Newark’s website has a Cockpit Fest update part of the text is shown below:

“Cockpit-Fest 2007 Update – 01
The first confirmations of participation at Cockpit-Fest 2007 [Saturday 16th & Sunday 17th June 2007] have now been received and in a great boost to this growing event, four of the first six cockpits to indicate their participation are new ‘cockpitters’ to our event.

These cockpits are: Hawk T.1; Harrier GR.3; Canberra T.22 and Beagle Pup Series 1; which will join previous participants – a Hornet F.1 and Hunter FGA.9.”

More at:

http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/news.php

Earlier this week I heard that some of the nissen hut accommodation at Binbrook was up for possible disposal – on a fairly urgent timescale; might this affect the status of XR724?

I have noticed that visitors can get into some cockpits at Newark Air Museum up until this Sunday as it’s half term open cockpit week – fee to be paid.

Not sure what’s open but there is a link below.

http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/specialevents.htm

The Viggen for Newark arrived at RAF Cranwell a year ago as yesterday [February 7th 2006] scroll down the Air-Scene UK link.

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene/scenefeb06.htm

The aircraft is also shown on one of the pages of their new website

http://www.newarkairmuseum.org/news.htm

Who actually owns WL963 and WL790 mentioned in Sqn Ldr F J Cubberley’s letter in the Daily Mail?

The Shackleton Preservation Trust, Air Atlantique Classic Flight or another organisation?

This ownership status could affect the likelihood of the project even qualifying for HLF funding.

I know this is going over old ground and as it’s too late to work out how to capture the appropriate links to the actual thread but I would like to re-quote a couple of my posts from February 2006 on the “State of Preservation Today” thread.

“There is little doubt that someone could write a University thesis on this topic and still leave much ground un-touched. Here are a few of my thoughts and a couple of question questions.

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.

In the drive for funding opportunities many independent museums have become Registered Museums through the Museums and Galleries Commission Registration process [now called Resource]. This means that many voluntary managed museums are already working hard towards, and achieving standards similar to those attained by the national museums.

My first question would be why have the national museums like Duxford, Hendon, Cosford and the Fleet Air Arm Museum been forced to seek HLF funding to complete their building projects?

I think that if this money had been directed at the Independent museums, many aircraft could already be under cover. I guess the answer surly comes down to Government funding or more precisely the lack of appropriate funding for the national museums.

The Government have already diluted the effect of money the public contributes via the National Lottery by widening the causes that the Lottery supports. This problem could be further exaggerated if the current review of the HLF comes up with the wrong conclusions. HLF are currently undertaking their strategic planning for the period 2008-2013, the consultation closes on February 28th 2006 and I urge everyone who has concerns to check out their website and comment http://www.hlf.org.uk/future/

Another Government policy has contributed to the lack of funding for the national museums and has a creeping effect on many voluntary / independent museums across the country and is not just pertinent to the aviation sector. The Government’s policy of reducing and in some cases eliminating admission fees at many national museums has not only reduced income at the nationals but also impacted on the independent museums. I’ve heard many people question why they should have to pay to visit independent museum when other “larger” venues are free”.

Also:

“Bruce

In my first post on the Cosford thread I noted, “I read somewhere that Newark Air Museum used the BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] produced National Aviation Heritage Register when deciding that the Varsity would go inside their new building; rather than the Vulcan, Hastings and Shackleton. As these types were already displayed under cover in other collections”.

I understand that the NAHR and the aircraft status on this Register was one of the main justifications in their Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] application, along with developing the training theme, which is not covered elsewhere.

I guess the Jetstream going inside follows the training lineage from the Varsity and I believe they are using the Sea Harrier to complete the VTOL lineage that started with their Meteor FR.9 test-bed that has local significance with Rolls Royce Hucknall.

JDK

One other point of clarification to my earlier post, to attain Registered Museum Status any museum must have an approved Collections and Disposals Policy.”