Dont think the relocation for the Old GW watch tower has had much to do with the RAF museum. The original GW hangar and watch tower had to be moved as part of the site developement consent. Most of the funding for their relocation will have come from the developer and maybe some grant aid from various preservation funds, the only RAFM money will have been to improve public access and and climate control systems, which was not cheap and caused much delay to the original openning.
Any future expansion at Hendon will most likely have to be self funding ie by imposing an admission charge. Whilst I do not object to such a charge, I feel that the charge should not be so high as to put off regular and repeat visitors. If I am in London on business, and time allows, I will happily hop the a tube and spend maybe as little as an hour at Hendon, but a charge, say, in excess of £6 would put me off.
Some USA museums seem to have a system where there is a modest charge to enter the museum, but an addition charge for guided tours of restoration workshops / storage areas. An excellent idea for some where like Cosford or FAA.
Last year a planned visit to Duxford was cancelled because although my friend wanted to visit, our respective partners would have expected to have joined us. The excessive admission price (£16+ ?) proved to much. therefor nobody visited, had admission been lower say £8 the income that day would have been over £30 plus purchases from shop / cafe. Same applies to cafe prices like £2.50 for a coffee, forget it!! If price was £1.25 then £5 is spent plus extras like cake / sandwich etc.
Museum administrators need to think long and hard before imposing high admission charges, keep it simple, avoid complex special offers, family tickets and concessions, keep it cheap, maybe offer ‘second visit free’ (something the FAA Museum does / did I think ?)
Now dont quote me on this but ….
The airframes (mostly Jaguars, but also JP’s and some Tornados) used by the Technician Training School at Cosford are “owned and maintained” by Serco, who operate the school on behalf of the MOD for training RAF and foreign students. Serco are paid an annual fee to provide this service for a fixed number of airframes / students per year. This tender from the MOD might just be a request for additional training, which requires the extra Jaguar airframe. Thus Serco can add, at a prorata rate, the extra aircraft and manpower to service it.
The information regarding ownership / maintenance came direct from our guide at last years base visit.
TonyT
The two Jag’s move to the Pembey range are old GR1 and would not be suitable for modern Tech training needs
daveF86
Yes !!!!
Nasiho966
The Everett Jag’s are also old GR1 and not what the RAF are looking for
Toddington Ted
That is interesting because I assumed that Serco would have taken charge of the traing airframes at Cranwell as well
Beermat
It is not really a case of Serco “buying” aircraft and “selling” them back. The contract for providing the training package at Cosford would have included the free tranfer of buildings, personal and airframes for a pre-determined priod. The contract would state how many trainees would be expected, if the RAF now wish to increase that number the MOD must issue an addena to the contract requesting the additional resources. Technically a new supplier could bid just for single airframe, but that never happens. There will most likely be clause in the contract about returning buildings and airframes to the RAF when the contract ends.
OK Nashio966 I stand corrected thought all the Everett Jag’s came out of St Athan several years ago and they were old GR1
Interesting story. Not sure the dates 1979 to 1982 would be correct for an RAF Gnat ? Think the last service user was the Red Arrows and thier final season was 1979. Arnold Glass bought XS101 straight from RAF service, registered G-GNAT, it was around at that time, maybe thats your bird ?
Forgot about that one. Retired to the science museum in 1983
I was at RAE Farnborough from 1978 to 1985 in Aircraft department. They did not operate a flying Gnat during that time.
Rgds Cking
XP505 was on Flight Systems at Bedford, probably on wind shear trials ? untill 1983
Quote “Bet those that moaned at the idea of a terminal nearby which made Thompson pull out and the rot set in will be horrified at a quarry next door……….. serves them bloody right!”
Here’s an idea, suggest the airport be used for nuclear waste storage or a prison, then the idea of an airport might look better :>)
Sadly I expect the winter closure of the Land Warfare Hall and other hangars is based purely on cost grounds. By reducing the amount of public access the number of staff can also be reduced. Health and safety will dicated the number of staff required, as with RAFM Graham White open am / Battle Britain open pm. Closing the hangars will also save on heating and lighting costs, it just goes to show what a pittyfull state this country is in.
“Why did U.S not drop atomic bomb on Berlin? “
As kev points out by the time the Abom was ready Berlin was in the hand of the allies and Russia. A better question might be…
Why did U.S not drop atomic bomb on Moscow?
Often thought about the lack of preserved RAF Venoms, why did they all disappear so quickly ? Meteors and Vampires, of the same era, seem to have faired much better ? Even the RAF museum examaple is ex Swiss.
What is the possiblity of obtainging a genuine RAF machine from some other overseas country, ex RAF aircraft were sold to many countries.
Thanks for the quick response
Paul
Although it was the 50th Anniversary of the State of Israel in 2008 Black 57 was not seen at Hatzerim, either static or in the air.
I understand the tongue in cheek ref to false i.d. but I asked my question because EN145 is often quoted, and refered to as ‘being confirmed’. But this is a very early airframe and the Morgan/Shacklady book referer to EN145 as being with the Mediterrainean Allied Air Force until transfered to Indian Air Force on 26-4-45 and serial 4116 on 26-6-47. So how did it end up in the Israeli Museum ? Could the identity have been taken from replacement parts form at former RAF bases with Israel ?
Paul
Wasn’t EN145 found stamped in a fueltank cover during restoration?
Mark should know, or is it all in the book?
😉
Cees
Exactly why I asked the question. A fuel cover or other easily removable panel does not identify the airframe.
EN145 served with the Italian air force as MM4116 and with the Israeli air force as 2078/78. The real identity of white “26” (SL653) in Israeli service was 2028/28 and not 2011/26.
All the best
Wings48
Now that does make sense, the decode in the Morgan/Shacklady book had IAF Indian Air Force. Many thanks