WH904Why anyone would think it would be set up mainly for maintainance
David, if you’re seriously interested and not simply trying to imply that you somehow know better, then have a careful look back through all the stuff that was said and written and you’ll find what I’m referring to.
WH904Well not quite – I’ve said it a few times now but I think people either haven’t noticed, or they think I’m suffering from some sort of delusion! CAF stated repeatedly both on the internet and in direct comments to me that the St.Mawgan venture was ostensibly a maintenance/restoration facility and that attracting visitors was to be only a secondary “bonus” rather than a main motive. This is the point that makes me wonder what the true story is. Obviously, if attracting visitors didn’t actually matter, then it puts the whole saga in a different light. If attracting visitors did matter, then why did they often state that it didn’t? I don’t imagine anyone here has an answer, but I think it’s a point worth bearing in mind, just in case we do finally get some sort of official explanation from CAF. Not that CAF owe us any answers of course (it’s their business, not ours) but it would be nice to understand why such a disastrous development has occurred.
WH904I never watched the rest, how much damage did it do?
Tim, there was no significant damage done to the airframe, it was only cosmetic stuff that could be rectified. As you will know, it was dismantled with the intention of flying the aircraft again at some stage. This is what I don’t understand. Within a matter of months they’ve switched from saying that they still intended to restore the machine to flying condition in the future, to completely abandoning the aircraft at St.Mawgan. It’s a diametrically opposite position for which no explanation has been forthcoming. The whole story of the closure just doesn’t make sense. As I’ve said before, CAF stated at various times that the St.Mawgan base was primarily for engineering and restoration and that public visitors were a bonus rather than a prerequisite. But now the implication (at least from the various commentators) is that the base was closed because of insufficient “footfall” – and this is at odds with CAF’s previously stated position. So I could only assume that the real cause was that the cost of the hangar/s has become far higher than CAF had expected it to be. I’ve seen no evidence to confirm this, but then I’ve seen to evidence to contradict this view either (other than views expressed by various people), so until I do read/hear something “concrete” from CAF, I’ll reserve judgement on what really happened. The other odd aspect of the story is that until just a few weeks ago, CAF were saying to me that they were still making efforts to pursue their bid for the Shackleton, therefore the decision to pull-out of St.Mawgan must have been a very recent and sudden move.
I hope CAF will tell us the true story soon. I don’t think anyone proposes to “blame” CAF for anything that has happened, in fact I’m sure everyone (other than the enthusiasts motivated by the convenience of getting to Coventry, rather than Cornwall!) applauds CAF for having had the boldness to set-up the St.Mawgan site in the first place . The outcome has been incredibly sad but it would be nice to know what the true cause really was.
WH904Never watched the documentary of its move then ?
Yes, of course I did, including the lovely footage supposedly taken as the truck approached St.Mawgan, with a PRU Blue Canberra already visible outside the hangar. How bizarre 🙂
de-registered on the 6 November 2014 as permanently withdrawn from use.
T6 I have no idea what is/was going-on with the people at CAF but they definitely said to me last year that they were still proposing to restore it to flying condition. Patently that was either not true, or they changed their minds pretty drastically 🙁
It’s a sad business, particularly when it was supposedly acquired in the first place as a potential flying exhibit. Hardly seems to have been worth the bother and expense!
WH904It wasn’t “butchered” and no, I do mean the T4. I was told less than a year ago that there was every intention to restore it to flying condition eventually. Now it appears to have been abandoned. It’s all very odd.
WH904Oh dear. Good luck to those who are trying to do something but the idea of a gaggle of aeroplanes parked outside a HAS sounds like a short-term route to losing a lot of airframes. I’m amazed that the Canberra appears to be abandoned. It was only last year that CAF were saying that they still hoped to fly the machine again one day.
I can’t believe that we’ve gone from CAF’s enthusiastic plans to this miserable outlook in a matter of weeks.
WH904There is to be a meeting for all interested volunteers on Wednesday. After which something may be announced.
Any news?
http://www.aeroplaneicons.com
https://shop.keypublishing.com/subscription/view/publication/AIC
WH904T6 Salt was something I thought about from the start but surely an experienced group like CAF would have understood the potential problems from the start? I agree that there would be little point in paying for a huge hangar if many/most of the flying aircraft had returned to Coventry, but then there’s never been any direct explanation as to why this happened. It seemed to be at odds with the whole point of moving to St.Mawgan in the first place.
As for pulling the public in, this never really happened, nor was it likely to. Out of the thousands of holiday-makers in Cornwall, only a small proportion would have any interest in a hangar full of aeroplanes, and it would have been a pretty expensive visit for a family. One only has to remember Cornwall Aero Park/Flambards, to see how tourists have no interest in aviation. But as I’ve said, CAF’s people kept saying that getting the public to visit was a bonus rather than a primary motive. When the flying aircraft drifted back to Coventry, it suggested that this position had changed, in which case it was probably inevitable that the site would never survive if it was to be simply a museum. The sums simply wouldn’t add up. Even so, it seems crazy that the people concerned seem content to let CAF leave, even though there seems little chance of anything coming along to replace their presence. As I said previously, a little “rent” would surely have been better than nothing, and yet it looks as if the whole area is now going to be abandoned, with perhaps a handful of “survivor” exhibits being kept elsewhere on the airfield, providing that the cost of keeping them there isn’t too high. It doesn’t sound like a plausible means of keeping the airfield in business.
To me, it looks as if everybody loses. CAF have to suffer the costs of relocating as much as possible back to Coventry, and the airfield/council people lose a presence that clearly wasn’t going to bring-in the money they’d hoped for, but despite this they seem content to settle for no presence at all, thereby bringing in not a penny. CAF return to the issue of available space and costs at Coventry, and St.Mawgan returns to inactivity, with only a dwindling civil aviation presence to keep the site active. It all looks pretty depressing from any angle.
WH904If that really is the case, then why decide to pull out so soon? It also begs the question as to whether the “rent” increase was significantly higher than CAF expected? It also raises the issue of why either the site owners and/or local/county council don’t appear to have expressed any view on the matter. There doesn’t seem to be any secured plan for the south pan and the hangar, so it would seem pretty ludicrous to have simply allowed CAF to leave. Surely, a little “rent” is better than nothing at all? None of it makes much sense…
WH904David, I think what I think on the basis of what I have read and what I have been told, simple as that. I haven’t got the time to find the various statements that illustrate my point but if you’re seriously interested in the issue, then by all means have a closer look for yourself at what has been said.
WH904Not a strange thing to say – it’s what most people seem to be saying. Whether it’s true or not is another matter! I suppose the question is precisely what the “deal” actually was and whether the proverbial goal posts were changed. One assumes that they must have been, otherwise there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason for the move back to Coventry.
As for “footfall” I think this goes back to what I said some time back. CAF stated on various occasions that the St.Mawgan base was ostensibly for maintenance and restoration, and public access was a secondary issue. On that basis, “footfall” would have had no effect on viability.
WH904Thanks for the words of assurance on the tower 🙂
The Airport or the wider Cornwall Council if you prefer, remain very surportive despite what you may hear of or think.
I guess this is the key point. The story seems to be that CAF was effectively duped into moving to the site at a reasonable cost, only to be forced out again now that the price has been hiked. So what’s the true story? Does anyone really know? Likewise, does it reflect a serious plan to redevlop the south pan and hangar, etc., or was all that stuff just a pipe dream? And if it was, why force CAF to leave by charging so much money?
It would be interesting to know what really happened!
WH904Thanks for the news – I hope the meeting reveals some good news amongst all this gloom 🙂
WH904Being at Cosford would have been no different to being at Hendon. RAFM simply didn’t want it, and made the usual stock claims about condition, safety, cost of restoration etc., in order to dump it (just like they did with the last Vulcan B1). Despite being a Museum (ie- not a theme park), they saw fit to destroy a rare (almost unique) aeroplane and replace it with plastic replicas. I still find it remarkable even to this day.
WH904You could try Boeing… if you’re rich 🙂
Sign In
