WH904As mentioned above, Cosford is the logical home for XT597. Yes, it would duplicate the Hendon example but not quite. It is more than just a stock RAF Phantom and (more importantly) it is a significant test/research aircraft, therefore it fits perfectly with Cosford’s collection. I can see absolutely no justification for spending money on Luftwaffe wreckage when XT597 is sat in a Suffolk field.
WH904Canopener I don’t think anyone has ranted against Everett Aero, at least not as far as I can see.
TwinOtter – I would imagine that there would be plenty of people who would be prepared to support NAM in acquiring the Phantom through some sort of fund raising campaign. But to do that, I guess someone would have to establish NAM’s position.
As mentioned above, my worry is that XT597 seems to be regarded as “just another Phantom” and it seems to have been forgotten while other less-significant Phantoms recieve attention. It’s a very odd and very disturbing situation.
I can’t help returning to my earlier comment about Cosford. Surely, Cosford’s collection of test/research aircraft is the obvious place for this aircraft. Why the hell isn’t it in there? Or does the RAFM only have a fetish for spending money Luftwaffe wrecks these days?
WH904I guess one cannot criticise Everett in any way – it is their business, but one does have to ask whether asking prices are unrealistic. On the other hand, what would have happened if Everett hadn’t bought XT597? Would it have simply been cut-up for scrap on site? The worry (indeed the expectation) is that XT597 will simply stay where she is for a long time, until the asking price comes down. But I can’t help thinking that if there was some serious offer from a museum, Everett might be prepared to accept a more reasonable fee for the aircraft. As it is, I get the impression that no interest has been expressed in the aircraft at all. This is what I find remarkable. It is lamentable how so few British Phantoms have survived, and although we know the main reasons why this is, there still seem to be tragic losses from the pool of aircraft that have survived.
I’m sure that XT597 is in a reasonable condition at present, even if the aircraft is showing signs of exposure to the elements. But the aircraft will inevitably deteriorate if it is left without any attention. It seems likely that by the time that it is sold, it will be in a pretty sorry state. What then? Will it simply be “tarted up” with a coat of grey camouflage, thereby destroying the very nature of this unique machine?
Fundamentally, my concern (and astonishment) is how XT597 seems to have simply been forgotten. Is it ever mentioned? Anywhere? By anyone? How can this be?
I agree that it would be a magnificent addition to Newark’s collection. It would look just as good at Aeroventure. But then, why isn’t it at Cosford in the Cold War collection, or with all the other test and research aircraft where it rightly belongs? All very well to spend money on “restoring” a lump of WWII Luftawffe machinery if one likes to accept the notion that it is somehow linked to the RAF’s history (which it is of course, but in a rather tenuous way). But I can’t help thinking that the cost of that controversial project would have been far better spent on saving XT597 – a machine that is directly liked to the RAF’s history and firmly linked to Cosford’s collection of important research machines. But has RAFM expressed any interest in XT507 at all? I assume that they don’t even know (or care) about it.
I accept that it’s impossible to save every aeroplane from the scrap merchant but when a particularly significant or rare machine is in peril, it is very sad to see just how little attention has been given to the issue. I would have hoped that we had long since got past the belief that history ended in 1945, and yet…
WH904The people at Hendon are very well aware of this forum, but choose not to engage with it.
Bruce is probably right. They may well know about this forum and others. As for refusing to engage with it, I guess that is sensible, as one can easily get into time-wasting pointless arguments. However, I don’t imagine for a minute that RAFM have even the slightest interest in our comments. They never have and they never will (even if they might claim otherwise). Enthusiasts are not RAFM’s core audience. They cater for the “general public” and this is why RAFM is (like so many other places) becoming less of a museum and more of a theme park. Enthusiasts are a minority and a minority that don’t need to be catered-for because we will go to Hendon anyway, no matter how lamentable RAFM might become. It sounds a bit harsh but it’s the truth of the matter.
WH904The new CEO does not take up post until January and may well be aware of this forum and find it inappropriate to comment until in post at Hendon.
Far more likely is that the new CEO will have no knowledge of this forum and no knowledge of Flypast magazine, Aeroplane magazine, or Key Publishing. Just as likely is that the CEO will not have the slightest interest in the same subjects either. I think we’d be kidding ourselves to imagine that the CEO would want to offer us anything more than lip service. We are mere enthusiasts – we’re not the target audience, therefore we don’t matter. That’s the sad reality of museums these days 🙁
WH904I don’t buy the slogan that the “youngsters are our future.” It’s a specious argument. Yes, some youngsters are interested in aviation and the RAF. The vast majority are not – they just want a day out, maybe “looking at some planes” but that’s all. Any youngster with a serious interest will share the same concern for the preservation of important aircraft – the rest I could not possibly care about less. A museum should inform, or at least be a repository of important/relevant artefacts. It shouldn’t be about trying to entertain kids with the attention spans of goldfish. This is what has happened to far too many museums. It’s all about visitor numbers, and the quest to entertain these days. It’s ridiculous. That’s not what a museum was/is for. I mean, what are we saying? That we have to amuse or entertain someone in order to capture their interest? Nonsense – they’re either interested or they are not. If they need touch screens, simulators and interactive experiences in order to relate to a subject, there really is no point in trying.
It’s rather like my comments in the other RAFM thread here. If this is the way that Hendon (and others) want to go, then fine. By all means do that. But how about removing all the dull, dusty, historical artefacts and putting them at another site where nobody is trying to entertain the visitors, and just allow those with a serious interest to come and look? Everybody is happy then – the kids can have their exciting aviation experience and have a good time. Those that do manage to get beyond more than a casual glance can then come and look at the stuffy old museum relics somewhere else? It would be a good way to avoid the many cases where important aircraft have been dumped just because they don’t happen to fit-in with the views of whoever happens to be in charge at any given time. The Vulcan B1, the Beverley, the Convair and MRF Varisty at Duxford, etc. Nobody buys the excuses about being “beyond repair” (what rubbish – that’s what a museum is for). It’s all about perceived fashions. That’s no way to run a museum. If it is, then by all means go ahead, but shift the collections somewhere else, and then everybody would be happy 🙂
WH904The comment about this becoming a “Kick the RAFM” is amusing. I suppose the obvious point is that nobody would want to kick the RAFM if the RAFM didn’t do things that invite a good kicking?
“Community Museum”… When one hears terms like that, it tells you all you need to know. I fear we’re in for more theme park attractions, fewer interesting aircraft, and an “exciting interactive experience for all the family”… I feel sick 😉
WH904I remember a great deal of excitement amongst enthusiasts when the Lightning drone idea first emerged. Mental images of red/yellow Lightnings seemed very appealing! I think that even at the time, most of us suspected that it would never happen 🙂
WH904Bomber Command Hall could be extensively re-jigged dispersing a few exhibits and dumping pointlessly duplicated stuff like the Vulcan.
I sincerely hope that this isn’t a view that is held by RAFM. I would hope that they have moved beyond the days when aircraft were “dumped” because they didn’t meet with the approval of whoever happened to be in charge at any given time. I think a lot of us still find it hard to forgive whoever decided to scrap the sole surviving Vulcan B1 just because it was deemed to be “beyond repair”, even though the same museum now sees fit to lavish money on preserving lumps of metal from aircraft that the RAF never even flew. I never worked-out how any museum could seriously propose to destroy one of its own artefacts when most people assumed that saving/restoring these items was the whole point of the museum in the first place. The saga of the Beverley was no less ridiculous.
If RAFM are now getting bored with the Vulcan, I can only marvel at their crass attitude towards their own exhibits. The expense and effort in moving the Vulcan to Hendon was commendable – I can’t imagine how distressed and disheartened all those who were involved would be, if their efforts were now wasted because someone thinks that the Vulcan should make way for something more appropriate (presumably another cafe or maybe a creche?). I’m not quite sure how we’re supposed to swallow this notion. Does this mean that every exhibit is destined to be dumped whenever something better comes along? This is no policy for a national museum. It’s the logic of schoolchildren.
If this is a reflection of how RAFM now regards its exhibits, I can only repeat my previous suggestion that the collection should be moved elsewhere, to a no-nonsense storage/display facility that is free of any temptation to entertain its visitors. Let the RAFM people indulge themselves in more “future thinking” and wrap themselves up in a world of plastic replicas, video games, push-button TV screens, simulators, or whatever they judge to be the fashion du jour. The public can have their day out and enjoy themselves, while the rest of us can gain access to the aircraft somewhere else. Everybody would be happy. But as I’ve said before, it seems inevitable that RAFM will do precisely what RAFM wants, and ultimately this will be whatever they think will “take the museum forward” or, in other words, make it even less informative and even more theme park-esque than it already is.
WH904relevant to the modern world of instant mass communication.
That’s the kind of line that worries me 🙂 I really don’t see why any museum has to be “relevant” – what does that even mean? Likewise, it’s easy for some “experts” in Vienna to re-define what a museum is, but that’s their opinion and nothing more. We all know what a museum is – or should be. It really does seem to show a conflict of interests. The RAF Museum clearly wants to be a source of information and amusement for the general public. That’s fine, good luck to them. But the collection of unique and historical aircraft shouldn’t be held hostage to this process. As most of us have observed, they’re of very little interest to the majority of visitors. They would be no wiser (and no less happy) if Hendon housed a Concorde, Boeing 747 and a Red Arrows Hawk (seriously – I don’t doubt this for a second). By all means educate kids and don’t allow them to use Hendon (or any museum) like a playground. Use replicas, use interactive displays, use simulators, whatever seems suitable. But take the historical airframes away and put them somewhere else. Anyone who really is interested in seeing them will not be looking for fancy presentation or video displays. They want to see the aircraft, pure and simple. Okay, it may well mean that they might not be on permanent display 365 days a year but surely there has to be an alternative to having these machines housed in a family entertainment venue? I really don’t understand why (or at what point) it became necessary for a museum to be “sexy”… If that’s what Hendon wants then good luck to them – but wouldn’t it be nice to take the boring, stuffy old aeroplanes away to another site where real enthusiasts and researchers could see them without the proverbial bells and whistles? But we all know that nothing will change. The museum will stay just as it is, with even more fancy entertainment systems and gizmos, all carefully designed to keep the attention of all those visitors who don’t want to be bored stiff by dusty old aeroplanes. Madness! 🙂
WH904Yes, as I said, it is an entertainment venue but (as I also said) it doesn’t have to be. Ultimately, it’s a question of choice. Likewise, the argument that entertaining thousands of kids in the hope that maybe one will become an enthusiast is fine, but it doesn’t make much sense in terms of a museum’s purpose. Surely, a museum is not designed to create enthusiasts, or to entertain bored families. A museum is (or was) a repository of artefacts, documentation, or other historical material. That’s it, pure and simple. Anything more is a matter of fashion and choice. My view (shared by a lot of people, I should add) is that a museum should not strive to be anything more than that. It should concentrate on doing what it does best. If a lot of people don’t find it interesting or entertaining, so what? When did this become a consideration and why? I think this is the fundamental problem – a museum is now expected to be far more than a museum. That’s why I think there’s a good case for allowing Hendon to carry-on drifting down this path, whilst allowing the “boring stuff” (ie- the artefacts that are of historical value) to be moved elsewhere so they can be cared-for and displayed to those who want (or need) to see them. There seems to be a rather bizarre notion at play here, in which the modern-day museum is almost obliged to throw-out it’s exhibits in order to find brighter and shinier ones to keep the public flowing through the turnstiles. It neatly flips the whole concept of a museum on its head. We live in very strange times 🙂
WH904Oh don’t get me wrong, I think the FAAM carrier experience display is great, but I can’t help thinking it would be better if it was done with less-significant aircraft or perhaps replicas. Then we could see them on display in a properly-lit hangar. It just seems to be another example of how historical artefacts are mis-used as props for “entertainment” displays. Nothing wrong with entertaining of course, but I’d be much happier if museums didn’t use valuable exhibits like they’re just amusements. I think it’s just the way things are these days – museums are terrified of being stuffy sources of information and education – they all feel compelled to compete with Alton Towers 🙂
WH904I suppose a great deal depends on what the purpose of RAFM really is. In recent years, Hendon has become more of an entertainment centre. That trend started with the destruction of the Beverley in favour of plastic replicas. The last couple of times I visited Hendon, I quickly grew tired of the screaming children, and I marvelled at the coffee bar in the middle of the hall, which seemed to be a resting place for bored parents, while their kids played chase around the exhibits. Although the aircraft (and some of the other exhibits) are of course fascinating, the presentation of the information that accompanies them just seems far too superficial and “dumbed down” to be of any great appeal. I take the point that some families take their kids to give them some understanding of the RAF and aviation, but it’s easy to see how the majority of visitors now seem to be casual “tourists” who expect a “day out” of entertainment. One can’t blame them, as this is precisely what RAFM promises in its advertising, and it has become almost standard practise with all museums. Sadly, the notion of museums being places of information and learning has been overlooked in favour of popularity, excitement and amusement. One gets the feeling that all museums have not become wrapped-up in this battle for entertainment and popularity, as if the numbers of visitors is all-important, regardless of the nature of the facility they’re visiting.
If this is the case, then I would imagine that Hendon would be better-off as a triumph of style over content. It is in London, so make it into something truly exciting and entertaining for young and old alike. Keep the plastic replicas coming and keep the simulators coming, as well as the fancy push-button displays and all the other gizmos that people seem to expect. But maybe the historical artefacts should be moved elsewhere, to a bigger facility with room for expansion, and preferably somewhere that doesn’t have to provide stylish presentation or any kind of amusements for people who have no real interest. Naturally, it would doubtless result in far fewer visitors, but if this is understood from the outset, then what is the problem? It’s all about expectations. Fundamentally, the problem seems to be that there are two kinds of visitors to RAFM – those with a strong interest in the RAF and aviation, who don’t care about fancy presentation, and who simply want to see the RAF’s artefacts and to access information. Then there are the others who only want to be entertained, and who might “like aeroplanes” but have no desire to be informed or educated. Surely, it ought to be possible to provide both kinds of facility without struggling to do both within one place. I just cannot see the point of a museum that is clearly becoming something more akin to Alton Towers. I don’t wish to deny people the opportunity to have a “fun day out” but at present I think they’re being slightly short-changed, while the rest of us (who don’t need to be entertained, and who simply want access to a really good museum), could be far better served by the creation of a completely separate facility. Of course Hendon isn’t unique in this approach towards its visitors – look at the FAAM. I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve heard who continually complain about the way in which so many of their aircraft are stuck in a dark hangar, masquerading as an aircraft carrier deck, complete with light show and sound effects. Great for children, but for anyone who actually wants to see the aircraft, it’s a nightmare. The point is, the people who actually like this kind of diorama display are entitled to enjoy if of course, but why isn’t it created in replica form, so that the real artefacts can be seen properly by those who actually have a clue (or at least care) what they’re looking at?
I know many people will gasp with dismay, and claim that the Museum is wonderful as it is, and how their kids love it, and how exciting it is, etc. But if one takes a truly honest look at Hendon, I think most of us would accept that it is a rather odd place that fails to cater for either type of visitor all that well. It’s not Hendon’s fault – it’s all about establishing what RAFM is really supposed to be. But I suspect that no matter what we might say, Hendon will simply carry-on as it is, striving to be all things to all people.
WH904My own view is that Hendon is ultimately unsuitable as the RAF’s main museum site. Okay, it is in London, but the concept of creating a museum that is largely devoted to aircraft (but not exclusively of course) at a site that cannot receive exhibits by air, is crazy. Likewise, a site that is constrained in terms of expansion is a bad idea. In my opinion it would be better to concentrate on creating a smaller and more diverse museum at Hendon (dare I say “dumbed-down” to appeal to the wider public and London tourists too), and build a more “serious” RAF Museum elsewhere. Cosford is a better location even though it also suffers from runway length issues and is also constrained in terms of size. The ideal solution would be to start afresh at a new airfield site. Wittering is a central location on the A1… it would be far more suitable 🙂
Having said that, I guess one has to ask just how many potential future exhibits there might be… the list of potential additions is pretty small now, but an active airfield would offer lots of additional opportunities such as associated collections, air shows, etc.
WH904The last photo I saw of XT597 shows it in external storage, looking very sorry for itself. It was a tragedy that it wasn’t saved when the museum collection moved from Boscombe Down. It’s equally tragic that it now seems to have been overlooked. It’s very encouraging that Phantoms such as Black Mike have been rescued, but I’m amazed that so little attention has been given to XT597. It would be truly awful if it was left to rot.
Sign In
