WH904No, the Shackleton as St.Mawgan was an AEW2 – it has simply been partially re-converted to its original MR2 standard. The example at Coventry is also a former AEW2 re-converted back to MR2 standard (almost) 🙂
WH904Wings, it depends how one looks at things I guess. Obviously, a Typhoon is a fighting machine, therefore fancy paint schemes are largely irrelevant. But given that this particular Typhoon has been painted, I think we’re allowed a little license to discuss aesthetics? Like it or not, appearance is taken into account, hence the current official stipulations covering the precise size and position of the unit insignia on the Typhoon fuselages and tails. There are no reasons for this other than personal taste – somebody at Whitehall evidently thinks Typhoons look “nice” with standardised markings within fixed shapes. I know for certain that a lot of people think the result is a rather depressing uniformity which is completely at odds with the flamboyant markings that were traditionally applied to the RAF’s fighting machines many decades ago. My comments regarding the national insignia reflect a question that has been floating around for years – what is the point of the ridiculous pink/lilac roundel and fin flash? It was originally employed ostensibly as part of “low visibility camouflage”, although it was of course simply a fashion trend taken from the US Navy (courtesy of Mr Ferris and his Phantom paint schemes). In reality, the pink/lilac insignia is no less visible than the more common red/blue variety. The comical aspect of this is that the standard British roundel (red, white and blue) was dropped because of the perceived “high visibility” of the white portion. But the Typhoons all wear unit insigina that feature fully opaque colours – including white. So the pink/lilac insignia was pointless. Of course, the other issue is whether the RAF/ MoD seriously think that the RAF’s Typhoons are likely to get into a close-in dogfight with any aggressor, and reach a stage where the visibility of the Typhoon is such an issue that the paint colours applied to it make any difference. I mean, seriously? The sad truth of this issue is that nobody has actually thought-through the question of why the Typhoons are painted as they are. It’s nothing new though – the RAF’s aircraft paint schemes and markings have always been a thorny subject ever since 1918! 🙂
WH904Johnny, it will be good news if the hall is refurbished and improved. But I don’t think that I (or anyone else) should be expected to ask questions as to why it is currently in such a poor state. As a visitor I simply see what is presented. It is the duty of the museum to inform us, and not our duty to ask. But even if the problems are due to plans being made for the future, there’s no excuse for leaving the Shackleton covered in a layer of dust. Likewise, there’s no reason for leaving the entire upper gallery empty, without any explanation. Personally, I’m not particularly worried about this. What does bother me is the fate of the exhibits, particularly the Shackleton which is the only one that would be difficult/expensive to move. There have been stories about the security/future of the collection before, but having now seen just how grubby the display hall is, then it does worry me that some of the stories might have some foundation in fact. Let’s hope that things improve before too long. Wonder if they’ll ever put the Tornado on show?!
WH904Hendon is unlikely (no room), and East Fortune isn’t RAFM, so Cosford seems to be the only option. But all three have the same problem in that it would almost certainly mean external display. It would be a pretty sad outcome for a machine that has survived for so long indoors. Of course there’s no guarantee that RAFM would even keep it if MOSI abandoned it.
There have been stories about the Shackleton’s future before but they were always dismissed. But having seen the display hall yesterday, I think anyone would agree that MOSI seem to have almost abandoned any interest in the aircraft. The Sycamore seemed to have disappeared, and there was of course still no sign of the aircraft that are supposedly stored for eventual display (such as the Tornado). Looking at the interior and exterior of the hall, it looks as if it will be emptied and pulled-down. But maybe there will be a miraculous improvement – who knows. All I know is that on the basis of what I saw yesterday, I wouldn’t bet any money on the Shackleton (or anything else) being there this time next year. And if that does prove to be the case, where would it go? Languishing in the rain at Cosford doesn’t sound like much of a future.
WH904age, experience and cynicism 🙂
WH904Mike – as far as I know, the Shackleton isn’t up for grabs. My point is that it looks as if it may well be very soon. I’ve read various tales about dark plans to dispose of the Shackleton before, and having seen the deplorable state of the museum hall yesterday, it looks pretty clear that MOSI don’t have any interest in it. I don’t think the Spitfire was there, unless I was so completely enthralled by the Shackleton that I missed it! It may have been though. I don’t know why everything has been cleared from the upper gallery, and the whole place just looked as if it was completely neglected. There was a distinctly moribund feel to the whole place.
I was interested to see a bunch of screaming school kids rush in, only to find that their teacher had given them all a “tick list” to complete, so they simply shrieked their way around the collection to tick-off their papers, without even the slightest interest in the exhibits. Once they’d run around, they were back at the door waiting to escape in less than ten minutes. Another bunch of french kids came in (slightly older). I was next to the Trident cockpit at the time so I went in to see what happened. As I expected, they rushed in, only to find a perspex screen that prevented them from jumping into the seats to start flicking switches. Once they saw the screen they turned around, deflated, looking for any other switches to flick, buttons to press, or handles to pull. One boy was almost lucky when he saw the crew door handle, but when he found that it didn’t work, they all left… presumably in search of more stimulating “interactive” toys. I think the way these kids reacted says a lot about the museum experience. They expect gizmos and entertainment. They have no interest in stuffy artefacts (unless they light-up or move, or make a noise).
It looked pretty clear that MOSI have completely lost any interest in the hall and all their attention has shifted to the adjacent collections of engines, vehicles, locos, etc. I guess it’s just a fact of life, and if people are too dim to find any interest in looking at static aircraft, then there’s nothing MOSI can do about that. But I do worry that if they have lost interest in the aircraft, then there’s a risk that some of them might not survive. The Shackleton must be the biggest worry as it would be extremely difficult and expensive to remove. Likewise, it would seem likely that the only place it could go is Cosford. To languish outdoors? I do hope that if the end is in sight for the aerospace collection, they will at least have the good grace to ensure that the aircraft survive. I also believe they have some archive material too – one would hope that this isn’t simply dumped.
WH904Personally, I think it’s perhaps not the most tasteful of colour schemes, even though I appreciate the reasons for it. However, I’m pleased to see it, not least because it represents a drift away from the many “fancy tail” colour schemes that have adorned RAF Typhoons. Like it or not, it is at least a complete repaint and that makes a welcome change! I hope that it might also eventually encourage a little individuality amongst the Typhoon units, so that the regimented unit markings are slowly replaced by more flamboyant style.
I also wonder how much longer we will persist with the ghastly pink/lilac low-visibility national insignia? It amazes me that they have survived so long when they are so utterly pointless, contrasting with the full-colour unit markings that are applied to the same machines. I did hope that the end was in sight when the Tornado F3 started to appear in a darker grey paint scheme with red/blue insignia, but it wasn’t to be. Let’s hope the latest “Fancy ‘Phoon” helps to eventually bury these miserable markings that achieve nothing (they were only applied as part of a fashion trend in the first place) and spoil the appearance of a fine fighting machine.
WH904Also, not a word as to which (if any) machines will be returned to Coventry and which will be left to rot at St.Mawgan. Still no word from Newquay Airport and/or the council either, to suggest what miraculous developments will replace CAF. I see nothing good in this story at all 🙁
WH904Well I guess that on the basis of all the comments on here, the people who did claim that St.Mawgan was to primarily be a CAF maintenance base were either wrong or simply telling fibs. Either way it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that if the base was set-up as a tourist attraction, then who on Earth imagined it would be a viable proposition? Surely, Mr Collett must be wise enough to have known that it would never have worked? The infamous Cornwall Aero Park ought to have been enough to indicate just how little tourist interest there is in aviation. Even the most romantic aeroplane fanatics can appreciate that it would never interest anyone other than a true enthusiast. This is why I’d be so interested to hear what CAF’s position is. Would they claim that they were simply mistaken? Surely not – would anyone have put so much money into something that seems so ill-advised? Or were they somehow “sold” some kind of vision that the Airport/Council ultimately didn’t deliver? Sounds more plausible to me, but if that’s the case, why isn’t CAF saying so? It all really does seem very, very odd.
WH904Nope – The various comments must be buried amongst the stuff in the PPrune, UKAR, Fightercontrol, Twitter and similar places, but I haven’t got the energy to bother looking! Besides, why bother, it will achieve nothing now – what’s done is done. Incidentally, if the Varsity doesn’t get rescued I hope you’ll clear a (big) space in your garden Baz! 🙂
WH904I’d prefer to hear that from the Council, Airport or CAF, thanks 😉
WH904However how can it be made to work for commercial use (airlines) when its really too remote and the road links are not first class.
Exactly – on the basis of what has happened so far, it’s hard to see how the site is ever likely to prosper. This is why I’m amazed that more effort hasn’t been given to persuading CAF to stay. As I said before, you’d think that a bit of visitor revenue would be better than nothing. One can only assume that either the Airport, Council or both, imagine that there are more lucrative uses for the area. But one has to wonder whether they’re deluding themselves. Worse still, perhaps it’s a repetition of the Sheffield Airport fiasco, in which the Council and Airport wilfully allowed the site to become uneconomic so that it could be sold-off for commercial development. I sincerely hope that this kind of chicanery isn’t behind it all.
WH904I wasn’t referring to comments only on this forum – not sure what was said about the issue on here at the time. It matters not in any case, I was merely trying to assure you that if you doubt what I’ve said, you can find the comments if you care to look for them. But none of this matters much. As I said, it would certainly be interesting to know what the real motive of the move was, regardless of which people (inside or outside of CAF) regarded the base as a tourist attraction or a maintenance/restoration facility. Point is, the only view that matters is the real one, and CAF haven’t said what this was. As I said previously, the reason I’m intrigued to know the truth is because it obviously has some bearing on the wisdom of moving to St.Mawgan in the first place. But I guess in a wider sense even this doesn’t matter as it doesn’t affect the outcome. Either way, the end result seems to be a collection of “stranded” airframes that (even with the best will in the world) must be unlikely to survive for too long. Plus (as I said before), the future of the site must also be open to question and my view is that the site (ie- the former RAF St.Mawgan) is just as important as the aeroplanes.
WH904You appear to be the only person who believes that it wasn’t opened as a tourist attraction.
Try reading what I said. I don’t believe anything. I’m simply pointing-out that it was stated at various times that it was not a tourist attraction. Either view may be right or wrong – as I said, it would be nice if CAF actually explained what the truth actually was, but I’m guessing that this isn’t going to happen. Anyway, let’s not waste any more time on this David. It’s not a competition. If you don’t believe me then that’s your prerogative, but if you want to be sure then try looking back as I suggested. Simply saying “no” is hardly a valid comment! 🙂
http://www.aeroplaneicons.com
https://shop.keypublishing.com/subscription/view/publication/AIC
WH904Have to say, that photo is pretty horrifying. I’ve posted it on our Twitter feed!
Sign In
