TwinOtter23Twotter of course is quite right but on the basis that (I believe) that less than half the UK’s Aviation Museums are registered (usually because they are quite small and wish to run the museum as a hobby, not a business) this often does not help…
TT
Wouldn’t know about the precise numbers TT, but as I understand things Registration is more or less a must if groups / museums expect to gain significant grants or HLF funding.
Even with registered status I am aware that problems can and do still arise, but at least it gives people a degree of security.
In this day and age even as a hobby you often have minimum standards to achieve and you can also encounter unexpected liabilities.
TwinOtter23Registered museums [registered with the Museums & Galleries Commission now called Resource] will have an agreed Acquisition and Disposals Policy, which should help eliminate such issues. Anyone wishing to donate or loan items to museums should ask to see their policy. All acquisitions and disposals should be undertaken via a pre-agreed system and appropriate paperwork will be issued.
The Registration system has been in place for the last fifteen years and is constantly being updated. Registered museums are audited and have to re-register at regular intervals.
If in doubt ask if the museum or group is Registered.
Granted it may not work every time but you have a better chance of resolving disputes amicably with appropriate paperwork in place.
TwinOtter23I just caught a short article on BBC’s Regional East Midlands News this morning regarding the Vulcan. It mentioned that the aircraft was being overhauled at Bruntingthorpe to fly (for the last 8 years) and hoped to be test flown this year but that it was unlikely to do so unless a commercial sponsor could be found. The story was accompanied by some shots of 558 in the hangar. I regret that I could not catch any more details and I don’t know how recent the images were (the Vulcan had her canopy area removed) but perhaps some of you saw this too. There were some lovely archive shots of all white vulcans (I presume they were white but it wasn’t colour footage!)taxiing and thundering skywards but I didn’t know the location. I would love to see a Vulcan fly (they had recently been retired when I joined the RAF) and the only one I saw flying was 558, but it would seem that money is, as with everything, the catch!
The story seems to be correct see the link below to BBC Leicester dated today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4921876.stm
TwinOtter23Its easy to find. Just follow A15. No problem. A cheap map will have all the directions you need. If you are in the area I would recommend staying and visiting coningsby and newark. Coningsby has a bus service every hour that has a bus stop right at the BBMF visitor centre. Not sure about Newark though.
The current Newark leaflet states “Buses run from Newark Bus Station twice daily on route 68 and 68X. Timetable information available from Wrights Bus Company.”
I have heard that the timings for these buses are not brilliant. Why not call the museum on 01636 707170 to check it out? I think there are good taxi services from both railway stations in Newark-on-Trent.
As for the Waddington Vulcan it is now just across from the public viewing area on the A15 road, very close to the end of the runway at the Bracebridge / Lincoln side of the base.
The North Kesteven District Council produce a good Airfield Trail booklet, with all local aviation venues listed.
TwinOtter23If it was an Avro Ashton, it’d no doubt be the same one that is now outside at Newark Air Museum
The fuselage of Avro Ashton WB491 arrived at Newark in March 2003, from British Aerospace Woodford.
I believe that this airframe is listed as ‘Significant’ on the National Aviation Heritage Register.
Ironic that the Ashton is also a 45 foot length of fuselage, like the 707, VC10 and Trident seem destined to be!
Or are they?
I guess it depends on which poster you read or bit of spin that you believe!
Newark could also perhaps advise on moving the Manchester Shackleton, they moved a Mk.3 in the 1970s!
The RAF disposed of the Mk.3 Shackleton along with several other aircraft in 1977 prior to the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Review of the Royal Air Force at RAF Finningley. Amongst, which was the Beverley mentioned in another current thread. Fortunately Newark’s volunteers managed to save one airframe and the Beverley cockpit in little over six weeks.
TwinOtter23Been sent as a .pdf file an Airfix modelling guide to RAF vehicles, I think they were produced in theh 1970’s. In it is a couple of photos of a Queen Mary trailer without a tractor, with a Spitfire on the back with the wings stowed alongside the fuselage. The Spitfire is a clipped wing with traditional bubble hood and curved rudder, on the side of the Queen Mary is a banner saying ‘NEWARK AIR MUSEUM’.
Does anyone know more about the Spitfire or the Queen Mary trailer? Neither were at my visit to the museum last Wednesday so the Spitfire has obviously moved on and I presume the Queen Mary too. The spinner and propeller from the Spitfire are missing so that doesn’t give me any clue as to which mark.
Extract from Control Column Vol.5 No.4, 1971, “NH238 Spitfire Extraordinary” by Peter Arnold. “The Dispersal of Tasker’s Collection of steam engines and farming implements on 22nd February 1969, attracted more than usual coverage from the world’s press. The object of everyone’s interest was the last lot of the day No. 159 Spitfire Mk IX on Queen Mary Trailer. Finally knocked down at 6,000 guineas to a Scottish consortium etc etc”
I believe the aircraft was loaned to Newark and was used as a fund raiser, being taken to air displays in 1969 and 1970 to help promote the recently formed group. The aircraft was crated and transported to the USA in 1970, arrived Galveston, Texas 14th June 1970.
I guess that the Airfix magazine modelling project referred to was the Gerald Scarborough piece “Modelling a Tasker’s Queen Mary Semi-Trailer”.
Other interesting items that were listed at Newark in early issues of Control Column were the Westland Wallace fuselage now displayed at RAFM Hendon and certain Seafire fuselages, which I now believe form a significant part of a recently restored and soon to be flying airframe!
TwinOtter23The link below might also be of interest, it was a really good reference source for Bloodhound material but it seems to be undergoing a rebuild and also encountering a few copyright issues with the MoD. They are also seeking additional information and former Squadron contacts.
I believe that Newark Air Museum have some interesting variants of the Bloodhound Radar Wagons [not sure of their designations] but sadly no missile itself.
TwinOtter23TwinOtter23,
Duxford is now trialling an optional (as was the previous incarnation of Gift Aid) £1.30 surcharge (10% of an adult ticket value) which will enable those that wish to continue helping DX with Gift Aid contributions. This is clearly not ideal, as there is a cost to the visitor, but its take-up will be monitored over the coming months. It’s impossible to say what effect the changes will have on museum’s “at the gate” funding, but AirSpace itself is (as I understand things) funded by and large by designated chunks money from various sources.
Quite a minor point, but it’s not “Air and Space”, it’s “AirSpace”.
JonathanF – sorry for the hic-up on AirSpace, but there seem to be so many versions floating around, even the Airspace version in the airshow thread.
Fingers crossed that the 10% Gift Aid option doesn’t have too many negative implications across the preservation movement.
TwinOtter23Twin,
A set of ‘appropriate’ doors was costed at the time.
An exercise; which took the respective capital cost of the appropriate doors and the demountable wall, the number of times such doors would actually be required, a ‘reasonable time frame’ and the cost of future; as yet undated but at least once every five years; demounting of the walls, and compared them all to discover which came out as the most cost effective solution at the time was undertaken.
The result of that exercise is what was built..
So squaring the circle or not the reality reflects the financial position at the time the decision needed to be made.
Michelf
I understand the evaluation taken but I didn’t necessarily mean doors on the current AAM building design!
All things considered this more or less takes me back to my earlier posting [# 167] on April 2nd.
i.e. “The comment about not getting Lottery Funding for “square” buildings is not wholly correct, and Newark’s Hangar 2 highlights this. Also consider a couple of paragraphs from one of my earlier posts on another thread:
“Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar etc…etc…”
With the future of the BA Collection now largely known, with only fuselage sections being saved on three of the airframes perhaps the 2000 cost estimates in #167 might even be reduced.
So with that thought I feel that I should perhaps call it quits on the building shape / style front.
I do however have a couple of quick points about what effect, if any you think yesterday’s change to the terms for Gift Aid donations in lieu of admission fees will have at Duxford?
Could the new requirements have an impact on the funding stream for the Air and Space project or do you think visitors will agree to donate the extra 10% now required for the donation to qualify for Gift Aid?
TwinOtter23Hi all,
I think it’s safe to say we will NOT be moving from CVT this year, and probably not for the foreseeable future. We would *like* to move somewhere to establish a ‘living museum’ featuring our collection, but finding the right airfield is a big problem. Staverton came very close to happening but the infrastructure was just not quite suitable for us, the runway length and hangar size being to two main issues. We need somewhere with no or little commercial operation, a 45000 sq ft hangar and 1800m of runway.
Cost is also another issue. Somewhere like Deenthorpe would require huge investment well above what we could afford. Contrary to what may be believed in the community, Air Atlantique’s other activities (i.e. the ATR operation) no longer support Classic Flight, and we have to stand on our own two feet and make enough money to cover our costs. If we don’t then its all over and this unique collection will be lost.
Tom.
I thought it was refreshing and encouraging to receive such an open and honest view on the situation at Coventry.
TwinOtter23Twin,
I guess you point of view depends on how often you expect to open the door….if its not often you may question its validity..
michelf
I suppose that’s correct, but however anyone tries to square the circle opening a set of doors has got to be a cheaper option.
Money saved that in a wider preservation pot might help towards saving a complete Trident, VC10 or 707.
TwinOtter23Twin,
Thanks for that…
I’d just question the ‘un-anticipated’ part of the statement..as the IWM were in agreement that demounting the glass wall was the ‘best’ solution.
Whether or not individuals within the IWM shaare that view is a moot point…but certainly the IWM as an institution knew it was coming and about how much it would cost…
Also the work done for the RE configuration was a bit more than just removing the wall…
Anyway the type of housing these aircraft deserve is always going to raise some interesting points…
michelf
As I do not have access to the full project detail and financial background I would not comment further on the detail. I must however confess that at the time I felt that it was a rather ‘open’ comment for someone representing the IWM to make, but I suppose that everyone is entitled to an opinion!
I guess my point comes down to the fact it is easier to open a hangar door than partially dismantle a building.
TwinOtter23TwinOtter,
I would love to have your view of the problems the IWM had when reconfiguring the AAM to house the B-24 and SR…
michelf
On reflection the word ‘problems’ is perhaps not correct, especially if you have a significant budget and good resources.
The point I was making relates to a response made by someone from the IWM during a question and answer session after a presentation about the Air & Space project.
A question was asked about changing exhibits around and I remember the reply as being: “Air & Space would not encounter the same un-anticipated high costs involved in removing the glass front of the American Air Museum building to facilitate the change of aircraft displays”.
The comment was not quantified!
Hopefully the RAFM Cold War project at Cosford will not encounter similar difficulties if they have to change exhibits in what appears to be a very customised and complex building structure.
TwinOtter23Good point TWINOTTER23 but there is is a bit of a difference between Newarks £553,00 and Cosford’s 12.5 million.
The point I was trying to make was who cares about the shape of the building the most important thing is to get the aircraft undercover.
Badger 617
I appreciate that we are not comparing like for like but the basic principle is getting aircraft under cover. At Newark they currently have 12 aircraft inside Hangar 2 so the cost for under cover accommodation per aircraft is about £44,500. I must confess I do not know how many aircraft are going inside at Cosford, but to get the same cost per aircraft it would need to be more than 260.
In view of the Cold War theme the following might have been more appropriate structures: a draughty QRA Shed at the end of a runway; a V-Force Dispersal Caravan in the remote corner of a satellite airfield; or a Hardened Concrete Bunker with its own air filtering system.
Thinking about the last structure that’s already been done with the American Air Museum [AAM] at Duxford. Hopefully Cosford’s new project will not encounter the same problems with changing exhibits as Duxford encountered when they decided to change the aircraft display in the AAM the other year.
TwinOtter23I personaly like the new building at Cosford, but what needs to be remembered is you do not get lottery grants these days for square buildings.
The building could be round with pink spots the main thing is to get the aircraft under cover.
I see everyone is still blaming the RAFM regarding the airliners, BA are not blamless in this.
Badger 617
The comment about not getting Lottery Funding for “sqaure” buildings is not wholly correct, and Newark’s Hangar 2 highlights this. Also consider a couple of paragraphs from one of my earlier posts on another thread:
“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.”
By the above reckoning the HLF funding for the Cosford Cold War building and Duxford’s Air and Space would have about put all the benchmark and Significant aircraft inside.
The current Heritage Lottery Fund driver is Education. I believe that sophisticated building designs became a bit old hat at about the time the Cosford grant was made.
Sign In
