Attracting the public and making revenue was the highest priority CAF had.

I’m obviously not CAF’s spokesman but I recall CAF people stating on more than one occasion that St.Mawgan was primarily an engineering facility and the museum/public side of this was very much a secondary issue. I don’t know if that view changed but it was definitely stated. As for the wider story of precisely what CAF were led to believe about the future of the site, cost’s, etc., then I guess we can only hope that they will give us all a clear answer at some stage. One assumes that they must have seen the move as a wise one, otherwise why do it? As everybody seems to agree, moving CAF so far to the SW was a controversial decision, so there must have been sound reasons for doing it and, as far as I can determine, it was because they were promised a future that made financial sense. More recently, the stuff I’ve read/heard suggests that the situation changed quite drastically. I hope we do get a clear statement on the situation from CAF as the many (often conflicting) comments from people associated with CAF don’t really get us very far. Surely, if the whole sorry saga really is a result of costs having been hiked, the CAF will tell us so? I wonder what the council folks really propose to do with the airfield? Do they really think that they can somehow develop it into a thriving commercial base with the shiny new facilities shown on the various drawings, etc.? Or do they really just plan to allow the site to run-down still further, so that they can simply write-it off and cover it with housing or some half-baked tourist park? I can’t help thinking that the latter is the real plan, and that CAF have been pushed out as part of this process. Hopefully we’ll find out for certain before too long. But there’s no denying that it’s a very sad development for the aircraft (especially ones like the Varsity that have already been moved at great expense), and very frustrating when the VC10 and BAC-111 could have flown into Coventry, rather than becoming stranded in Cornwall. But my real worry is that it is the airfield that is most under threat. I guess we can assume that the old control tower will conveniently be left to rot until it’s regarded as “unsafe” and I wouldn’t be surprised if 404 hangar doesn’t suffer the same fate eventually. Who wants to rent a huge space like that?

It’s a very sorry business from every angle.

It’s very, very sad. I should point-out that most/all of the posts here fail to take into account two important points. Firstly, the move to St.Mawgan was partially influenced by the financial attractiveness of the proposition. The fact that this situation seems to have been wilfully changed is obviously not CAF’s fault, so if there is any blame to be issued for this saga, it shouldn’t be directed at CAF. Secondly, we should bear in mind that the St.Mawgan relocation was not about setting-up a public attraction as such. It was to set-up a maintenance/preservation base, the public’s access being a secondary issue. So it would be unfair to look at the relocation to Cornwall as being “unsuitable” for those of us who don’t live in the South West.

I guess many people will welcome a return to Coventry but I can’t help worrying whether Coventry is any more secure in the longer term. But more to the point, I can’t help worrying that St.Mawgan’s future must be pretty bleak. If the local/regional Council couldn’t even make any effort to keep CAF on the airfield, I fail to see how they are any more likely to attract sufficient aviation enterprises to make the airfield’s survival viable. The story seems to be a very sad one both for CAF and St.Mawgan. I still can’t bring myself to refer to St.Mawgan Airfield as “Newquay Airport.” It never really was much of an airport and I can’t help thinking it will be even less of one before long.

Sounds like a great event. Is it possible to get the Shackleton to do a ground run? Maybe the Nimrod too?

Maybe if the DC-3 returns to the fleet for pleasure flights, it will be possible to arrange flights down to St.Mawgan and back at some stage? That would be a cracking plan! 🙂

http://www.aeroplaneicons.com

… and yet they had no interest in XT597. Bizarre.

It doesn’t sound good. Hope we don’t end-up losing Black Mike too 🙁

http://www.aeroplaneicons.com
Twitter/Aeroplane Icons

Glad to hear that you were pleased with the F-4 edition in the Icons series FalkeEins. The comments on this thread are certainly interesting and as a slightly obsessed enthusiast I obviously share some of the likes, dislikes and frustrations that have been expressed. I’ll add my ha’peth for what it’s worth… Naturally, commercial considerations are vitally important – if publications don’t sell then they disappear, it’s that simple. But it would be wrong to imagine that publishers (particularly ones such as Key Publishing) are oblivious to the interests of enthusiasts. Quite the contrary in fact, as the publications are inevitably produced by enthusiasts. Certainly from my viewpoint, I always try to produce material that I think I would want to read myself and although I have my own tastes (like anyone else would), I’m old and ugly enough to understand that we all have different likes and dislikes. The reason that things are how they are is generally due to many factors. One main factor is a perception of what is likely to be most popular with the most readers of course, but there are many other factors too. One of the most important is the physical task of finding the material. I think a lot of people would be astonished to know just how difficult it can be these days. For example, returning to the subject of Phantoms, I put a lot of effort into getting access to the countless images in the McDonnell archives. But they now belong to Boeing, and getting even a handful of images requires weeks of processing and a huge amount of money that is simply unaffordable.

Similar problems exist with other sources of good material. For example, countless images have disappeared into the IWM archives and to retrieve them costs money – publishing them costs even more. The frustrating aspect of this is that they were once Crown Copyright PR images that were handed-out for free! Likewise, a lot of material has simply disappeared. The huge collection of images in our own Aeroplane archive has been saved largely by chance rather than design. Thousands of photographs (mostly negatives) were simply trashed decades ago, and it was only through the wisdom of some individuals (and a lot of luck) that so many unique images have survived. Horrors of this nature happen all the time. BAE heritage at Brough have very little material on the British Phantoms because virtually all of it was dumped before anyone thought abut saving it. Harry Holmes at BAE Heritage Woodford rescued a lot of Lancaster material from a skip!

These are just examples of the problems that can affect the choice of subjects, style and content, etc., in any aviation publication. So it’s not a case of readers’ preferences being ignored, it’s more a case of doing the best with what is available. I know it’s easy to imagine that publishers somehow opt for the easiest routes and churn-out material with little regard to the interests of enthusiasts. But that really isn’t the case. Certainly with regard to the Icons series, Key have allowed me complete freedom to produce the series as I think is best, in terms of written and pictorial content, style and subject choice. I think that is a pretty commendable attitude. Doesn’t mean that I’m always right of course (I wish!) but it does illustrate how the publications are effectively produced by enthusiasts, not faceless editorial staff who don’t know a Boeing from a Beardmore.

I think another issue is that we can often have a slightly over-affectionate view of the past. I’ve fallen into this trap many times myself. For example, the late, great “Aircraft Illustrated” has been mentioned previously. I was saddened to witness its demise, having bought every issue since it began. But when one flicks through the early editions from all those years ago, it’s clear that they were really nothing to get too excited about. I think we often imagine that the magazines and books we remember for many years ago are far better than they really were. Practically-speaking, the quality of today’s magazines is better than ever. It’s just that we’ve become accustomed to better (or different) things. Okay, I accept that nothing is ever perfect, but I would at least like to emphasise that the tastes and interests of enthusiasts are certainly not being ignored… even if you might be worrying that they are!

http://www.aeroplaneicons.com

Twitter – Aeroplane Icons

Good luck with your efforts Nad. I’m really looking forward to seeing the Gannet back in the air again. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing (and hearing) her many years ago and it will be great to hear those Mambas buzzing again 🙂

http://www.aeroplaneicons.com