TwinOtter23Managed a few pictures of the old guardroom / entrance area today along with the main hangars on the Newark side of the former base, but struggled to get past the security man.
I was advised that currently any site access for photographs etc has to be cleared with Head Office in Retford, but they couldn’t stop me from taking anything from the road.
Perhaps for anyone seriously interested in picture some of the antique fairs would be a useful access route!
The main building work seems to be for a warehouse or similar structure on the right hand side about 200 yards from the A46, although there is also some work ongoing on the British Seedhouse site on the Lincoln side.
TwinOtter23I believe that Newark Air Museum was given the station post box from RAF Swinderby when the first development – the creation of Witham St Hughes took place back in the late 1990s. It is now displayed outside their Exhibition Hall, which already displays an ex-main road RAF Swinderby sign
Winthorpe Airfield [Station 51] was originally established as a satellite station to RAF Swinderby back in1940.
Local rumour has it that the Swinderby runway area will still be used for the antique fairs.
TwinOtter23At Newark Air Museum’s Cockpitfest in 2005 there was a Phantom Simulator / Cockpit on display and I believe that the owner was Mike Davey from Hooton Park, Cheshire.
I hope that this might be of help.
It doesn’t seem to be on the list that is on their website for this year’s event on June 16th / 17th.
TwinOtter23Help Save Kemble
Make sure that you sign-up and get the petition circulated to as many people as possible!
Don’t forget to add your sensible comments and observations in the space provided.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-flying-at-kemble-airfield.html
TwinOtter23Butler01
There’s a brief glimpse of the Newark Phantom cockpit on their website:
http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/location.htm
But your project begs one question though …. Will it be at CockpitFest?;)
TwinOtter23Please excuse my naivety here, but what is the difference between the NCWE and some of the bog standard hangers other aircraft get housed in? …
WL747
I’m sure all those people who have put 1000’s of hours raising the partnership funding for ‘bog standard’ hangars will be slightly saddened by the description used, me included!
Still at least the ‘bog standards’ have enabled more aircraft to be put under cover.
Like you I am willing to be proved wrong on the corrosion point – time will tell.
Judging from your user name I suspect like me you have an interest in Shackletons, why were the type and its huge Cold War role not covered in the new building at Cosford? After all do the RAFM not have an AEW.2 on loan in Manchester; A big mistake IMHO.
Seaking93
‘regional basis’ Heritage Lottery Fund grants as I am sure you know cover projects to a value of £2 million – IMHO not an insignificant project cost in terms of the UK’s non-flying aviation preservation movement; One that I have been proud to be involved with for more than 34 years.
Pondskater
Yes, the large projects do set different standards but at present with what I have personally seen, I do not hesitate to question whether or not the standards are being met. Yet again time will tell.
TwinOtter23…. The Heritage fund is public money. They have to get best value for it. I am sure Cosford done the best with the resources they had. Whether or not you like the arrangement of the airframes, the fact remains that the new building gets a large amount of (large!) airframes undercover. Ok, maybe the new building isn’t to everybodies taste, but it does the job…
It is hard enough to get money to cover these sort of expenses, do you think those in charge are going to listen to a few people whinging because it is hard to photograph the aircraft? The thing is IMHO that the majority of people going to see it are not going to be bothered.
Like it or lump it, at least these aircraft are going to be easier to keep preserved….
WL747, please search the forum for my other comments on several other similar threads relating to Cosford and Duxford.
The bottom line is that you could have got even more aircraft under cover for the same amount of money with a simpler design of building i.e. the airliners that were on site until recently!
IMHO long-term aircraft preservation also may be questionable with the possibility of corrosion from the rusty building frame dropping onto the airframes.
TwinOtter23Those of us who have been here a while will all recall the identical arguments about the AAM at Duxford (a.k.a Concrete Woodlouse).
The lottery funds landmark buildings.
If you want lottery money given to you, then you build something that meets those criteria and you put aircraft in it.
If you want to build a big rectangular shed to keep aircraft in it you buy a lottery ticket and hope you win.
That’s the way of it, and all the bleating in the world on here won’t make the blind bit of difference.
Moggy
Sorry Moggy I must disagree.
The Heritage Lottery Fund [its full name] also gives money to well justified and feasible projects that can put airframes under cover in much simpler and more cost-effective buildings i.e. cheaper per square metre of space occupied. Both the International Helicopter Museum and Newark Air Museum have secured funding for simpler hangar projects.
I have voiced many views on this topic [Cosford and Duxford projects] on the forum and will not go over the same ground time and time again.
I visited Cosford last Wednesday and was there for about three hours. In the overflow car park that we were located in the visitor turnover seemed high when we retuned to our car there were fewer than a third of the original spaces occupied i.e. people were staying on site for less than three hours. Perhaps this is a symptom of the free admission policy!
The comment of the day was heard as we left the Cold War Hangar from a lady with a broad Birmingham accent who looked up at the Cold War Building and remarked “It’s a funny shaped building in’ it!”
By and large a bit like me the public miss the apparent significance of the design – including the rusty steelwork and rusty entrance / exit door coverings!
TwinOtter23Rocketter,
Sorry for also diverting away from you great website but I feel that it is important to further clarify the implication of Newark Air Museum [NAM] involvement.
More specifically that people should be careful not to imply that Abbott’s Yard [Neville Franklin – NF] and NAM were one and the same thing. This view has been formed by documentation and correspondence that I have read in the last six months.
Since Neville passed away I have had limited voluntary involvement in helping to catalogue the three van loads of items that were recovered from his bungalow in Newark. The items cover decades of British aviation preservation and make very interesting reading, especially how they relate to a host of notable UK restoration projects.
People should remember that NF actually ceased official involvement with the museum in the early 1970s.
TwinOtter23Just how this substantial ‘section of cockpit’ got separated from the main pile at Abbott’s yard and ended up being dumped by Newark Air Museum is a mystery to me.
Since Neville Franklin has now sadly passed away I guess that we will never now understand the circumstances from his point of view. However, IMHO the above statement might sadly cloud the issue somewhat.
TwinOtter23Just seen a new Cockpitfest update [number 04] on Newark Air Museum’s website, there is a link below but you will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page.
TwinOtter23Newark have a “Vulcan Memories” lecture as listed on another thread:
Further to an earlier posting on a separate thread – to get the RAF side of the story there is an opportunity to listen to and question the author of ‘Vulcan 607’ and ‘Black Buck’ mission participants at the Palace Theatre Newark on May 22nd 2007 during Newark Air Museum’s Vulcan Bomber Memories event.
http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/specialevents.htm
There are also updated details on the News and Information page of the website.
TwinOtter23Whilst perhaps not yet specific to early aviation skills [woodworking etc], people should not overlook the National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative that was instigated about two years ago.
This provides skills training; is City & Guilds accredited and can be accessed via British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] member organisations.
I understand that the scheme is proving very successful amongst many preservation groups across the UK, with some groups having a wider than anticipated uptake from amongst their volunteers.
That having been said it is no replacement for a recognised apprentice based scheme within an aviation maintenance / restoration company, but at least it is a start.
Check out the link below.
TwinOtter23Newark Air Museum’s November 2006 Dispersal newsletter contained a piece about the Auster leaving and it said:
“The space will also mean that the Monospar can be allocated immediate under cover accommodation when it returns from its off-site restoration.”
Last time I was at Newark the Auster was still on display and the Monospar had not returned.
Also in the aircraft list on the museum website the Monospar is marked up as still being off-site, so I presume that it is still at Innsworth.
TwinOtter23Further to an earlier posting on a separate thread – to get the RAF side of the story there is an opportunity to listen to and question the author of ‘Vulcan 607’ and ‘Black Buck’ mission participants at the Palace Theatre Newark on May 22nd 2007 during Newark Air Museum’s Vulcan Bomber Memories event.
http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/specialevents.htm
There are also updated details on the News and Information page of the same website.
Sign In
