Nashio966.

Not sure whether it was a slow news day or what but what I find more saddening is how the apparent change in opinion from the newspaper staff happened in such a short space of time [4 days]:
Dec 18, 2007 – We need more cash to keep Vulcan in the air

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156153&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156136&contentPK=19291517&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Through this on the same day..

Dec 18, 2007 – Balance sheet

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156153&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156136&contentPK=19291549&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Then on to the previously posted report on December 22nd.

Prior to that the Echo has always been wholly supportive and as far as I am aware the reports have not been challenged – certainly I haven’t seen any retractions.

I’m rather surprised that the FAA/RN is letting this go considering the rather interesting discussion we’ve had on Heritage stuff. I would think there would be at least one Offical English Museum that would/could have this put on display, currect me if I’m wrong on that.

Airframe reality in the UK is that H.M. Government will try to get as much money as possible for MOD property [I assume it must still be on the MOD books??].

Everyone puts in their bids and the highest bidder normally gets it – even if that is the scrappy!:eek:

The airframe is not on the 2001 NAHR.

Let me lay some cards on the table – here in the UK I’m passionate about the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR] mainly due to my personal experiences of the NAHR and the real difference it can make. To illustrate this I will quote from the Foreword of the 2001 edition.

“Museums that had been experiencing difficulties in having the importance of their collections fully recognised by funding and other bodies report that the publication of the Register led to a significant change in attitude. For example the Newark Air Museum’s requirement for further buildings has been given ‘regional priority’ status by the East Midlands Area Museums Council as a direct result of the classification of its exhibits in the Register.”

I am a volunteer at Newark Air Museum, which is a Registered Museum and we are currently working on the next phase of registration that is called Accreditation, so our museum complies with acknowledged national standards in various criteria.

http://www.newarkairmuseum.org

Prior to the NAHR the East Midlands Area Museums Council only wanted to talk about small artefacts [objects]. As a result of the NAHR being prepared they started to consider airframes and the ultimate end result was a grant of £453,000 for the Heritage Lottery Fund; a new aircraft display hall and 14 aircraft displayed inside.

Where I believe the NAHR scored was that it had a defined and published set of evaluation / assessment criteria, which most UK airframes are judged by. A scan of these was attached in RPSmith’s post below:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1212830&postcount=19

That’s why I believe you need to set a common set of guidelines because it adds credibility to the debate.

I am supposing that everyone here agrees that the Wright flyer is probably THE most historically significant a/c that still exists, therefore in the context of the history vs. heritage and associated laws debate where would the Wright Flyer be now (London or Washington) if current laws were around when Orville Wright resolved his differences with the Smithsonian and agreed to transfer the flyer from the Science Museum in London to the Smithsonian?

I know this is pedantic but as per my earlier post [without the devil icon]… why?

My scientific training tells me that without setting out the rules first you should not make such a statement.

Whilst I recognise that it may be a valid view, without the rules in place first you will never achieve an agreed result, you will just go round in circles.

e.g. What defines an aircraft? Are we talking about powered flight only? Etc etc

I guess this reflects similar points to those Mark is making.

LL – Have you set up the shop as an independent trading operation to comply with Charity Commission SORP regulations? Depends on turnover I know but just a thought!

I didn’t see the footage but are you sure it wasn’t XM602 they were in?:confused: that would make more sense 😀

You may well be right; but all the children were wearing ‘high vis jackets’ and from the film edit they seemed to be around the main airframe in the hangar.

The view up into the cockpit was from a low position looking through the access hatch – and implied the main airframe – I’m not sure how ‘602 is mounted and whether such a view would be possible.

At least all the children were warned not to run in the hangar!:rolleyes: