A few more details about WX905 that were downloaded from Newark’s Virtual Museum CD ROM – excellent value at £9.99!

“The Venom NF.3 flew for the first time on 22nd February 1953. WX905 was built at Hawarden, Clwyd to contract number 7162. WX905 was awaiting collection on 7th October 1955 and four days later the aircraft was issued to 48 Maintenance Unit also at Hawarden.

In December 1955 WX905 joined 23 squadron at RAF Coltishall, Norfolk. On 23rd March 1956 WX905 suffered a Category 3r flying accident. On-site repairs were effected by a De Havilland working party, these were completed on 19th April 1956 and the aircraft was placed back on charge with 23 squadron. In October 1956 23 squadron moved from RAF Coltishall to RAF Horsham St. Faith.

WX905 was retired to 27 MU RAF Shawbury, Salop., on 28th March 1957 and on 11th July 1957 it was declared a non-effective airframe. In October 1957 it was issued to RAF Yatesbury as an instructional airframe. WX905 later joined the RAF Museum reserve collection and was stored for many years at RAF Henlow, Beds.

The museum purchased WX905 in 1989 and the aircraft was moved to the museum in April 1989”.

http://www.newarkairmuseum.org

TwinOtter23.

Firstly, let me apologise for ruffling your feathers as it were. I can’t deny that getting 14 aircraft put under cover is something of an achievement. I’d like to know more about the NAHR please. You say it is an important document the concept of which has been copied by other Heritage sectors. Would it not therefore be a wise move to make this document more accessible to people who have an interest? Let people know how the criteria are formed and by whom? Or is it that the NAHR is sort of exclusive to the BAPC? If I’m understanding you correctly, it seems that this document could form the basis of a National agreement which would then allow the BAPC et al to target funding at those airframes most at risk according to their importance to the Heritage movement.

Kev,

You haven’t ruffled my feathers; you were merely expressing your opinions based on the information that you have available, but as I hope that you will appreciate I know that the NAHR can work.

The NAHR information [in italics] that I posted in #18 was actually cut and pasted from the HLF application document that was submitted. The NAHR edition 2 was also used to decide, which aircraft went inside for that project i.e. choosing at that time to include a Varsity rather than Vulcan, Shackleton or Hastings. When the bid was submitted the rationale was that there were no Varsities under cover, whilst there were with the other three types mentioned.

There is more detail in the document about assessment criteria etc and I certainly agree that it should be more widely available and perhaps even refined to allow the document to be used more widely. At the present time that will need to be resolved via BAPC. I understood that there were plans to include a PDF version on the new BAPC website – so far this has not happened.

I will try to get you a copy of the NAHR edition 2; please send me a PM with your address and I will get you a copy in early August when I return form holiday.

I believe that the other sectors using the format are railways [carriages] and boats.

One slightly unrelated point – if you are volunteering with a BAPC organisation you can also participate in training via the following scheme the National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative – http://www.nahsi.org.uk

TwinOtter

Could you please direct me to where I may see a copy of the last ‘National Aviation Heritage Register’? What is its scope? What are its aims? Does it answer any or all of the points I’ve raised? Or is it a private document?

Regards,

kev35

Kev,

As I understand things the NAHR document is currently being updated – with submissions / aircraft status updates from BAPC members have to be in by July 31, 2007 to Elfan ap Rees.

Target date for publishing edition three is October 2007.

A limited number of copies of edition two were available from the BAPC secretary, who can be contacted via the link below.

http://www.bapc.org.uk/html/contacts.html

The copy that I had access to is currently with someone else who has been submitting a set of updates, so I am unable to help you myself.

I have personally used the NAHR to secure significant grant funding to get aircraft under cover.

BAPC also had an Aero Engine Register under preparation by Peter Kirk.

The following extract of information may help a bit:

“In May 1998 the National Aviation Heritage Committee and the British Aviation Preservation Council published the first edition of the National Aviation Heritage Register. The Register had three stated aims:

1. To promote improved standards of conservation and protection for preserved airframes, taking into account their national significance
2. To provide an authoritative source of information on preserved airframes to assist funding agencies to identify priorities for preservation
3. To establish baseline data by which improvements in the conservation and protection of preserved airframes can be monitored and reviewed against the milestone targets of the National Aviation Heritage Strategy

Airframes were scored according to a variety of criteria and the total of these marks gives the airframe a listing/status. The top listing is NATIONAL BENCHMARK, followed by SIGNIFICANT and then NOTEWORTHY. The Register is intended to be fluid, i.e. airframes can move up or down in status depending on their condition, where they are stored etc.

The Register was revised and updated in the summer of 2001.”

Not much detail I know but it provides some background information from memory the last edition ran to 70 plus pages.

Regards

TwinOtter

Congratulations to everyone involved and it’s good to see effort rewarded in what can sometimes be viewed as an intimidating environment – “the professional museum world!”

Have you gone down the Registration / Accreditation route or is that to follow?

Long may you continue to work within the system and not against it, well done!

I agree with your line of thought but the QRA hanger had to have a base to support moving aircraft hence the amount of concrete used, for a vulcan then surely three heavyweight pads for the undercarriage would suffice.

The rest of the base can be lightweight so making quite a considerable cost saving.

Regards,

John.

Whilst I’m not a Quantity Surveyor or Structural Engineer I believe that the point loading for the Vulcan undercarriage is significantly higher than that of a Lightning, static or moving. As a consequence the amount of hardcore, reinforcing and concrete could be significantly higher.

40 tonnes worth is only two lorry loads – Newark had an on-site crushing plant running solidly for three or more days to provide recycled hardcore for their second hangar. This produced more than a thousand tonnes for the base of their hangar floor, which was then topped out with crushed limestone before the concrete was finally poured.

You may also need a “creative” Structural Engineer to get wartime Nissen Huts to comply with modern building regulations – computer calculations say they will fall down with any snow loading, despite being able to show many still standing after all these years! [I think that was from a song somewhere!!]

Now if was Nissan buildings why not ask the neighbours?

TwinOtter23,

Ah, I’m guessing you’re from Newark then!! 😀

Yes, I believe that the Leckies shall be visiting you tomorrow for a spot of ‘swapsies’ with a defunct bit of our kit. I think I had the wrong end of the stick there, as an Airframe/Prop eng, all of our bits are now in, complete and working!

The ‘rubbish’ part of the statement wasn’t aimed at you in any case, more at the supposed ‘hold’ on 4 gauges. Every day, I am surprised to find that we are ‘waiting’ on a different item before first flight!!

Cheers

Flipflopman

Phew, for a minute I thought I was hearing voices again!

Good luck with the project.