit it out like Old Fred and stop people walking through it.
So it belongs to the RAFM but Duxford look after her?
According to Freeman it’s owned by the RAF, not the RAFM… I remember reading an article by Michael Fopp who was very critical of the AAM and Duxford’s ability to ‘acquire’ exhibits at will. He said that everything in the AAM will corrode!!