Well I guess it depends what you mean by “evidence” – it’s fine to mention the Heron issue but that’s a slightly different matter. The only “evidence” as such is to see/listen to the public. I don’t think it’s true that people don’t have “fluffy memories” for anything other than the obvious types. Everyone has a different memory. I can see why there was probably not much public attention for the hapless Herald at Elvington, given that it soon began to look more like a wreck than an exhibit, and (as mentioned previously) YAM promote the place as a WWII experience, so most of the visitors will go there on that basis. I guess it’s back to the previous posts – the Herald was simply in the wrong place. The unfortunate aspect of the story is that the aircraft ought to have gone somewhere else in the first place. Of course the other issue is whether an exhibit is to be preserved on the basis of popularity. Is it being preserved because it is an historical artefact or is it being maintained as a source of entertainment/amusement? Obviously it’s up to the owners to make that decision but I think it does have some bearing on matters like this.

As I’m the afore-mentioned author, I should tell you that the reason for the confusing gear door images is that one of the photos was unintentionally reversed. It’s a long time ago now, but I seem to recall that the rear cover shot (similar to the top photo here) was used as supplied (it was a print from RAF Waddington), but when I subsequently looked at it more carefully to try and establish which aircraft it actually was, I realised that it didn’t match the camouflage positions of any of the Black Buck aircraft. However when it was reversed it did. As you say, it was XM597 that flew the LGBs.

Scotavia if you mean obtuse then the answer is no. Basically, I have a view that you don’t share, that’s all 😉

WebPilot I don’t agree. I don’t imagine for a minute that the Herald was ignored because it didn’t attract an audience. I’m pretty sure that it was ignored because the majority of YAM’s volunteers are more interested in WWII, and the rest are probably more interested in the Cold War-era stuff, and so the Herald doesn’t fit-into anyone’s sphere of interest. I don’t think it has anything to do with public interest. Likewise, I don’t agree that museum visitors aren’t interested in what you pejoratively refer to as ‘hum drum” stuff like the Herald. Quite the contrary in fact, as the public can relate to an airliner (or at least they can if it doesn’t look like a pile of scrap). You only need to look at Duxford or the viewing park at Manchester to see that the public gravitate towards the airliners. I agree with you though that a Herald would have been better placed in a national collection, or at least somewhere that was likely to show some interest in it. What I do question is the wider point about what Elvington is about and what the public go to see. Ostensibly it’s an “aviation museum” but clearly it has become something that is geared towards WWII, as can be seen by their website, wartime airfield layout, the Halifax, etc. Okay, people go to see all that but one could argue that they go to see it because that’s what’s on offer. Who is to say that a more comprehensive approach wouldn’t attract more people? Naturally it’s up to YAM to do what they want to do, but maybe all this is part of the reason why the Herald has been a victim? If YAM have gradually become more interested only in WWII, then it would explain why they acquired a Herald only to subsequently abandon it.

I guess it’s a subjective view. I’m with those who think the Halifax is interesting but it’s essentially a wreck combined with a Hastings. All very nice but it seems quite sad that it gets hangar space while the Herald (which was a fully functional machine) was simply ignored outside until it became a pile of scrap. True, the Halifax has connections with Elvington but I guess that fact opens-up all sort of questions as to what the museum is about. Is it about preserving and exhibiting aeroplanes or is it about recording Elvington’s history? If it’s the latter, then it goes back to some of the comments made above – why did they get the Herald in the first place? As has been said before, I think one of the problems is that some museums don’t seem to be entirely clear about what their “mission” is. I know Elvington isn’t the only place that could be accused of such things though!

If it was clearly understood then there would have been a valid business plan before CAF decided to move, in which case it seems unlikely that CAF would have vacated the base again so soon. Likewise I doubt if there would have been an outcry in the press – I don’t think CAF was ever on the local media’s radar. As for the council having “other avenues” I’m not so sure, as I said above. If they do have, then maybe they really did effectively encourage CAF to leave, which would be a disgrace if it’s true (but far from unlikely, given the council’s attitude towards the airfield). But there’s no evidence to suggest that they have any potential uses for the area – just a lot of fancy drawings and meaningless talk. If they had any sense, they would have tried hard to keep CAF, on the basis that smaller revenue is better than no revenue at all. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that they did anything other than to shrug their proverbial shoulders.

Like I said, if any “blame” is to be attributed to this saga, my money would be on the council. I think blame does come into it in the sense that a lot of people are upset at how the move to St.Mawgan has resulted in some aircraft being stranded at a location where they are likely to deteriorate, even if the volunteers do their very best to preserve them. Likewise, the security of the collection is open to question in the long term. But my own view is that CAF seem to have started the venture with the best of intentions. I think the blame (if we are to blame anybody) goes to the council who clearly encouraged the move, even going so far as to create a completely new link road to the site. Okay, if the hangar costs became too high then CAF had no option other than to leave but I have to question the council’s position here. I assume that they imagine the site has a more lucrative future with some other occupier, especially when one looks at the fancy drawings of new/re-styled hangars, etc. But it’s difficult to see what aviation enterprises would want to move there, even if they could afford to. Therefore the council’s (and airport’s) position seems absurd. Surely it would have been better to allow CAF to stay, rather than have them vacate the site so that it doesn’t make so much as one penny. It does rather sound as if CAF were effectively encouraged or even forced to leave, as if a “better offer” was going to come along. As far as I know, there’s nothing on the horizon, therefore the council seems to be the place where blame should be placed. It’s not as if it’s the first time that they have made ludicrous decisions. If it wasn’t for them, the RAF would still be there in force and they would be preparing for deliveries of F-35s.

I agree – a Varsity next to a Spitfire is an interesting comparison but it really does depend on the audience. It’s true that a great deal revolves around “footfall” but I think there is perhaps a “chicken and egg” situation in that the overall theme seems to inevitably be WWII, therefore it seems only natural that it will attract visitors with an interest in that era. But at the same time I think it would be entirely wrong to imagine that in broader terms, there is a greater interest in WWII subjects. Surely, common sense tells us that the further away from WWII we go, the fewer the number of people who can relate to it. Anyway, my point is that the neglect of the Herald was/in effect deliberate, because attention has been directed to other airframes. As I said before, volunteers are obviously entitled to obsess about whatever aeroplane they prefer, but it does seem very sad that the Herald seems to have been overlooked because it didn’t “fit in” somehow.

As you say, the problem does seem to be that museums often did simply acquire airframes because they could, without much thought as to how they could look after them. The problem is that we could perhaps say that we should try to ensure that this doesn’t happen again – but of course it’s too late in virtually most cases. Not all of course… one immediately thinks of XH558’s forthcoming retirement plans, which seem to be ill-conceived at the very least.

I’m saddened to hear that items have been removed from Scampton. It’s disheartening to hear tales of preference being given to WWII artefacts at the expense of the Cold War, but it seems to happen a lot. I wonder how many decades will pass before everyone finally accepts that history didn’t end in 1945.