I had another look through the register as I was concerned about this alleged military dominance.:confused:

So I’ve just done a quick check through the approx 320 types of aircraft covered in the 2001 NAHR; Sad or what? 😮 [Note to self get some work done!!]

Civilian types listed – 101 [32%]

Military types listed – 174 [54%]

Joint military / civil types listed – 45 [14%]

IMHO not a bad split when you consider a lot of aviation development is driven by the military applications.

Admittedly when you look at the total number of military airframes the percentage would be more in their favour.

Nevertheless the civilian component is not left out!

Not an uncommon practice to be returning former airfields to their original use – part of the recycled concrete runways from Bircotes [RAF Worksop??] were crushed and used as hardcore for the approach routes to Newark’s second hangar.

As a very quick and basic guide; and apologies to the complier of the NAHR!

Points are awarded to the airframes under 9 headings:

World significance
National significance
Operational / Technical significance
Social significance
Survival status
Condition
Museum / collection
Environment
Local significance

To be awarded:

National Benchmark status – an airframe needs 7 or more points
Significant status – an airframe needs 5 or more points
Noteworthy status – an airframe needs up to 4 points

So for example an aircraft could move to a higher status if it is moved inside, or down in status if it were moved outside.

Likewise status could change if an aircraft is moved from museum to museum, or taken off the NAHR if it moved into private ownership and off display.

I have voiced my views about the NAHR many times and I have also copied items from the NAHR for people to help them try and understand its operation. Whilst I do not wish to go over old ground I would however make the following observations:

The basic methodology as explained in pages 1 to 6 of the September 2001 edition seems to me to be sound. However I acknowledge that it doesn’t include every airframe and I know that it doesn’t meet with universal approval in the UK aviation museum sector.

It is a “Living Document” as was highlighted by Ken Ellis on page 6, which sadly hasn’t been renewed as often as originally envisaged. As such it does rely on accurate feedback and updates from the aviation movement, perhaps this might be a slight flaw.

Hopefully everyone will get a more up to date idea when the next edition is published. I believe that this should be made available to everyone through publication in a PDF format on the BAPC website. I will ask the museum that I am a member of to lobby for this through their membership of that organisation.

I still maintain it is a vital publication that has a proven record of helping the independent / volunteer managed museums to secure funding from bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Newark’s former loanee – December 2003, being prepared for its trip to the USA.

The NAHSI courses cover a range of topics and can also be carried out at local museums. The following link worked last time I looked….

http://www.nahsi.org.uk

I believe that there may be a Conservation Course run somewhere in the South of England – East Or West Sussex comes to mind; but more costly than the free NAHSI courses!

Its a shame Newark couldn’t get hold of it on loan, at least people would be able to see it.

Its a big old brute when you stand next to it!

What are you doing Joe – starting such rumours!!

Can’t see it on their aircraft list … http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/aircraftlist.htm