Thanks for the info, Mark, I was fairly sure it was a P-type but needed to make sure.
Will keep my peepers on evil bay and at the aerojumbles.
Regards,
John.
Perhaps you could look here John http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/newsItem.php?id=44 😀
XL426, ‘The Southend Vulcan’, will be offering the same on 21 Sept. 😀
:diablo: As will XM594 I believe, again this weekend … http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/newsItem.php?id=41 😀
Sorry to hear about your minor shunt – fingers crossed that you get a courtesy car.
I wonder who that could be;), yes cockpit access is a wonderfull thing for visitors to experience but we have to be very mindfull of those who are very gentle and respectfull of what they are sitting in, and those who are hell bent on destruction testing everything within reach:eek:.
😀 Are you around this weekend?
I should be on site on the 14th but I need to review what I’m checked out on! :confused:
Peter,
Newark do open cockpits see here for next weekend’s offering http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/newsItem.php?id=41
They have a dedicated team of volunteers [who have to be museum members] http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/membership.htm that supervises the access.
To ensure that health & safety criteria are fulfilled the members of the Cockpit Opening Team undergo training and are checked out before they go live on aircraft.
I believe that there is at least one regular poster here who is a member of their team!
I believe that Newark charge extra for this because they cannot guarantee that their volunteers will always be available.
Phillip Rhodes
ADDITIONAL I’m writing to a number of museums who might be able to find the cockpit a new home. They would be responsible for moving the cockpit section. Me? I have enough on my plate…
…If only we had more time…
Next you’ll be bemoaning that the museum’s that you’ve contacted don’t want to know!:(
Reality check time!!!
Whilst I genuinely didn’t intend to return to the ‘fray’ on this one; overnight I have been reminded by a fellow volunteer at Newark of the following recent development.
Newark’s Hangar 2 [their HLF / volunteer funded project] has recently been ‘reviewed’ for one of their training modules by NAHSI as an example of how under cover aircraft accommodation can be provided.
[NASHI is the Duxford based joint BAPC / IWM Duxford training scheme] http://www.nahsi.org.uk/
I understand this work could include cost evaluations with Munters UK of Huntingdon for the provision of air control measures that can be retrofitted to existing building like Newark’s Hangar 2.
So perhaps someone out there believes straight forward ‘hangars’ are an option for consideration.
Hi Roger,
You may be correct in they did indeed donate the J29, as you say it was a long time ago…:eek:
I was mereley using that as an example of what happens to airframes which are loaned to collections that subsiquently fail.I have no desire to see the J35 end up as coke cans, but as you know yourself as time passes people sometimes forget (or never knew) the origin of some of the airframes on display in our many and varied collections up and down the country.
One of the benefits of Museum Registration / Accreditation is the requirement to tie up all the documentation relating to ownership of aircraft and artefacts.
Yup.. you do keep on trotting out incomplete information…
Only quoting facts, which were correct at the time of the original posts and which in some cases were highlighted at Duxford hosted meetings / seminars.
Sure we are not comparing like for like and I have never claimed we are – at least Newark’s project was the first to get a Varsity under cover, not such an insignificant sized airframe!
As I said in post #75
“I believe that if the combined budgets had been spent nationally so much more would have been achieved for aircraft preservation.
However the reality is that’s all water under the bridge – so everyone needs to move on!” That’s what I intend to do.
Interesting, but is it really relevant.
It is to me!
I appreciate the requirements that both Airspace and the Cold War Museum at Cosford had to go through to obtain the grants but I personally believe that both projects have flaws and wasted spaces.
I believe that if the combined budgets had been spent nationally so much more would have been achieved for aircraft preservation.
However the reality is that’s all water under the bridge – so everyone needs to move on!
Many familiar arguments coming out; sadly I’ll re-quote myself::o
“Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar reviewed the way forward to protect the Benchmark and Significant airframes on the National Aviation heritage Register [NAHR] and one very interesting figure emerged from the review. Assuming a typical cost of between £250 and £300 to provide one square metre of basic under cover aircraft accommodation, it would “only” cost between £35 and £40 million to get all the Benchmark and Significant airframes listed on the NAHR under cover. I highlight the word “only”, because this is a small amount when you look at what has been poured into ventures like the Millennium Dome, etc.
For up to date costing data refer to Flypast – March 2005 and Newark’s Heritage Lottery Funded Hangar, project cost £533,000 to provide 2,400m² of basic under cover accommodation at a cost of £222 per m². Admittedly this does not provide accommodation to the standards being achieved by the national museums with their environmentally controlled facilities, but it certainly slows the deterioration to a more manageable level.”
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53556&highlight=HLF
These also make interesting reading:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=64094&highlight=HLF
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57865&highlight=HLF
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52906&highlight=HLF
What I’ve never understood is that Airspace was, in effect, an extension and refurbishment of an existing building, WITH help from BAE systems etc yet it was over twice as expensive as NCWE
Therefore I would say that NCWE is probably better value for money (or value per airframe) compared to Airspace – especially when you consider that they had to house some VERY large airframes (3x V bombers, York, Belfast) AND start the building from scratch….
Thoughts?
IMHO a more telling factor to consider – how many extra airframes went under cover in Airspace when compared to what were housed in the Superhangar?
The one at Newark was flown in to RAF Scampton from Karup A.B. in 1995 and was dismantled and moved by road to Winthorpe. http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/aircraftlist.htm
I understand from my contacts at Newark that it is on long-term loan from the Royal Danish Air Force.
Displayed inside hangar 1 at Newark it may be one of the cockpits that is viewable during their open cockpit event on September 13th & 14th. http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/newsItem.php?id=41
Why promote it as a ‘ground runner’ and then put in the following..
“… being sold for scrap to avoid contravening the original agreement with the Danish Air Force.”:confused::confused:
Check out: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%201693.html The key problem is one of size and where to make the cut. That said, the future of even the cockpit depends on the good will of the owners, who I have just written to…
Phillip,
I hope that you have a good plan in place, a good bank balance and a large back garden!
Good luck.:eek: